IEA Podcast

Former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Zion Lights joins Christopher Snowden to discuss her new book ‘Energy Is Life’ and her remarkable transformation from environmental activist promoting energy scarcity to advocate for nuclear power and technological abundance. Lights reveals the shocking hostility she faced from the Green Party simply for asking questions about nuclear energy, despite not even being pro-nuclear at the time. She explains how the environmental movement’s anti-technology stance and refusal to tolerate questioning ultimately drove her to break from her activist tribe and rethink everything she believed about energy and environmental solutions.
The conversation explores why modern environmentalism often opposes the very technologies that could solve climate challenges whilst reducing consumption and emissions. Lights argues that groups like Extinction Rebellion are fundamentally driven by a romanticised view of poverty and a desire to return humanity to pre-industrial simplicity, rooted in what she calls ‘immense privilege and abundance’. She discusses the practical potential of small modular reactors versus large-scale nuclear plants, the importance of building nuclear facilities in communities that already understand and support the technology, and why transparency in nuclear development is essential for public acceptance.
This wide-ranging discussion touches on fusion energy, desalination, artificial intelligence applications, and the psychological underpinnings of degrowth ideology. Lights makes a compelling case for why her new book represents a complete reversal of her 2015 publication promoting low-carbon lifestyles, and why questioning environmental orthodoxy remains so difficult within activist circles even today.
The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this special briefing episode, IEA Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz joins host Callum Price to discuss the latest instalment of the British Afuera series on Substack. Inspired by Javier Milei’s radical state reform in Argentina, the project examines which parts of the British state could be abolished entirely rather than simply cut back. Niemietz explains why this approach differs fundamentally from the Cameron-Osborne austerity years, which merely reduced spending across existing services rather than questioning whether the state should provide them at all.
Niemietz makes a bold case for abolishing the universal state pension system and replacing it with an Australian-style model based on private savings. He argues that roughly 80% of the British population are perfectly capable of saving for their own retirement, and that the current system, which costs 7.5% of GDP, is economically unjustifiable for the vast majority. Drawing on international comparisons, Niemietz shows how countries like Australia manage to spend just 4.5% of GDP on old age benefits whilst maintaining adequate safety nets for those genuinely unable to save, demonstrating that a savings-based system can deliver better outcomes without leaving the vulnerable behind.
The discussion covers the practical challenges of transitioning to such a system, including how to convert National Insurance into private pension savings, the risks of government interference in pension fund investment decisions, and how to design means-tested safety nets that don’t destroy savings incentives. Niemietz addresses common objections and explains why a capitalised pension system, where savings are invested in productive assets, delivers superior returns compared to the current pay-as-you-go model that depends on an ever-shrinking ratio of workers to retirees.
The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.
The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In her final IEA podcast before moving to Washington DC, Reem Ibrahim is joined by Director General Lord Frost and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz to examine two pressing economic questions: should we be optimistic about Britain’s economic future, and do we need a universal basic income because of artificial intelligence?
The conversation begins with a critical analysis of recent claims that Britain stands on the verge of economic recovery, driven by stored-up capital and AI productivity gains. Lord Frost and Niemietz push back against this optimism, arguing that Britain’s structural problems, particularly around energy policy and net zero constraints, make such a recovery unlikely. They contrast Britain’s anaemic 0.1% growth with America’s 3.5%, pointing to affordable energy as a crucial differentiator that UK policy actively undermines.
The discussion then turns to universal basic income, prompted by fears that AI will destroy jobs. Whilst acknowledging the theoretical free-market case for UBI as a replacement for the current welfare system, all three conclude it is a political fantasy. They argue that once introduced, UBI would prove impossible to reverse, would fail to meet the needs of specific groups requiring additional support, and would sever the essential link between work and market demand, creating what Niemietz calls a ‘self-indulgence economy’.
The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.
The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

In this episode of Free the Power, IEA climate and energy analyst Andy Mayer sits down with Henry Hill, deputy editor of Conservative Home, to dissect the failures and future of Britain’s net zero strategy. Hill argues that whilst net zero emissions remains an exciting prospect in theory, the government’s approach has been fundamentally flawed through ‘legacy by fiat’ legislation that sets distant targets without front-loading the necessary infrastructure investment. The conversation explores why politicians like Theresa May and Rishi Sunak preferred symbolic targets over the difficult upfront decisions required for nuclear power, tidal energy and the 400,000 kilometres of onshore cabling that experts say Britain needs.
The discussion reveals how affordability concerns have become central to the net zero debate, particularly during cost of living crises. Hill contends that no government can win re-election if people feel poorer at the end of its term, and that environmentalists must prioritise reconciling green policies with economic growth and rising living standards. Drawing on his 2023 Telegraph piece arguing the Tories needed to U-turn on how they were implementing net zero, Hill advocates for a nuclear-focused, technology-neutral approach that treats energy generation as a consumer good rather than a rationing exercise. He warns against mandates like the zero emissions vehicle requirement that drive up costs and remove consumer choice.
Looking ahead to the next election, Hill maps out starkly different scenarios depending on whether Britain gets a Conservative government, a Labour continuation, or a Reform-Conservative coalition. Whilst a single-party Conservative government would likely maintain modified net zero commitments with stricter cost-of-living protections, a Reform-led coalition might scrap the entire agenda to find budget savings for their working-class electorate. Throughout, Hill emphasises that green initiatives must focus on technological innovation and R&D investment rather than demand suppression, arguing that Britain’s over-complicated government processes and ‘everything bagel liberalism’ have crowded out practical solutions in favour of politically correct box-ticking.
The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.
The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

John Cochrane, fellow of the Hoover Institution and author of “The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level”, joins us to discuss the West’s economic stagnation and what it would take to restore robust growth. From America’s slowdown to Britain and Europe’s near-zero growth since 2010, Cochrane diagnoses the fundamental supply-side challenges holding back prosperity and explains why the UK’s GDP per capita of £52,000 lags so far behind America’s £80,000 and Singapore’s £90,000.
The conversation explores what Cochrane calls the “Marie Kondo approach” to economic policy, where growth requires systematic institutional reform rather than stimulus spending. He analyses everything from California’s failing £100 billion high-speed rail project to Britain’s planning system, arguing that cost disease and regulatory sclerosis have made it impossibly expensive to build anything. Cochrane also examines why the 2021 inflation proved secular stagnation theory wrong and what “frontier growth” versus “catch-up growth” means for different economies.
In the final section, Cochrane turns to fiscal crises and financial reform, warning that sovereign default is now a realistic possibility for major economies including the United States. He makes the case for narrow banking to prevent future financial crises, explains why there is no such thing as “maturity transformation”, and offers a surprisingly optimistic view that political change can happen faster than anyone expects, pointing to Trump’s election and Argentina’s libertarian president as examples of rapid shifts in the politically possible.
The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe