Planning for the future, maybe sacrificing some jam today for some insurance later, is a normal way of thinking. The temptation of short termism, at the individual level and the macro level, combined with a reluctance to pay today for what may contingently occur tomorrow is perhaps a malaise that needs some urgent treatment. A mark of good leadership today may be wise long-term decisions even though some current suffering remains unmitigated.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND NET ZERO – LONG-TERM THINKING AT LEAST
Take climate change: few people would argue against the proposition that unless carbon emissions are drastically reduced over the coming immediate decades the world faces traumatic irreversible change and possible human catastrophes. But given the immediate cost of living rises (not just in the UK but across the world), the core reason for which is the cost of energy and Putin’s war, voices grow louder for a relaxation of the UK’s target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Some commentators blame Boris Johnson and his obsession with net zero for today’s energy crisis, scathing about the UK’s commitments touted strongly around the COP26 conference in 2021. The drive for renewable energy, especially wind and solar, has, critics say, been over emphasised with unrealistic time frames and cost.
Arguably the UK is suffering a greater cost of energy and more severe consequences because of steps to meet the target. To mitigate today’s problems, continuing the use of coal fired power, extracting more oil and gas from the North Sea, and other short-term measures inimical to net zero can be justified. The best short term measure every Briton can assist with is simply to turn things down or off and simply use less power every day. However, climate change will not slow its inexorable march while today’s challenges are fought. It remains the existential threat to the world and livelihoods across the globe, and reduction of carbon emissions as quickly as possible must not be derailed or delayed.
The net zero commitment of the UK is at least a long-term strategic decision that has been embraced and must survive any change in government. Such a commitment was and is essential as the UK has had the responsibility of the COP 26 Presidency and its credibility to cajole other nations to commit to carbon reductions rested on its own tough targets. Detailed plans to achieve it may be sparse and seem more a series of ad hoc un-joined up proposals, such as the ban on new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, and some may turn out to be impractical. Well thought through and well explained strategies are needed for implementation based on the best researched predictions of what will be doable, a job not done by government yet and one for the new PM. All predictions and strategies will need adaptation as any future plan must move with times – nowhere better illustrated by the need to respond to Putin’s attack on the world as he seeks to obliterate Ukraine.
What is self-evident is that the UK must enlarge its commitments to wind and solar power as this energy can be delivered at far smaller cost per megawatt hour than fossil fuels such as gas, and indeed nuclear energy, while recognising that a cocktail of energy sources is necessary, as well as urgent energy saving actions such as insulation The future UK detailed long-term plan for future energy security is a strategic must have.
SHORT-TERMISM IS A PERNICIOUS EPIDEMIC
Arguably had previous governments made commitments to nuclear power years ago, today’s energy crisis in the UK would have been reduced. But a nuclear building programme takes years in the UK, largely due to the many inbuilt obstacles of out of date and unfit for purpose planning regulations, environmental bureaucracy and perhaps worst of all the “not in my backyard” hypocrisy of many a citizen: their voting power deters politicians looking rather to the short term of preserving office. Boris Johnson’s recent conversion to nuclear power, criticising the indecisive short-term attitude of past decisions, may tell a necessary truth, but it does not sound well coming from him. Sadly, with him as the messenger, the truth of the pernicious nature of short term “today” decisions at the expense of tomorrow may be watered down.
Politics seems solely about strategy to win or retain power. Elections every few years in all democracies mean that politicians are driven to satisfy short term demands and wishes of voters, throwing them goodies, as the media touts a modern philosophy that the people must never suffer hardship and it’s the job of government to prevent that. In the face of the Putin and Xi threats to democracies and the disinformation campaigns of their nations and others who would pull down the moral fibre of democratic nations, countries need leaders who think long term, making tough decisions such as on defence spending and food and energy security at the expense of today’s comforts, with no immediate tangible benefit.
All significant infrastructure projects or major reforms of established processes or services such as the NHS inevitably span parliaments. So, they are prone to changing policies of changing governments. Indecision can also create huge, wasted cost. Tim Harford’s article in the Financial Times of 2 September, Megaprojects often end up late and hideously over budget. Why? well illustrates that point on the topic of the Trans Pennine Railway. Political vacillation meant that the project recommended in 2011 at a cost of some £300 million is still not built and the cost is now estimated at £10 billion. It illustrates too the incompetence around predicting cost. Why does it cost in the UK a multiple of the cost in Europe to build a kilometre of railway?
The third runway at Heathrow was deferred by successive cowardly governments. HS2 took years to decide on and is probably being reduced in scope. It too is a runaway cost spiral, originally thought to be an enormous £30 billion, and now maybe up to £100 billion, but does anyone have a real grasp of the cost? Is it now cost efficient even to build? May it have to be sacrificed to pay for other unforeseen gigantic expenses such as the new energy subsidies to control the cost of living?
Infrastructure projects get derailed, abandoned or taken off the table often due to the Nimbyism and hypocrisy of “progressive” voters, for example housebuilding of affordable houses or onshore wind farms near richer areas.
When it comes to procurement, the UK record of public servants is parlous, with defence equipment a recurring theme, with purchases ultimately costing multiples of the original millions of pounds estimates. On projects and procurement, it is surely time for real costings and budgets not low balling to get approval and then hike the costs later once the project is underway and hard to cancel. Otherwise, how does the government honestly explain its plan for the long term? This is especially important today with borrowing having to increase to meet short term crises.
WHAT ARE TOMORROW’S LONG TERM SPENDS?
Liz Truss, the new PM, has just announced a necessary, but short term, package of energy aid to soften the blow of the cost of energy on the UK public and businesses, at a cost estimated at £150 billion. Another one-off blow. But there are also huge long term spends that are surely necessary to prepare the UK for the future. Should not the cost of these at least be estimated now rather than each being looked at one by one, so that the level of sacrifice by the public, potentially significant, can begin to be absorbed and life adapted accordingly?
