The UK is facing a 1970s-style “oil price shock” that could wipe ￡45 billion (US$72.9 billion) from the UK economy, British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne said in his first intervention on the issue since the start of the Middle East political crisis.
Rising oil prices pushed gasoline to a record ￡1.30 per liter at British pumps this week and turmoil in the Middle East is leading to intense pressure on British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne to ease the pressure on motorists, probably by dropping previously announced plans to increase fuel duty in the budget on March 23.
However, in a speech on the impact of the oil crisis on Thursday, Huhne said that a price of US$100 a barrel for oil transforms the economics of climate change in Britain.
He disclosed that the British Department of Energy and Climate Change’s economists have said that if the oil price rise turns into a 1970s-style crisis, the cumulative loss to the UK economy would be ￡45 billion over two years.
Oil is at a two-and-a-half-year high and there have been predictions that if the political turmoil spreads around the Persian Gulf, the price would rise further. The Libyan rebellion has shut down oil production in many parts of the country and while Libya’s oil fields produce only about 2 percent of global demand, experts say the disruption is putting pressure on world supplies.
“If the oil price doubled, as from US$80 last year to US$160 this year, it could lead to a cumulative loss of GDP of around ￡45 billion over two years. This is not just far-off speculation: it is a threat here and now,” Huhne said.
The speech was in part an attempt to galvanize public support for tough measures to create a green economy after recent setbacks, including attacks on the science of climate change and stalled international negotiations.
The speech could also be seen as an attempt to burnish the coalition’s green credentials after months in which the British Department for Transport has declared an end to the “war on the motorist.”
Drawing on research conducted for the Labour government by Lord Stern, Huhne said US$100 a barrel is seen as the point at which the economics of climate change pivots so that it becomes cheaper for British consumers and businesses to invest in green technology than remain with the status quo.
He said that if oil only reached US$108 a barrel by 2020, as predicted by the US Department of Energy, then the UK consumer would “win hands down” by paying less through low-carbon policies than for fossil fuel policies.
This is the moment to invest in green infrastructure, homes and transport, according to Huhne.
Fossil fuels are now the costly, high-risk option for energy: It is “crazy” not to -prepare for a low-carbon future.
He said the government had made it possible for consumers and businesses to switch to green energy, through the green deal for homes, feed-in tariffs and new technologies, such as electric cars, which are predicted to have a breakthrough year this year.
In the low-carbon economy, Huhne said, “we will turn to electricity to heat our homes and charge our cars, leading to a doubling in demand for electricity by 2050.”
Steve Holliday, chief executive of the National Grid, predicted this week that the UK would need to increase its installed capacity of electricity generation from 75 gigawatts to 100 gigawatts by 2030.
This in turn would require a rapid transformation of the UK energy market with long lead-in times and high capital costs.
If the country is to avoid an energy crunch by the end of this decade, Huhne added, “the UK must cut our carbon emissions by 34 percent on 1990 levels. We must generate 15 percent of our energy from renewables by 2020, up from 6.7 percent in 2009.”
He said Britain had chosen a portfolio approach to energy supply, relying on a mix of renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage for coal and gas.
It was impossible to overstate the scale of the investment challenge facing the country, with Ofgem estimating that ￡200 billion of new investment is needed during the next decade to secure supply as aging nuclear and coal power plants close.
“Energy companies are not the Salvation Army and will need to convince big investors, like pension funds, that the UK energy market is not just stable, but also offers a good return,” Huhne said.
As a result the consumer would face a cost, but it would be lower than not making the investment, according to Huhne.
“We have delay and lack of detail on the green investment bank and the green deal, the fiasco over the botched feed-in tariff review, which has shaken confidence in the smaller-scale renewables sector, and the endless wait for the renewable heat incentive. The government has dithered long enough,” Shadow Energy Minister Meg Hillier said.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS