Yes, the paint was peeling off Farage after this one all right. Or was it?

One might think that, as the acting chief architect of the transformation of the UK’s energy system, M. Miliband would deal in hard facts and nothing else. But the evidence of his essay in today’s Observer speaks otherwise. The title of this little piece, a reply that the SoS will never see, is derived from the URL of the Observer essay. I thought it was fitting to use it here.

The essay comes in twelve short paragraphs. I’m going to summarise each, and respond when the mood strikes me.

First paragraph: these are uncertain times, our responsibility to future generations, etc.

Second paragraph:

That is why it is so important that Keir Starmer set out more than three years ago his mission for Britain to become a clean energy superpower.

[There was a snark here about other things that Keir Starmer had opinions about, or a lack of them, three years ago. It was a distraction. You may guess to what it referred. Clue: it’s topical.]

Dropping the PM’s name so early shows a degree of insecurity, I think. Miliband wants to ensure that the PM’s wagon is firmly hitched to the SoS’s horse:

And he has rightly shown a resolute determination to stick to it.

I will pass quickly over the absurdity of proposing that Britain should have a “mission” to become a “clean energy superpower.” Strangely, the expression has been so dulled by use that it almost ceases to shock. Imagine us declaring that we were on a mission to be a superpower of anything else.

The UK’s mission to become an interplanetary exploration superpower

…for example.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Miliband argues) meant that energy prices sky-rocketed, etc. Had we not been a fossil-fuelled nation, this would not have happened; we would have been insulated from the fallout of a new war in Europe. That’s why we need “clean” power by 2030.

I think I’m seeing a flaw in this line of argument already. Or twelve. But let’s let M. Miliband go on, to see whether or not he can dig himself out of a hole.

Paragraph 3:

…the government sought and won a mandate at the last election for clean power…

According to parliament.uk, the UK’s electorate in July 2024 was 48,224,212. Of that number, 9,708,716 people voted for the present crop of idiots. The mandate they therefore obtained consists of 20.1% of the available votes. Don’t be so churlish, Jit! I hear you cry. You’re right. They won fair and square by the rules. But winning a mandate for “clean” power? Everyone up and down the land knows that ain’t it. They won a mandate, or least-lost a mandate, for not being the Tories. End of conversation. And by appearances, Labour have already frittered away the modicum of good will they came into power with. Seldom has a new government become hostage to the next election so soon after obtaining such an overwhelming mandate. Kof. Splutter.

…take back control of our energy… the only route to true energy security, etc

Miliband asserts that “clean” energy provides “true” energy security, but that fossil fuels do not. And it is an assertion, rather than a reasoned argument. Trying to turn it into an argument, I get: We are not self-sufficient in fossil fuels. Our energy system relies on fossil fuels. Therefore, our energy system is insecure.

But it is obvious that the same reasoning applies to wind and solar power. Except that it’s worse. We are not self-sufficient in wind and solar. In fact, we rely on a geopolitical rival, a country that a functioning moral compass would steer us by without entering port, for our wind and solar. Whereas, our gas presently comes from the U.S. and Norway. And we have gas under our feet, that we are not allowed to use. And the wind installations are at the end of giant extension leads, that a passing ship could ruin “accidentally on purpose.” We are exchanging one form of international dependence for a different form, a worse one. Some guy proposes a vast solar array at the edge of Africa, and an even longer extension lead, to bring sunshine here. If this is a resilient power arrangement, I would like to see an example of a vulnerable one. And Miliband acknowledges, in this very scribbling of his, that we will still need oil and gas “for some time to come.” Including from the North Sea. The place he has banned new licenses for.

Paragraph 4 brings in the social justice element to the necessity of Net Zero. It’s what I think will be the last ditch of the enthusiast – when all the other arguments have turned to dust and blown away, they will still be pleading for Net Zero because of one sort of inequality or another (see Friederike Otto in John’s piece today, as an example). Readers probably know what I’m going to say here, which is that the role of government should be to make power as cheap as possible, not to make it as expensive as possible as a side effect of “green” posturing. Cheap power is good for poor people.

Next, paragraph 5, and Net Zero is still the “growth opportunity of the 21^st century” or something. Yeh, for our geopolitical rivals who are selling us the necessary paraphernalia to make our attempt at it. The green economy is growing fast! Yes, Ed, it’s because your government is hosing money at it. The companies investing their own money know that they will make good returns, based on the rules you set, which come at the expense of your citizens.

Paragraph 6, and we find that the planning process is being speeded up to enable “green” things to take root in the landscape and industrialise it. What he means here is that local people can no longer validly refuse such developments. Well, they can refuse, but Ed will countermand them. All on his 20.1% “mandate.” Meanwhile, as we have seen lately, people are opposing such developments up and down the land. Unfortunately, they are caveating their opposition with “I’m in favour of renewable developments, but Place X (where I happen to live) is not the right location for this project, because BLAH BLAH BLAH.”

Paragraph 7 is a curious one. Ed sings Keir’s praises re: protecting our steel industry. What was it he said? It was something about a “muscular” industrial policy. I’m sure the Observer’s Chinese readers got a little chortle out of that line. And of course we look across to Port Talbot and ask, where was this muscle not so long ago? It was nowhere. Scunthorpe? Suddenly the dying lion rouses itself for one last growl. This is pathetic.

Paragraph 8, and the virtues of Great British Energy. Some schools are going to get lower energy bills, thanks to GBE! You great galumphing clown! How about reducing the cost of electricity instead of singing the virtues of solar panel installations! Note to politicians: the more expensive electricity is, the better a deal forking out for solar panels on your roof starts to look. When electricity from the grid is cheap, solar panels don’t pay for themselves.

Paragraph 9 is what you might call the heart of the essay, if it had a heart, and was not just a hollow putrid shell set up to look like something alive from a distance. I quote:

For all these reasons, we are doubling down on our agenda. Yes, there are siren voices that want to knock us off course. They would keep Britain locked in dependence on global markets we don’t control. They will also make up any old nonsense and lies to pursue their ideological agenda, the latest example being their attempt to use the crisis facing the steel industry for their deeply damaging agenda.

We will be locked in dependence on global markets if we follow your course, Ed. A child could understand that. But we have hydrocarbons under our feet. A child could understand that. Who is making up the nonsense and lies? Nothing that Ed has said today has given us even a glimmer that there is a viable case for his policy. And come on. A siren does not knock things off course. The siren sings a song of something better, and encourages us to steer towards it. Is that better thing an illusion? Not this time, I’d argue.

Paragraph 10, and UK Steel is quoted as blaming gas for our energy price woes. But as we know, every generator is paid the same (except for the generous subsidies that our renewables friends are topped up with). Yes, but gas usually sets the price that everyone gets paid. But gas has fuel costs, and renewables have no such costs. Aha! Then renewables are cheaper. Yes, with gas standing ready to save them. With a grid full of Heath Robinson contraptions that they don’t pay for. With pylons marching up and down the landscape like the Martian tripods in The War of the Worlds.

The penultimate paragraph has Ed making the non sequitur that his political opponents are pursuing the same “failed approach that led to the cost of living crisis.” Mate, the approach back then was to ban shale and promote wind farms in far-flung bits of the sea. It is the same approach that you are taking today. The Tories have changed their minds on the matter. Whether they hold firm, or waver at the first volley of dried peas, I know not. There are too many green Tories, MPs who generally do not hold the same views as their constituency party members.

The final paragraph is a Churchillian storm. We will fight them on the beaches, er, green benches, etc. Labour is going to win the fight over “clean” energy!

Well, it isn’t, is it. The country’s spine is cracking under the pressure of “clean” energy prices, and no decision that Ed makes will make them cheaper. The only decision that can make energy cheaper in the short term is Keir Starmer’s.

The final irony of the piece is that the Observer choose to illustrate it with a photograph of one of Viking’s turbines. This devil exemplifies their hoped-for future. There are a few hundred whimbrels in the UK. Most of them live on Shetland. I wonder if the Observer, or the Secretary of State, have any idea how many of them have been or will be killed by Viking, or driven away from their breeding grounds by its giant flailing arms?