Two Conservative Party grandees have had an astonishing public dust-up over the UK's plans to invest in a green economy.
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson, a renowned climate sceptic, launched a personal attack on fellow former Cabinet member Tim Yeo accusing him of “economic illiteracy” and of promoting a “fashionable obsession”.
The clash was sparked yesterday when still serving MP Tim Yeo, the current chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, defended the argument for a valid economic case for 'going green'.
In a debate for think-tank the Centre for Policy Studies, Yeo, wrote: “Convincing a stalwart sceptic about the risks of dangerous climate change in 800 words is challenging, so let’s start with what should be common ground: the UK needs a huge amount of investment in energy infrastructure in the next decade without which growth will be impossible.
“Our growth strategy must deliver reliable and affordable energy to consumers.”
And he added: “Green growth will avert climate disaster and create opportunity. Politicians must consider not just the short-term interests of the vocal few, but look to the long-term well-being of the UK and the world.
“We need to think not only about GDP this year and the competitiveness of entrenched industries, but about broader conceptions of economic success and the wealth of future generations.
“If we can do this in a way that puts us ahead of the curve in emerging industries, then we can reap economic rewards in the pursuit of long-term sustainability
But in his response, Lord Lawson, who leads the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, countered with a blistering attack, describing how “the Tim Yeos of this world” are trying to “persuade the government to move from comparatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive green energy in order to create ‘green jobs’.”
Lord Lawson added: “It is sad that fashionable obsession can lead an intelligent man like Tim Yeo into such a farrago of factual error and economic illiteracy. The reason why there is no economic case for ‘going green’ is simple.
“It is that green energy is hugely more expensive than carbon-based energy, it always has been and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
“That, and no other reason, is why the world relies on carbon-based energy – coal, oil and, increasingly, gas.
“And that is why to ‘go green’ requires either a heavy tax on carbon-based energy, to make it less competitive, or a massive subsidy for wind power and other forms of green energy, to make them more competitive – and probably both. Either way, these represent a huge economic cost and a burden on the consumer that bears especially hard in an age of austerity, but which would be unjustifiable at any time.
“In his better moments Tim Yeo half-recognises this. Introducing, as its Chairman, the most recent Report of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, he is quoted as saying “Taking action on our own will have no overall effect on emissions other than to outsource them…the price of carbon has to be increased at an EU level to kick-start investment in clean energy”.
And he continued: “I have news for Tim Yeo. There is a world outside the EU, including the fastest growing major economies on the planet, such as China and India.
“Unilateral EU action (which in any case looks increasingly unlikely in future) would also simply outsource industry - and thus emissions - from Europe to China (which is busily building a new coal-fired power station every five days) and the rest of the emerging world, which have not the slightest intention of burdening themselves with the massive economic cost of ‘going green’.”
A spokesperson for Tim Yeo, who is currently touring China with his Parliamentary committee, said the MP would be responding to Lord Lawson's assertions in more detail on his return to the UK.
Dr Elsar A. Orkan, Israel around 3 months, 1 week ago