Letter: Brutal plans for energy conservation
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Matthew Taylor (article, 19 May) wrote of Labour's commitment to the environment, "Tough action is needed." It certainly is.
In 1979 those of us serving on the Government's Advisory Council for Energy Conservation (ACEC) soon learnt about political correctness and party dogma from the incoming administration. We were told to stop using the term, "energy conservation" and to speak of "energy efficiency". That soon became, "cost-effective energy efficiency" and, of course, even ACEC itself was soon sent packing.
This had much to do with the intention to privatise the fuel suppliers. How could the proceeds from the sales be maximised if markets were to be curtailed by "energy conservation" - selling less product?
Eighteen years on, the UK languishes at the bottom of the world league even in "energy efficiency", let alone in "conservation". British Gas's much-vaunted pounds 15m-a-year spend on energy conservation quietly disappeared once the company had left the family silver cabinet. The electricity industry has its paltry pounds 1-per-customer-per-year SOP scheme and even most of the non-fossil fuel levy has been diverted into the technological triumphalism of nuclear power.
A few years ago I heard Frank Dobson saying at a conference that the fuel suppliers had to realise that environmental protection would only be achieved if they were made to sell less energy tomorrow than they did today. The same could apply to the water industry. Mr Dobson is the only politician I have heard putting the matter so succinctly and, for the fuel profiteers, so brutally. Mr Blair needs to take the ideal aboard - and quickly.
ROBERT JONES
Chelmsford, Essex
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments