Green energy and rush to net zero will push us towards bankruptcy

Everybody must be aware that the Policy & Resources Committee have spent months and months telling us that the island has no money. Their proposed solution to our financial woes was the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax, with the additional borrowing of £350m. This proposal, along with several amendments, was defeated in the States. Perhaps it was too expensive (the tax and the borrowing, especially at current interest rates).

Was this not the same Assembly who, only a few weeks ago, agreed an ‘Electricity Strategy’ for the Bailiwick (or was it just for Guernsey?) that, at current pricing (presumably computer modelled) will cost the tax-payers £1.73bn. That’s alright though, as Environment have assured us that this scheme will save the island £200m. What a bargain.

Sadly, political decisions made beyond our shores but now signed up to by a member of our government, have legally bound us to net zero by 2030.

This action was not based on good science but on political wishes backed by corporate greed.

If the island is not already bankrupt, then it will be very soon. Purely so that we can signal how virtuous we are being in, supposedly saving the planet. If the Earth is really in danger of bursting into flame because of the use of fossil fuels, why is nothing being done to dissuade Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa from building ever more fossil-fuelled power stations? I read that the Chinese have agreed to stop building these power stations by 2050. Are we really to believe that they will stop using them from that date?

So it will cost the island now and in the next decade close to £2bn, without making any difference to the state of the planet.

We will be reliant on French goodwill to supply us with power as ‘alternative energy’ sources such as solar panels and wind generators will not be sufficient to fulfil the demand for electricity in Guernsey.

These alternative energy sources are nowhere near as clean and green as described by the people selling them to us. Promised lifespans of at best, 25 years means that they will need replacing at the end of their useful lives. Is this why they are known as renewables? Another £2bn (+ inflation) by 2050.

There is also the question of disposal of these units once they are no longer of use. Recycling is incredibly expensive (in fact more than the cost of a replacement). So they go off to landfill. Very risky. Having arsenic (a dangerous carcinogen) in their composition would put our water supply at risk. Will we be irresponsible enough to put other people at risk by sending all our waste overseas?

I hope that this answers your question Geoff, and good luck Guernsey.

P N HUGO

St Andrew’s