I used to think cancellation was for culture warriors and comedians, not economists. But when I made a mundane economic point that extracting more North Sea oil will not reduce UK energy bills, I suddenly found myself no-platformed, writes Professor Matthew Agarwala.
I was invited to speak on energy-transition panels in fringe events at the LibDem, Labour and Conservative conferences.* The events were sponsored by Offshore Energies UK (OEUK, a lobbying firm previously known as Oil and Gas UK) and organised by Total Politics, an events management firm.
Following my remarks at the LibDem event, an e-mail from Total Politics informed me that after “careful consideration of the overall direction of the fringe event… we no longer require you to speak” at the other conferences. I was told “Ultimately, our client felt that it was important to ensure that all messaging at the event aligns very closely with OEUK’s priorities during this particularly sensitive moment for their advocacy efforts.”
In follow-up phone calls, I was informed that speakers typically ‘all agree with each other… it’s not meant to be an interesting thing’ and that the points I made are not what OEUK’s members would want to see presented to MPs ‘especially when the sector is so desperate for movement in this budget’.**
What did I say to get cancelled?
Those who know me will easily believe I didn’t prepare notes ahead of time. It’s a failing I should work on but I do it because the only thing I hate more than feeling scripted on a panel is watching a scripted panel. However, I thought it went well so immediately after the event, scribbled down my key points, not particularly controversial among economists:
- Oil and gas are an important part of the UK economy today, but will not be in future as we hit net zero.
- UK fossil fuel extraction does not reduce UK energy prices. This is because oil and gas firms (like all profit maximising companies) sell to the highest bidder. If they can get more by selling internationally, they do. There is no ‘locals discount’. (In full disclosure, it was mostly the audience that made this point, not me. I merely asked, (i) ‘How many of you have business experience?’, and (ii) ‘Given the choice of selling your product for a low price locally, or a higher price internationally, what would you do?.’ The answer was unanimous.)
- The cheapest oil and gas production in the world is in the Middle East, not in the North Sea.
- Of the six recessions the UK has suffered since 1970, half were caused or severely exacerbated by fossil fuel price spikes. None were caused by renewable price spikes.
- UK energy prices are comparatively high because of policy and regulatory choices about the design of the electricity market, and a prolonged failure to invest in infrastructure.
- Net Zero does not cause high energy prices. Neither sunshine nor wind have increased in price. In fact, renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels – even after subsidy – on all continents.
- UK policy decisions about where to levy taxes to support Net Zero investments have created perverse incentives: we taxed clean electricity instead of dirty gas, which is exactly backwards.
- UK government policy since the discovery of North Sea Oil in the 1960s has consistently failed to capture the economic benefits of fossil fuel resources. The UK and Norway found oil at the same time, but Norway established a sovereign wealth fund (now the world’s largest) with assets of 1.4tn, or about $250k per Norwegian. If the UK had followed the Norwegian model, we could have a sovereign wealth fund worth around £1.1tn, equivalently £16k per Briton or 1/3rd of the UK national debt.
The UK sovereign wealth fund figures are back of the envelope calculations: the estimates depend on assumptions about what investment decisions would have been made over half a century ago. But the UK had a head start on Norway, extracting more oil and gas, earlier so with the power of compounding these should be fairly moderate figures.
None of these points is revolutionary, and I’m no radical on these issues (often frustratingly so to some of my colleagues). The oil industry enables me to visit family and collaborate with governments and academics around the world. I appreciate how expanding aviation could boost UK growth and productivity. Economics also teaches us that what counts are the net benefits of aviation, including the gains from sharing ideas, cultures, and business across borders as well as all the carbon, air, and noise pollution costs.
What lessons do I draw from my cancellation experience?
Lesson 1: Demand expertise, or get propaganda. If governments, businesses, and communities want cleaner growth, lower bills, better health, and higher productivity, there are many experts in UK universities who can advise. But they must have a seat at the table.
Lesson 2: Engage in good faith, but don’t go quietly. It’s important to engage – including with the oil and gas industry. I would be pleased to take part if OEUK’s subsequent invitation to me to join another discussion with an influential public and policy audience is genuine.
Lesson 3: Don’t cancel people with whom you disagree or it might backfire. Two otherwise easily forgettable panel discussions have now been flagged in Private Eye (No. 1659), a top 5 trending article in The Guardian, and – I hope – another public debate.
The wider moral of this saga is that it’s another reminder of how unwelcome expertise has become in public debate. Even lobbyists need to hear reasoned arguments against their case, if they want credibility, while politicians need to hear about uncomfortable realities if they want their policies to work.
*As ‘fringe’ events, these panels took place at party conferences, but are not organised by the parties themselves.
**To their credit, OEUK did offer a meeting with their CEO and, when contacted for comment by the Guardian’s Deputy Political Editor, reached out to explore the possibility of me speaking at another public event in London (which I very much hope can go forward, with a suitable platform).
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Bennett Institute for Public Policy.
