Plantation of a shrub once hailed as the great new hope for biofuels will result in up to six times the greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuels, according to a new report.
Jatropha has been planted across Asia in countries under pressure from the West to reduce emissions from the destruction of rainforests, car exhausts and energy production from coal-burning power plants.
But the study for the anti-poverty agency ActionAid and the RSPB of a proposed 50,000 hectare jatropha plantation development in the Dakatcha woodlands of Kenya, near Malindi, found that emissions in producing the biofuel would be 2.5 to six times higher than the fossil fuel equivalents. The woodland hosts globally endangered bird life.
The research examined the whole "life-cycle" of the jatropha production, primarily the clearance of woodland and scrubland, planting, harvesting, refining and transportation of the bio-diesel destined for heating and electricity production in Europe.
"Biofuels are far from the miracle climate cure they were thought to be," said Tim Rice, ActionAid's biofuel expert. "Like most other biofuels, jatropha could actually end up increasing carbon emissions."
Demand for biofuels is soaring around the globe, especially in developed countries where they are subsidised because they hold out the prospect of lower emissions. New EU targets under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) requires 10 per cent of transport to be powered by renewable by 2020, almost entirely from biofuels.
The growing demand for biofuels led many Asian countries to plan vast plantations of jatropha, which grows on land unsuitable for food production, to feed the imminent gold rush and counter their own green house gas emissions.
Indonesia aimed to have 1.5 million hectares of land under jatropha crops by last year, while India planned 1.18 million hectares, though falling oil prices and growing question marks about it sustainability saw those targets scaled back.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
Budget 2011: Osborne poised to ditch CCS levy
FT reports suggest budget will scrap plans for carbon capture levy in favour of electricity market reforms
Business Green guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 16.28 GMT
Chancellor George Osborne is tomorrow expected to confirm that plans for a new levy on energy bills that should help fund three carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will be ditched.
According to reports in the Financial Times citing industry and government sources, ministers have now concluded that the government's proposed electricity market reforms and plans to place a floor price on carbon emissions will provide energy companies with sufficient incentive to develop CCS plants without the need for a specific levy.
As part of last autumn's spending review, the coalition had announced that it would fund at least three further plants through either direct government grants or a levy on energy bills designed to raise up to £3bn, in addition to providing £1bn of funding to the UK's first CCS demonstration project.
However, the Financial Times reported that a levy has been ruled out in response to ongoing concerns about rising energy bills at a time when household budgets are being squeezed.
Ministers now appear to be putting all their faith in the ongoing electricity market reform proposals as the main mechanism for driving investment in low-carbon energy technologies.
Osborne is also expected to use the budget to provide further details on how the Treasury will impose a carbon floor price on energy generators, which will be designed to make carbon-intensive energy more expensive and incentivise energy firms to invest in renewables, nuclear power and CCS.
Sources told the Financial Times that the government could also use the money raised by the Treasury through the carbon floor price to help fund future CCS projects.
However, energy firms remain deeply concerned that unless the floor price is set at the right level, generators will only be incentivised to invest in one or two forms of established low-carbon energy, such as nuclear and onshore wind farms, while more costly emerging technologies such as CCS and marine energy will be sidelined.
The government is attempting to alleviate these concerns through complementary proposals, such as an emissions performance standard for new power plants that would effectively ban new coal-fired power plants built without CCS.
But many within the emerging CCS industry doubt energy firms will invest in untested carbon capture technology without some form of direct financial support from government.
Speculation is also mounting that Osborne could use the budget to confirm that the one remaining project in the running for the government's £1bn CCS demonstration project, Scottish Power's Longannet plant in Scotland, will be awarded the funding.
Business Green guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 16.28 GMT
Chancellor George Osborne is tomorrow expected to confirm that plans for a new levy on energy bills that should help fund three carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects will be ditched.
According to reports in the Financial Times citing industry and government sources, ministers have now concluded that the government's proposed electricity market reforms and plans to place a floor price on carbon emissions will provide energy companies with sufficient incentive to develop CCS plants without the need for a specific levy.
As part of last autumn's spending review, the coalition had announced that it would fund at least three further plants through either direct government grants or a levy on energy bills designed to raise up to £3bn, in addition to providing £1bn of funding to the UK's first CCS demonstration project.
However, the Financial Times reported that a levy has been ruled out in response to ongoing concerns about rising energy bills at a time when household budgets are being squeezed.
Ministers now appear to be putting all their faith in the ongoing electricity market reform proposals as the main mechanism for driving investment in low-carbon energy technologies.
Osborne is also expected to use the budget to provide further details on how the Treasury will impose a carbon floor price on energy generators, which will be designed to make carbon-intensive energy more expensive and incentivise energy firms to invest in renewables, nuclear power and CCS.
Sources told the Financial Times that the government could also use the money raised by the Treasury through the carbon floor price to help fund future CCS projects.
However, energy firms remain deeply concerned that unless the floor price is set at the right level, generators will only be incentivised to invest in one or two forms of established low-carbon energy, such as nuclear and onshore wind farms, while more costly emerging technologies such as CCS and marine energy will be sidelined.
The government is attempting to alleviate these concerns through complementary proposals, such as an emissions performance standard for new power plants that would effectively ban new coal-fired power plants built without CCS.
But many within the emerging CCS industry doubt energy firms will invest in untested carbon capture technology without some form of direct financial support from government.
Speculation is also mounting that Osborne could use the budget to confirm that the one remaining project in the running for the government's £1bn CCS demonstration project, Scottish Power's Longannet plant in Scotland, will be awarded the funding.
Budget 2011: The key green announcements to watch for
It's make or break time for some of the coalition's biggest environmental policies including the totemic green investment bank. Plus: a possible windfall for nuclear power
"If I become chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe." Those were the brave words spoken by George Osborne in opposition, before he'd met the stony-faced officials. Now he has to deliver.
The budget on Wednesday is the make-or-break moment for some of the coalition's flagship green policies, specifically the green investment bank (GIB). The prime minister appears bullish, with David Cameron repeating his promise to be the "greenest government ever" twice on Monday, in support of Climate Week and WWF's Earth Hour, backed up by Greg Barker doing the same on this site.
But the reality is shaping up to be rather different, according to those I have spoken to and the advance briefing to the press. On the GIB, fuel duty, air passenger duty and the carbon floor price - a tax on highly polluting activities - the likely result seems more brown than green.
Green investment bank: This is the big one and the coalition has nowhere to hide. The GIB is intended to play a central role in driving the huge investment - £370bn by 2025, say some – needed in low carbon infrastructure in order to make the UK's economy green and sustainable.
The GIB was a Conservative and LibDem manifesto pledge, and a coalition pledge. MPs on the environment audit committee made plain that only an independent bank that can borrow and issue bonds would be equal to the scale of the challenge. But Treasury officials have put up a fierce fight, not wanting to cede its control over government borrowing and adamant that allowing GIB borrowing is impossible, as it would add to the national debt. (The latter is an infuriating quirk of accountancy rules - GIB borrowing would not increase the UK's deficit – all money going out would be balanced by money coming in – but would count towards the national debt.)
So the question is will Cameron, Clegg and Osborne face down the Treasury? The latest prediction is that the GIB will be able to borrow – good – but not till 2015 – bad. That stinks of a compromise that allows ministers to keep their word in letter but not in spirit. To re-use Chris Huhne's analogy – "ducks quack, and banks borrow as well as lend" – this fudge would mean the GIB could quack, but not fly.
Air passenger duty: Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are rising fast and make up the biggest part of the total carbon footprint of many in the developed world. The only green aviation policy is to make the price of flying match its impact – aviation fuel is untaxed, for example. But this government, like the last, will not put environmental principles above popular politics, saying in effect to voters "times are hard, you need a cheap holiday". Having abandoned a very sensible proposal to switch a per-passenger to a per-plane tax, discouraging empty flights, the government is now set to abandon a planned rise in the passenger tax.
Fuel duty: This is the most widely signposted of all the budget measures and has a fiscal impact that dwarfs all the other green measures: the government will not impose the planned fuel duty rise, giving up £540m a year. Again, this is understandable politically: a vast number of people use their cars to get to work and rising fuels prices hit them hard and fast. But without measures to address the root of the problem – oil dependency, as articulated by Chris Huhne – this is a retrograde environmental step. What measures you ask? How about reversing the cuts to public transport or the faster deployment of electric cars?
Carbon capture and storage demonstrations: The story of CCS in the UK is a sorry one to date. The nation has a unique combination of expertise (oil, gas, coal) and geography (empty North Sea reservoirs) and yet has dithered and dallied for years on making the crucial initial investment to get the technology from the experimental to the commercial stage.
The coalition impressively found £1bn of real cash to fund the first demonstration, but still hasn't announce the winner of the competition (which has only one remaining contender). But the bigger question is whether the further three demonstrations promised by the government will get the funding as planned via a levy on energy customers bills? The problem for ministers is that there are already significant levies on bills – will they want to add more? The budget should give the answer.
Carbon floor price: This, in theory, is a good thing. A transparent tax on activities that release CO2, putting a price on the damage the pollution causes and making clean alternatives relatively cheaper. But the consultation has a price that's too low to make any difference at one end and at the other end a price that, once passed from energy companies on to consumers, threatens to drive up those suffering fuel poverty.
There is another pitfall too: the carbon floor price could deliver billions in windfall profits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations in the UK, which generate low carbon electricity. The green solution is a medium to high price linked to measures to address fuel poverty, to prevent huge nuclear windfalls and to make clear how the revenue raised would be used to increase energy security and sustainability.
Green deal, planning, CRC: Other things to watch out for in the budget include changes to Decc's Green Deal. As it stands only the cheaper energy efficiency measures – eg cavity wall insulation – will pass the green deal's "golden rule", in which the cost savings in home energy bills must be more than the loan repayments. Some have mooted linking take up with a cut in stamp duty.
Further "simplification" of the carbon reduction commitment (CRC) is expected, which the government "simplified" at the last budget by turning it from a potential incentive into a tax. Planning issues are also worth keeping an eye on - will the desire for growth mean Osborne hacks back planning regulations, even though greens say this approach doesn't work?
Let me know what you think of the above, and what I have missed, now and on Wednesday. I'll be live tweeting (@dpcarrington) and blogging via the Guardian's budget live blog. Our Green-o-meter is starting to twitch .
"If I become chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe." Those were the brave words spoken by George Osborne in opposition, before he'd met the stony-faced officials. Now he has to deliver.
The budget on Wednesday is the make-or-break moment for some of the coalition's flagship green policies, specifically the green investment bank (GIB). The prime minister appears bullish, with David Cameron repeating his promise to be the "greenest government ever" twice on Monday, in support of Climate Week and WWF's Earth Hour, backed up by Greg Barker doing the same on this site.
But the reality is shaping up to be rather different, according to those I have spoken to and the advance briefing to the press. On the GIB, fuel duty, air passenger duty and the carbon floor price - a tax on highly polluting activities - the likely result seems more brown than green.
Green investment bank: This is the big one and the coalition has nowhere to hide. The GIB is intended to play a central role in driving the huge investment - £370bn by 2025, say some – needed in low carbon infrastructure in order to make the UK's economy green and sustainable.
The GIB was a Conservative and LibDem manifesto pledge, and a coalition pledge. MPs on the environment audit committee made plain that only an independent bank that can borrow and issue bonds would be equal to the scale of the challenge. But Treasury officials have put up a fierce fight, not wanting to cede its control over government borrowing and adamant that allowing GIB borrowing is impossible, as it would add to the national debt. (The latter is an infuriating quirk of accountancy rules - GIB borrowing would not increase the UK's deficit – all money going out would be balanced by money coming in – but would count towards the national debt.)
So the question is will Cameron, Clegg and Osborne face down the Treasury? The latest prediction is that the GIB will be able to borrow – good – but not till 2015 – bad. That stinks of a compromise that allows ministers to keep their word in letter but not in spirit. To re-use Chris Huhne's analogy – "ducks quack, and banks borrow as well as lend" – this fudge would mean the GIB could quack, but not fly.
Air passenger duty: Greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are rising fast and make up the biggest part of the total carbon footprint of many in the developed world. The only green aviation policy is to make the price of flying match its impact – aviation fuel is untaxed, for example. But this government, like the last, will not put environmental principles above popular politics, saying in effect to voters "times are hard, you need a cheap holiday". Having abandoned a very sensible proposal to switch a per-passenger to a per-plane tax, discouraging empty flights, the government is now set to abandon a planned rise in the passenger tax.
Fuel duty: This is the most widely signposted of all the budget measures and has a fiscal impact that dwarfs all the other green measures: the government will not impose the planned fuel duty rise, giving up £540m a year. Again, this is understandable politically: a vast number of people use their cars to get to work and rising fuels prices hit them hard and fast. But without measures to address the root of the problem – oil dependency, as articulated by Chris Huhne – this is a retrograde environmental step. What measures you ask? How about reversing the cuts to public transport or the faster deployment of electric cars?
Carbon capture and storage demonstrations: The story of CCS in the UK is a sorry one to date. The nation has a unique combination of expertise (oil, gas, coal) and geography (empty North Sea reservoirs) and yet has dithered and dallied for years on making the crucial initial investment to get the technology from the experimental to the commercial stage.
The coalition impressively found £1bn of real cash to fund the first demonstration, but still hasn't announce the winner of the competition (which has only one remaining contender). But the bigger question is whether the further three demonstrations promised by the government will get the funding as planned via a levy on energy customers bills? The problem for ministers is that there are already significant levies on bills – will they want to add more? The budget should give the answer.
Carbon floor price: This, in theory, is a good thing. A transparent tax on activities that release CO2, putting a price on the damage the pollution causes and making clean alternatives relatively cheaper. But the consultation has a price that's too low to make any difference at one end and at the other end a price that, once passed from energy companies on to consumers, threatens to drive up those suffering fuel poverty.
There is another pitfall too: the carbon floor price could deliver billions in windfall profits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations in the UK, which generate low carbon electricity. The green solution is a medium to high price linked to measures to address fuel poverty, to prevent huge nuclear windfalls and to make clear how the revenue raised would be used to increase energy security and sustainability.
Green deal, planning, CRC: Other things to watch out for in the budget include changes to Decc's Green Deal. As it stands only the cheaper energy efficiency measures – eg cavity wall insulation – will pass the green deal's "golden rule", in which the cost savings in home energy bills must be more than the loan repayments. Some have mooted linking take up with a cut in stamp duty.
Further "simplification" of the carbon reduction commitment (CRC) is expected, which the government "simplified" at the last budget by turning it from a potential incentive into a tax. Planning issues are also worth keeping an eye on - will the desire for growth mean Osborne hacks back planning regulations, even though greens say this approach doesn't work?
Let me know what you think of the above, and what I have missed, now and on Wednesday. I'll be live tweeting (@dpcarrington) and blogging via the Guardian's budget live blog. Our Green-o-meter is starting to twitch .
An open letter to Greg Barker, butcher of the feed-in tariff
Greg – it is not too late to spare your blushes. Work with us and let's fix this case study in how not to amend policy
Huw Irranca-Davies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 14.44 GMT
The shambolic handling of the solar power review by government has sadly demonstrated a shocking level of ministerial incompetence. Caught red-handed in the act of sabotaging the fledgling feed-in-tariffs that pay people for producing solar energy, climate minister Greg Barker has thrashed around wildly for someone to blame it on. "It was them, guv'nor!" he says, pointing a shaking finger at the previous government, or poor economic modelling (ie the civil servants), or the nasty capitalist solar park developers.
The minister justifies his shock treatment of the sector by "put[ting] a stop to the threat of larger scale solar soaking up the cash". Yet he hasn't only stopped what he initially fingered as the villains in the piece (the very large solar parks on greenfield sites). He hasn't just stopped larger industrial installations on supermarkets or huge industrial buildings. He has also jeopardised medium-sized installations above 50 kw – including many schools, hospitals, churches and community facilities – which would have dramatically scaled up the jobs in manufacturing and installation and servicing, and helped reduce carbon emissions.
There is an unedifying arrogance to this so-called "greenest government ever" which is beginning to worry the wider renewables sector. Rather than try and fix a problem by working with and consulting with the solar sector and with the green groups who supported the feed-in tariff, the government has provided a case-study in how not to amend policy:
• First, put uncertainty into the market by signalling an earlier than expected review of a sector that is only just beginning to bloom. Later, justify that uncertainty by background briefing from a former Cameron aide, who explains it was a deliberate ruse to take steam out of the sector, adding insult to injury. This isn't Machiavellian politics … it's Captain Mainwaring.
• Secondly, in discussions with industry during the autumn, signal to them that the adjustments would be carefully considered to deal with the identified problem: suggest that the megawatt capacity may be reduced, maybe to as low as 2MW, or even 1 MW; that greenfield sites may be completely ruled out. But stress that you're going to be careful not to cut the legs off the scheme.
• Lastly, cut the legs off the scheme. Shock everyone by going way beyond what you've indicated to them in private meetings, destroying their belief in anything you say, and in so doing destroying your credibility with renewables investors and green organisations. And yes minister, the ripples from this fiasco go beyond the solar sector, as the renewables sector and the related investment community are a small and intimately connected bunch.
To top it all, then tell everyone how they can trust this government with future reviews of the feed-in-tariffs (as the laughter begins) and the Renewable Heat Incentive (laughter rises); that the Green Investment Bank is safe in their hands (now deafening laughter); and that investors can trust this government to provide a stable platform for renewables investment in the UK (stop there, you're killing me!).
So we now have until May to persuade ministers to start listening to people like Ray Noble of the Renewable Energy Association who have said: "It's an absolute disaster … no new projects will start after this [the review changes] comes into effect," adding "this industry has been strangled at birth". Or Barbara Hammon, chair of West Oxford Community Renewables – the very sort of social enterprise the government says it wants to support – who complains: "This government came in saying they are all about the 'big society', but this is big government writ large." Or Andrew Lee of Sharp Solar, who employs 1,100 in manufacturing in Wrexham, who describes this as: "Terrible news for the renewable energy sector – the steep rise in job creation will stop and morale within the industry will drop as a result of this remarkable U-turn." Or Friends of the Earth, or the Solar Trade Association, or the Micropower Council … I could go on. The voices are legion, and very angry because of this shameful betrayal.
So, minister, a helpful word from the opposition benches. From someone who recently wrote to you offering help in extricating yourself from this mess. Work with us and green groups and the solar sector to get this right by May. Your temporary embarrassment can be eased by swallowing some humble pie, and listening to wise counsel. More importantly, we can rescue the situation and put confidence back in the renewables sector overall, grow our green jobs again, and hit our carbon reduction targets.
PS. Minister, by the way, talking about uncertainty: already I'm hearing murmurings of discontent over your decision to delay the domestic tariff on the Renewable Heat Incentive. This looks like a worrying pattern ... another coalition day, another coalition delay?
• Huw Irranca-Davies is the shadow energy minister
Huw Irranca-Davies
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 March 2011 14.44 GMT
The shambolic handling of the solar power review by government has sadly demonstrated a shocking level of ministerial incompetence. Caught red-handed in the act of sabotaging the fledgling feed-in-tariffs that pay people for producing solar energy, climate minister Greg Barker has thrashed around wildly for someone to blame it on. "It was them, guv'nor!" he says, pointing a shaking finger at the previous government, or poor economic modelling (ie the civil servants), or the nasty capitalist solar park developers.
The minister justifies his shock treatment of the sector by "put[ting] a stop to the threat of larger scale solar soaking up the cash". Yet he hasn't only stopped what he initially fingered as the villains in the piece (the very large solar parks on greenfield sites). He hasn't just stopped larger industrial installations on supermarkets or huge industrial buildings. He has also jeopardised medium-sized installations above 50 kw – including many schools, hospitals, churches and community facilities – which would have dramatically scaled up the jobs in manufacturing and installation and servicing, and helped reduce carbon emissions.
There is an unedifying arrogance to this so-called "greenest government ever" which is beginning to worry the wider renewables sector. Rather than try and fix a problem by working with and consulting with the solar sector and with the green groups who supported the feed-in tariff, the government has provided a case-study in how not to amend policy:
• First, put uncertainty into the market by signalling an earlier than expected review of a sector that is only just beginning to bloom. Later, justify that uncertainty by background briefing from a former Cameron aide, who explains it was a deliberate ruse to take steam out of the sector, adding insult to injury. This isn't Machiavellian politics … it's Captain Mainwaring.
• Secondly, in discussions with industry during the autumn, signal to them that the adjustments would be carefully considered to deal with the identified problem: suggest that the megawatt capacity may be reduced, maybe to as low as 2MW, or even 1 MW; that greenfield sites may be completely ruled out. But stress that you're going to be careful not to cut the legs off the scheme.
• Lastly, cut the legs off the scheme. Shock everyone by going way beyond what you've indicated to them in private meetings, destroying their belief in anything you say, and in so doing destroying your credibility with renewables investors and green organisations. And yes minister, the ripples from this fiasco go beyond the solar sector, as the renewables sector and the related investment community are a small and intimately connected bunch.
To top it all, then tell everyone how they can trust this government with future reviews of the feed-in-tariffs (as the laughter begins) and the Renewable Heat Incentive (laughter rises); that the Green Investment Bank is safe in their hands (now deafening laughter); and that investors can trust this government to provide a stable platform for renewables investment in the UK (stop there, you're killing me!).
So we now have until May to persuade ministers to start listening to people like Ray Noble of the Renewable Energy Association who have said: "It's an absolute disaster … no new projects will start after this [the review changes] comes into effect," adding "this industry has been strangled at birth". Or Barbara Hammon, chair of West Oxford Community Renewables – the very sort of social enterprise the government says it wants to support – who complains: "This government came in saying they are all about the 'big society', but this is big government writ large." Or Andrew Lee of Sharp Solar, who employs 1,100 in manufacturing in Wrexham, who describes this as: "Terrible news for the renewable energy sector – the steep rise in job creation will stop and morale within the industry will drop as a result of this remarkable U-turn." Or Friends of the Earth, or the Solar Trade Association, or the Micropower Council … I could go on. The voices are legion, and very angry because of this shameful betrayal.
So, minister, a helpful word from the opposition benches. From someone who recently wrote to you offering help in extricating yourself from this mess. Work with us and green groups and the solar sector to get this right by May. Your temporary embarrassment can be eased by swallowing some humble pie, and listening to wise counsel. More importantly, we can rescue the situation and put confidence back in the renewables sector overall, grow our green jobs again, and hit our carbon reduction targets.
PS. Minister, by the way, talking about uncertainty: already I'm hearing murmurings of discontent over your decision to delay the domestic tariff on the Renewable Heat Incentive. This looks like a worrying pattern ... another coalition day, another coalition delay?
• Huw Irranca-Davies is the shadow energy minister
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
