The Corporate Stranglehold on Climate
Published in 'Labour Left Briefing', May 2002
Whatever happened to the dreams of a new solar age? asks David Cromwell of MediaLens.
Space-borne images of the collapsing Larsen B ice shelf made dramatic copy in national newspapers at the end of March. Europe's flagship earth observation satellite Envisat, coincidentally launched just a few weeks earlier, revealed a 3250 sq km ice shelf breaking into thousands of small icebergs drifting away from the Antarctic peninsula. It was stunning evidence of the impact of global warming.
But it was evidence that was cast aside as the corporate media rapidly moved on to other 'pressing' issues. The result? No links made to corporate lobbying to stave off 'economically harmful' emissions cuts. No links made to the short-termism and inadequacy of the Kyoto Protocol – cuts in annual emissions of just 5.2% by developed countries before 2012, with no commitments beyond that. No links made to the 60-80% cuts merely to stabilise global temperature rise, according to the authoritative 3000-strong UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. No links made to the exorbitant public subsidies and tax breaks paid to the fossil fuel industry to the detriment of climate-saving renewable energy enterprises. But then, why expect a corporate media to report accurately on the machinations of corporate business? Once again, the public is kept in the dark by our much-vaunted fourth estate.
Despite its urgent nature, the climate crisis has yet to impact meaningfully on UK governmental energy policy. It's been a sorry and sordid story to date. In October 1998, John Battle, then the UK energy minister, announced a review of the workings of the old 'electricity pool' for supplying consumers. This led to the introduction in March 2001 of a market-based trading system, the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (Neta), similar to those used in commodity markets.
Meanwhile, under its 'renewable obligation', the government set a feeble target of generating 10% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Why 'feeble'? Because the UK's total wind resource alone could provide three times the country's present electricity usage. Green groups warned that Neta would undermine renewable energy generation. Greenpeace warned the introduction of Neta "means suppliers will go for the cheapest technologies like landfill gas, waste incineration and onshore wind, and expensive technologies will be left out in the cold." Thus, renewables such as wave, solar and offshore wind would not get the kickstart that would allow their enormous potential to be realised.
And so it has turned out. Industry experts estimate a fall of up to 45% from renewable generators since Neta was introduced. Ofgem, the industry regulator, recently reported a fall in output from combined heat and power stations of 61%. No wonder that Brian Wilson, the energy minister, recently had to concede that "some forms of generation have been adversely affected" - an understatement of climate-shattering proportions.
As usual, the public pays the price of corporate-friendly government policies. The liberalisation of gas and electricity markets in the UK hit consumers hard. Energy regulator Callum McCarthy allowed the industry to pass on £726 million of the costs of the process to the consumer. Even as consumer groups decried this as excessive, companies were pressing the government to be allowed to pass on their full costs - an additional £270 million - to customers. And now - to Brian Wilson's reported dismay - McCarthy has just surrendered his price-capping powers in a move that will make British energy companies more attractive to foreign bidders. More company mergers – and job losses – are expected.
So, what's the alternative? Strong government intervention acting on behalf of the people could help truly 'green' the energy market. A proper challenge to big business at EU level, the dismantling of the transnational energy companies – recall the anti- trust legislation of 1911 in the US, which broke up Rockefeller's Standard Oil - and the devolution of genuine democratic power to local communities would be a start. Without this, there will be no citizen control of decentralised power, and the dream of a new solar age will remain just that - a dream.
-medialens-