Conservative says Beijing may be 'playing the bad guy' to grab green profits 20 years ahead
Tweet this
Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent The Guardian, Monday 19 July 2010
Britons might have to buy extra carbon trading credits to take more than a couple of flights a year, says Conservative green thinker Tim Yeo.
Britain and other western countries are in danger of being left behind by China which is investing "furiously" in low carbon technology, aiming to profit from tough climate change targets in the next 20 years, a leading Tory warns today.
Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons energy and climate change select committee, says China may deliberately be acting the "bad guy" to divert attention from preparations for a low carbon economy.
China faced international criticism last year for scuppering the Copenhagen climate change talks after Wen Jiabao, the prime minister, declined to attend the negotiations. Mark Lynas, a witness to the negotiations, accused the Chinese of wrecking the talks by insisting on an "awful" deal so western leaders would be blamed.
In a new book on climate change – Green Gold: The Case for Raising our Game on Climate Change – Yeo says the west needs to be careful about depicting China as the world's bête noir. China insisted at Copenhagen that an 80% cut in greenhouse gases emissions by 2050 should be taken out of the agreement.
Yeo says in an interview it is a great mistake to assume China is "completely off the page" on climate change. "They are using this period furiously, while their economy is growing, to invest in low-carbon technology. They are rolling out a high-speed rail network in very short order, so that will cut the demand for domestic flights in China; they are investing quite heavily in renewable energy; they have got quite demanding vehicle standards; they have a quite impressive tree planting programme."
Yeo says the west could be in for a shock. "These are all things that will stand them in very good stead in the 2020s. The danger is that we wake up in 10 years' time and find they've overtaken us."
Yeo, an environment minister in John Major's government, warns in his book that parts of the world will become inhospitable for people alive today unless tough action is taken soon.
Britain must be prepared to embark on radical steps, such as the introduction of personal carbon trading, if it is to play a leading role in combating climate change. Under his plan, people would be given a carbon credit that would allow them to make, for example, one transatlantic and one short haul flight a year. People who fly more than that would have to buy carbon credits on the equivalent of a credit card.
"People have got to get used to making low carbon choices. If they have a direct incentive to do so they will think about it. Many times a day you have a choice between a low carbon option and a high carbon option, whether it is at home or at work. This would be one way of bringing the whole issue to life."
Monday, 19 July 2010
Britain at risk of being left behind in low carbon future
Britain is at risk of being left behind in the race to develop green energy because of the failure to invest in new technologies, Government advisers have warned.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 5:56PM BST 19 Jul 2010
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said the only way Britain will meet legally-binding targets to cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent over the next 40 years is to invest in low carbon technologies like offshore wind, electric cars and solar panels.
But whilst the rest of the world is pumping cash into research, the UK spends less than one per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) on developing new technologies. In comparison the US spends three times as much of its national income on green energy.
The new Government has also recently cut £34 million of funding for new projects like offshore wind and solar.
Rather than developing new industry like the Silicon Valley in the US, the CCC fear British industry will be left behind in a ‘Valley of Death’ without the funding to develop ideas or manufacture products.
The CCC was set up to ensure the UK meets a key target to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050.
But it warned that any more cuts to the £550 million a year put aside for research and development will mean the country fails to meet the legally-binding target. The expert group recommended investment in nuclear, clean coal and a suite of renewables to cut reliance on fossil fuels.
Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, said even in times of ‘austerity’ it was essential to invest in new ways to keep the lights on.
He pointed out that the countries left behind will have to pay more for electricity.
“Innovation will be enormously important if the UK is to meet its climate change goals and to do so affordably,” he said.
Tim Yeo, the Tory MP, also said the UK will be left behind as new economies like China surge ahead using wind and wave power.
In a new pamphlet Green Gold he suggested the UK should try more radical moves to cut carbon such as road pricing and rationing carbon allowances.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 5:56PM BST 19 Jul 2010
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said the only way Britain will meet legally-binding targets to cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent over the next 40 years is to invest in low carbon technologies like offshore wind, electric cars and solar panels.
But whilst the rest of the world is pumping cash into research, the UK spends less than one per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) on developing new technologies. In comparison the US spends three times as much of its national income on green energy.
The new Government has also recently cut £34 million of funding for new projects like offshore wind and solar.
Rather than developing new industry like the Silicon Valley in the US, the CCC fear British industry will be left behind in a ‘Valley of Death’ without the funding to develop ideas or manufacture products.
The CCC was set up to ensure the UK meets a key target to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050.
But it warned that any more cuts to the £550 million a year put aside for research and development will mean the country fails to meet the legally-binding target. The expert group recommended investment in nuclear, clean coal and a suite of renewables to cut reliance on fossil fuels.
Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, said even in times of ‘austerity’ it was essential to invest in new ways to keep the lights on.
He pointed out that the countries left behind will have to pay more for electricity.
“Innovation will be enormously important if the UK is to meet its climate change goals and to do so affordably,” he said.
Tim Yeo, the Tory MP, also said the UK will be left behind as new economies like China surge ahead using wind and wave power.
In a new pamphlet Green Gold he suggested the UK should try more radical moves to cut carbon such as road pricing and rationing carbon allowances.
Palestinians build solar car from scratch
Students overcome scant resources to put green prototype on Hebron's diesel and donkey polluted roads
Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 July 2010 20.05 BST
Visitors to the West Bank town of Hebron this summer might find a strange-looking white vehicle motoring through its streets – the first Palestinian solar-powered car.
The product of an environmentally friendly project for Palestinian engineering students, the car is bedecked with banks of solar panels and doesn't manage to reach a speed much above 19mph (30kph) – but it is being lauded as a feat of creative engineering in the face of limited funds and scant resources.
"It was a complicated project and our students designed and built everything in this car from scratch," says Dr Zahdi Salhab, director of the mechanical engineering department at Palestine Polytechnic University in Hebron.
The car, which took several months to design, is equipped with a 2bhp electric engine fed by a battery that stores energy harnessed by roof-mounted reflective solar panels.
Although the region is blessed with abundant sunshine, the car battery can also be charged using mains electricity on cloudy days.
The three students responsible for the car were part of a project developing renewable energy sources to replace the diesel, petrol or donkey power more often employed in the area. "We have almost no industry, so nearly all our pollution is from vehicles," says Dr Salhab.
He hopes that the project will attract funding to enable another stage in development, so that the car could potentially be put to use across the West Bank. "It cost around $4,000 [£2,600] to build, but we would need double that to build a real car that will perform better, go faster, for longer and be able to drive in all conditions."
This corner of the world is already well-known in the field of electric car technology: Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi runs the Better Place electric car company, which launched a pilot electric car network two years ago. The company seeks to have electric cars available for commercial use in Israel by 2011.
Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 July 2010 20.05 BST
Visitors to the West Bank town of Hebron this summer might find a strange-looking white vehicle motoring through its streets – the first Palestinian solar-powered car.
The product of an environmentally friendly project for Palestinian engineering students, the car is bedecked with banks of solar panels and doesn't manage to reach a speed much above 19mph (30kph) – but it is being lauded as a feat of creative engineering in the face of limited funds and scant resources.
"It was a complicated project and our students designed and built everything in this car from scratch," says Dr Zahdi Salhab, director of the mechanical engineering department at Palestine Polytechnic University in Hebron.
The car, which took several months to design, is equipped with a 2bhp electric engine fed by a battery that stores energy harnessed by roof-mounted reflective solar panels.
Although the region is blessed with abundant sunshine, the car battery can also be charged using mains electricity on cloudy days.
The three students responsible for the car were part of a project developing renewable energy sources to replace the diesel, petrol or donkey power more often employed in the area. "We have almost no industry, so nearly all our pollution is from vehicles," says Dr Salhab.
He hopes that the project will attract funding to enable another stage in development, so that the car could potentially be put to use across the West Bank. "It cost around $4,000 [£2,600] to build, but we would need double that to build a real car that will perform better, go faster, for longer and be able to drive in all conditions."
This corner of the world is already well-known in the field of electric car technology: Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi runs the Better Place electric car company, which launched a pilot electric car network two years ago. The company seeks to have electric cars available for commercial use in Israel by 2011.
UK warned not to abandon low-carbon technology drive
Technology to deliver renewable energy, electric cars and efficient homes risks falling into a 'valley of death' and will never reach the market without government support, report warns
• Comment: Funding cuts will finish Britain's clean energy race
Alok Jha guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 July 2010 14.39 BST
Low-carbon technologies must continue to get government support, or risk falling into the "valley of death" where they never reach market, according to the latest report from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
The independent body set up to report on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, recommended that the UK must protect funding for green industries and identified offshore wind, carbon capture and storage and smart grids among the six priority areas that should be nurtured in order for the UK to meet its ambitious carbon-reduction targets.
The government has committed to an 80% cut in carbon emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2050. The CCC said that reducing current levels of funding – around £550m per year – on the development of clean electricity or energy-efficient buildings would risk the UK missing its carbon budgets and also any opportunities to bolster a new green economy after the recession.
Professor Julia King, a committee member, said that the case for action was strong. "With adequate funding, new policies and strengthened delivery arrangements, we would expect UK firms to take leading roles in the development of key technologies, driving down emissions to meet carbon budgets and targets, and fulfilling the new government's clear objective to build a low-carbon economy. We urge the government to put the appropriate low-carbon technology support arrangements in place to unlock environmental and wider economic benefits".
The committee highlighted offshore wind as having the lowest cost path to decarbonising the electricity grid and meeting the UK government's target to source 15% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. This will require the construction of 13GW of capacity, at a cost of up to £50m per year in research and development. Further down the line, the UK could also use its leading position in marine engineering to harness up to 65GW of wave and tidal energy in the seas around the country.
Other priorities identified by the CCC include using the UK's well-established CO2 transportation network to build carbon capture and storage for power plants, which could reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power stations by up to 90% by storing the gas underground. Smart meters and smart grids will help balance electrical loads and in particular as more electric vehicles hit the UK's roads in the coming decades and need charging from mains supplies.
The CCC added that the government should protect the £230m initiative to subsidise the uptake of electric cars and £30m to establish a national battery charging network. To meet the CCC's target of 1.7m electric vehicles on the road by 2020, government needs to invest up to £800m.
Finally, the CCC called for government support for aviation, for the development of advanced wings and engines, as well as investigation of radical new technologies (such as blended wings) that could help reduce the industry's carbon footprint.
Tom Delay, the chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said the report had come at an important time. "We welcome the recognition of the need for continued and expanded funding for wise, focused and output-driven low-carbon innovation. Good innovation that leverages private sector investment, and focuses on UK benefit is a must. It will deliver significant economic opportunity for the UK as well as helping us meet our short and long term carbon targets."
The CCC report is published in the wake of government announcements last week of £34m of cuts to projects aimed at developing low-carbon technology in the UK.
In a letter to the climate secretary Chris Huhne, former climate secretary Ed Miliband called on the government to to stand up against "free-market zealots" and restore funding for green industries.
"After helping to lead the debate in changing the balance of our economy in a more sustainable direction, you are now turning your back on green industry and risk undermining the UK's growing reputation around the world for leadership in this field," he wrote. "You claimed to be the 'greenest government ever' but so far you are turning your back on green jobs and green industry."
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said that the CCC's report should sound alarm bells all over government. "The committee is telling us that removing support for clean, low-carbon industries today could threaten Britain's economic recovery for years to come. Renewable energy, electric cars and efficient homes can provide thousands of new jobs and real prosperity but only if investors know that this coalition is serious about helping to spark a low carbon industrial revolution."
John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, said: "Innovation will be enormously important if the UK is to meet its climate change goals, and to do so affordably. We need to develop and deploy the most promising low carbon technologies quickly across all sectors. In times of austerity we must also make sure we invest public money to maximum effect. I welcome the committee's advice in this critical area."
Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons energy and climate change select committee, warned today that the UK and other western countries risk being left behind by China, which is investing heavily in low-carbon technology. He said: "They are using this period furiously, while their economy is growing, to invest in low-carbon technology. They are rolling out a high-speed rail network in very short order, so that will cut the demand for domestic flights in China; they are investing quite heavily in renewable energy; they have got quite demanding vehicle standards; they have a quite impressive tree planting programme."
• Comment: Funding cuts will finish Britain's clean energy race
Alok Jha guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 July 2010 14.39 BST
Low-carbon technologies must continue to get government support, or risk falling into the "valley of death" where they never reach market, according to the latest report from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
The independent body set up to report on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, recommended that the UK must protect funding for green industries and identified offshore wind, carbon capture and storage and smart grids among the six priority areas that should be nurtured in order for the UK to meet its ambitious carbon-reduction targets.
The government has committed to an 80% cut in carbon emissions relative to 1990 levels by 2050. The CCC said that reducing current levels of funding – around £550m per year – on the development of clean electricity or energy-efficient buildings would risk the UK missing its carbon budgets and also any opportunities to bolster a new green economy after the recession.
Professor Julia King, a committee member, said that the case for action was strong. "With adequate funding, new policies and strengthened delivery arrangements, we would expect UK firms to take leading roles in the development of key technologies, driving down emissions to meet carbon budgets and targets, and fulfilling the new government's clear objective to build a low-carbon economy. We urge the government to put the appropriate low-carbon technology support arrangements in place to unlock environmental and wider economic benefits".
The committee highlighted offshore wind as having the lowest cost path to decarbonising the electricity grid and meeting the UK government's target to source 15% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. This will require the construction of 13GW of capacity, at a cost of up to £50m per year in research and development. Further down the line, the UK could also use its leading position in marine engineering to harness up to 65GW of wave and tidal energy in the seas around the country.
Other priorities identified by the CCC include using the UK's well-established CO2 transportation network to build carbon capture and storage for power plants, which could reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power stations by up to 90% by storing the gas underground. Smart meters and smart grids will help balance electrical loads and in particular as more electric vehicles hit the UK's roads in the coming decades and need charging from mains supplies.
The CCC added that the government should protect the £230m initiative to subsidise the uptake of electric cars and £30m to establish a national battery charging network. To meet the CCC's target of 1.7m electric vehicles on the road by 2020, government needs to invest up to £800m.
Finally, the CCC called for government support for aviation, for the development of advanced wings and engines, as well as investigation of radical new technologies (such as blended wings) that could help reduce the industry's carbon footprint.
Tom Delay, the chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said the report had come at an important time. "We welcome the recognition of the need for continued and expanded funding for wise, focused and output-driven low-carbon innovation. Good innovation that leverages private sector investment, and focuses on UK benefit is a must. It will deliver significant economic opportunity for the UK as well as helping us meet our short and long term carbon targets."
The CCC report is published in the wake of government announcements last week of £34m of cuts to projects aimed at developing low-carbon technology in the UK.
In a letter to the climate secretary Chris Huhne, former climate secretary Ed Miliband called on the government to to stand up against "free-market zealots" and restore funding for green industries.
"After helping to lead the debate in changing the balance of our economy in a more sustainable direction, you are now turning your back on green industry and risk undermining the UK's growing reputation around the world for leadership in this field," he wrote. "You claimed to be the 'greenest government ever' but so far you are turning your back on green jobs and green industry."
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said that the CCC's report should sound alarm bells all over government. "The committee is telling us that removing support for clean, low-carbon industries today could threaten Britain's economic recovery for years to come. Renewable energy, electric cars and efficient homes can provide thousands of new jobs and real prosperity but only if investors know that this coalition is serious about helping to spark a low carbon industrial revolution."
John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, said: "Innovation will be enormously important if the UK is to meet its climate change goals, and to do so affordably. We need to develop and deploy the most promising low carbon technologies quickly across all sectors. In times of austerity we must also make sure we invest public money to maximum effect. I welcome the committee's advice in this critical area."
Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons energy and climate change select committee, warned today that the UK and other western countries risk being left behind by China, which is investing heavily in low-carbon technology. He said: "They are using this period furiously, while their economy is growing, to invest in low-carbon technology. They are rolling out a high-speed rail network in very short order, so that will cut the demand for domestic flights in China; they are investing quite heavily in renewable energy; they have got quite demanding vehicle standards; they have a quite impressive tree planting programme."
Funding cuts will finish Britain's clean energy race
The UK is losing out to countries with poorer natural resources but greater willingness to invest
Chris Goodall guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 July 2010 15.35 BST
In the 1970s the UK invested about 0.15% of GDP each year in research and development (R&D) into providing cheaper and cleaner energy. Britain was putting more public money into nuclear power and other new sources of electricity than almost any other economy.
From the mid-1980s the amount invested each year has fallen almost continuously. The figure today is about 0.01%, one 15th of what it was a generation ago. We now sit at the bottom of the international league. The US, for example, spends three times as much as a percentage of its GDP, Japan nine times as much.
The UK government announced last week that it was cutting yet more money from of the energy R&D budget. Some £34m is to be axed, affecting low-carbon technology programmes including offshore wind, wood fuels, building insulation and geothermal energy. This represents a reduction of just under 20% of total public expenditure on low-carbon technologies. This figure is on top of the cancellation of the £80m loan to Sheffield Forgemasters that would have paid for much of the installation of a new press to make the huge parts necessary for new nuclear power stations.
As the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) swung its axe, the government's own Committee on Climate Change was busy today stressing the need for continued public support for nascent energy technologies. Last week's cuts saw DECC reducing the research expenditure on offshore wind by £3m, just as the CCC suggested that the industry needs £50m a year of public money.
The committee says that the UK needs to increase the percentage of heating needs met from renewable sources from under 1% today to 12% by 2020. But the DECC cuts include a £5m reduction in the programme to increase the use of wood and agricultural wastes as sources of heat. As is so often the case, the government is ignoring the advice of its own experts.
The UK could produce as much as half of its electricity needs from the waters around our islands and although we have several companies with world-leading expertise, we continue to invest less in marine energy than the annual subsidy to London's two main opera houses. The CCC has pointed out that the wave and tidal power industries could be a major source of jobs and income for Britain, but the country needs to invest several hundred millions a year over the next decades for this success to be achieved.
Marine energy was not one of the support programmes sliced last week but there is clearly no prospect of any increase in the minimal sums devoted to supporting the industry. The UK had a fighting chance of becoming the world's major exporter of tidal and wave power equipment but, as with wind power two decades ago, we will lose out to countries with poorer natural resources but greater willingness to invest in hugely expensive R&D.
Nevertheless, the taxpayers who fund public expenditure would be right to ask one simple question about Britain's record. Exactly what did we get from the large sums put into R&D in the 1970s? Did the UK's investments provide a good return then? The answer to this question is an unambiguous no.
Much of the money was spent on nuclear electricity and apart from the single power station at Sizewell it is hard to identify much benefit. Planning delays, cost overruns and public worries over safety meant that the taxpayers' investment was largely wasted. However this does not mean that public R&D should be cut today. Progress in the energy industries around the world has historically been driven by government money.
The Stern review provided cogent reasons for why private R&D will never provide a large share of the many billions needed around the world to shift energy use away from fossil fuels. So although we can be absolutely sure that much public R&D in this country will be misspent, we simply have no alternative but to push ahead with wind, wave, electric cars and carbon capture research.
Without substantial increases in public investment, the £10-20bn a year that has to be spent on energy infrastructure in the next few decades will largely go into fossil fuel technologies, increasing the climate change problem and reducing Britain's energy security.
Chris Goodall guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 July 2010 15.35 BST
In the 1970s the UK invested about 0.15% of GDP each year in research and development (R&D) into providing cheaper and cleaner energy. Britain was putting more public money into nuclear power and other new sources of electricity than almost any other economy.
From the mid-1980s the amount invested each year has fallen almost continuously. The figure today is about 0.01%, one 15th of what it was a generation ago. We now sit at the bottom of the international league. The US, for example, spends three times as much as a percentage of its GDP, Japan nine times as much.
The UK government announced last week that it was cutting yet more money from of the energy R&D budget. Some £34m is to be axed, affecting low-carbon technology programmes including offshore wind, wood fuels, building insulation and geothermal energy. This represents a reduction of just under 20% of total public expenditure on low-carbon technologies. This figure is on top of the cancellation of the £80m loan to Sheffield Forgemasters that would have paid for much of the installation of a new press to make the huge parts necessary for new nuclear power stations.
As the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) swung its axe, the government's own Committee on Climate Change was busy today stressing the need for continued public support for nascent energy technologies. Last week's cuts saw DECC reducing the research expenditure on offshore wind by £3m, just as the CCC suggested that the industry needs £50m a year of public money.
The committee says that the UK needs to increase the percentage of heating needs met from renewable sources from under 1% today to 12% by 2020. But the DECC cuts include a £5m reduction in the programme to increase the use of wood and agricultural wastes as sources of heat. As is so often the case, the government is ignoring the advice of its own experts.
The UK could produce as much as half of its electricity needs from the waters around our islands and although we have several companies with world-leading expertise, we continue to invest less in marine energy than the annual subsidy to London's two main opera houses. The CCC has pointed out that the wave and tidal power industries could be a major source of jobs and income for Britain, but the country needs to invest several hundred millions a year over the next decades for this success to be achieved.
Marine energy was not one of the support programmes sliced last week but there is clearly no prospect of any increase in the minimal sums devoted to supporting the industry. The UK had a fighting chance of becoming the world's major exporter of tidal and wave power equipment but, as with wind power two decades ago, we will lose out to countries with poorer natural resources but greater willingness to invest in hugely expensive R&D.
Nevertheless, the taxpayers who fund public expenditure would be right to ask one simple question about Britain's record. Exactly what did we get from the large sums put into R&D in the 1970s? Did the UK's investments provide a good return then? The answer to this question is an unambiguous no.
Much of the money was spent on nuclear electricity and apart from the single power station at Sizewell it is hard to identify much benefit. Planning delays, cost overruns and public worries over safety meant that the taxpayers' investment was largely wasted. However this does not mean that public R&D should be cut today. Progress in the energy industries around the world has historically been driven by government money.
The Stern review provided cogent reasons for why private R&D will never provide a large share of the many billions needed around the world to shift energy use away from fossil fuels. So although we can be absolutely sure that much public R&D in this country will be misspent, we simply have no alternative but to push ahead with wind, wave, electric cars and carbon capture research.
Without substantial increases in public investment, the £10-20bn a year that has to be spent on energy infrastructure in the next few decades will largely go into fossil fuel technologies, increasing the climate change problem and reducing Britain's energy security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
