I draw the Chamber’s attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests: my shareholding in Bridgen Investments, a company that generates considerable volumes of green electricity.
This estimates debate is extremely important, especially considering how lively the debate is in the field of climate science—not reflected in the Chamber today. Given the effects on a population already struggling with energy bills; the growing public awareness of doom-mongers with their deadlines that never actually come to pass; the extreme sacrifices being forced on us all, which may be futile in the face of China, Russia and India continuing to increase their use of fossil fuels enormously, it appears that the Government are taking one side of a scientific argument and, once again, declaring it to be an unchallengeable fact.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who is no longer in her place, is clearly a champion of wind and solar technology. There is a place for those technologies, but the question I wanted to ask her, though she refused my intervention—perhaps the Minister will help her out when summing up—is that on those long, cold winter nights when the wind does not blow, if we rely on solar and wind power, what will keep our houses warm and industry running?
The fact is that the UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. On that basis, we are voluntarily rejecting entire established industries that have been proven to work to keep us warm, fed and sheltered. We are asked to reject those for the fantasies of Just Stop Oil protesters and Leonardo DiCaprio-esque climate scientists. We are asked to reject those for technologies that either do not yet exist or have not been proven at scale. The Government cannot prove many of the concepts we have heard about. I seem to remember that for the last 40 years, fusion reactors have always been 20 years away. If I asked the Minister, I think we would find that they are still 20 years away today.
We are asked to reject technologies for those that do not even exist and are not proven at scale. Not only can the Government not explain exactly what technologies we will use, but they cannot give an accurate estimate of what it will cost. According to some estimates, the drive to net zero could cost £1 trillion, or even £3 trillion. If that is on the lower side, £1,000 billion will be slammed on the overdraft of the generations to follow us. I am not sure they will thank us. As with all failed experiments, the only certainty is that when the bill comes in, the people will have to pay.
I am reminded of the beacon—or, more accurately, the white elephant—of Government planning and procurement that is High Speed 2. Here we go again. It appears that the Government are using the same behavioural science tactics relied on recently to sell us a storm in our teacups. We have seen it again and again. The answer is to make it scary and make it soon. We saw it with acid rain, the ozone layer and Al Gore. Voters have seen Government Ministers alongside Greta Thunberg and her five-year prediction that, by now, humanity would have ceased to exist and been wiped out. She has deleted that tweet, by the way.
There is an inconvenient truth, and the net zero legislators are desperate to hide from it. On renewables—solar and wind alone—energy security is so important. It relies on diversity alone. Renewables are not going be able to provide certainty of supply for our homes and our industry of the future.