The Scottish Greens will not save the world, though if
given the chance they might wreck Scotland. The deal they have made with the
SNP changes nothing whatsoever. It was unnecessary for Sturgeon to form a
coalition with the Greens, because she knows that they always vote with the SNP
anyway. We are no closer to a second independence referendum because Sturgeon
now has a majority with her Green friends. She has had them in her pocket for
years. Worse still we are no closer to
dealing with the world’s environmental problems.
The argument about climate change and the use of
fossil fuels has been dominated by people on the extreme Left, who oppose
economic growth and would prefer that we all lived a pre industrial lifestyle
with no cheap flights to get away from chilly Scotland. Those of us who have
been annoyed by propaganda on the BBC with David Attenborough whispering
continually about doom have made the mistake of leaving these issues to the
likes of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion. It is for this reason that
rather odd people like the Scottish Greens can win so many seats in the
Scottish Parliament. We have left the argument to them.
The debate about climate change was always tedious
because it was political. The Left saw it as a chance to overcome its defeat
when the Berlin Wall came down. It would use the need to for us to cease
polluting the world to push through the socialism that Eastern Europe had
rejected. There would be two prongs in the pincer movement. One would involve higher
taxes and sterner regulations on our polluting lifestyles, the other would be
controlling the language that we speak so that we could not object. But neither
Woke nor Marxism will save the planet.
It is a good thing if we cease to use fossil fuels. It
would have been a good thing even if there were no problem with climate change.
Fossil fuels are dirty, inefficient and expensive. You do not therefore have to
believe the latest climate alarmism or the latest predictions about the sea
rising or storms happening, to believe that eliminating the use of fossil fuels
as quickly as possible is sensible. Let the argument about climate change be
left to the scientists. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. There
are good reasons to get rid of fossil fuels anyway.
We are absurdly parochial in Scotland. I read recently
about how the island of Eigg is now self-sufficient in energy. That’s a good
thing of course, both for those living there and as an example of what is
possible, but it will not change the world. Neither for that matter will the
fact that we all have to rummage in our rubbish sorting the various items into
different coloured bins. It would not even matter if the Scottish Greens had their
way and all of us used our cars as little as the people on Eigg and succeeded
in living a rural idyl fuelled by wind, waves, woolly jumpers, high taxes and
absurdly expensive flights. It would not matter because Scotland in world terms
is as tiny as Eigg and produces very little carbon dioxide anyway.
The industrial revolution that Britain had in the
nineteenth century depended on coal. But the only way for everyone else to have
an industrial revolution today still depends on coal. It is for this reason
that China and India continue to build coal fired power stations. They and
other developing economies will still drive petrol cars, because they are cheaper
to make, cheaper to drive and will go further. If Tesla cars are outside the
price range of most Scots how much more will they be too expensive for people
in Africa.
So, the idea at present is that we will be forced to
give up cheap power, cheap cars and cheap flights so that the savings that we make
will be overwhelmed by those in poorer parts of the world that naturally want
to have a lifestyle similar to ours. This is not a plan. It will not save the
planet.
The change from using horses to using cars happened remarkably
quickly. We went from using oil lamps to using electricity at around the same
time. But we did these things because electricity and cars were cheaper, more
profitable and more efficient. Cars and electricity led to growth.
The Green movement supports alternatives to fossil
fuels which invariably depend on subsidy. These alternatives make a loss. Our
electricity bills will have to go up. Our cars will be more expensive and won’t
drive far. But how do they expect such alternatives to be attractive to people
in poorer countries?
The Scottish Greens are opposed to economic growth, because
they are opposed to capitalism. But the switch over from using fossil fuels to
using cleaner and better alternatives will take vast amounts of money. If this
is not achieved by economic growth it can only be achieved by a decline in our
living standards. They didn’t tell you about that bit.
The solution to the problem of climate change can only
occur through economic growth that funds research that discovers technologies that
make our lives better and less reliant on fossil fuels. We need to find ways of
extracting hydrogen more cheaply. We need to develop fission reactors that are safe
because they use alternatives uranium. Ultimately, we need to make fusion power
work, because that would give us both unlimited fuel and no pollution.
It is right that we attempt to burn less fossil fuel
now as we await these technologies, but we must balance this with the need to keep
our economy growing and to maintain our lifestyles. The public will not vote
for Green initiatives if they mean that we cannot go on holiday and cannot afford
to drive a car.
Only with economic growth will we be able to afford to
fund the science that in time will enable us to produce cheap clean energy. At
that time the Chinese, the Indians and everyone else will adopt it not because of
a summit where everyone agrees to initiatives which they then ignore, but
because it is cheaper and more efficient to do so, just like they once adopted the
internal combustion engine and the light bulb.
If the Scottish Greens and the SNP had their way, we
would have independence while running a massive deficit, which would lead to
cuts. How then could we fund the drive to cleaner energy? They would turn us
into the island of Eigg without a ferry. This would do absolutely nothing to
help either Scotland’s environment nor would it contribute anything to solving
the problems of climate change. It amounts to fiddling with pronouns while
forests burn.
It is time for those who care about the environment to
ditch the Scottish Greens and time for other politicians to come up with
solutions that might actually change climate.
