The blanket coverage of yesterday’s historic independence vote in Scotland included dire warnings that a Yes victory might have jeopardized £14 billion (US$23 billion) in renewable power investments and 12,000 jobs, and that the Yes campaign had overestimated future revenues from offshore oil reserves. Two of the more measured analyses came from ex-U.S. DOE official Allan Hoffman and Climate Central’s James West. Hoffman observed that “the Scottish government says it is on course for half of electricity use to come from renewable sources by 2015,” and “there seems to be little doubt that Scotland has the renewable energy resources to meet its ambitious 2020 electricity goal.” West noted that the loss of green energy produced in Scotland would have made it tougher for the (remaining) United Kingdom to meet an EU-mandated target of 15% renewables by 2020. He also cited analysis by Bloomberg suggesting that the entire UK subsidizes Scotland’s renewable energy production. But none of the conversation about Scottish oil production factored in the reality that 80% of the world’s known fossil fuel resources are unburnable in any plausible low-carbon scenario. The morning after the vote, the unasked, unanswered question is: If the country is in for a serious reckoning on oil reserves and revenues, which leadership will do the best by Scotland: The Scottish National Party, or the British Conservatives?
- Be among the first to read The Energy Mix Weekender
- A brand new weekly digest containing exclusive and essential climate stories from around the world.
- The Weekender:The climate news you need.
