The lights will be staying on all over Europe. The zeal with which the European Union has been pursuing Net Zero policies is likely to give way to pragmatism – with a more realistic acceptance of the amount of energy that will be needed, at a reasonable cost and how the supply can be maintained. The imperious EU Commission is well known for its disdain for the democratic process. But even they are getting the message. Ursula von der Leyen is ready to compromise. “She is more of a politician than I’d hoped,” said one senior EU official despairing at signs of compromise with the electorate.
Last week’s Euro Elections confirmed a trend that was already clear. The Green group of MEPs has shrunk by 14. Renew Europe (the group that the British Lib Dems used to sit with) and which has similar views on climate change has lost 18 seats. The Socialists are down 13 seats, the Communist group is down three seats. The previous time the elections took place was in 2019 – in the grip of Greta Thunberg mania. The mood is rather different now.
The Christian Democrats held up pretty well – though they have been shifting away from Net Zero policies, for example in Germany.
But generally, the Euro Election results were presented as seeing the rise of the “far right” to use the lazy term favoured by the BBC and much of the rest of the media. It is an unsatisfactory label as it implies neo-Nazi sympathies but can safely be used to smear others – Conservatives, libertarians and populists. Daniel Hannan wrote on this site, after the elections in Portugal, that a party there called Chega was being labelled “far right” even though it favoured free markets and individual liberty. Nazis and Fascists are totalitarians – the ultimate enthusiasts for the big state.
Apart from their economic programme, another test for these various upstart parties is their stance on the Middle East. Hamas really is a neo-Nazi organisation. Its Covenant calls for genocide against Jews not just in Israel but around the world. It quotes from the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery used to promote Jewish conspiracy theories. Arabic translations of Mein Kampf serve as a motivational text for Hamas terrorists. Yet usually the supposedly “far right” European parties are staunchly opposed to Hamas and firm in showing solidarity with Israel.
Sometimes these parties might not have any clear economic or political ideology. They might be farmers who see new environmental regulations threatening their livelihoods. Or young people protesting against corruption in the established parties.
It is true that opposition to high immigration is an important issue. But net zero is as well. That is a significant factor in the popular revolt we have seen.
The change is not just happening in Europe, of course. This week, the Daily Telegraph reported that Jacinda Ardern’s green taxes were being scrapped by the new Government in New Zealand – much to the relief of the country’s farmers. Todd McClay, the agriculture minister, said:
“It doesn’t make sense to send jobs and production overseas, while less carbon-efficient countries produce the food the world needs.”
In the United Kingdom there has also been a shift. Boris Johnson was a climate alarmist – with rhetoric about at COP26 about the world being “at one minute to midnight.” The claims about the world coming to an end are not only untrue but damaging, as they can cause anxiety among teenagers. A welcome antidote to this scaremongering has been provided in an excellent film by Martin Durkin entitled Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth). It presents the case in a lively and provactive way – but the statistics are sourced from impecable sources and the Nobel Prize winning scientists that are interviewed are worth listening too.
Rishi Sunak is more sceptical than Johnson – without going the full Durkin. The Conservative Manifesto promises to:
“Cut the cost of net zero for consumers by taking a more pragmatic approach, guaranteeing no new green levies or charges while accelerating the rollout of renewables.”
It warns that:
“Labour are committed to shutting down the North Sea, rejecting any new licenses. That would put 200,000 jobs and billions of pounds of tax receipts at risk. It would leave the UK more dependent on foreign powers and mean higher emissions from imported liquefied gas.”
By contrast:
“We will back up renewables and prevent the prospect of blackouts with new gas power stations to maintain a safe and reliable energy source for days when the weather doesn’t power up renewables. Conservatives know that if we are forced to choose between clean energy and keeping citizens safe and warm, we will choose to keep the lights on.”
Let us assume, just for a moment, that Labour win the election. Net Zero zealotry is likely to be the most futile, yet also the most damaging crusade of the new Government. Ed Miliband, who would be the Energy Secretary, is fanatical on the issue. He is one of those who treats it as a religion. Labour is promising it can all be done painlessly – indeed with lower enery bills. Robert Colvile demolished those claims in the Sunday Times. The dawn of reality would probably prompt a split in the Labour Government. Would Miliband resign if he didn’t get his way? Would Rachel Reeves allow yet more tax and spending on this agenda and thus put our already heavily burdened economy into recession?
We often hear that there is little to choose between the main parties in this General Election. But the different approach to climate change and Net Zero are significant. I hope the electorate notices in time – as voters in the rest of the world have been.