Boris says the West must end its addiction to Russian energy but is swapping it for Saudi oil any better? The Foreign Secretary’s defence is that Putin’s actions have “torn up the global order”, therefore Britain must now “work with countries we don’t like” – a sobering dose of realpolitik.
But as senior Conservative MP and chairman of the Parliamentary intelligence committee Julian Lewis points out, the danger is that we “end up creating a source of dependency on another unreliable and sometimes hostile regime”. And what does it say about our principles as a nation, if indeed we have any at all?
We are asked to believe that the Prime Minister’s indecorous attempt at desert diplomacy is merely a stop-gap on the way to eventual energy security, but does anyone seriously think that Britain is capable of such a dramatic transformation? The very fact that Boris has dashed to Saudi Arabia in the first place is, as former Labour leader and now shadow climate secretary Ed Miliband described it “a sign of our vulnerability and energy insecurity”.
Our record on this front is risible. Coal production has all but ended. Our gas storage capabilities are the worst in Europe. We’ve neglected carbon capture. New nuclear power remains too expensive; and the public doesn’t want it. Fracking is now dead. The regulator has refused to grant permission for new North Sea drilling, and we’ve been too slow to develop renewables.
Ethical investing isn’t an exact science. Indeed, it’s a quagmire of confusion and conflicting positions that at times is tricky to navigate. For example, the question of whether to invest in defence companies may have seemed more black and white only a couple of months ago. It is no longer so straightforward to advocate divesting from BAE if it is helping to arm Ukraine against the Russians. Equally isn’t it fair to now ask why the Church of England was an investor in Russia in the first place?
It need not be an either/or question. Most people probably want a safer, cleaner world where we are not arming the Saudis or burning fossil fuels but is it unreasonable to expect that more consideration is given to ensuring we aren’t propping up dodgy regimes in other parts of the world at the same time?
