Debunking the Lib Dems' excuses

Posted by joss — 5 March 2013 at 2:53pm - Comments
Bus Stop poster of George Osborne
All rights reserved. Credit: Greenpeace

In the last couple of weeks, more than 29,000 people have emailed their MPs telling them to sign the green jobs amendment in the up coming Energy Bill, creating a target for almost zero-carbon electricity by 2030. Currently 272 MPs have shown support for the amendment but some Lib Dems have responded with excuses as to why they cannot support the target despite it being their own party’s policy. The Lib Dems could really save the Energy Bill, so here we debunk the claims to help you keep talking to them.

Your MP said: I am pleased with the Energy Bill as it currently stands, as it will make the UK less reliant on fossil fuels and will encourage a massive investment in renewables and other forms of low-carbon energy.

Whilst the Energy Bill does indeed represent an opportunity to cut our reliance on fossil fuels and drive investment in renewables, clean energy investors and businesses say the Bill needs improvement before that’s certain to happen. It needs a 2030 clean energy target.

Just this week, Ernst & Young warned: “The main source of disappointment for investors was confirmation that a decarbonisation target will not be set until 2016. This delay cast doubts over the UK’s commitment to cut carbon emissions 50% by 2027 and left investors with a sense of uncertainty.”

Worse, some of the biggest manufacturing companies in the world – including big wind energy companies like Siemens – also warned on the front page of The Times recently that they could cancel billions of pounds worth of new wind turbine factories and green jobs in the UK unless the Energy Bill includes a clear goal to decarbonise electricity by 2030. They wrote, "A binding 2030 target for power sector decarbonisation would help to reduce the political risk currently associated with long-term UK industrial investment."

Your MP said: As a Liberal Democrat, I have always understood the potential benefits of having a decarbonisation target within the Energy Bill itself, as I recognise that the transition to a low-carbon economy is one of the most significant challenges facing the UK in the coming decades. Nevertheless, when governing as part of a coalition, it is often the case that certain compromises have to be made.

Lib Dem Energy Secretary Ed Davey, in a speech to his own party said, “The Liberal Democrats are not for turning….. investors crave certainty. Stability. The confidence that Governments will stick to their word… That’s why there’s a strong case for a carbon limit for Britain’s energy grid for 2030. Energy is always a long term investment. So if we are to create greater investor confidence in Britain’s low carbon energy future, a long-term target is best.”

Yet turning is precisely what he seems to be doing.

Lib Dem members voted to make it Lib Dem party policy.

It is true Conservatives in government are opposed to the target. But MPs from across the party political divide – led by the Conservative Tim Yeo - are putting partisan point scoring aside and backing a package of amendments that would see a target set now. If Lib Dems choose to back Tim Yeo’s green jobs amendments now, they can make their own party policy into law. It’s time for Lib Dems to stick to their green promises.

Your MP said: In order to guarantee that all of the other positive aspects of the Energy Bill could become law alongside the financial support for low carbon generation, it was necessary to forego the possibility of setting a decarbonisation target now. Significantly however, the Bill provides powers for a 2030 decarbonisation target to be set in 2016.

The Bill currently says the government ‘may’ set a target in 2016. They don’t have to. Saying that a decarbonisation target may or may not be set some time after the next general election just isn’t good enough. Failing to prioritise decarbonisation with this Bill risks jeopardising green growth, and putting up both energy bills and carbon emissions. That’s because it could fire the starting gun on more imported and expensive gas, instead of more home grown renewables.

Your MP said: The power to set a target for 2030 in 2016 means that the target can be decided alongside the 5th Carbon Budget, at a time when the Government will be considering how to set the UK on course to sustainably meet its 2050 target of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Committee on Climate Change – who advise the government on what’s required to hit their legally binding carbon targets – have said there is no scenario in which we can stay within carbon budgets without decarbonisation of electricity by 2030, so this is simply a bad excuse. Additionally - as Ed Davey himself has acknowledged - companies considering their energy investments now need to know now what will be the direction of UK energy policy for years to come. They should not have to face years of more uncertainty.

Your MP said: The Coalition Government remains wholeheartedly committed to being the greenest government ever.

It is impossible for this to be the greenest government ever if it deliberately rejects both the advice of its own advisers on climate change and the warnings of the clean energy companies who want to create green jobs in this country.

It surely isn’t unreasonable to ask a Lib Dem to vote for a popular Lib Dem policy - one that has the backing of scores of businesses, churches, civil society groups and energy experts?

None of the political parties can be trusted on energy and sustainability they are too interested in hanging on to power.  Only a suspension of democracy can provide the future that we are all hoping for.   Government by environmental technocrats is the best way forward if we want to have any hoping of saving the planet.

 Come forward to us & get solution for your income problems ,(11551)

Complete Our 3 day work at home training course and be

placed in a work at home job, with a real company that

will earn you over $50,000 per year Guaranteed!

Earn up to $100,000 Per year from home

as a certified home worker for more details visit: (http://www.JobzInn.com)

Green Dream

Once you've suspended democracy who would be allowed to make the decisions in your utopia. Would it perhaps be you or someone only you approved of.

I believe you would like North Korea at this time of year. Sounds just the place for you.

Tazer

Government by an environmental elite would be fine by me, at leat their goals would be aligned with my own and would be in the best interests of all. Unlike the corrupt, so called democratically elected, politicians we have now.

 

Tazer

Government by an environmental elite would be fine by me, at leat their goals would be aligned with my own and would be in the best interests of all. Unlike the corrupt, so called democratically elected, politicians we have now.

 

Come forward to us & get solution for your income problems ,(11551)

Complete Our 3 day work at home training course and be

placed in a work at home job, with a real company that

will earn you over $50,000 per year Guaranteed!

Earn up to $100,000 Per year from home

as a certified home worker for more details visit: (http://www.JobzInn.com)

Come forward to us & get solution for your income problems ,(11551)

Complete Our 3 day work at home training course and be

placed in a work at home job, with a real company that

will earn you over $50,000 per year Guaranteed!

Earn up to $100,000 Per year from home

as a certified home worker for more details visit: (http://www.JobzInn.com)

I support the campaign to stop the dash to gas, but am surprised by the Greenpeace image shown above " Only the Liberal Democrats can stop the dash for gas", as it looks like Greenpeace are endorsing the Liberal Democrats. Greenpeace is meant to be non party political, not appearing to encourage support for one political party. The Green Party is also opposed to the dash to gas, but you aren't encouraging people to support the Green Party!

Follow Greenpeace UK