Tom Tugendhat calls for Britain to ditch Labour's 'Stalinist' Net Zero approach to unlock growth
Tom Tugendhat claims Keir Starmer 'cannot make a decision that keeps Britain safe'
|GB NEWS

Mr Tugendhat will say the goals of decarbonisation and energy security should not be in competition
Don't Miss
Most Read
Tom Tugendhat is set to call for Britain to ditch Labour's 'Stalinist' approach to Net Zero in a bid to unlock growth and cheap energy.
The Former Security Minister will tomorrow deliver the Conservative Environment Network's annual Sam Barker Memorial Lecture, where he will call for Britain to drop Labour's Net Zero strategy.
The MP plans to urge a fundamental change in environmental policy, moving away from rationing and scarcity towards an approach centred on abundance.
Mr Tugendhat will argue that protecting Britain's environment requires rejecting regulators who obstruct vital infrastructure projects and instead focusing on delivering cheap, plentiful energy supplies.
The speech will make the case that economic growth, national security and environmental protection must work together rather than compete, with clean energy and security concerns treated as inseparable goals.
In the speech, Mr Tugendhat will say Britain's environmental strategy has been "socialist" and "Stalinist" rather than one promoting growth and cleaner outcomes.
"The Government has gone down a road that reminds me of Stalin's famous line about 'socialism in one country', and every home in the country is feeling the rising energy prices that are closing factories and pushing business overseas," he will say.
"We worshipped penury, scarcity and refusal and pretended it was virtue.

Tomorrow, Tom Tugendhat will say Britain's environmental strategy has been 'socialist' and 'Stalinist' rather than one promoting growth and cleaner outcomes
|FLICKR/HOUSE OF COMMONS
"So we find ourselves losing support for the ambition to conserve and failing to demonstrate the improvements that will release energy and opportunity.
"We have worn hairshirts and failed to develop the new technologies that can replace the old, carbon-hungry industries because we have put the cost of energy and the cost of transition out of reach."
Mr Tugendhat will argue the state has allowed regulators to become obstacles rather than enablers, blocking necessary infrastructure development.
"For most of the past two decades, we have not been pursuing a policy of environmental transition but constraint," he will tell the audience.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

The former Security minister described Ed Miliband's plan as a 'remarkable step backwards'
|PA
He will say: "Government policy has militated against construction and legislated against development, layering burdens one on top of another, with each rule and each report seeming to justify the existence of the regulator, not protect the future for our children."
The former minister will claim: "The simple truth is that the statutory remits of Ofgem, the Environment Agency and Natural England all quietly bias them, every time, towards the easy answer: no."
"We haven't chosen to switch from carbon to renewables, we've chosen to reject power. That's a remarkable step backwards and, ironically, away from a carbon-free future."
The former Security Minister will argue that emerging clean technologies cannot succeed without affordable electricity to power them.
"There is a deeper problem still, and it goes to the technologies that will actually finish the job of cleaning up our economy.
"Nuclear power, large and small, long-duration storage, geothermal, fusion, direct air capture, hydrogen, and the smart, flexible grids that tie all of it together all share a single feature: to be economic, to be worth building at all, they need abundant, cheap electricity.
"Heat pumps tell the same story. Until electricity is cheaper than gas, they're a cost not a help and because we load levies onto the electricity bill not the gas, the ratio is the wrong way round.
"So let me put it plainly: a climate strategy built on scarcity is fragile by design, it cannot survive a recession, or a war, or an oil shock, because the moment times get hard the public withdraws its consent, and understandably so."
The speech will conclude that: "Energy security and environmental progress are not competing priorities to be balanced. They are, for the most part, the same priority with the same solution."










