This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/01/amber-rudd-dont-destroy-the-wind-power-industry

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Amber Rudd, don't destroy the wind power industry Amber Rudd, don't destroy the wind power industry
(35 minutes later)
The onshore wind industry is facing an unprecedented challenge to its survival. How did we get to this point?
A government comes unexpectedly to power. Now it must implement brave manifesto commitments or risk backbench revolt. Those backbenchers are important to its 12-seat majority. The government is riding a tiger. And the tiger may get too hungry for an individual minister to dismount.A government comes unexpectedly to power. Now it must implement brave manifesto commitments or risk backbench revolt. Those backbenchers are important to its 12-seat majority. The government is riding a tiger. And the tiger may get too hungry for an individual minister to dismount.
But a government has wider responsibilities – to investors in the UK, to the maintenance of jobs, to fairness and proportionality, and to the common wealth. Perhaps those manifesto commitments were a bit too brave? What to do?But a government has wider responsibilities – to investors in the UK, to the maintenance of jobs, to fairness and proportionality, and to the common wealth. Perhaps those manifesto commitments were a bit too brave? What to do?
Enter stage right Amber Rudd, the new secretary of state for energy and a declared supporter of renewables, but now tasked to fulfil a promise insisted upon by a small minority of party members with one simple aim: the wilful destruction of an industry.Enter stage right Amber Rudd, the new secretary of state for energy and a declared supporter of renewables, but now tasked to fulfil a promise insisted upon by a small minority of party members with one simple aim: the wilful destruction of an industry.
The onshore wind industry has achieved remarkable success in the UK. It employs 19,000 people. It generates more than 5% of the UK’s electricity needs. It generates power at lower cost than new nuclear. And according to government figures, reinforced on repeated occasions, it is supported by at least two-thirds of the UK population. Indeed a flagship success story.The onshore wind industry has achieved remarkable success in the UK. It employs 19,000 people. It generates more than 5% of the UK’s electricity needs. It generates power at lower cost than new nuclear. And according to government figures, reinforced on repeated occasions, it is supported by at least two-thirds of the UK population. Indeed a flagship success story.
Related: UK renewable energy industry warns of legal action over subsidiesRelated: UK renewable energy industry warns of legal action over subsidies
But the secretary of state is tasked with the destruction of this industry. Why? No one really knows, but we can be clear that those driving the minister forward with pitchforks have a visceral hatred of the appearance of wind turbines. In the knowledge that this is a poor argument in a world where the alternatives are no more attractive and are more polluting, this unrepresentative minority claims that wind produces no real power. Well, a cheap 5% of the UK’s electricity needs doesn’t sound too shabby to me. If support remains in place, we’ll be able to provide 10%. The brutal truth is that the lockers of the rabid few are empty of real argument.But the secretary of state is tasked with the destruction of this industry. Why? No one really knows, but we can be clear that those driving the minister forward with pitchforks have a visceral hatred of the appearance of wind turbines. In the knowledge that this is a poor argument in a world where the alternatives are no more attractive and are more polluting, this unrepresentative minority claims that wind produces no real power. Well, a cheap 5% of the UK’s electricity needs doesn’t sound too shabby to me. If support remains in place, we’ll be able to provide 10%. The brutal truth is that the lockers of the rabid few are empty of real argument.
So what to do?So what to do?
Minister, I have worked with the onshore wind industry since before the construction of the first wind farm, and with five governments. Until the last administration all governments, under whatever pressures, recognised the absolute need for regulatory stability, consulted widely, and above all did not act retrospectively.Minister, I have worked with the onshore wind industry since before the construction of the first wind farm, and with five governments. Until the last administration all governments, under whatever pressures, recognised the absolute need for regulatory stability, consulted widely, and above all did not act retrospectively.
But the last government, pushed on by the increasingly frantic, wholly unrepresentative, minority of MPs with a mortal fear of Ukip, behaved without restraint. The secretary of state for communities and local government treated the well-respected planning system as his personal political instrument, intervening personally in onshore wind applications in an unprecedented number of cases. And the government tried to retroactively change the rules for solar power.But the last government, pushed on by the increasingly frantic, wholly unrepresentative, minority of MPs with a mortal fear of Ukip, behaved without restraint. The secretary of state for communities and local government treated the well-respected planning system as his personal political instrument, intervening personally in onshore wind applications in an unprecedented number of cases. And the government tried to retroactively change the rules for solar power.
The result? The government lost on four occasions in the courts on the issue of solar power, most recently in the supreme court in April. And the attractiveness of the UK’s renewable energy sector to inward investors was downgraded in the respected Ernst and Young country attractiveness index. So we arrived at a “perfect storm” of legal challenges, policy confusion and market changes. In our global economy, regulatory fiddling and uncertainty can make all Rome burn.The result? The government lost on four occasions in the courts on the issue of solar power, most recently in the supreme court in April. And the attractiveness of the UK’s renewable energy sector to inward investors was downgraded in the respected Ernst and Young country attractiveness index. So we arrived at a “perfect storm” of legal challenges, policy confusion and market changes. In our global economy, regulatory fiddling and uncertainty can make all Rome burn.
Minister, please talk to us before you act. We recognise the pressures on you. There are solutions which need not damage confidence in the UK or in your government as one for all of us and not just for a few dangerous, ill-informed and visibly rabid party members. Please be aware of the dangers of state aid discrimination and look at what is happening in international energy arbitration across Europe. In such a position we could not afford not to fight, especially if action is taken to interfere retrospectively. But this can be avoided, and you can be remembered as the secretary of state who restored regulatory confidence, brought in investment, made a visible success of your energy brief, and who generally restored the republic. We look forward to our dialogue.Minister, please talk to us before you act. We recognise the pressures on you. There are solutions which need not damage confidence in the UK or in your government as one for all of us and not just for a few dangerous, ill-informed and visibly rabid party members. Please be aware of the dangers of state aid discrimination and look at what is happening in international energy arbitration across Europe. In such a position we could not afford not to fight, especially if action is taken to interfere retrospectively. But this can be avoided, and you can be remembered as the secretary of state who restored regulatory confidence, brought in investment, made a visible success of your energy brief, and who generally restored the republic. We look forward to our dialogue.