It’s Toytown basic economics that the price of any commodity or service is determined by the relationship between supply and demand. The less there is of anything, the higher its price will be, depending on the level of demand. The greater the level of supply the lower the price, and thus the greater the demand and usage.
Nothing could exemplify that better than energy. Restricting the supply of energy whether by design or circumstance, or even elevating the price artificially with taxes and levies, is bound to inhibit demand. And that diminishes the economy.
The Telegraph has published an article by Jonathan Leake on how Net Zero has accelerated Britain’s national decline:
For Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer, Net Zero is the route to clean energy, economic growth and turning the U.K. into a global green superpower.
Across the Atlantic, however, Britain’s drive for “decarbonisation” is increasingly seen as an economic experiment – one that risks tipping the U.K. from miniscule economic growth into full-scale decline.
Chris Wright, Donald Trump’s nominee for US energy secretary, has warned that Britain’s rush to ditch fossil fuels in favour of wind and solar power is causing higher prices, driving away energy-intensive businesses and contributing to Britain’s national decline.
“The U.K., although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry,” he wrote in a recent report. “The once world-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States.”
Leake doesn’t dispute the effects of climate change or “other consequences of greenhouse gas emissions”. His main point is that a key part of Net Zero policy is to reduce energy usage, but only in Britain. How much less?
To quote the Government’s advisory Climate Change Committee: “In our Balanced Net Zero Pathway, the U.K. economy becomes much more energy efficient, with total energy demand falling by around 33% in end-use sectors between now and 2050.”
Improved efficiency – delivering more output for the same amount of fuel, or less – could help to deliver a reduction in energy consumption. Yet huge advances would be necessary to yield a reduction in consumption of a third. Many observers believe the tail will wag the dog when it comes to this target, meaning the U.K. may be forced to curtail energy use in order to hit it.
For Wright and others, slashing energy consumption by a third and still expecting growth is heresy – an economic experiment no other country has achieved, or even attempted before.
Their view – one supported by most economists – is that access to energy has historically always been directly related to prosperity. The more energy we have, the richer we will become. And if we have less, we get poorer.
MORE:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/how-rush-net-zero-accelerating-britains-industrial-decline
86 views