The people have spoken. It is not cheaper, more secure energy that people want, it is more expensive, higher risk energy with a dash for fracking.
I am glad we got that cleared up. It seemed irrational to me that we would choose the easy path to clean, secure and cheaper energy solutions when we could make things harder for ourselves and our economy by investing in alternatives.
Hopefully there will be some sort of job swap scheme, so the 30,000 or so whose jobs depend on the construction and maintenance of onshore wind can seamlessly switch their allegiance to pumping chemicals into the ground and burning the gas that is squeezed to the surface.
I am expecting a book anytime soon which will show how the natural laws of economics can bend and flex according to the politics of the day. We have certainly seen some inspired economic thinking. How halting the development of the cheapest form of renewable energy will ‘save millions’ and how an industry needs to stand on ‘its own two feet’ (and compete with technologies such as nuclear, tracking and off shore wind which are all subsidy hungry – whatever the double speak which defines ‘contracts for difference’ as not a subsidy).
We look forward to the arguments being used to get rid of other things ‘we don’t really like’ which will transform our rural economy back into its natural state of tidy fields, farm labourers doffing their caps to the local squire and labradors able to run free without fear of subsonic noise interference and flicker.
If you think that you are perhaps accidentally reading the Daily Mash, it is worth noting this story of everyday rural development. I was recently told about a local blacksmith being ‘reclassified’ as ‘heavy industry’ because the noise of his hammering disturbed a local couple and therefore having to move to an ‘industrial estate’ away from his farmer clients.
Really we don’t need satire when we have irrational economics.