Entangled Alliances

photo credit: CatDancing

This week, drowned out by the clamorous roar of the global recession a small but significant event occurred simultaneously across both the UK and France. IRENA, established in 2008, convened formally for the first time on 26th January 2009, it’s a new organisation, similar to the IEA designed to provide policy advice and coordination for renewable energy among its members and to encourage technology transfers to developing countries. 55 countries, including many of Europe’s big hitters such as Germany, Denmark and Spain  have signed on and the US is expected to join in the near future, however the UK and France, despite leadership rhetoric on Climate change have both decided to watch from the sidelines.

IRENA’s founders, argue that the IEA, the current global energy body, favours fossil fuel energy sources and underestimates the role renewable energy can play (see a report by the EWG (Energy Watch Group) which emphasises this). With investment in renewable energies ramping up, IRENA has every chance of becoming a key player in the coordination of international renewable energy policy, so why are both the UK and France on the sidelines?

According to Le Monde despite some support from the French Minister of Ecology Jean-Louis Boloo, the French Foreign Ministry indicated resistance to joining IRENA; noting that it disagreed with English as the sole language of negotiation and that the Elysee was distinctly cool on the idea. Taken at face value you would think these reasons to be petty or disingenuous and you’d be right.

While we can only speculate as to the exact reason, one reason for France’s cool attitude could be a strategic one. Nearly three-quarters of French power comes from Nuclear power station, with partially state owned company EDF a world leader in this field. France has been a vocal proponent of exemptions for nuclear power stations in EU climate negotiations and EDF is licking its lips at the prospect of a new generation of  nuclear power stations as a green alternative to coal and gas.  This isn’t to say the French are against renewable energy, but approach with distinct caution.

By contrast, the UK could only dream of such strategic detachment, its non-participation masks far deeper problems with UK energy. While the French are looking at future energy markets with a view to guarding their share of investments, the UK’s energy policy has been one of total disarray , in fact the UK hasn’t had a coherent energy policy since the 1980s and is now looking at a bleak picture for at least the next 10 years, given an expected shortfall is set to occur around 2015, as evidenced in leaked Government documents reported in the Guardian.

The problem for the UK is twofold. On the one hand, an energy shortage has severe implications for the economy, from rising energy costs, to power shortages as well as the rising cost to the UK of every tonne of carbon in the cap and trade system. On the other hand the UK as yet still has no coherent energy policy making the likelihood of a shortfall period all the more likely.

The UK’s scatter gun approach to energy policy can be seen in its recent announcements. They range from from the good, a Department of Energy and Climate Change report indicating that offshore wind could power every UK home by 2020. To the bad, the possible construction of Kingsnorth power station without even carbon capture technology fitted, (flying in the face of the UK’s attempts to position itself as a leader on global climate change). To the ugly, the potentially messy attempt to build a new generation of nuclear power stations and renew old sites, such as Brown’s recent support for a Sellafield plant – sure to engender serious environmental protest and not just from green groups, but also MP led NIMBY-ism.

Britain’s lack of coherent energy policy has also led it into conflict with the EU as it seeks to water down the LCPD (Large Combustion Plant Directive) legislation which seeks broadly, to phase out dirty power plants. The UK is not unused to being out of step with Europe but being out of step with the global community, a critical portion of which IRENA may come to represent poses greater risks.

Both countries, undoubtedly, are waiting to take the temperature on the Obama administration’s commitment to Climate change. If the US presses for more aggressive action and a global treaty  then both will have the political capital from a globally binding treaty to press for a greener domestic energy policy , both able to placate their citizens that the burden of higher costs will not be theirs alone to bear.

The waiting game strategy isn’t entirely unreasonable, if the US puts its weight behind a global treaty not only would that bring China and India to the table, both of who have indicated that any negotiations are meaningless without the US but would also guarantee a more stable future investment climate for renewable energy. If that occurred the UK and France may well switch from laggers to leaders to put their companies at the forefront of rising investment in renewable energy and their current absence excused.