Blue Earth Summit

---

Energy security and affordability are front and centre in an alarmingly unstable world.

 

Donald Trump is talking a lot about short-term pain for long-term gain. Whether you agree with his politics or not, the phrase captures the reality of a world intent on remaining in a downward spiral of self-harm.

The escalating confrontation between Israel and Iran is driven by deep-rooted ideological differences and wider geopolitical manoeuvring. Israel’s actions are driven by the long-standing hostility from Iran’s leadership, which has repeatedly declared that the state of Israel should cease to exist. At the same time, the United States has its own strategic interests in a region rich in natural resources.

Add domestic political pressures in Washington, strategic competition with China, and the ever-present use of geopolitical crises as tools of distraction, and it becomes clear that this conflict will be an ongoing and incredibly costly battlefield. And to what end?

In that context, my focus is not on what cannot be controlled or changed, but on what can be taken out of the equation.

The global dependence on fossil fuels sits at the heart of much of the geopolitical tension in the Middle East. Oil and gas wealth, and the global economy’s reliance on it, have shaped decades of alliances, interventions and conflict. The continued pursuit of finite fossil energy while relying on political stability in regions that are often ideologically opposed to Western interests is, at best, an outdated strategy.

A future economy built on clean energy.

If we are serious about long-term stability, a logical response would be to double down on investments that reduce and ultimately end our dependency on fossil fuels.

Britain, in geopolitical terms, is a relatively small player in this particular conflict. Entering deeper into a struggle led primarily by Israel and the United States, both of whom have different objectives and definitions of success, is unlikely to shape the ultimate outcome.

It is my view that what Britain can effectively do is focus on something far more within its control: building energy security and affordability at home.

Forward-thinking nations will see the current events as an opportunity to accelerate the transition to a future economy built on clean energy.

Here in Britain, defence spending is already rising in response to global instability. The UK is moving towards spending more than 2.5% of GDP on defence, roughly £70 billion per year. All things considered, this increase is both sensible and unavoidable.

But we should not forget the parallel strategic investment available to us.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, reaching net zero may cost the public finances around £30 billion per year over the coming decades. Framed correctly,  this is not simply a climate policy cost,  it is an investment in a future economy delivering national resilience as the foundational driver of economic growth.

Energy systems powered by solar and wind with modern storage technologies offer something fossil fuels simply don’t. That is domestic control of a secure and affordable supply that does not cost the earth. Once the infrastructure is built, the energy itself does not need to be imported from politically volatile regions. It does not rely on fragile supply chains stretching across contested waterways. And it cannot be weaponised by hostile states in the same way oil and gas markets have been for decades.

“The transition to electrified, renewable energy systems is not only environmentally sound but strategically intelligent.”

Control by force is expensive, inhuman and historically ineffective. In a world where energy can increasingly be generated locally, stored efficiently and distributed through modern grids, the logic of fighting over finite resources buried underground looks increasingly outdated.

Britain has an opportunity here.

Rather than framing the energy transition through politicised slogans, the government should pursue it as a national economic and security strategy. Done properly, it can deliver three things simultaneously: long-term energy security, lower energy costs, and the foundations for sustainable economic growth.

I implore Ed Miliband to hold firm on his anti-war, pro-renewable stance. Those shaping Britain’s energy policy must remain steadfast in their commitment to renewable energy and long-term decarbonisation. The short-term costs need to be managed. The long-term rewards are limitless.

"Another epic fail."

The Middle East will remain a region of conflict for many years to come. Israel will continue to act in pursuit of its security objectives. Iran’s ideological hostility will not disappear overnight and will likely draw others in. The United States will continue to navigate its own strategic interests and historical patterns of intervention. I believe that this approach is destined to be another epic fail.

A better solution

Britain does not need to define its future through participation in these cycles.

We can proactively choose to remove ourselves from one of the underlying drivers of instability: dependence on fossil fuels.

The electrification of our economy, powered by renewable energy, goes well beyond being a climate response.  It is a better solution, with rapidly improving capability and capacity to make energy more secure, more affordable and less vulnerable to geopolitical turmoil.

In the context of short-term pain, this is a fight worth winning.