Yet again, the Guardian runs an article with a simplistic headline based on a report by a propaganda outfit. This time it’s “Heat pumps and insulation would cut UK living costs more than new oilfields, study suggests” with, for good measure, a sub-title to the effect that “Warm homes plan would create 50,000 jobs, compared with about 1,100 for Rosebank oilfield, thinktank finds”. It’s another version of the numerous articles that have already appeared in the Guardian on the subject of the licensing (or not) of Jackdaw and Rosebank, which I criticised here.
There is so much wrong with the article that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But begin I must, so I’ll start by pointing out that the “thinktank” in question is E3G, a propaganda outfit which seeks to influence policy-makers with work of this kind, funded by “green” billionaires who seem to prefer to achieve their ends opaquely via outfits like E3G rather than by allowing the cut and thrust of the democratic process to determine outcomes. I wrote about them and the “green” money-go-round here. The Guardian always seems to describe E3G as a thinktank, though sometimes they call them a “green” thinktank, and in one article I have seen the Guardian refer to them as “the climate crisis thinktank E3G”. Suffice it to say, then, that even the Guardian recognises that E3G have skin in the game (lots of it) and the E3G website cheerfully acknowledges its political role:
Governments need to be willing and able to take drastic action to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. Through analysis, diplomacy and coalition building, we work to build the political and diplomatic conditions underpinning delivery of global net zero by 2050, strengthen resilience in critical international systems, and help prepare for possible worst-case scenarios.
As trusted brokers, we work across the UNFCCC agenda, the G7 and G20, and many other fora to promote collaboration on the big issues of our time. Our network of experts around the globe help us to understand local perspectives, and bring stakeholders to the table. We also work with governments who rely on our diplomacy expertise of how to get things done in climate policymaking.
Trusted brokers? Trusted by whom? Their mates in the EU and in the UK government who supply them with funding?
Arguably it gets worse :
Climate diplomacy and geopolitics are central to E3G’s mission. The team collaborates with government departments, international organisations, and civil society networks in Europe, the UK, the US, China, Brazil, and beyond, fostering diplomatic engagement, understanding, and cooperation on critical climate issues.
The team coordinates diplomatic efforts for key multilateral processes, including the Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the G7, and the G20, while drawing on the expertise of thematic and regional experts across the organisation. These areas of expertise include energy, trade, finance, and adaptation and resilience.
In addition, the team plays a leading role in integrating climate considerations into the foreign policy strategies, frameworks, and approaches of various governments. This involves working closely with foreign, environment, development, and finance ministries – particularly in the EU, Germany, the UK, the US, and China.
The team is also at the forefront of thought leadership on geopolitics and security, where climate is increasingly shaping the global political landscape. It contributes to international climate regimes, climate cooperation institutions, and governance structures.
Which brings us, finally, to the “research” by E3G, which forms the basis of the Guardian article, but which I would argue isn’t new research at all. Rather, it’s an opinion piece written by Beth Walker, with a few interesting but partial links, which re-hashes the stale old arguments I criticised here in yet another attempt to influence the allegedly forthcoming decision by the UK government on whether to grant licences for the Rosebank oil and Jackdaw gas fields in the North Sea. It rather shoots itself in the foot by claiming that North Sea oil and gas are in terminal decline and can’t produce long term net gains for the UK Treasury, by reference to a graph that purports to support the long-term decline narrative. But the graph demonstrates returns to the Exchequer shooting up to £9 billion in 2022-23 at the start of the Russia-Ukraine War, with an OBR forecast as high as £4.1billion in 2025-26. A loss to the Excchequer of £400 million in a single year (2016-17). The article omits to mention that in that year the price of oil fell to lows of $30-$40 a barrel, and that in that year also the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, slashed Petroleum Revenue Tax to 0% and halved the Supplementary Charge from 20% to 10%. The result was that the UK government paid out net decommissioning refunds, but as the bounce-back in receipts in subsequent years demonstrates, this isn’t an argument for not allowing new fields to be commissioned. The graph is a sort of mirror image of the graph regarding Contracts for Difference (aka subsidies) for renewable energy companies and projects, which have resulted in huge costs to the Exchequer in every year save one in which a small amount of money for once went to the Exchequer. The irony is profound.
Beth Walker, by the way, has a biography page on the E3G website:
Beth Walker leads E3G’s work on UK fossil fuel phase out and international energy diplomacy. Her work focuses on how to support fossil fuel producing countries transition away from reliance on oil and gas revenue and towards a more resilient economy base.
Beth works with NGOs, government institutions, international organisations and academia to build strong diplomatic coalitions to drive a fast and just energy transition. Before joining E3G, Beth worked in the UK government leading strategy for international trade negotiations. Previously she spent almost 10 years building up a diplomatic coalition of NGOs, think tanks and government officials and journalists.
I have no doubt she is a very capable and intelligent lady, but as her biography demonstrates, she isn’t exactly disinterested regarding this subject.
In fairness, the blame for much of what is wrong with the Guardian article must be laid at the door of the Guardian itself. It says:
The government’s £15bn warm homes plan, currently under threat of cuts as ministers seek budget savings, would slash £1bn a year from household energy bills across the UK, concentrated on those on low incomes, according to research by the thinktank E3G.
But the link to the E3G research is to the piece to which I have supplied a link above, which concentrates entirely on the North Sea oil and gas numbers, and says not a word about the government’s warm homes plan. If E3G have made those claims, I think they must be in a different piece of work. In any event, the £15bn has to be paid for by the same people who it is claimed will save £1bn per annum, so it’s not a stunning return on investment. Quite apart from the dubious nature of those numbers, the home insulation plan has other problems, as I discussed here.
The Guardian article also (yet again) advocates “investing in heat pumps”, which is all very well, except that the British public don’t want them, not in anything other than extremely modest numbers, and even with the carrot of a £7,500 grant (ultimately in any event paid for by them wearing their taxpayers’ hat).
The final flaw in the Guardian article is the belief that creating lots of non-jobs at great expense is some sort of economic miracle and a panacea for the UK’s problems. Jit has dealt with the stupidity of this line of argument here.
I had to start somewhere, and I have to end somewhere. I think I’ll end with the final recommendation of the E3G piece:
Legislate to make the ban on new [oil and gas] licences permanent (i.e. via the forthcoming energy independence bill), to provide certainty to investors and make it harder for a new government to change course.
Just how undemocratic is that? Making anything permanent, undermining the ability of a future democratically elected Parliament to change course, is profoundly sinister. It needs to be called out. Democracy must prevail over behind the scenes string-pulling by unaccountable self-styled trusted brokers.
