Michael Meacher - Labour's Future

Will a new generation of nuclear power stations get a green light to help combat global warming? Recent press coverage and comment suggests that the nuclear lobby regard climate change as a convincing argument. Electricity generated by nuclear power is carbon emission free runs the argument and the conclusion is that Britain will only achieve its climate change targets with a revival of nuclear power. This is misguided.

Electricity generation contributes only 25% to the total carbon dioxide emissions of the UK. Electricity supplied by nuclear power contributes only a fifth of the total power generation in the UK. So a new generation of nuclear power stations replacing those being decommissioned in coming years cannot really tackle the issue of climate change at all. Nuclear is neither necessary nor desirable for this purpose, and would entail avoidable risks.

The downsides of nuclear are stark. It’s far more expensive. The Government's Performance and Innovation Unit estimated electricity generating costs from onshore wind at 1.5p- 2.5p per kilowatt hour by 2020, from offshore wind at 2p-3p, and from gas at 2p-2.3p. Generating costs from nuclear power were put at 2.5p-4p per kilowatt hour, half as expensive again as gas, up to twice as expensive as wind. In a competitive capitalist economy that is the killer point.

Besides, nuclear power means nuclear waste. No country has yet solved this problem. Britain has an enormous amount of it. Without any new nuclear build, the DTI has admitted that the 10,000 tons of nuclear waste currently stored mostly at Sellafield would increase to half a million tons by the end of this century. This waste stream contains some of the most toxic materials known to man. Yet no one knows what to do with it. Does it make sense to add to the pile? The nuclear lobby’s argument that we already have such a massive amount of this dangerous waste and adding a bit more wouldn't make much difference is frankly contemptible.

Following 9/11, security considerations also make it far less sensible to build what some would inevitably see as more targets.

If, then, for very good reasons a nuclear future is rejected, where are we to find our energy? Nuclear reactors currently supplying some 23 per cent of electricity generation are to be steadily phased out in the next two decades. What is the potential for development of renewables - wind-power, biomass, wave power or tidal barrages, and ultimately solar power? At present, we have the worst of all worlds. The renewables contribution to electricity generation is still tiny at about 3 per cent. The Government made a clear declaration two years ago to push strongly down the renewables route, but has done far too little to deliver on the scale required. Yet the potential for wind-power in Britain is recognised to be far ahead of both Germany and Spain, the EU's leading markets and, on a global basis, above Texas, the previously strongest market.

Renewables have not failed. They have never been seriously tried. Despite attractive pricing under the Renewable Obligation Certificates system, far too little has been done to deal with the principal barriers to expansion - planning blockages, aviation issues, grid network constraints, and grossly inadequate funding, all of which were correctly identified by the White Paper.

Three new initiatives are urgently needed to keep Britain's strong record on climate change firmly headed in the right direction. We need a global policy of Contraction and Convergence in carbon emissions between developed and developing countries. Only then will we have a fair, equitable way to get countries like China and India on board. A global problem is needs a truly global response.

Fossil fuel industries enjoy enormous subsidies which should be steadily phased out and the savings transferred into a massive expansion of renewables. And the prodigious waste of energy by both industry and domestic households should be addressed by much stronger incentives to maximise energy efficiency. Unlike new nuclear power stations, energy efficiency addresses itself to all electricity generated, not the small proportion currently provided by the nuclear sector. For the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, energy efficiency has to be given a far greater emphasis.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 06:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

1. The scale of change required in the world economy in the next few decades following the passing of Peak Oil within the next few years is nothing less than apocalyptic. Since our whole civilisation and our whole economy is based overwhelmingly on oil, namely – industry, agriculture, transportation – the dislocation caused by the growing shortfall in availability is likely to be on a scale unprecedented in human history. Already, four fifths of the world’s oil supply comes from fields discovered before 1970, and even finding a field as large as Ghawar in Saudi Arabia – which is anyway almost inconceivable given the huge improvements in geological knowledge in the last 30 years – it would only meet world demand for another 10 years.

2. So what is to be done?

(i) Market forces will undoubtedly exert strong signals, but are unlikely to be able to prevent abrupt dislocations without powerful accompanying strategies ruthlessly enforced in the face of vested interests. CIBC predicts that likely supply shortfall will be some 9m barrels per day by 2010 and that the oil price needed to reduce demand will be around $100 per barrel, and of course thereafter figures steadily rise further. But with oil prices at say $100/150 per barrel, economies of heavily oil-dependent countries (the great majority in the world) will be forced into a tailspin of decline, leading to violent uprisings, revolutions and mass migration on a scale we have never seen. So what else needs to be done to prevent this?

(ii) Colin Campbell’s proposal is the so-called Rimini Protocol, providing that importing countries cut imports to match the world depletion rate (i.e. annual production as percentage of what is left) now running at about 2 ½ % a year. This is an ingenious suggestion, and deserves to be taken very seriously. It means that poorer developing countries would be able to afford their minimal needs, profiteering from shortage by the Middle East would be avoided, and consumers would be forced to avoid waste by improving energy efficiency and to switch to renewables. But like all good proposals, there are significant problems with it – the most obvious is ‘Real politic’ – how is it to be enforced? Enforcing the Kyoto Protocol has proved enormously difficult, and after 13 years since Rio in ’92, only some 30 countries have committed to targets (although enough to secure ratification), but excluding the United States, with 5% of the world population and 25% greenhouse gas emissions, and excluding all developing countries, especially China and India, whose greenhouse gas emissions will exceed those of the West within some 10 years. Since the United States political power derives from its economy, and given that US economic strength depends entirely on rapid growth and ready access to cheap energy, why should Bush sign up to Rimini any more than Kyoto? This is not an argument for not pressing for a Rimini Protocol (indeed US opinion on climate change and energy is changing), but other measures are also needed. What are they?

(iii) I do not believe there is a technological magic bullet solution (which the US hankers after), but I do think we can construct instruments to effect switch to a transitional economy.

A A bridge economy is more likely to shift to gas in the first instance, rather than directly to renewables. Gas could be refined directly into synthetic petrol and diesel for transportation, although this is probably no a major fuel source until after 2010. Again, one important use of gas would be as a transitional feedstock to make hydrogen for fuel cells, and fuel cells would slowly but steadily penetrate vehicle markets and stationary power markets and lay groundwork for eventual emergence of a hydrogen economy, once technologies to make hydrogen from renewables (solar or wind or clean-coal) became cost-competitive.

B A carbon penalty needs to be developed as a market mechanism. A government (eg US) could create a carbon budget for each individual sector (like NAPs in EU), starting with the worst offender (power generation), and set up a carbon-trading system. The option also needs to be pursued of a near-zero-emissions clean-coal power plant, with carbon capture potential, perhaps up and running by 2020. I repeat that, over the longer term, a successful coal gasification industry could become the cornerstone of a hydrogen economy, converting coal into low-cost hydrogen for use in large stationary fuel cells and ultimately in fuel cells for cars.

C A no-holds-barred multi-faceted campaign needs to be launched to cut Americans’ high consumption of oil and other energy. One mechanism could be a ‘feeback’, i.e. consumers buying a vehicle that gets 20 miles per gallon or less would have to pay a stiff fee (e.g. $5,000), while if a consumer chooses a car getting 40 miles per gallon, they would get a rebate at the same amount. Secondly, heavy government investment in basic fuel cell research could speed development of fuel cells cars by resolving critical engineering obstacles like reliability, material costs (especially platinum catalysts) and fuel storage issues.

D Potential for conservation is enormous since the volume of energy wasted is prodigious, e.g. US power plants discard more energy in waste heat than is needed to run the entire Japanese economy. Only 15% of the energy in a gallon of petrol ever reaches the wheels of a car. Less than a quarter of the energy used in a standard oven reaches the food. It has even been estimated that a mere 3 mile per gallon improvement in the fuel economy of US cars and light vehicles would be enough to forego oil imports from the Middle East entirely – a better solution than launching a war in Iraq! If we could reduce energy intensity by just 3% per year, we could meet world demand in 2100 with only a quarter of the energy used today.

E The potential for a huge global shift to renewables is greatly under-estimated. The US Department of Energy estimated that three states – North and South Dakota and Texas –have enough harnessable wind energy to meet the entire US electricity requirements. Similarly, it is estimated that Europe’s off-shore wind potential in waters of 100 feet depth or less could supply all of the continent’s power, while China has so much wind energy that it could double its national electricity generation by harnessing it. Regarding solar power, where the price has already fallen 10-fold since 1980, a recent study (by accountants KPMG) estimated that construction of a 500 MW plant (at a cost of only $0.7 billion) would bring the wholesale price down to that of conventional energy. While even the Ford Motor Company believes that hydrogen fuel cells will become the main power source for transport within 25 years.

I conclude therefore that the energy economy of 2030 will be a hybrid of sorts, meeting demand with alternative fuels and improved energy efficiencies, yet still heavily reliant on hydrocarbons. Maybe a cheaper vehicle fuel cell, for example, or a dramatically more efficient solar panel, could completely change the path of our energy future. But none of this will happen without strong government intervention to propel research and innovate production. As always, the question for politicians is: are we ready to take risks and to give the lead that the world craves?

***

From the International Workshop on Oil and Gas Depletion ASPO Lisbon Meeting - (The Depletion Protocol: Panel Discussion on Political Action

Posted by Michael Meacher at 06:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Tony Blair says he has listened and learned from the chastening election experience. If he really means that, though yesterday's Queen's speech makes it look doubtful, he will realise that Labour voters, who deserted in millions, want a very different policy direction for the third term.

Their disaffection is not just about Iraq. It covers domestic policy too. They want a shift from Tory-imitating, market-driven deregulation in favour of a dominant social democratic consensus. It means pushing much harder for equality; greater democratic control over power brokers; strengthening the public-service ethos in key areas such as health and education; fostering rather than undermining human and civil rights; and more capacity to hold political leaders to account.

This is far from an old-fashioned rejection of the market. But it is a rolling back of the marketising extremes of the Thatcher-Reagan era and a restoration of moral principles in British life. This then needs translating into policy specifics.
A radical government - which Blair says he wants - would tackle the grotesque inequalities of income and wealth that disfigure British society. It is true that in the past eight years child poverty has been significantly reduced, childcare has improved, and the working families tax credit has enhanced the transition to work. Yet according to the New Policy Institute, 22% of the population are still living below the poverty line, including 3.8 million children, 2.2 million pensioners and 6.6 million working-age adults - and 125 directors are now paid over £1m a year (nearly £20,000 a week), many getting £3m-£5m a year in bonuses, "fringe benefits" and share options.

These excesses should be dealt with by taxing all benefits in kind at their full monetary value, blocking the more flagrant tax avoidance devices such as the super-rich non-domicile loophole, and giving shareholders a binding vote on remuneration policies. At the same time, the national minimum wage, now £4.85 an hour, should be raised to £6.31 - the Council of Europe decency threshold - lifting 6.5 million out of poverty.

A social democratic government doesn't exist to provide better technocratic management of the existing power structure. It exists to change that power structure where it does not reflect the wider public interest - most starkly in the dominance of the new corporatism. Industrial legislation is heavily tilted to its advantage, to the detriment of a responsible role for trade unions and denying workers their just rights in the workplace, in the first year of employment, for smaller firms and part-time workers. Key national decisions regularly favour corporate interests over the environment, social rights and sustainable development. In particular, the media is controlled by a small number of very rich tycoons without any accountability. A radical reforming government would rebalance power and responsibilities in all these areas to give ordinary citizens much stronger rights of redress.

In seeking to deliver high-quality public services, it would nurture a professional ethos of care, combining demands for high standards with rewards that value public-sector workers. It would recognise that health and education are not commodities to be marketised; what people want locally is consistent high quality, not choice that leads some hospitals and schools to be over-subscribed while others sink for lack of demand. For housing, it would mean that local authority tenants should enjoy the same rights and the funding whether they stay with their local authority or vote for a housing association orAlmo (arm's length management organisation). It would mean raising the basic state pension to take pensioners out of poverty and restore the incentive to save for retirement (and not penalise those who have saved), and then restoring the link with earnings that Thatcher took away.

A social democratic government would also halt the erosion of civil liberties. It would resist using the post- 9/11 and Iraq situation to keep alleged suspects in indefinite detention on the basis of secret evidence they have not been allowed to see and cannot challenge. It would implement a more open Freedom of Information Act and not withhold key policy documents such as the attorney general's advice. It would apply more stringent rules against the export of arms or torture equipment that could be used for internal repression. It would take a lead in stopping the trafficking of women, now reckoned to involve 2 million globally each year. It would introduce and disseminate the principle of restorative justice throughout the prison system, requiring the offender to make amends to the victim and to society.

In foreign policy, the central issue in the world is how to deal with the overwhelming military and economic power of the US. In recent years we have become far too closely annexed to American interests, on the spurious grounds that the "special relationship" persists. It does not. The Americans do not need us, and we have been rewarded for our deference with next to nothing.

While of course maintain ing a traditionally close friendship with Washington, a social democratic government would make clear where necessary that our foreign-policy bottom line, in particular about going to war, was driven by wider international interests (specifically a commitment to the UN), not American interests. It would be ready to be more openly critical where justified, and its response to US power must be closer integration with countries sharing the same social market philosophy and advocating a more progressive role for the state.

Such an overall programme would be popular. It would also reconnect with Labour core voters - without whom Labour's survival must be in doubt.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 06:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From The Times, 12 May 2005

“We need power to the people, not to the autocratic new Labour clique”
by Michael Meacher MP

Strong loyalist support for the Prime Minister at yesterday’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party cannot disguise the need to confront the reasons why Labour, in an historic third-term victory, nevertheless lost well over half its majority and dropped four million votes compared with 1997.

People also made clear that they didn’t like the quasi-Presidential style that has been adopted, where consultation and accountability have drained away. Essentially there are two kinds of democratic system. One is a regime which gives executive powers to an elected President, as in the USA, but where those powers are constrained by a range of Congressional checks and balances. The other – our system – envisages a Prime Minister using his party majority in Parliament to push through his programme, but having to manoeuvre between the factions both within Cabinet and in a wider, vigorous parliamentary process. In Britain however the constraints have now all broken down.

We now have a Prime Minister closeted with a small group of unelected aides monopolising many key decisions and riding roughshod over Parliament, with a mixture of patronage and threats to silence any opposition. Indeed, the single underlying thread linking the various flashpoints of the last Parliament – on foundation hospitals, tuition fees, GM crops, the anti-terrorism legislation, and most notably the Iraq War – is this exercise of autocratic power, without listening to Cabinet, the Party or the electorate. Tackling this is the single biggest task for the new Parliament.

But it isn’t only the Iraq imbroglio and the haemorrhaging of trust in the Prime Minister which were so manifest in the election. This was by some margin the most lacklustre and negative election in recent times, and that is because there is no idealism or burning sense of ideological direction to inspire and drive forward events. With a majority of over 160 during the last eight years, New Labour had the best opportunity for perhaps two centuries to imprint its vision on British society. The plummeting in electoral turnout by 15% in less than a decade exposes just how far this opportunity to build up momentum has been lost. For all the technocratic edge that has been brought to bear in administration, too many people now see New Labour as too closely associated with conservative politics, leaving large swathes of the electorate virtually unrepresented.

The problem therefore goes a lot deeper than simply seeking to arrange for a seamless transition to Gordon Brown (if that indeed is what happens), and recently he has been making some encouraging comments about the need to entrench a social democratic consensus. The real issue is much more about policy and ideology than about personalities. We need a major change in direction, starting now if the core Labour vote is to be attracted back in time for the next election which otherwise the Party could well lose. None of this is to suggest at all a return to the battles of the 1970-80s, but simply to make the obvious point that there are other and better alternatives for a modernised Labour Party to move forward than the New Labour formula.
The problem for all political parties of the Left is how to reconcile social justice with an unfettered capitalist economy. New Labour simply used spin to claim that they are compatible. Evidence suggests they are not. Inequality has sharply increased, even while child poverty has seen some reduction. Means-testing has now proliferated so extensively in social policy that the poverty trap has become a serious problem and more and more pensioners now find they are penalised having saved for their retirement. The halving of Stock Exchange values in the 2000-2 bear market has decimated pension levels for millions who were persuaded to rely on private pensions.

A major rebalancing of pension provision towards the public sector is now needed if pensioners in future are to be protected against the disaster of recent years and guaranteed their proper share in rising national prosperity. In the short term there are many alternative ways of restoring fairness in our society – for example, we could fund the guarantee credit level of pension (£107 per week) as-of-right for all pensioners, thus also restoring the incentive to save for retirement, if just the richest 1% paid a slightly higher tax on their earnings. This is the kind of minimum social justice that cries out to be implemented in today’s Britain polarised between the very poor and the very rich.

Nor is the privatising, deregulating, contracting-out agenda – probably the centrepiece of Tony Blair’s programme for this new Parliament – compatible with the goal of social justice or even with the aim of economic efficiency. PFI schemes, which now dangerously pre-empt future public expenditure commitments in servicing contracts, have too often proved poor value for money. The contracting-out of school meals and hospital cleaning has worsened standards. The fragmentation of the railways and divided responsibilities over rail maintenance have been a factor in several major accidents. Foundation hospitals and specialist academies cream the best services for some people, but at the expense of draining off health and educational resources from most others. It is still not understood by the privatisers that boosting the morale of public service providers and enhancing their vocational dedication and caring professionalism is a far better channel to raise standards than imposing market disciplines.

Another key change of direction needed concerns the handling of power. We display undue subservience to the US when the bottom line of our foreign policy should be protecting British interests and UN legitimacy, not led by deference to US interests (not least about going to war). We respond to the threat of terrorism by withdrawing rights to a fair trial from suspects, thus undermining the free society we purport to defend. We continue to tilt the balance of industrial power firmly towards big business, thus eroding the protection of workers in the weakest position, in the first year of employment, in the smallest firms and in part-time work. Yet the proper exercise of power is to stand up to the strong where their demands are unacceptable, and to support the weak when they cannot protect themselves.

As Gordon Brown has himself observed, the Labour Party was founded on moral principle and social justice. These are changes of policy direction he should now urgently consider.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:10 PM | Permalink