Given the current UK government’s eagerness to show to the rest of the world what a progressive, eco-enlightened and righteous country would look like, it is only natural that some of us who lack the required credulity might want to question the utopian vision they have painted for us all. And who could blame us, considering how much these moral leaders are emphasising the transformative, difficult and radical nature of the endeavour? Unfortunately, for those of us who lack the conviction and zeal of a Miliband, there seems to be no real prospect of an effective political challenge emerging any day soon. Even so, it remains the case that whilst one group of individuals peddles the case for a Big Rock Candy Mountain, and others warn of trouble brewin’, none of us really has a crystal ball.

Except for one thing, because actually there is no need for any clairvoyance in this instance. That’s because the UK is not the first country to have made a bid to lead the peloton frantically racing its way towards glorious oblivion. That honour goes to Germany, who got there long before Miliband and company had the grand idea of pursuing their grand ideas. Yes, they’ve been there, done that and got the T-Shirt.

And the T-shirt says ‘Aargh!!!”

A sorry tale

Yes, I’m sorry to rain on Mr Miliband’s parade, but Germany’s bid for eco-glory was already up and running way back in 2010. Christened ‘Energiewende’, Germany’s bid for the moral vanguard promised a brave new world and yet delivered a dog’s dinner of failed policies and targets. It was the baby of the Green Party, who hitched up with the SDP to concoct a scheme which entailed an early phase out of nuclear power, leading the way for a complete transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. The target was, and still is, ‘climate neutrality’ by 2045. And with climate neutrality would come lower domestic bills, increased security of supply, a revitalised economy, a green jobs bonanza and the unending admiration and gratitude of the rest of the world. And it might still do so were it not for the failure to understand the importance of nuclear supply, the physics of intermittency, the economics of subsidised technologies, the realities of grid expansion and the German weather.  

Frankly, the track record of Energiewende just doesn’t make for good optics. Let’s start with that push for the speedy removal of nuclear energy from the equation. The fact that this was pursued ahead of the establishment of a suitable renewables alternative, betrays the real objective of the Greens. Unlike the Swedes, who were genuinely focused upon reducing greenhouse gases and saw the promotion of nuclear power as a key element of their strategy, the German Green Party were primarily concerned with the eradication of nuclear power – whatever the cost. Wind and solar power were important to the Greens, but only for that reason. Sure, a transition from reliance upon fossil fuels was on the table, but with far less urgency. The upshot was to initially create an increased reliance upon fossil fuels to bridge the gap between nuclear’s departure and renewable’s arrival. As Chancellor Merkel conceded at the 49th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos on 23 January 2019:

We will have phased out nuclear energy by 2022. We have a very difficult problem, namely that almost the only sources of energy that will be able to provide baseload power are coal and lignite. Naturally, we cannot do without baseload energy. Natural gas will therefore play a greater role for another few decades. I believe we would be well advised to admit that if we phase out coal and nuclear energy then we have to be honest and tell people that we’ll need more natural gas.

Worse still, by the time the realisation dawned that wind and solar are too unreliable to service Germany’s industrial demand for dispatchable energy, it was too late. Far from improving upon energy security, brownouts, which had been previously unknown, became increasingly commonplace as renewables penetration progressed. And far from reducing bills, prices soared in order to cover the grid upgrade costs and the grotesquely subsidised new technologies; neither of which delivered the promised green jobs bonanza as China stepped in to dominate the supply chain. And it’s not as if any of this had any impact on Europe’s emissions record, since a combination of domestic renewables targets and cap-and-trade policies simply encouraged the export of emission allowances to countries such as Spain and Italy. Germany was trashing its economy for no environmental benefit whatsoever.

You’d think that Energiewende’s parlous history and unremitting failure to meet its emissions targets would mean that the German government’s appetite for ‘climate neutrality’ by 2045 would have waned by now, but that is not the case. And the clue for why this should be so lies in a statement that can be found on the Agora Energiewende think tank’s website, which explains exactly what Energiewende is:

It is a large-scale economic and ecological project motivated by scientific insights and ethical considerations with far-reaching economic and societal impacts.

Given the Green Party’s genesis as an unholy alliance between a far-right with its nostalgic feelings towards the Nazi Party’s take on environmentalism, and a far-left licking its Marxist wounds following the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, one need not guess at the extent to which the ‘ethical considerations’ and desired ‘economic and societal impacts’ would entail the deindustrialisation of a capitalist West. From a technical perspective, Energiewende has been, and will continue to be, an unmitigated disaster. But from an ideological perspective, it is still right on schedule, if not a bit ahead, in bringing about a return to a pre-industrial scenario that is ideal only in the minds of those with the ‘right’ ideological leanings.

When is a failure a success?

The definition of madness is the expectation that simply repeating a failed strategy would somehow yield different results. On the presumption that the UK government is seeking a technically successful Net Zero transition, the fact that they are just blindly following the Germanic formula (complete with the same ground-working of false promises) looks like sheer lunacy. But that is a massive presumption I just made there. Just as Germany is pursuing an ideological dream dressed up as scientifically justifiable risk management, so is the current UK government. And just as Germany will stubbornly continue whilst the ideology burns strong, so will we. It is for that reason that I fear that rational arguments based upon engineering and physical realities are likely falling on the deaf ears of a self-deceptive political class, particularly now that the current class is majoring in left-wing ideology whilst flunking technology. If the lessons of Energiewende are not enough to dissuade the powers that be, then you just know that there is a deeper motivation at play than simply tackling climate change. Maybe it is the underlying values rather than the science and economics that drive the thinking. And maybe we need to reconsider what our opponents might define as failure before we try to persuade them that they are doomed to fail.