On Thursday I gave a speech on energy security to the Institute for Public Policy Research.
We should be worried. Despite the UK’s emerging energy dependence, Labour have no strategy for the future security of our energy supply.
In a vague way, Tony Blair noticed that there was a problem. In 2006 he said that ‘in the future, energy security will be almost as important as defence to the overall security of a country’s interest’. But Labour have never developed a strategy.
In the long term, the UK has to go green to be energy secure. But for all Labour’s talk about greenery and wind farms, there has been no real progress in reducing the UK’s carbon dependence. And the recession makes it more difficult to fund the necessary investment for diversification.
Last month my colleague, Greg Clark, launched the Party’s Low Carbon Economy Green Paper. This set out our plan for achieving a decarbonised economy by 2050. It proposed long-term policies, which promote much greater efficiency in energy usage, carbon capture and storage, renewables and the decentralisation of energy generation.
But in the short and medium term, before we have a low carbon economy, the UK is vulnerable to politically inspired disruption of supply and we face the real risk of shortages.
Russia’s action in halting supplies to Ukraine, and its effect on Europe, is a case in point. So even though we have gas contracts with a reliable partner, Norway, with our contract terms – purchase on the spot market – security of supply is not absolute. One of the protections we need against these situations is adequate storage to see us through. But our storage capacity is feeble – while Germany has 99 days of gas storage capacity, and France has 122 days, Britain has at present just 15 days.
So I do not need to tell you that keeping the lights on is a key part of our national security. In my speech, I set out three specific things a Conservative Government would do alongside alongside our decarbonisation strategy:
- The National Security Council would have a remit to monitor the availability of key commodities, including energy, and the state of our critical infrastructure. As part of this we would increase storage capacity;
- Energy security would be among the FCO’s highest priorities;
- And we would promote a coherent energy policy in the EU and look to NATO to take on the task of securing vital shipping lanes.
You can read my full speech: Securing our energy supplies.
( 1 comments ) Tags: energy, FCO, gas, low carbon economy, National Security Council, Russia
Comment by John on February 11, 2009 at 11:38 pm
“I am not one of those who believe in peak oil or gas”
Peak oil should not be a matter of belief. It should be a matter of weighing the evidence and assessing the risk.
The evidence is not clear-cut, but it is significant that between 2007 and 2008 the International Energy Agency radically changed its assessment. In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted a rate of decline from the world’s existing oil fields at 3.7%, only to admit 12 months later that the speed of the fall was more likely 6.7%. The new figure leads to an estimate that conventional crude output could plateau in 2020. The agency’s new projections were based on a major study it had undertaken into decline rates in the world’s 800 largest oilfields.
If the emerging evidence is insufficient, then we should be investing in research as a matter of urgency.
Accepting the logic that oil is a finite resource and must peak at some point, it is clear that with rising populations and rising demand the risk of peak oil increases between the IEA’s date of 2020 and the decarbonised economy of 2050. If that 30 year gap isn’t sufficient to focus our attention, the devastating impact on economies reliant on oil demands that we consider peak oil when looking at policy options.
To maintain fossil fuel supplies up to the decarbonised economy of 2050, huge investment will be needed. It will involve exploiting reserves in some of the planet’s most environmentally sensitive regions. If we are serious about mitigating the risks of climate change and peak oil, then why not make that investment in renewable energy and bring forward the target date for a decarbonised economy?
We don’t get a second chance at this. Both climate change AND peak oil present a risk that 2050 will be too late.