I see no cliff

Ted Newson has a useful Critic piece on what he calls 'Britain’s energy cliff edge'. Nothing we don't know, but a worthwhile reminder that Andrew Burnham seems intent on driving us over the cliff while denying its existence.


Britain’s energy cliff edge

We shouldn’t sacrifice energy security for social security

Recently PMQs, Andy Burnham said the quiet part out loud. “National security can’t come at the expense of social security,” he told the chamber, to roars from the opposition benches. With the welfare bill expected to reach £400bn by 2030 and Burnham unsteady on a 3 per cent GDP target for military spending, it’s a startling admission but reflected in public spending.

He didn’t have to wait long for a response. Just a week later, at the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s annual lecture, Sir Richard Dearlove — former head of MI6 — used Burnham’s own words against him, warning attendees of the risks facing our current grid system. The ex-spy chief said Britain has “negligently wandered close to a cliff edge” and hearing the PM’s remark left him “in a state of pessimism and extreme concern.”


The whole piece is well worth reading as it emphasises yet again the serious nature of the situation. It's not something we can expect to survive as a developed country without major policy changes. 

So far, Andrew Burnham seems keen to avoid making those changes and relaxed about the likely consequences - the UK ceasing to be a developed country for example.


Moving Britain towards a safer energy system, as Sir Richard advocates, will likely cost money in the short term — switching from a wind-heavy grid to one powered by reliable sources doesn’t come free — but securing the future of the grid requires drastic action. Dearlove put the stakes bluntly: “We have very little industry left to protect and we cannot rebuild non-existent industries which lie in foreign jurisdictions beyond our reach.” A resilient grid is what keeps that industry here at all.