Sustainability and Efficiency

The way in which the world reacts to climate change now will resonate for many years to come, so it is particularly important that the right response is forthcoming. But what is the right answer to rising temperatures and how do we best change the way we produce energy? Clearly there is much disagreement on this question. Some advocate a transfer of emphasis from certain fossil fuels, like coal and oil, to gas, suggesting this could be a short term measure to slow warming. The problem remains, however, that natural gas also produces a pretty hefty amount of CO2 and doesn't necessarily solve our problems long term. Not to mention the fracking debate, which remains a controversial sticking point. Could nuclear be the option? Well potentially yes (a new generation of fast reactors is certainly an exciting prospect), but, as disasters like Fukushima have illustrated, this is an incredibly emotive issue. Nuclear does produce low-carbon energy, but comes with certain long-term strings attached. Not to mention the fact that it's incredibly expensive and takes an awful long time to put into action.

On the face of it, the only widely agreeable solution is renewable energy. Technologies that harness natural forces and convert them into electricity, creating, in theory, an unlimited and cheap supply of power. The hitch comes when we discuss the efficiency of these technologies. The right-wing press has lost no time in vilifying solar and wind power for being both too expensive and ineffectual in the battle against climate change, which, let's remember, many of its contributors would suggest is a fictitious enterprise. The Daily Mail has been censured on numerous occasions for exaggerating the economic impact to energy bills that renewable technologies entail, and the Policy Exchange think tank was taken apart by Mark Lynas for making similar claims with regard to offshore wind. Even on the left, praise for renewable technology is not unlimited. George Monbiot, for example, is strongly opposed to government FITs for the solar industry, which he sees as a middle class subsidy.

The economic argument is heading down a blind alley. The technology may or may not be expensive, but, quite frankly, it is a price well worth paying. If the government truly believes in renewable energy then it should make the case for it in the strongest possible terms and confront any qualms about cost head on. What it should also ensure is that where costs are high, the poorest in our society, currently preyed upon by unscrupulous energy providers, are not the ones that foot the bill. At the same time, let's not forget how much governments worldwide spend on subsidies for high carbon fossil fuels. Given the choice, I know where I'd prefer my money to go.

Leaving the money aside, the other criticism regularly levelled at renewables is one that suggests that the technology itself is inefficient, and, therefore, its environmental contribution is negligible. Not only do I believe this to be wrong, I also think it demonstrates considerable short-sightedness. I'm not saying that all renewables are perfect, and a great deal of thought needs to go into which technology is most appropriate to any given situation, but their efficacy cannot be denied. South Korea just sent a very clear message to the world by announcing plans for a 2.5 GW offshore wind park. That represents a contribution of around 70% of today's total offshore capacity, and is the equivalent to the power produced by two coal-fired power stations. Try telling the Koreans that wind power is useless.

What I also find objectionable about this line of reasoning is that it fails to take account of the fact that renewable technology is still a young and developing market. Right-wing free-marketeers always claim that the most efficient and innovative way to pursue growth and development is to leave the market well alone to adapt to changes. Technologies will develop, obstacles will be overcome, and prosperity will ensue. However, it seems abundantly clear that the market alone cannot adjust at the rate required. What does become clear from attacks on renewables is that often those same free-marketeers are not prepared to embrace their own rhetoric, and instead attack as inefficient an industry that has barely begun to show its potential. If the history of capitalism teaches us anything, it is that new technologies take time to reach their optimal performance. Where there is demand, competition and investment, however, you can bet your house that efficiency will increase.

I think the renewables market is actually exemplary of the very best that capitalism can offer. Not a free-market free-for-all, or a State-run plan, but a cooperative engagement that combines individual innovation with collective backing, both financially and politically. It is when these elements are combined that capitalism is at its most human and admirable. Far from turning our backs on this fledgling industry, we should be proud that it is moving, ever more efficiently, in the right direction.