Bishop Hill Kelly in the Times
Jul 3, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Energy: grid Mike Kelly had a letter in the Times yesterday, following on from the story about possible energy blackouts.
Sir, If we have rolling blackouts in the grid in the coming winters, where does the responsibility lie? Real engineers know that infrastructure projects take a decade to deliver. Our preoccupation with alternative energies that do not generate electricity for weeks on end in dark winters originates with the drafters of the Climate Change Bill, who should have taken heed of engineers. A lack of electricity on demand is characteristic of Third World countries, and our country has been betrayed that this should happen to us. We are contemplating sanctions for misbehaviour in the healthcare and banking sectors; why not in the energy policy sector?
Professor Michael J. Kelly
Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
Reader Comments (58)
I agree with Richard Hill (Jul 3, 2013 at 10:58 AM)
The politicians will just blame the scientific advisory institutions such as the Royal Society for giving them bad advice. The politiocians will weasel themselves out of blame and all of it will fall upon the scientists.
And I for one agree with this. The politicians will just do and say anything the voter wants them to do or say, which at present is to save the earth as per the new religion called environmentalism, but the scientists were the ones in a position to put a stop to it and put some reason and rationality back into this issue. The fact that they did not is imo unforgivable!
I agree with all who suggest judicial punishment.
I should, however, suggest that pitchforks, flaming torches and piano wire render most suggestions redundant.
à la lanterne!
I wonder if the Coalition leaders have twigged that the power cuts are most likely to first occur in the winter of 2015 just before the next General Election. Looks like Cameron and his Green leadership will be toast. I' m off to the bookies.
Jul 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM | johanna
////////////////////////////
Unfortunately, we do not have democracy in the UK. Most people vote not for the politics they like or agree with, but rather as a lesser of 2 or 3 evils. On the majority of issues, there is little to chose between the main parties, so there is no voter choice. Don'I forget that a Labour Government can get a majority with just about 30% of those who voted, so they can form a Government even though perhaps less than 20% of the population voted for them! I am all in favour of democracy and would like to see the introduction of Swiss style referendums on major issues.
But my comment has nothing to do with democracy. I am just suggesting that those in public office should be held responsible not for negligence but for gross negligence in the discharge of their duties. It would make those involved think carefully about their actions and I suspect that one would see far less in the way of unintended consequences because decision making and the effect of policy would be scruitinised in more detail.
One aspect of human nature is to avoid responsibilities, and liabilities. That suggests that those planning to go into public office would, prior to entering into office, re-arrange their affairs so that they had no assets (put everything in blind trusts, transfer assets to spouse, tranfer assets to shell companies), and this type of financial planning would continue whilst in office. That is why it would be necessary to be able to open up such arrangements.
Those who wish to tell others how to live, to impose their ideals on others, should expect to be held up to the highest standard. It goes with the turf.
Jul 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier
l
Jul 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews
Thank you.
Grumpy Old Man: was'nt it Mountbatten who commanded the Kelly?
OzJohnKebab: it's a fair point that our power catastrophe has yet to happen but many of these comments make it clear that the situation is dire. There is also the example of Germany which has had a couple of "events" despite its robust connections to other grids.
JamesG: I am a member of the IChemE and their policies and positions are very much like your description of the IMechE. This month's journal included an article calling for a clear decarbonisation target, citing "destructive" scepticism as a delaying influence and quoting the 97% meme. Depressing.
DodgyGeezer: you are right. I used to do a lot of work with the UK water industry and, in my opinion, we will have a "Network Water" crisis much like the railway's experience.
Yes, yes, yes, please bring about legal accountability in the energy policy sector. Please do.
Richard Verney
Democracy does not automatically mean that you get what you want in the way of options. The reality is that any major party that declared CAGW to be bunkum over the last ten years or so would have been soundly defeated, certainly in Australia and most likely in the UK as well. Every single poll showed that the vast majority of the population believed in it, or at at least did not disbelieve it.
That is beginning to change, and at least one of the major parties will have to change with it sooner or later. Our conservative coalition has a fair few sceptics in it, but they know that there is still too much residual belief in CAGW in the community - across supporters of all parties - to risk electoral suicide by saying so. Instead, like the Republicans in the US they are playing the economic angle, i.e. that the countermeasures such as the carbon tax are hobbling the economy while achieving virtually nothing on a global scale.
I have worked closely with politicians from all parties, and independents, for decades. Believe it or not, they are not (with a few exceptions) lazy, careless or out to deliberately harm the national interest. However, they are capable of self-delusion, groupthink and blind partisanship, perhaps more than your average engineer or scientist. That is the nature of the beast. It is rare for people who are not like this to succeed in politics - it's a requirement of the job.
As someone who holds our democratic freedoms very dear, I am alarmed enough by interventionist judges making a name for themselves by dreaming up their own interpretations of (in Australia) the Constitution. They are unelected, virtually unsackable and most of them have egos to match the most ambitious politician, having typically had stellar careers as barristers.
Plenty of bad decisions are made in good faith in every sphere of human activity. Politicians who believe what most of the population believe, and their specialist advisers tell them, are in that category also. When the voters decide that they are wrong, they will either change their tune or be turfed out.
If they are knowingly corrupt or dishonest, there are criminal laws to deal with that. But, being wrong or stupid about policy is not a crime, or a tort. If it was, that would be the end of democracy, imperfect as it is.