Morality has shot up the political agenda though questions over it are never far away from the pens of journalists. One of the great qualities of our open democracy is the scrutiny that politicians are placed under, but I believe that certain policies deserve the same questioning approach.
The Northern Research Group of Conservative MPs recently held a conference in Doncaster and one of the key topics of discussion that came up was over the Net Zero agenda and whether people actually support it.
My view is that, considering the costs we all face as well as the wider geopolitical problems, if there were a referendum on ‘Net Zero by 2050’, it would be rejected by the British people. Some of the ‘smart set’ would think that this is a reason not to ask people their views.
Details within the topic are complex but much of the substance is relatively straight forward.
We need to consider who benefits most from this agenda and whether those actions actually form part of a genuine plan to save the planet.
When the Government subsidises electric cars, they are still unaffordable for most people. Therefore, the people most likely to benefit are the wealthy who can afford the extra cost and then benefit from the subsidy that we all pay for. They are also far more likely to have a large house with a driveway that can have a charging point fitted.
Subsidised solar panels can be afforded by wealthy homeowners but not by people without a good few thousand pounds to spare. The rich, with vast tracts of land, were subsidised to install wind turbines who profited whether there is wind, no wind or too much wind.
In many ways, huge subsidies are the defining quality of all these ‘green’ options that wealthy people would rarely take without the general taxpayer helping them out.
Britain has the highest environmental standards in the world which means that the cost of domestic and industrial electricity is very expensive. This means that there is a disincentive to manufacture in England but our Government does not demand the same standards from the overseas firms we buy goods from.
In practice, we have seen major restrictions on our manufacturing capacity whilst Germany and China take our jobs. Both of those countries burn vast amounts of lignite to power their industries and heat their homes.
Lignite is the dirtiest form of coal and has the worst carbon, sulphur and heavy metal emissions of any fossil fuel. British coal is far cleaner but is prevented from being used in our ambition to cut our carbon emissions.
Some people seem to think that carbon dioxide respects national boundaries. Those same people do not seem to care if Germany and China use the dirtiest fuels so long as we have cheap manufactured goods.
The big questions are on the morality of sending British manufacturing, jobs and wealth overseas when it creates more pollution; and how much we should subsidise the already wealthy.
This article was originally published in the Wigan Observer.
