Essay by Eric Worrall
Energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh wants full Net Zero by 2030.
Who is Miatta Fahnbulleh, the radical-thinking new UK energy secretary?
Selection of economist formerly at helm of green thinktank marks continuation of decarbonising Miliband era
Sandra Laville Environment correspondentThu 23 Jul 2026 19.00 AEST
In her first 48 hours as energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh was left in no doubt about the thorny policy decision at the top of her in-tray. Protesters from Fossil Free London met her outside her new offices dressed as firefighters holding placards reading: “We’re already putting out fires, don’t start new ones.”
…
Protesters outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) on Wednesday were taking no chances on whether the rumours were correct, demanding in full voice that the new energy secretary scrap all new drilling.
…
Far from being a departure from the commitment to transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy, Fahnbulleh’s appointment is a continuation of the Miliband era, which drew rightwing attacks for his mission to decarbonise the UK’s power sector by 2030.
From 2017 to the end of 2023, Fahnbulleh led a policy thinktank widely considered the bible for radical economic thinking through the prism of climate, social justice and the environment.
The New Economics Foundation (NEF) coined the phrase “Green new deal” for a suite of policies to tackle the 2008 financial crisis, climate breakdown and soaring energy prices. As head of the NEF, Fahnbulleh was at the pinnacle of designing economic policies operating strictly within environmental limits and with social justice at their core.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/23/who-is-miatta-fahnbulleh-the-radical-thinking-new-uk-energy-secretary
So what kind of radical economics does Miatta promote? After 10 minutes of wading through detail light waffle, I asked Claude to figure out what her policy positions are.
How does Miatta Fahnbulleh think Britain’s economy should be fixed? Please include references.Searched the web, loaded tools
Here is a summary of Miatta Fahnbulleh’s economic thinking, drawing on her writing, interviews, and public statements across her career as an economist and now as a politician.
Who she is
Fahnbulleh is a developmental economist and Labour MP for Peckham (elected 2024). She led the New Economics Foundation (NEF) from 2017 to 2023, and is currently a minister in Andy Burnham’s cabinet following his becoming Prime Minister in July 2026. She describes herself as a “heterodox economist” — meaning she explicitly rejects mainstream neoliberal economic orthodoxy.
The diagnosis: a broken model
Her starting point is that Britain’s economic model is fundamentally dysfunctional, not merely in need of tweaking. She has argued that prolonged wage stagnation has pushed public patience to breaking point: “People’s tolerance for an unfair economic model has hit a buffer.” She warns this pressure will eventually produce “some kind of political retaliation” if not addressed structurally.
Her prescriptions
She has organised her thinking around several interconnected themes:
Active industrial policy over free markets. Her doctoral research focused on how state-led intervention drove development in Ghana and Kenya, and she carries that conviction into British politics. She believes governments must actively shape and direct markets rather than leaving outcomes to market forces alone.
Devolution of economic power. She is a strong champion of regional and local autonomy, arguing that communities understand their own economic needs better than Whitehall does. She has proposed giving local mayors genuine tax powers and authority over energy and transport. She frames this as “place-based economics” — rejecting one-size-fits-all national policy in favour of tailored regional strategies.
Alternative ownership models. Rather than blanket renationalisation, she favours expanding cooperatives, mutuals, and municipal ownership. She has been cautious about automatic state renationalisation of privatised utilities, preferring “municipal and not-for-profit options” as more practical alternatives.
A Green New Deal and Net Zero priority. She has pushed hard for rapid decarbonisation — including a “big sprint” towards a Net Zero electricity grid by 2030 — and argues green transition must be treated as an economic opportunity, not just a cost. She has advocated for rewriting fiscal rules to allow borrowing for green investment.
Redistributive policies. She supports rent controls, wealth taxes, price caps on essentials, a genuine living wage, free childcare and social care, and shorter working weeks. Her framing consistently prioritises how ordinary people experience the economy over headline growth figures.
Reforming fiscal rules. She has criticised Treasury fiscal rules as excessively restrictive, arguing they prevent necessary public investment. She has suggested replacing them with government-appointed “fiscal referees” to give more flexibility.
Corporate reform. She has called for moving businesses beyond short-term profit maximisation, and for greater democratic participation and citizen engagement in economic decisions.
The broader frame
Across all of this, Fahnbulleh’s approach is systemic rather than piecemeal. She has said the problem is not just that the wrong policies are in place, but that “there isn’t necessarily a sense of what the alternative looks like,” and has described her role as “articulating that” alternative — a post-neoliberal economic settlement built around people and the planet rather than growth as an end in itself.
Sources:
Miatta Fahnbulleh | New Economics Foundation
New Economics Foundation head Miatta Fahnbulleh on how to replace the UK’s broken economic model — New Statesman, 2018
The Rise of a Revolutionary Economist — Soal Magazine
The Story of Miatta Fahnbulleh — Labour’s Economic Voice — Trendos
The anti-growth extremist in Burnham’s cabinet — Spiked, July 2026 (critical perspective)
Miatta Fahnbulleh (politician) — Wikipedia
Read more: Claude.ai
I think a reasonable interpretation of all this is Miatta thinks Britain’s problem is not enough communism. She appears to reject orthodox economic ideas like fiscal discipline and prosperity through private ownership, and thinks more government intervention, and devolving power to local governments, will restore Britain’s prosperity.
In 2018, Miatta said “We’ve been saying the economy doesn’t work, but there isn’t necessarily a sense of what the alternative looks like… Our job is to start articulating that.“. I don’t think we need Miatta to articulate anything, the 20th century provides plenty of examples of what Britain’s future will look like if Miatta gets to implement her recycled ideas.
Even the Soviets realised towards the end that collectivism destroys prosperity, while private property and private ownership increases prosperity. The small private plots where Soviet farmers could grow food on their own land and sell it at market prices always vastly outproduced state owned collective farms.
China also got it, their current prosperity traces back to Deng Xiaoping‘s capitalist reforms and legalisation of private property. As Deng famously stated when asked about his free market reforms, “it doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, if it catches mice it is a good cat”.
As for rejecting fiscal discipline, Turkey tried that recently – and ended up with a near triple digit inflation rate, and a currency which collapsed from 3.65 lira to the dollar in 2017 to 47 lira to the dollar today.
Devolving power to small local committees – that’s how President Chavez and President Maduro seized and maintained power in Venezuela, at least until Trump arrested Maduro. Turns out a tall hierarchy of committees stretching between ordinary people and the people at the top is useful for maintaining a facade of representative government, but in practice are much easier to manipulate than a genuine representative democracy or republic where federal representatives are elected directly by the people. Onion layered committees are great for the people in charge, but they stink at delivering prosperity. Going by the Venezuelan example, the people at the bottom of the heap usually end up having to supplement their diet with whatever they can dig out of trash cans.
Radical de-industrialisation for whatever reason, which would be an inevitable consequence of Net Zero by 2030 – I don’t think I need to name the 20th century examples of where that idea leads.
There is nothing that new about Miatta’s ideas, except possibly her plan to combine all those bad ideas into a single policy package.
But a large number of the young voters who have been indoctrinated from birth by the BBC, and who don’t have a clue how many people died thanks to socialism in the 20th century, might just believe Miatta’s ideas are the leadership they need. Because they have no idea all this has been tried before.
History education – you don’t miss it until it repeats on you.
Words fail me…
I have some but hey are not fit to print.
The less than 10% of privately owned and worked farmland in the USSR outproduced the entire other 90%.
The same was true of Hungary at that time.
Only Communism could cause famine in the most agriculturally productive regions of Russia and China (Ukraine and Sichuan respectively).
Not really true.
The very capitalistic brits have caused massive famines alongside the USSR in lands with the most fertile land, like Bengali.
(Churchill biographers tend to forget)
We can also go back a bit further to see what they have done to India and China during the 19th century – or to the Irish)
The unique feature of communism was to cull the own population instead of others in huge numbers alongside a systematic destruction of exixting systems and traditions .
Those famines were caused by the weather. Similarly large famines happened prior to British involvement in the region.
Oh, you can’t talk to a fool like SxysS
One must remember to not feed the trolls.
> …very capitalistic brits have caused massive famines alongside the USSR in lands with the most fertile land, like Bengali.
(Churchill biographers tend to forget)
Good thing we have internet trolls to correct history. The idea that historians are reticent to call out Churchill for any failing is beyond risible.
The same is true in the US, plus both countries are big exporters of crops to feed 8 billion people.
I am curious about her education and work experience to function in such an important job.
It probably does not matter, because the UK will soon be majority Muslim, and then Sharia Law will be in effect.
It is time to pack your bags, sell what you got and get the hell out of hell
I checked on her background and education.
Nothing indicates she has any experience in energy systems. She is a loyal Labor party hack.
When she says net zero by 2030, that is even worse than AOC
It looks like nothing will happen regarding halting the downward spiral of the UK into a black hole.
In fact, the UK does not have the resources to halt the spiral.
It is doomed!
We need a new approach. Ideally, we should discontinue whatever does not work, and install a new system (which may or may not work).
My point is that replacing the bad with something even worse may be called progress, but a progress should better be better.
The collective farms were producing the grains that the Soviet Union needed. The private plots produced mainly vegetables. I wonder if we are comparing apples with pears.
Russia has totally reformed its agriculture since about 2000.
It feeds its own people and is one of the largest exporters of grains and fertilizers in the world. Just google.
I did not think that it would be possible to find a person who was dumber, less scientifically informed, or less intelligent than Ed Milliband, but the new PM just went straight out and found her.
She’s certainly hit the ground running with her many plans and enthusiasm. I have to admit, I was at first fooled by some of her high-sounding ideas, but the handy translation of what she really intends, provided by Eric, set me straight.
One can identify a lot of real problems and still propose stupid solutions.
Yep, no end (or should that be beginning) to his talents.
Creating Zimbabwe II where everyone was a millionaire but lived in poverty. You just wonder why those who escaped Africa went to Britain. Not that the rest of europe is much better. What production is left in europe?
Europe, at Trump’s urging, is diverting a lot of resources towards arms production and increasing military headcount, which is decades overdue.
Europe is using a hate-Russia campaign to gin up the population and to use Ukraine as an expendable attack dog, for as long as it takes, to strategically weaken Russia, and then take over the resources of Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, and countries like Kazakhstan to get various resources, and oil, gas, coal, all of which are domestically lacking in Europe.
The US is no “babe in the woods”
The US by providing 1) arms supplies paid for by the EU as part of PURL, and 2) satellite-obtained target co-ordinates, and 3) routing information for drones to avoid Russian defense systems, and 4) the Starlink system for battlefield communications, etc., is not just “helping Ukraine”, as the US claims, is, in fact, an active combatant, with other NATO countries, such as Germany, France and UK, led by unpopular leaders, by increasingly directing more potent Western weapons, almost all made in NATO countries, but launched from Ukraine soil, toward targets, including civilian targets, on Russian territory. None of these countries could be neutral mediators to settle the conflict. At some point, Russia’s patience will run out.
Ukraine’s population has steadily decreased from about 52 million in 1990 to about 20 -25 million still under Kiev’s political control in 2026. That population includes about 10.6 million impoverished, retired people on state pensions who stayed in Ukraine, while most of their children and grandchildren left Ukraine to go elsewhere. The death rate is high; the birth rate is near zero. A demographic disaster lasting for decades is inevitable.
Ukrainians have more patriotism than you. (Or me.)
I volunteered to serve in the US Army for three years, stationed in Germany, 11th Airborne Infantry, 1956 to 1959.
You make a judgment without facts.
I have no doubt the plan is to break up the Russian Federation and loot their resources. George Soros outlined his plan to use the defeat of Russia to boost the European green push in an article for the Irish Examiner.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/27/the-easiest-way-to-derail-europes-green-plan-for-america-is-to-stop-us-funding-for-ukraine/
Sad that Putin is making it easy for them.
Eric,
The break-up of Russia was almost successful during the disastrous Gorbachev/Yeltsin era of the 1990s.
Several hundred $billion were banked in the West.
Then Putin was overwhelmingly elected President.
He abandoned Communism and most of Socialism.
He reigned in the oligarchs, and reformed bureaucracies.
Now Russia is the 4th largest economy in the world, PPP basis, has a huge crop surplus, which gets exported.
Unemployment is 2.5%. In Finland, a poster child of European dysfunction, about 14%.
What would they know as they aint got the feels for it-
Blackout fears after insiders claim national power grid is out of control and on brink of collapse
Exciting times are coming.
Our economy is not broken, it is stifled by government action and rules and significantly by the cost of net zero.
All failures of Socialism are proof it wasn’t True Socialism: didn’t go far enough.
Glad I’m invested in America and the Far East
The Far East are dumping their dollars just as quick as the COMEX can deliver. The US is insolvent unless it revalues its gold holdings, if they still have them. Their stock market is setting itself up for another massive crash, IMO. Tread lightly. All the best.
Can any one tell me when this crash begins or has begun?
Funny, doomcryers such as you have been proclaiming the end of the dollar since the 1970s, and it ain’t going anywhere. But hey! Put on a fresh hair shirt and sandwich board and toddle up and down the sidewalk crying The End Is Near.
The end is near for the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency. It will continue to be used at home but not abroad. But hey! feel free to ignore all the warming signs. This can has been kicked enough.
Again, doomcryers been crying this since the 1970s, and here you are crying it again.
The end of USD dominance is coming, but it might take a lot longer than you think.
Your comment is unsupported. Why is USA become “insolvent”? And what do “gold holdings” have to do with anything?
Seriously? The US debt is gigantic. One way to pay the debtors is to revalue gold, if the Shanghai Gold Exchange allow it. US gov’t gold holdings are still valued at 1930’s prices if you didn’t know.
Not true.
Her job title is the big problem. Either Britain can have energy security or net zero. We can’t have both. Ed Miliband concentrated solely on net zero and ignored energy security completely. It’s not impossible that our new minister might be more pragmatic than Ed.
How does Miata propose to get to Net Zero in the next four years? That seems a little ambitious.
A little? I hope that was sarcasm.
It was.
I don’t think the UK or any Net Zero country or State will ever reach Net Zero. I think the people will revolt before that happens due to the economic disaster Net Zero ambitions bring. I think the natives are already restless about it.
Tell them to bring their pitchforks and torches.
The only way for Britain to achieve Net Zero is for all economic activity in Britain to cease. Some people have said that the current policies of the Labour Party seem designed to bring that about.
Turn off the lights, lock the doors and everyone leaves to the Middle East, Asia and Africa in 4 years, to achieve net zero at little cost.
Anything else the very much indebted UK could not afford.
I think Net Zero brings economic disaster long before CO2 is eliminated.
Look at the UK: The highest electricity prices in the world, with a few exceptions. And under Net Zero the electricity prices are going to go higher and higher and higher. Until the UK has no industry or jobs left.
And all that effort is lost in the noise when CO2 and the globe are considered. The UK will have bankrupted itself and will have made no difference at all as far as Earth’s temperatures are concerned, even if the worst-case CO2 scenario were true.
It’s hard to believe that these politicians are so stupid.
Plants are on starvation diet with CO2 at 425 ppm, and deserts are everywhere.
In greenhouses, plants thrive and have more fruit at 1000 ppm.
Reducing CO2 by any date is a super-expensive idiot’s game, kept alive by the pseudo science of the subsidized, government-protected IPCC crowd
This latest twist in Labour leadership leading to a reshuffling of government ministers by Andy Burnham the new PM speaks volumes.
Fahnbulleh is probably the most negative replacement it was possible to find for an already focused deindustrialising Ed Miliband.
Moving Miliband to Foreign Secretary ensures an international reach for his destruction is now possible.
When Burnham was conceiving who to put where, it must have been a light bulb moment when Fahnbulleh was flagged up.
She is possibly the only person available that could make Miliband look sensible!
A fair collective for the new cabinet would be ‘the wrecking crew’
I like it – I’ll see if I can use “The wrecking crew” in a future article.
Once he dismissed Lammy, he had to find another black person to replace him in the Cabinet. DEI can have dreadful consequeces.
Part of Milibands reward for not getting to be in No11 was that he got to choose who replacemented him at the Ministry of Non Energy Security and Nut Zero
“thinking”? I doubt it.
Interesting that Fahnbulleh won Peckham (on new borders) with a reasonable 58.8% of the vote, followed by 19.6% for the Greens, 7.0% for Limp Dims, 5.9% for Uniparty Tories and just 4.6% for Reform.
Of course, 46.2% couldn’t be arsed to vote at all.
It is clear that, perhaps for her radient beauty, Fahnbulleh had been given such a safe seat for her debut.
Peckham also has one of the largest mosques in South London.
Seems like an ideal place to house and welcome several thousands of illegal immigrants. They will fit in very nicely with the very large Turkish community.
By contrast, Miliband’s constituency of Doncaster North has a very large number of Coal Miners who were all thrown on the scrap heap a generation ago, thanks to brothers Ed and David’s lunatic energy destroying policies.
Go figure.
I don’t think that there would have been many people in Doncaster working in coal-mining by the time Ed and David were given jobs in the government. The last mine to close in that area was Hatfield Main Colliery. It closed in 2015 with the loss of 430 jobs. Before that, Rossington Main closed in 2007 with the loss of about 300 jobs. Obviously not all the jobs lost directly involved mining. Those two mines were the only ones operating after 1996. Only one mine in the Doncaster area closed between 1997 and 2010.
We can hope the levers of power work no better for her than for Kier Starmer. (He claimed you pull them and nothing happens.)
Yep, I’m reduced to hoping the state apparatus doesn’t work.
I would have expected most people here being for “state rights” and not big government? Because that’s what it is in the end
He also invaded a sovereign nation and kidnapped their leader, not “arrested him”. As always he also enriched himself.
But she doesn’t sound half bad. Now join the EU again (this time on equal terms) and maybe there’s hope for that country.
Hope for what? Perhaps in hitting the brick wall faschder_denn_da_schpeed_of_laight? A truely deluded EU fan you are…
I’m not saying all power should be concentrated in the hands of federal government. But the kind of business landscape balkanisation Miatta appears to be advocating is dangerous and counterproductive.
Look at the present state of the eu. Nobody could want that. The ‘eu’ experiment has failed. The people of Blighty eventually saw what is truly was…a control mechanism which is now out of control.
The last ten years have been government so bad it hoped we would want to rejoin the EU.
Instead we got Refprm.
How did you manage to not read the next paragraphs and not realize that what they said was immediately contradicted by what they did?
Is it because you support a form of government which produces results which contradict its promises and thus think only the promises matter?
She is in a word… mental
I am going to assume she is not. I am going to assume she is steeped in political theory and that she has no concept of how an advanced economy should work. She is probably very intelligent, albeit pig-ignorant, and hence very dangerous.
Her father a Liberian security advisor and plotter against the President fled to…. the world’s doormat.
It’s my view that the NEF’s assessment of the UK economy is about right. Income disparity here is among the highest of OECD countries and has been growing steadily since the 1970s. That has gone hand in hand with deindustrialisation and Margaret Thatcher’s intentional shift to a service economy. Wealth disparity is less marked, but wealth in the UK is disproportionately tied up in land and property, which is non-productive and largely illusory. We bought our present house for £25,000 in 1981 and it’s currently valued at around £500,000. Even allowing for inflation, that increase in ‘value’ does not make us that much wealthier. Writ large it means is that a lot of capital has not been invested in UK industry and commerce. Instead, the UK has become increasingly dependant on overseas investors, with profits expatriated. It has also resulted in increased exposure to the bond market.
Investing in industry and commerce only makes sense if energy is affordable and taxes are competitive. Otherwise you put your investment into someone else’s tax regime.
I used to know someone who ran an electrical company which provided street lights in the Home Counties, local manufacturing business.
Then China offered him a 10 year tax holiday and government assistance with permits if he relocated.
Last time I saw him he was still providing street lights to the Home Counties. But all the manufacturing was done in China.
The shift to services started with Wilson, not thatcher. Same with coal mine closures and deindustrialisation. Both saw the city as the economic engine of the country and wanted the rest to be a service provider for that engine. Both pursued aggressive deindustrialisation policies. Their rmechanism of administration was different – Wilson pursued state socialism, thatcher private monopoly – but both sought the same internationalist, technocratic, globally integrated outcome that reduced the country to little more than a deracinated economic zone.
Thatcher taking all the blame is a shallow reading of history, that denies how deep the rot was and still is. It allowed Blair and his successors to continue the work, while publicly repudiating it as “Thatcherism”. You can trace the same motivations on display now all the way back to Wilson’s school reforms and beyond.
Inequality in household incomes in the UK has remained at a roughly similar level since the early 1990s but is higher than during the 1960s and 1970s. While the share of income going to the top 1% of individuals by household income increased during the 1990s and 2000s, there was some reduction in inequality among the rest of the population (based on incomes before housing costs) with the result that inequality overall was fairly stable during this period. (House of Commons Library)
Did manufacturing decline more sharly undrr Mrs Thatcher than previously? I asked Brave and got this reply:
The answer depends on whether manufacturing decline is measured by output volume or economic share (GDP).
In terms of output volume, manufacturing declined more under previous governments. During the 1970s, before Margaret Thatcher took office in 1979, the UK experienced stagnant growth, high inflation, and frequent strikes that severely damaged industrial output.
While Thatcher’s early monetarist policies caused a sharp initial drop in output, industrial production actually rose by 16% between 1979 and 1990, barely slowing from the preceding trend.
In contrast, the 1970s saw a reputation for poor quality and lost productivity, with the UK having the worst industrial growth record of any major industrial country in the five years prior to 1979.
In terms of GDP share and employment, the decline accelerated under Thatcher and continued afterward. When Thatcher assumed power, manufacturing already accounted for 17.62% of GDP, having fallen from 20.57% in 1970.
Her tenure saw this share drop further to 15.18% by 1990, driven by high interest rates and an over-valued currency that undermined exports.
However, this was part of a longer structural shift; manufacturing’s share had already begun falling in the 1970s, and the decline continued at a similar or faster pace under subsequent Labour governments (falling to 12.4% by 2007).
The loss of manufacturing jobs was also heavily concentrated in cities dependent on traditional industries, with employment rates falling from 30% of city jobs in 1981 to 12% in 1991.
Mrs Thatcher did not have a policy of de-industrialisation. She just didn’t believe in the state propping up inefficient and loss-making firms.
Burn-em shouldn’t be appointing anyone as he has not been elected by the people of Blighty. He gained his post because of the failure of his past party leader. We now have the same disastrous planning but with a different talking head. There seems to be a pattern forming where one moron is replaced with another. All the while the Labour party loses more and more of its core supporters.
It’s high time the people in Blighty began boycotting the brainwashed plans of hubris. Stay away from cities, who just want to find ways to issue you with fines, and spend your money in the towns and villages. If one has to pay a ‘clean air’ charge in order to visit a supplier then find another supplier.
“There seems to be a pattern forming where one moron is replaced with another.”
Idiocracy.
DEI?
She’s an ecommunist. I bet she got high marx in school.
So, when is SHE going to stop using fossil fuels and all products derived from them?
Who was it, again, who said it was not up to white men to tell Africans how to live?
Someone who plans to use energy as the lever to run an economy which in turn runs its people? Not exactly original. And having nothing to do with energy “security”.
Miata will fit right in with Burnham. He’s a communist, too.
The people of the UK are in for a rough time. That’s what happens when you elect stupid people.
Soon, we will get to see how many stupid people the American voters elect. Let’s hope it is not too many. Or the U.S. may start looking like the UK. That is definitely the road the Democrats want to take us down. They are communists, too.
The 8 billion on this planet are totally dependent on the products and transportation fuels MADE from the crude oil processed through the more than 800 refineries around the world.
Net Zero Green Energy Ideologists are OBLIVIOUS to reality that wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any of the 6,000 products or transportation fuels for life as we know it.
Consequently, with the products and transportation fuels made from crude oil, the world sustains 10 times more people today (8.3 billion) than at the start of the Industrial Revolution (approximately 700 to 800 million people in 1750)
The world is not dependent on natural fossil fuels, as no one uses “raw” crude oil that is only black tar, BUT has become dependent on the products and transportation fuels MADE FROM oil, the same products and transportation fuels that Wind and Solar CANNOT make!
Without a backup source to replace refineries, ridding the world of fossil fuels may be the greatest threat to the world’s 8 billion resulting in fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths, trying to live without the more than 6,000 products currently made from oil that are benefiting society.
So it makes sense to bomb Russian and Iran energy sources, which provides much less goods and services to 4 billion of the 8 billion?
The other 4 billion can afford expensive energy at almost any price.
Nuclear and big and small hydro also cannot make any of the 6000 products.
If we ever run out of fossil fuels, we have to make synthetic fossil fuels to make 6000 products
The economy is the problem so she is going to eliminate it, right? Might be fun to watch her try. From afar. God help Britain.
Oh, c’mon, let’s not overlook Ms. Miatta Fahnbulleh’s qualifications‚ her CV, to serve as British Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (BTW, an oxymoron if I ever saw one!):
— She graduated from the University of Oxford with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in 2000
— She obtained a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree in economic development in 2005 from the London School of Economics
— She was the Head of Cities in the policy unit at the Cabinet Office from 2011 to 2013; the director of policy and research at the IPPR from December 2016 to November 2017; and the Chief Executive of the New Economics Foundation between November 2017 and December 2023. She was also a Policy Fellow at the think tank Labour Together.
In simple words, there is no evidence whatsoever that Miatta Fahnbulleh has any formal training or personal experience in understanding either “Energy” or “Net Zero” in scientific, objective terms. Hence, an obvious person to serve in her current position! /sarc
Exactly correct!
Oxford is unusual in that all undergraduate degrees are BAs except for Theology and Fine Arts
So the UK is supposed to model its economy on those of Ghana and Kenya?
Why not, because it will be Third World very soon
Labour hates engineers so they have a government, the Members of which, are skilled in Social Studies and communist propaganda. I remember when I was working at Nigg Bay Scotland and Tony Benn was Energy Minister/Secretary and things worked. That world is gone and Britain is on life support. Why the British people are so supine is staggering which was something I observed in the 1990s over the EU. The King is a heretic and should resign, his sons little better and the Church of England is utterly heretical. My advice – get out while you still may.