But this new consultation is a little different from the old ones, in both form and content. First the form:

Rather than follow recent practice, and produce a document on which interested parties can comment, we wish to make sure that all those with the greatest knowledge and expertise in this field can contribute to the development of a draft strategy, which can then be widely consulted on later this year.

Seems like a sensible idea. Rather than drafting a bunch of stuff internally that only gets slapped down as being simultaneously over- and under-ambitious, why not try to build a consensus from the start?

The second difference is the scope of the consultation. Previous efforts have had fairly wide remits, looking at technology standards, skills and quality assurance, grant schemes, feed-in tariffs and so on. But the new strategy, undoubtedly reflecting the coalition’s spend-thrift ways, is crystal clear about what is in and, more to the point, what is out of scope. Check out these extracts from the invitations to join the four working groups:

• WG 1: Quality and certification Out of scope: complete removal of certification and industry standards, publicly financed instruments.
• WG 2: Technology development Out of scope: support for R&D and developing export markets would need to be through the existing mechanisms within Government, publicly financed instruments
• WG 3: Skills Out of scope: not looking to set up new bodies but to work with existing organisations operating in the sector, publicly financed instruments
• WG 4: Information and advice Out of scope: Publicly financed instruments

Notice a trend?

In fact, Sellafield is a classic illustration of the failure of British industry. We were pioneers of nuclear power but in our desire to build our own atomic weapons, failed abysmally when it came to developing and managing our own civil reactors and reprocessing plants.

As a result, we have been left with a multibillion-pound clean-up bill and the prospect of buying either American or French reactors for our next generation nuclear plants. The lesson of Sellafield is not so much that nuclear power is dangerous but that Britain seems incapable of implementing any long-term engineering plan that comes its way, from high-speed trains to wind turbines or rocket launchers.

To be honest, I can’t tell if this is crazy good or crazy bad. On the one hand, compact self-contained nukes would give better output – more of it and more predictable – than similarly distributed renewables. But still, the units are buried underground and every 7 to 10 years, a lorry full of fresh uranium comes round to your house (well more realistically your local factory, industrial estate etc.), digs up the reactor to refuel it, and takes away the old waste. Although the transportation of nuclear materials has been relatively safe to date, I wonder how things change when you start shipping around lots of little containers rather than a few big loads (ignoring medical isotopes).

The first units are scheduled for delivery in five to ten years to a Czech utility company.

For years, microgeneration advocates have looked at the rapid deployment of solar and wind in Germany and called for similar incentives, which pay microgen owners for exporting their electricity to the grid, here in the UK. But in 2005, my research found that the UK government was fundamentally opposed to this option as an unnecessary intervention in the market. Obviously, market intervention has become a little more fashionable of late but there have also been serious economic analyses published to say it is in fact more economically-efficient to promote renewables and microgeneration using a feed-in tariff, rather than the current renewables obligation mechanism.

Of course the details haven’t been announced yet. But that the fact that a feed-in tariff is now being considered, alongside the government’s new commitment to a 80% – not 60% – reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, suggests that things may be changing in Whitehall. Let’s wait and see.

Of course there’s a time and place for consultation but as Philip Wolfe said today, perhaps now isn’t it. If the UK is to meet its EU renewables targets, and its climate change ambitions, it needs to act fast.

But for me, this episode is really just another frustrating example of what happens when politicians aim higher than they are prepared to support. If the government had said, “We will put in some general support for renewables but we’ve no firm goals” then I think people might disagree but at least they’d know where they’d stand. But the more typical situation is what happened with PV. In the late 90’s the government said they wanted an industry to compete with Germany and Japan, with 100,000 PV roofs and all the rest. But they weren’t willing to provide significant grant funding or a feed-in tariff and as a result the UK has a fraction of the capacity in other countries. Germany installed 130,000 PV systems last year; the UK? – 270.

It’s a theme you see over and over again, especially with governments that can’t actually do much (like the GLA). But it’s so infuriating and I wish politicians would just be a little more frank about assessing their own capabilities, setting their sights lower or having the courage to act to ensure that the policy reality at least comes close to the lofty goals of their rhetoric.

For most people, “green policies” essentially mean increased taxation on fuel, waste disposal, aviation etc and so it’s not surprising that people are a little reluctant to say, “Yes please, more tax” when times get tough. But to me, this short-term view seems to be the whole problem with the situation. If the government is serious about dealing with climate change, energy security and other long-term problems, then politicians need to be able to act without fear of short-term retribution. In other words, the government as a whole (both politicians and civil servants) has a responsibility to ensure the long-term success of the country and this duty isn’t necessarily best-served by focusing on the next election.

Against this backdrop, green taxation shouldn’t be seen as short-term political hot potato but as a strategic issue, a policy adopted by the country as a whole in order to shift to a low carbon economy over perhaps a decade or two. Cross party alliances could work together to sort out the decidely tricky details. For example, a green taxation shift that’s revenue neutral to the Treasury may leave some individuals significantly better or worse off. I don’t drive much so decreasing my income tax in favour of a higher petrol tax wouldn’t bother me but someone who has to drive 30 miles to work every day would be hurt. However with a clear statement that the end goal must be pursued, then voters can focus on electing those who deliver the goals with the least possible inconvenience. The question becomes not, “would you like green taxes?” but “which policies would you like to meet this goal?”.

As a commenter to the original Observer article noted, “greenwash is the first paint to flake off”. Shifting to a low carbon economy is a long-term project and sadly if we can’t design a political process that weathers a few storms along the way, then we may be in for an even rougher ride.

1. The cost of decommissioning Britain’s existing nuclear power plants is equivalent to a 1p rise in income tax.
2. Nearly half of BERR’s annual budget (~£1.5 bn) goes to decommissioning

Which again makes me wonder what giveaways they’ll have to put in place for the private sector to build more of the things.