Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Amber Rudd, Britain’s Energy Secretary, has officially stated energy security is Britain’s top energy policy priority, ahead of Climate Change.
According to The Guardian;
The energy secretary, Amber Rudd, is to “reset” Britain’s energy policy on Wednesday in a direction that downgrades tackling climate change from its highest priorities but commits to closing all traditional coal-fired plants by 2025.
In her biggest speech in the job, Rudd will say she wants policy to focus on making energy affordable and secure. She will say the aim is a “consumer-led, competition-focused energy system that has energy security at the heart of it”, and will suggest the balance has swung too far in favour of climate change policies at the expense of keeping energy affordable.
Green campaigners are likely to be somewhat mollified by the fact she is likely to pledge to restrict coal-fired power by 2023 and all but eradicate it within the decade.
Amber Rudd started her Energy Secretary post with an almost evangelical desire to bring leading British climate skeptics into the tent, to persuade skeptics of the importance of tackling climate change. This effort to build a unified position fell apart, when skeptics asked alarmists what they thought of the pause; Royal Society scientists replied that the pause would have to continue for another 50 years, for them to admit that their climate models might be wrong.
Since those early days, the reality of Britain’s desperate energy situation seems to have forced a reevaluation of priorities. To her credit, Amber Rudd has set aside her obvious personal desire to tackle climate change, in favour of trying to ensure Britain doesn’t suffer potentially lethal power blackouts during winter.
I personally have high hopes for Amber. While she obviously completely embraces climate alarmism, my impression is she has a deep seated need for her world to make sense. Before entering politics, Amber worked in banking. If there is one thing dealing with business and finance teaches you, that lesson is not to ignore inconsistencies – an inconsistency is a red flag that something is wrong, that your understanding of the situation is incomplete. This refusal to tolerate unanswered questions, our refusal to be satisfied with blind submission to self proclaimed scientific authority, our need for answers which make sense, is what led many of us into climate skepticism.