Ongoing ‘Yes’ campaigners are fond of blaming that diabolical triumvirate, Westminster, the banks and shareholders, for increasing levels of fuel poverty and use of food banks in Scotland, labelling them a ‘disgrace’ in such a ‘wealthy country’ and calling for independence, that we may unearth – and grasp – the Holy Grail, ‘a fairer Scotland’.
But how does this stack up in the real world of carbon dioxide [CO2] emissions reduction, renewable energy, fracking moratoria and Scottish Government policy?
During the crescendo of the hue and cry over ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ raised by Al Gore in 2008/9, the Scottish Government passed the Climate Change [Scotland] Act, 2009, into statute, requiring CO2 emissions reductions of 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
A subsidiary target of, notionally, obtaining 100% [in aggregate] of Scotland’s electricity from renewable energy was seen as key to achieving the aims set out in the 2009 Act and has been adopted as a hallmark of Holyrood’s green machismo.
Given that the cheapest form of industrial-scale renewable energy in Scotland is wind power, which is two to three times the price [onshore or offshore] of conventional fossil fuel energy, the only way this could be achieved is by subsidy. Subsidising such an enormous project from taxes was – and is – politically, unconscionable.
So the wheeze of forcing utilities to buy renewable energy under the ‘Renewables Obligation’ at a price which would ensure acceptable returns for investors, and passing the cost to consumers’ bills was implemented, with a straightforward political rationale.
Initially, at least, renewable energy costs would be relatively small and easily absorbed – no-one would notice and there would be no odious “value for money for taxpayers” ramifications.
The utilities would come onside, too. Being allowed to charge a percentage margin, over and above their justifiable costs, the higher those costs, the higher would be their profits. And, should consumers’ bills rise, it would encourage them to reduce consumption by insulating their homes, wearing extra cardigans, taking shorter showers, etc.. After all, who wouldn’t pay more to ‘save the Planet’?
They were heady days, indeed.
Clearly, however, replacing 100 percent of conventional fossil fuel-generated electricity with renewable energy cannot be achieved in this way without considerable impact on consumers’ bills; not least, because the intermittency of wind requires fossil fuel backup to be maintained and, itself, subsidised because conventional plants are no longer viable without their original steady income stream.
For Scottish government energy targets to be achieved, consumers’ bills must continue to rise, leading directly to increasing levels of fuel poverty.
Fuel poverty could be greatly alleviated, however, by the exploitation of vast UK and Scottish shale gas reserves which might be expected to reduce gas prices for both power generation and heating.
Shale gas exploitation requires the use of modern drilling technology to drill and fracture the shale rock containing the gas [and/or oil], causing cracks to form, through which the gas or oil can escape to the well-head at the surface.
These drilling and fracturing processes are known as ‘fracking’ and like all industrial processes, carry a degree of risk to the environment where they take place. Risks associated with fracking have been grossly exaggerated and used by ‘green’ activists to play on voters’ fears and, as in the case of global warming, Scottish politicians have scrambled aboard the bandwagon.
The Scottish Government, ever-anxious to elicit ‘green’ votes has, inexplicably, implemented a ban, or ‘moratorium’, on shale gas exploration, condemning Scotland’s ‘fuel poor’ to further years of misery, many of whom face a desperate, daily dilemma, ‘heat or eat’. They choose, naturally, to ‘heat’ because they can ‘eat’ at food banks.
It follows that fuel poverty and use of food banks will, inexorably, increase as a result of the Scottish government’s energy policies and it is both cynical and hypocritical to blame Westminster for that, while pretending all that is needed to bring about “a fairer Scotland” is independence.
Andrew Argyle
