George Osborne's message was clear: where green goals are in conflict with economic concerns, business interests will win
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 14.37 GMT
Overall
Although George Osborne was keen to underline his green credentials – as the chancellor who introduced the green investment bank and the carbon floor price – the overall message was clear, and designed to appeal to the right wing of the Tory party. It was that environmental aims should always come second to economic concerns, and if they are in conflict, business interests will win. Osborne set out clearly the government's new credo: "If we burden [British businesses] with endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right – then not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer."
Help for energy intensive industries
Heavy industries to get £250m assistance in the form of relief from carbon-related taxes, measures to reduce the impact on them of the electricity market reforms, and easing of the carbon price floor. Osborne: "I am worried about the combined impact of the green policies adopted not just in Britain, but also by the European Union, on some of our heavy, energy-intensive industries. We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers. All we will be doing is exporting valuable jobs out of Britain."
Transport
Electrification of the transpennine express between Manchester and Leeds, which should be greener and cheaper than the current line. A new rail line connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford. New rail spending amounts to £1.4bn in total. There will also be extension to the London tube – to provide a station for the new American embassy on the southbank of the Thames. Numerous major new road schemes will also go ahead, for about £1bn. But no new third runway at Heathrow, despite rumours that the Conservatives were wavering on their pre-election rejection of the runway.
Fuel duty
Cancelling the planned fuel duty rise of 3p in January, but retaining a rise of 3p in the duty from next August. Fuel duty is one of the touchstone issues of the Conservative right and a contentious issue around the country and in sections of the media. Osborne said the results of his measures would be that taxes on petrol would be 10p lower than they would have been under the original arrangements, which would mean filling up the average family car would be £144 less than it would have been by the end of next year. Note that the cost of filling up the car will still increase – just by less than it would have if the fuel duty escalator had been adhered to.
Green deal
Although the "green geal" is the government's flagship policy for helping households to cut their energy bills, through access to insulation, it rated only the barest mention. An initial £200m of public funds to kickstart the deal was already announced last week.
Biodiversity
A threat to water down some of the regulations on protected habitats for wildlife and plants, by reviewing the implementation of the EU habitat and wild birds directive between now and next March. Osborne: "We will make sure that gold-plating of EU rules on things like habitats aren't placing ridiculous costs on British businesses."
Planning
A review of the planning appeals procedures, including ways to make it easier for agricultural buildings to be converted to other uses. There was also a strong defence of the planning reforms now under way, with a vow to "go further to remove the lengthy delays and high costs of the current system", which will include new time limits on planning applications to ensure they cannot drag on, with additional costs to those applying, and new responsibilities for statutory consultees, which should also speed up the process. Osborne said: "Our planning reforms strike the right balance between protecting our countryside while permitting economic development that creates jobs."
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
George Osborne pumps extra £200m into science in autumn statement
Chancellor announces new investment in the space industry, green technology and research into animal disease
Isis lab funding shortfall 'damaging UK's research standing'
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 19.30 GMT
The chancellor injected £200m into UK science projects on Tuesday, bolstering research into animal disease, green transport and satellites that can peer at the planet's surface through cloud cover.
The extra money announced in George Osborne's autumn statement included £80m towards new high containment laboratories to study bird flu and other diseases at the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright in Surrey.
A further £21m will go to the space industry to develop a constellation of small satellites called NovaSAR, which use radar to take images of the Earth's surface in all weather conditions. The investment is expected to be matched by industry.
Large-scale demonstrations of low-carbon vehicles, smart energy grids and green buildings received £25m of the money, with £13m going to a high-performance computing facility called Archer.
The extra cash brings the government's investment in science to £495m since last year. Ministers claimed to have frozen the science budget in the 2010 spending review, but left scientists effectively £1.7bn poorer by redefining what the budget covered.
In his speech on Tuesday, Osborne said: "At a time of difficult choices, we made ours last year when we committed to protect the science budget." He went on to confirm nearly half a billion pounds for scientific projects, from "supercomputing and satellite technology to a world-beating animal health laboratory". Only £200m of the investment is new, however.
Scientists welcomed the extra funds but warned ministers that further investment was needed to put science and engineering at the heart of Britain's plans for economic recovery.
"The repeated references to science and innovation in the chancellor's speech show a commitment to science and engineering being the basis for a sustainable economic recovery, but it will only happen if we are willing to invest heavily, like many of our competitors," said Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society. "Today's announcements must be the start of that additional investment rather than just a one-off."
A further £61m has been earmarked for research councils to spend on science facilities and other crucial infrastructure.
"Politicians of all stripes keep talking about 'rebalancing the economy' and moving towards high-tech manufacturing instead of relying on consumer debt," said Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. "David Cameron discussed it at the Science Museum this month. These words have to be turned into action, so it's really encouraging for the UK economy that last year's cuts are being slowly reversed. Investment in science and engineering is vital if we're to achieve sustainable growth."
He added: "Today's extra cash is the latest in a string of announcements since the spending review, which gives me hope that the Chancellor realises we must stay ahead of the curve on research and development. It's an area that the UK is uniquely placed to benefit from if we invest wisely, and we now need to see a genuine strategy from our political leaders about how we're going to put science and engineering at the heart of our economic recovery."
Isis lab funding shortfall 'damaging UK's research standing'
Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 November 2011 19.30 GMT
The chancellor injected £200m into UK science projects on Tuesday, bolstering research into animal disease, green transport and satellites that can peer at the planet's surface through cloud cover.
The extra money announced in George Osborne's autumn statement included £80m towards new high containment laboratories to study bird flu and other diseases at the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright in Surrey.
A further £21m will go to the space industry to develop a constellation of small satellites called NovaSAR, which use radar to take images of the Earth's surface in all weather conditions. The investment is expected to be matched by industry.
Large-scale demonstrations of low-carbon vehicles, smart energy grids and green buildings received £25m of the money, with £13m going to a high-performance computing facility called Archer.
The extra cash brings the government's investment in science to £495m since last year. Ministers claimed to have frozen the science budget in the 2010 spending review, but left scientists effectively £1.7bn poorer by redefining what the budget covered.
In his speech on Tuesday, Osborne said: "At a time of difficult choices, we made ours last year when we committed to protect the science budget." He went on to confirm nearly half a billion pounds for scientific projects, from "supercomputing and satellite technology to a world-beating animal health laboratory". Only £200m of the investment is new, however.
Scientists welcomed the extra funds but warned ministers that further investment was needed to put science and engineering at the heart of Britain's plans for economic recovery.
"The repeated references to science and innovation in the chancellor's speech show a commitment to science and engineering being the basis for a sustainable economic recovery, but it will only happen if we are willing to invest heavily, like many of our competitors," said Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society. "Today's announcements must be the start of that additional investment rather than just a one-off."
A further £61m has been earmarked for research councils to spend on science facilities and other crucial infrastructure.
"Politicians of all stripes keep talking about 'rebalancing the economy' and moving towards high-tech manufacturing instead of relying on consumer debt," said Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. "David Cameron discussed it at the Science Museum this month. These words have to be turned into action, so it's really encouraging for the UK economy that last year's cuts are being slowly reversed. Investment in science and engineering is vital if we're to achieve sustainable growth."
He added: "Today's extra cash is the latest in a string of announcements since the spending review, which gives me hope that the Chancellor realises we must stay ahead of the curve on research and development. It's an area that the UK is uniquely placed to benefit from if we invest wisely, and we now need to see a genuine strategy from our political leaders about how we're going to put science and engineering at the heart of our economic recovery."
Monday, 28 November 2011
Durban for Dummies: Your guide to the UN climate talks
Everything you need to know about the latest round of United Nations climate change talks in Durban, South Africa.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
11:00AM GMT 27 Nov 2011
What is happening in Durban?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was set up to stop global temperatures rising above dangerous levels as a result of man made emissions. Each year the Conference of the Parties (COP) meet to discuss progress. This is COP 17. The ultimate aim is stop temperatures rising more than 2C by cutting greenhouse gases by 50 per cent by 2050. Other ways to cut emissions include deals to stop deforestation and help poor countries develop in a green way.
Who will be there?
Officials and environment ministers from 194 countries will meet at the International Convention Centre (ICC) and Durban Exhibition Centre (DEC). All together an estimated 15,000 people representing Governments, charities and media will travel to South Africa for the conference. Christiania Figueres, the executive secretary of UNFCCC, a former negotiator from Costa Rica, is trying to push the process forward. An even more important role is the President of COP 17, Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who is in charge of the talks.
What has this got to do with Copenhagen?
The climate change talks in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 were supposed to commit all nations to cutting carbon. However rich and poor nations failed to agree on a legally binding target to cut emissions. Instead a weak ‘Copenhagen Accord’ was signed that allows countries to choose their own targets but has no power to force them to keep their promises. At Cop 16 in Cancun the talks got back on track after progress was made on a Green Climate Fund, that pays poor countries to adapt to climate change and REDD, that pays developing countries not to cut down trees . However the talks are still a long way from the ultimate goal of a legally binding treaty.
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol is the only existing legally binding treaty in existence but it comes to and end on December 31st 2012. The agreement commits rich countries to cutting emissions but not poor countries and it does not include the US or China. The meeting in Durban is the best chance the world has to agree a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol. Poor countries are keen for this to happen because they believe that the industrialised world has caused most of the emissions and therefore should make most of the effort to clean up. However the rich world are reluctant to come on board unless ‘emerging nations’ like China and India, that will cause most of the pollution in future, also sign up for cut in emissions.
Will the climate talks collapse in Durban?
Possibly. If there is no second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol then the world will have no legal agreement in place to stop global warming. Poor countries may also walk out in disgust if no progress is made towards achieving some sort of agreement. However most countries want to keep the talks on track and there will therefore most likely be some sort of ‘fudge’ that maintains the Kyoto Protocol for certain countries whilst promising to agree a new deal that commits all the world to legally binding targets at some point in the future.
What is the role of the UK?
As part of the EU the UK has an important role in trying to ‘leverage’ other countries into a climate change deal. The EU already has ambitious targets to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. The bloc is promising to sign up to a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol as long as the US, China and others are part of a wider deal that will also commit them to cuts at some point in the future.
When will there actually be a deal on climate change?
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Minister, said the UK wants a global deal “as soon as possible”. However, realistically it will take the main players, the US and China, a lot longer to agree. The UK has said a global deal must be in place by 2015 at the latest. But because it takes many nations such a long time to ratify a deal the agreement may not be fully operational until 2020. The science says emissions must peak by 2020 and start to come down for the world to have a good chance of keeping temperature rise within 2C.
Is there any money on the table?
Yes $100 (£60) billion by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change and cut emissions. The main discussion at Durban is how this money for the Green Climate Fund will be raised. One of the most popular suggestion is through a tax on aviation and shipping or the ‘Robin Hood’ or Tobin Tax on financial transactions. There is also a question over who will dole out funds. Will it be the World Bank or a whole new institution? This money will be used to help persuade developing nations to cut emissions and it is essential progress is made on setting up the institutions for the talks to move forward. In the short term there is $10 (£6) billion per annum up to 2013 to help poor countries start adapting to climate change now. The UK has pledged £1.5 billion towards this ‘Fast Start Fund’, of which half has already been spent. The UK has pledged £2.9 billion in total to fighting climate change up to 2015.
Will anyone famous be there?
Angelina Jolie, Leonardo DiCaprio, U2 frontman Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, British billionaire Sir Richard Branson and Desmond Tutu have all promised to come to the conference.
What is the carbon footprint of the conference?
It has been estimated that the carbon footprint for this event could be in the order of 15,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. However this does not include the flights of the 15,000 delegates that is likely to increase the emissions to the annual footprint of a small African country. Durban City Council are offsetting the footprint by through an ecosystem rehabilitation project in the uMbilo catchment west of Durban. It is expected to offsett 16,000 CO2e.
What is the latest climate science?
Greenhouse gases hit a record high last year, according to the latest figures from the World Meteorological Organisation at 389 parts per million. Meanwhile the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the rising emissions are already causing extreme weather events. The panel of scientists warned that hot days are virtually certain to get hotter and there will be more heavy downfalls of rain unless action is taken to cut emissions.
What about ‘climategate 2’?
The sceptics have already struck a blow to the conference by releasing more emails from the university at the centre of the ‘climategate’ and there may be more to come. However the University of East Anglia claim that none of the emails cast doubt on the science and the issue of openness around research has already been dealt with in three inquiries. An argument that is likely to be taken more seriously, is that the UN process is not the right way to tackle climate change. Many critics believe that it is impossible to reach a global deal and the talks are a waste of money. Instead the world should be spending money on helping poor nations to adapt or even ‘geo-engineering’ like putting mirrors in space.
What has it got to do with me?
Whether the climate talks succeed or fail could have major implications for the future of the planet as it will affect temperature rise. It will also impact on business and the cost of living as polluting industries will become a lot more expensive and renewables will be given a massive boost. Also the cost of the conference is paid for by taxpayers across the world through contributions to the UN and each country’s costs. The UK alone is sending 46 officials. You’re paying for all this, in more ways than one.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
11:00AM GMT 27 Nov 2011
What is happening in Durban?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was set up to stop global temperatures rising above dangerous levels as a result of man made emissions. Each year the Conference of the Parties (COP) meet to discuss progress. This is COP 17. The ultimate aim is stop temperatures rising more than 2C by cutting greenhouse gases by 50 per cent by 2050. Other ways to cut emissions include deals to stop deforestation and help poor countries develop in a green way.
Who will be there?
Officials and environment ministers from 194 countries will meet at the International Convention Centre (ICC) and Durban Exhibition Centre (DEC). All together an estimated 15,000 people representing Governments, charities and media will travel to South Africa for the conference. Christiania Figueres, the executive secretary of UNFCCC, a former negotiator from Costa Rica, is trying to push the process forward. An even more important role is the President of COP 17, Ms Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who is in charge of the talks.
What has this got to do with Copenhagen?
The climate change talks in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 were supposed to commit all nations to cutting carbon. However rich and poor nations failed to agree on a legally binding target to cut emissions. Instead a weak ‘Copenhagen Accord’ was signed that allows countries to choose their own targets but has no power to force them to keep their promises. At Cop 16 in Cancun the talks got back on track after progress was made on a Green Climate Fund, that pays poor countries to adapt to climate change and REDD, that pays developing countries not to cut down trees . However the talks are still a long way from the ultimate goal of a legally binding treaty.
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol is the only existing legally binding treaty in existence but it comes to and end on December 31st 2012. The agreement commits rich countries to cutting emissions but not poor countries and it does not include the US or China. The meeting in Durban is the best chance the world has to agree a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol. Poor countries are keen for this to happen because they believe that the industrialised world has caused most of the emissions and therefore should make most of the effort to clean up. However the rich world are reluctant to come on board unless ‘emerging nations’ like China and India, that will cause most of the pollution in future, also sign up for cut in emissions.
Will the climate talks collapse in Durban?
Possibly. If there is no second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol then the world will have no legal agreement in place to stop global warming. Poor countries may also walk out in disgust if no progress is made towards achieving some sort of agreement. However most countries want to keep the talks on track and there will therefore most likely be some sort of ‘fudge’ that maintains the Kyoto Protocol for certain countries whilst promising to agree a new deal that commits all the world to legally binding targets at some point in the future.
What is the role of the UK?
As part of the EU the UK has an important role in trying to ‘leverage’ other countries into a climate change deal. The EU already has ambitious targets to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. The bloc is promising to sign up to a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol as long as the US, China and others are part of a wider deal that will also commit them to cuts at some point in the future.
When will there actually be a deal on climate change?
Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Minister, said the UK wants a global deal “as soon as possible”. However, realistically it will take the main players, the US and China, a lot longer to agree. The UK has said a global deal must be in place by 2015 at the latest. But because it takes many nations such a long time to ratify a deal the agreement may not be fully operational until 2020. The science says emissions must peak by 2020 and start to come down for the world to have a good chance of keeping temperature rise within 2C.
Is there any money on the table?
Yes $100 (£60) billion by 2020 to help poor countries adapt to climate change and cut emissions. The main discussion at Durban is how this money for the Green Climate Fund will be raised. One of the most popular suggestion is through a tax on aviation and shipping or the ‘Robin Hood’ or Tobin Tax on financial transactions. There is also a question over who will dole out funds. Will it be the World Bank or a whole new institution? This money will be used to help persuade developing nations to cut emissions and it is essential progress is made on setting up the institutions for the talks to move forward. In the short term there is $10 (£6) billion per annum up to 2013 to help poor countries start adapting to climate change now. The UK has pledged £1.5 billion towards this ‘Fast Start Fund’, of which half has already been spent. The UK has pledged £2.9 billion in total to fighting climate change up to 2015.
Will anyone famous be there?
Angelina Jolie, Leonardo DiCaprio, U2 frontman Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, British billionaire Sir Richard Branson and Desmond Tutu have all promised to come to the conference.
What is the carbon footprint of the conference?
It has been estimated that the carbon footprint for this event could be in the order of 15,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. However this does not include the flights of the 15,000 delegates that is likely to increase the emissions to the annual footprint of a small African country. Durban City Council are offsetting the footprint by through an ecosystem rehabilitation project in the uMbilo catchment west of Durban. It is expected to offsett 16,000 CO2e.
What is the latest climate science?
Greenhouse gases hit a record high last year, according to the latest figures from the World Meteorological Organisation at 389 parts per million. Meanwhile the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the rising emissions are already causing extreme weather events. The panel of scientists warned that hot days are virtually certain to get hotter and there will be more heavy downfalls of rain unless action is taken to cut emissions.
What about ‘climategate 2’?
The sceptics have already struck a blow to the conference by releasing more emails from the university at the centre of the ‘climategate’ and there may be more to come. However the University of East Anglia claim that none of the emails cast doubt on the science and the issue of openness around research has already been dealt with in three inquiries. An argument that is likely to be taken more seriously, is that the UN process is not the right way to tackle climate change. Many critics believe that it is impossible to reach a global deal and the talks are a waste of money. Instead the world should be spending money on helping poor nations to adapt or even ‘geo-engineering’ like putting mirrors in space.
What has it got to do with me?
Whether the climate talks succeed or fail could have major implications for the future of the planet as it will affect temperature rise. It will also impact on business and the cost of living as polluting industries will become a lot more expensive and renewables will be given a massive boost. Also the cost of the conference is paid for by taxpayers across the world through contributions to the UN and each country’s costs. The UK alone is sending 46 officials. You’re paying for all this, in more ways than one.
Britain's promotion of Canada's tar sands oil is idiotic
A deal to sell tar sands oil in Europe would outweigh any good the UK might do with all its other climate change measures
Bill McKibben
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 November 2011 21.44 GMT
Here's the essential fact to bear in mind. The tar sands of northern Alberta are the second-largest pool of carbon on earth, second only to Saudi Arabia. It's burning Saudi Arabia, more than any other single thing, that has raised the temperature of the planet by a degree so far. But when oil was discovered in the Middle East, we knew nothing about climate change – it's not surprising that we started pumping. In the case of Canada, however, we've taken 3% of the oil from the sands. We're still at the start. If, knowing what we now know about climate change, we just keep going, then we're idiots.
That realisation explains why Americans rose up in remarkable numbers to fight the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. In August 1,253 people were arrested outside the White House during the largest civil disobedience action in a generation. Citizens ringed the president's mansion in a line a mile long and five people deep. A couple of weeks ago, the president announced that he would delay the pipeline for a new environmental review, which would cover not only the route across the country but also climate change, public health, and other issues.
That announcement caught industry off guard. Transcanada Pipeline had already mowed the strip they planned to put the pipe on, and had carried vast quantities of steel across the border. They're fighting back with every tool they can find, but for the moment they're delayed and in trouble. It's a win, though like all environmental wins a temporary one. And it's a tribute not only to an organising effort that brought everyone from Nebraska ranchers to Occupy Wall Street protesters together, but also to the slowly dawning realisation that this was a big deal. As the leading climatologist James Hansen puts it, tap heavily into tar sands oil and it's "essentially game over for the climate".
Which is where Europe comes in. Canada wants to sell some of this oil on the continent, and as today's revelations in the Guardian reveal they've dispatched endless teams of diplomats and oil barons to make the case. They have a difficult row to hoe – because the oil is embedded in sand, it takes lots of energy to get it out of the ground and hence it's even more carbon-intensive than regular oil. The EU has provisionally imposed penalties on that extra carbon severe enough to make it difficult for Canada to sell Europeans its filthy oil.
But now, for reasons not entirely clear, the UK seems to have emerged as Canada's partner in crime, leaning on Brussels to let this crud across the borders. No one seems to know exactly why. Lingering colonial attachment? Kinship among Tory governments? The effect, however, is clear. Any good that Britain's government does with new efficiency standards, runway halts, windmills, you name it; all that will be outweighed if it manages to broker a deal to bring this oil into Europe.
Just as it was for Obama, it will be among the biggest single environmental decisions the Cameron government makes. So far it's been hidden behind some obscure jargon in Brussels, but history will expose this as one of those fateful choices humans sometimes get to make. Faced with a huge new pool of carbon, will we simply make the easy choices for short-term profit? Or will we actually figure out that it's time to think anew? Odd that in this day and age choices so important to the future of an oilfield a hemisphere away, and to the entire atmosphere, would be made in Whitehall, but that's the case here. Around the world environmentalists are watching, and hoping Britain strikes a serious blow for the future.
• Bill McKibben is the author of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, and an organizer at 350.org
Bill McKibben
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 27 November 2011 21.44 GMT
Here's the essential fact to bear in mind. The tar sands of northern Alberta are the second-largest pool of carbon on earth, second only to Saudi Arabia. It's burning Saudi Arabia, more than any other single thing, that has raised the temperature of the planet by a degree so far. But when oil was discovered in the Middle East, we knew nothing about climate change – it's not surprising that we started pumping. In the case of Canada, however, we've taken 3% of the oil from the sands. We're still at the start. If, knowing what we now know about climate change, we just keep going, then we're idiots.
That realisation explains why Americans rose up in remarkable numbers to fight the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. In August 1,253 people were arrested outside the White House during the largest civil disobedience action in a generation. Citizens ringed the president's mansion in a line a mile long and five people deep. A couple of weeks ago, the president announced that he would delay the pipeline for a new environmental review, which would cover not only the route across the country but also climate change, public health, and other issues.
That announcement caught industry off guard. Transcanada Pipeline had already mowed the strip they planned to put the pipe on, and had carried vast quantities of steel across the border. They're fighting back with every tool they can find, but for the moment they're delayed and in trouble. It's a win, though like all environmental wins a temporary one. And it's a tribute not only to an organising effort that brought everyone from Nebraska ranchers to Occupy Wall Street protesters together, but also to the slowly dawning realisation that this was a big deal. As the leading climatologist James Hansen puts it, tap heavily into tar sands oil and it's "essentially game over for the climate".
Which is where Europe comes in. Canada wants to sell some of this oil on the continent, and as today's revelations in the Guardian reveal they've dispatched endless teams of diplomats and oil barons to make the case. They have a difficult row to hoe – because the oil is embedded in sand, it takes lots of energy to get it out of the ground and hence it's even more carbon-intensive than regular oil. The EU has provisionally imposed penalties on that extra carbon severe enough to make it difficult for Canada to sell Europeans its filthy oil.
But now, for reasons not entirely clear, the UK seems to have emerged as Canada's partner in crime, leaning on Brussels to let this crud across the borders. No one seems to know exactly why. Lingering colonial attachment? Kinship among Tory governments? The effect, however, is clear. Any good that Britain's government does with new efficiency standards, runway halts, windmills, you name it; all that will be outweighed if it manages to broker a deal to bring this oil into Europe.
Just as it was for Obama, it will be among the biggest single environmental decisions the Cameron government makes. So far it's been hidden behind some obscure jargon in Brussels, but history will expose this as one of those fateful choices humans sometimes get to make. Faced with a huge new pool of carbon, will we simply make the easy choices for short-term profit? Or will we actually figure out that it's time to think anew? Odd that in this day and age choices so important to the future of an oilfield a hemisphere away, and to the entire atmosphere, would be made in Whitehall, but that's the case here. Around the world environmentalists are watching, and hoping Britain strikes a serious blow for the future.
• Bill McKibben is the author of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, and an organizer at 350.org
Friday, 25 November 2011
Households face rising energy bills due to green taxes
Household energy bills will continue to rise due to green taxes and soaring world gas prices, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has warned. But he claimed that government policies could “soften the blow” for consumers.
By James Hall, Consumer Affairs Editor
6:45AM GMT 24 Nov 2011
The minister admitted that the Government is powerless to protect home owners from rising gas and electricity prices, which will be continue to be “pushed up” by fuel prices on the world market.
He also said that the range of green initiatives that the Government has committed to support – such as solar, wind and nuclear energy – will add £280 a year to utility bills within the next decade. These costs include putting so-called smart meters in homes, making consumers pay to support the reform of the electricity market, and charging a tariff to support the development of renewable energy.
Energy bills have already risen by a fifth this year, heaping pressure on household budgets. The average annual dual fuel energy bill now stands at over £1,200, according to Uswitch.com, the online comparison site.
Mr Huhne used the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) annual Energy Statement to Parliament to outline how the Government plans to help consumers mitigate the impact of rising bills.
He said that DECC’s so-called Green Deal, under which home owners will be offered lower energy bills in return for making their houses more energy efficient, will reduce the severity of rising prices.
While bills will rise annually by hundreds of pounds, Mr Huhne said that people who sign up for the Green Deal will be able to offset the rises.
The minister said that people who insulate their homes and use a raft of energy-saving measures will save £94 on their annual energy bill by 2020. He said that the average energy bill in 2020 will be £1,285 for home owners that take part in the Green Deal and £1,379 for those that do not.
However consumer groups warned that the Government is making a “big assumption” that the Green Deal, which will require home owners to proactively make their homes more environmentally friendly, will appeal to a large enough group of people.
Richard Lloyd, executive director at consumer group Which?, said that if fewer homes than expected buy into the Green Deal then energy bills could be pushed up even further.
Thomas Lyon, an energy expert at Uswitch.com, said that the cost to a homeowner of implementing the Green Deal is unknown.
“The biggest question mark to me about today’s statement is that the costs are more certain than the benefits There is a real sense of 'jam tomorrow’ in Chris Huhne’s announcement today. The fact is that the UK is on the brink of an affordability crisis when it comes to household energy,” he said.
DECC’s own research into the Green Deal shows that consumers have voiced concern about the cost of the program, as well as the fact that they would have to take out loans to take part in the initiative.
DECC also said that consumers felt that the cost savings associated with the deal were not high enough.
By James Hall, Consumer Affairs Editor
6:45AM GMT 24 Nov 2011
The minister admitted that the Government is powerless to protect home owners from rising gas and electricity prices, which will be continue to be “pushed up” by fuel prices on the world market.
He also said that the range of green initiatives that the Government has committed to support – such as solar, wind and nuclear energy – will add £280 a year to utility bills within the next decade. These costs include putting so-called smart meters in homes, making consumers pay to support the reform of the electricity market, and charging a tariff to support the development of renewable energy.
Energy bills have already risen by a fifth this year, heaping pressure on household budgets. The average annual dual fuel energy bill now stands at over £1,200, according to Uswitch.com, the online comparison site.
Mr Huhne used the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) annual Energy Statement to Parliament to outline how the Government plans to help consumers mitigate the impact of rising bills.
He said that DECC’s so-called Green Deal, under which home owners will be offered lower energy bills in return for making their houses more energy efficient, will reduce the severity of rising prices.
While bills will rise annually by hundreds of pounds, Mr Huhne said that people who sign up for the Green Deal will be able to offset the rises.
The minister said that people who insulate their homes and use a raft of energy-saving measures will save £94 on their annual energy bill by 2020. He said that the average energy bill in 2020 will be £1,285 for home owners that take part in the Green Deal and £1,379 for those that do not.
However consumer groups warned that the Government is making a “big assumption” that the Green Deal, which will require home owners to proactively make their homes more environmentally friendly, will appeal to a large enough group of people.
Richard Lloyd, executive director at consumer group Which?, said that if fewer homes than expected buy into the Green Deal then energy bills could be pushed up even further.
Thomas Lyon, an energy expert at Uswitch.com, said that the cost to a homeowner of implementing the Green Deal is unknown.
“The biggest question mark to me about today’s statement is that the costs are more certain than the benefits There is a real sense of 'jam tomorrow’ in Chris Huhne’s announcement today. The fact is that the UK is on the brink of an affordability crisis when it comes to household energy,” he said.
DECC’s own research into the Green Deal shows that consumers have voiced concern about the cost of the program, as well as the fact that they would have to take out loans to take part in the initiative.
DECC also said that consumers felt that the cost savings associated with the deal were not high enough.
Treasury injects £200m cash into home insulation 'green deal'
New funding intended to ensure uptake of energy efficiency scheme and give confidence to business
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 November 2011 12.57 GMT
The government's ambitious plan to refurbish 14m the UK's draughty homes is to be kickstarted with £200m of incentives, the Treasury announced on Thursday.
Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, committed the cash with the aim of encouraging early adopters to take up the energy efficiency scheme and to give confidence to business.
The green deal plan was revealed in detail by energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne on Wednesday for consultation. From October 2012, it will enable homeowners to take a loan to install insulation or other energy-saving measures. Under the so-called "golden rule", the energy bill savings from the measures will be larger than the loan repayments.
But concerns have been raised as to whether consumers will take up the scheme in large numbers, given that previous free energy efficiency schemes have had limited impact.
The green deal proposals allow for up to £150 to given as a cashback offer to homeowners, but that is added to the loan.
The £200m is new cash funding from the Treasury and could be worth hundreds of pounds to people who to take up the deal in its first year. How the incentive is delivered is yet to be decided, but it could be in the form of cashback offers, discounts on council tax or cuts to stamp duty when a home is sold. It could also follow the highly successful model of the now-closed boiler scrappage scheme.
"The scheme will involve time-limited offers to help the early uptake, and give confidence to industry that the government is fully behind the green deal scheme," a Decc official told the Guardian.
Energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, said: "We want the green deal to be a game changer for British consumers who've been buffeted by global energy prices. The earlier you green deal your home, the quicker you'll benefit from a warmer and cosier property as well as protect yourself from rocketing prices."
Consumer group Which? said the most important thing was getting the detail of the green deal right for homeowners. Richard Lloyd, executive director at Which?, said: "It's crucial that the Government gets the fundamentals of the Green Deal right. If it's not good value for consumers overall, short term incentives will not be enough to guarantee that this scheme will be a success."
The green deal is a cornerstone of the government's drive to deliver a secure energy system for the UK, while also cutting the carbon emissions that drive climate change. The UK has some of the least energy-efficient homes in Europe and the deal aims to enable people to keep their homes warm with less energy.
It is also a key part of Huhne's pledge to keep energy bills lower than they would be if the UK relied on fossil fuels.
But other concerns have been raised that might affect the take-up of the scheme, including the interest rate at which the loans are charged. If those rate are at commercial levels, observers say, only limited measures will be able to be funded while keeping to the golden rule. A Green Deal finance company has been proposed to pool loans and cut the interest rate, but it has no funding in place at present.
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 November 2011 12.57 GMT
The government's ambitious plan to refurbish 14m the UK's draughty homes is to be kickstarted with £200m of incentives, the Treasury announced on Thursday.
Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, committed the cash with the aim of encouraging early adopters to take up the energy efficiency scheme and to give confidence to business.
The green deal plan was revealed in detail by energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne on Wednesday for consultation. From October 2012, it will enable homeowners to take a loan to install insulation or other energy-saving measures. Under the so-called "golden rule", the energy bill savings from the measures will be larger than the loan repayments.
But concerns have been raised as to whether consumers will take up the scheme in large numbers, given that previous free energy efficiency schemes have had limited impact.
The green deal proposals allow for up to £150 to given as a cashback offer to homeowners, but that is added to the loan.
The £200m is new cash funding from the Treasury and could be worth hundreds of pounds to people who to take up the deal in its first year. How the incentive is delivered is yet to be decided, but it could be in the form of cashback offers, discounts on council tax or cuts to stamp duty when a home is sold. It could also follow the highly successful model of the now-closed boiler scrappage scheme.
"The scheme will involve time-limited offers to help the early uptake, and give confidence to industry that the government is fully behind the green deal scheme," a Decc official told the Guardian.
Energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, said: "We want the green deal to be a game changer for British consumers who've been buffeted by global energy prices. The earlier you green deal your home, the quicker you'll benefit from a warmer and cosier property as well as protect yourself from rocketing prices."
Consumer group Which? said the most important thing was getting the detail of the green deal right for homeowners. Richard Lloyd, executive director at Which?, said: "It's crucial that the Government gets the fundamentals of the Green Deal right. If it's not good value for consumers overall, short term incentives will not be enough to guarantee that this scheme will be a success."
The green deal is a cornerstone of the government's drive to deliver a secure energy system for the UK, while also cutting the carbon emissions that drive climate change. The UK has some of the least energy-efficient homes in Europe and the deal aims to enable people to keep their homes warm with less energy.
It is also a key part of Huhne's pledge to keep energy bills lower than they would be if the UK relied on fossil fuels.
But other concerns have been raised that might affect the take-up of the scheme, including the interest rate at which the loans are charged. If those rate are at commercial levels, observers say, only limited measures will be able to be funded while keeping to the golden rule. A Green Deal finance company has been proposed to pool loans and cut the interest rate, but it has no funding in place at present.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
China Pushes Clean-Energy Agenda Ahead of Summit
BEIJING—China plans to push for more funding for clean-energy technologies in the developing world even as it repeated its opposition to mandatory emissions cuts, underscoring the challenges at climate-change talks beginning next week in South Africa.
International climate-change officials are meeting in Durban ahead of the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol global-warming treaty next year, but any formal agreement is considered unlikely by experts.
In addition to continued opposition from major greenhouse-gas emitters China, India and the U.S.—factors that hobbled similar talks in Copenhagen two years ago—Europe continues to grapple with its debt crisis. That makes any new cuts that could curb economic growth and new spending on green initiatives much less likely. Meanwhile, Japan is considering its plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster led political leaders to reconsider the nation's nuclear ambitions.
Xie Zhenhua, China's top climate change official, acknowledged at a news conference Tuesday that the global economic crisis will hinder the effort. But he said those difficulties are only "temporary."
"Combating climate change is a long-term effort," he said, urging developed countries to make progress on the financing for the climate change fund for developing countries.
At the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, rich nations promised to provide $30 billion as fast-start funds, which are required to be "new and additional," between 2010 and 2012 to help poor countries to adapt to climate change.
"The provision of the funds didn't fully meet the requirements," he said, without elaborating.
China's push for funds could get a critical reception in the U.S. A number of U.S. companies have asked for antidumping probes against Chinese solar power products. China has insisted that its policies on solar energy conform with World Trade Organization rules.
Mr. Xie reiterated China's position in climate change negotiations, saying China will stick to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," which requires developed countries to take the lead in reducing emissions and provide financial support and transfer technologies to developing countries.
At the same time, he acknowledged China's role as the world No. 1 emitter of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas. "China's current emissions of greenhouse gases are very large, and the growth is very fast," he said. "This is a fact."
Still, he said China plans to curb growth by increasing the share of nonfossil energy in total energy consumption to 11.4% by the end of 2015 and 15% by 2020, from 8.3% at end of 2010, Mr. Xie said, referring to plans to expand nuclear power, wind, hydropower and solar power.
A white paper on China's climate policies and actions issued Tuesday said developed countries should be responsible for accumulative emissions during their more than 200 years of industrialization, which is the main reason for global warming.
—Zhoudong Shangguan
International climate-change officials are meeting in Durban ahead of the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol global-warming treaty next year, but any formal agreement is considered unlikely by experts.
In addition to continued opposition from major greenhouse-gas emitters China, India and the U.S.—factors that hobbled similar talks in Copenhagen two years ago—Europe continues to grapple with its debt crisis. That makes any new cuts that could curb economic growth and new spending on green initiatives much less likely. Meanwhile, Japan is considering its plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 25% by 2020 after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster led political leaders to reconsider the nation's nuclear ambitions.
Xie Zhenhua, China's top climate change official, acknowledged at a news conference Tuesday that the global economic crisis will hinder the effort. But he said those difficulties are only "temporary."
"Combating climate change is a long-term effort," he said, urging developed countries to make progress on the financing for the climate change fund for developing countries.
At the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, rich nations promised to provide $30 billion as fast-start funds, which are required to be "new and additional," between 2010 and 2012 to help poor countries to adapt to climate change.
"The provision of the funds didn't fully meet the requirements," he said, without elaborating.
China's push for funds could get a critical reception in the U.S. A number of U.S. companies have asked for antidumping probes against Chinese solar power products. China has insisted that its policies on solar energy conform with World Trade Organization rules.
Mr. Xie reiterated China's position in climate change negotiations, saying China will stick to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," which requires developed countries to take the lead in reducing emissions and provide financial support and transfer technologies to developing countries.
At the same time, he acknowledged China's role as the world No. 1 emitter of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas. "China's current emissions of greenhouse gases are very large, and the growth is very fast," he said. "This is a fact."
Still, he said China plans to curb growth by increasing the share of nonfossil energy in total energy consumption to 11.4% by the end of 2015 and 15% by 2020, from 8.3% at end of 2010, Mr. Xie said, referring to plans to expand nuclear power, wind, hydropower and solar power.
A white paper on China's climate policies and actions issued Tuesday said developed countries should be responsible for accumulative emissions during their more than 200 years of industrialization, which is the main reason for global warming.
—Zhoudong Shangguan
Energy resource bureau aims to bring State Department out of the dark ages
Newly-established bureau, headed former US ambassador to Mexico, to focus on expanding energy resources worldwide
It can often seem as if the US establishment is stuck in a time warp when it comes to energy and the environment. Congress is dominated by Republicans who doubt the existence of man-made climate change (and evolution). The White House has backed away from regulating smog.
But now comes news from the State Department of a re-organisation recognising the connection between energy supplies and international security.
The State Department's new bureau of energy resources will focus on maintaining stable supplies of affordable energy; promoting green technology, including the US industry; and expanding access to electricity to the 1.3bn people who currently live without it.
The 55-person bureau will be headed by Carlos Pascual, who was forced to resign as US ambassador to Mexico last March after WikiLeaks published his criticism of the authorities' fight against drug trafficking.
In a briefing for international press on Tuesday, Pascual insisted the new unit did not represent a downgrading in the importance the US gives to climate change.
"What we are doing in the energy bureau is not an alternative to the discussion on climate change," Pascual said. "I see myself as a partner to the team that is working on climate change. They are setting the broad paramenters, but in the end we have to ask ourselves: 'how does that translate into the discussions we have to have on the market policies that exist?"
Between the lines, however, it looks like Pascual is going to be devoting far more of his attentions to gas than to wind, solar, or other renewable energies.
In his remarks, Pascual noted the explosive growth of shale gas in the US, and around the world.
"Shale as a commodity is becoming part of an active process of international negotiations," he said.
He went on: "We support additional gas on global markets as long as it is done in an environmentally sustainable way."
In addition to encouraging development of shale gas to relieve pressure on oil, Pascual will also be keeping a close eye on China, one of the biggest energy users in the world.
Obama administration officials have often complained of the Chinese government's support for wind and solar industries. China invested $48bn in renewable energy last year.
Pascual said the office would work with China to develop new energy technologies and push for greater access to Chinese markets.
One area of energy Pascual will not be working on: tar sands. He said he had been "recused" from dealing with the Alberta tar sands or the controversial proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Texas.
It can often seem as if the US establishment is stuck in a time warp when it comes to energy and the environment. Congress is dominated by Republicans who doubt the existence of man-made climate change (and evolution). The White House has backed away from regulating smog.
But now comes news from the State Department of a re-organisation recognising the connection between energy supplies and international security.
The State Department's new bureau of energy resources will focus on maintaining stable supplies of affordable energy; promoting green technology, including the US industry; and expanding access to electricity to the 1.3bn people who currently live without it.
The 55-person bureau will be headed by Carlos Pascual, who was forced to resign as US ambassador to Mexico last March after WikiLeaks published his criticism of the authorities' fight against drug trafficking.
In a briefing for international press on Tuesday, Pascual insisted the new unit did not represent a downgrading in the importance the US gives to climate change.
"What we are doing in the energy bureau is not an alternative to the discussion on climate change," Pascual said. "I see myself as a partner to the team that is working on climate change. They are setting the broad paramenters, but in the end we have to ask ourselves: 'how does that translate into the discussions we have to have on the market policies that exist?"
Between the lines, however, it looks like Pascual is going to be devoting far more of his attentions to gas than to wind, solar, or other renewable energies.
In his remarks, Pascual noted the explosive growth of shale gas in the US, and around the world.
"Shale as a commodity is becoming part of an active process of international negotiations," he said.
He went on: "We support additional gas on global markets as long as it is done in an environmentally sustainable way."
In addition to encouraging development of shale gas to relieve pressure on oil, Pascual will also be keeping a close eye on China, one of the biggest energy users in the world.
Obama administration officials have often complained of the Chinese government's support for wind and solar industries. China invested $48bn in renewable energy last year.
Pascual said the office would work with China to develop new energy technologies and push for greater access to Chinese markets.
One area of energy Pascual will not be working on: tar sands. He said he had been "recused" from dealing with the Alberta tar sands or the controversial proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Texas.
Coalition faces major revolt over planned cuts to solar subsidies
More than 20 Lib Dem MPs likely to vote against measures that would halve feed-in tariffs and threaten burgeoning industry
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 November 2011 19.14 GMT
The coalition will seek to head off one of the biggest rebellions on policy yet on Wednesday when MPs debate drastic cuts to the subsidies that have sparked a 39,000-job boom in solar power.
More than 20 Liberal Democrat MPs are likely to vote against the plans, in a revolt that observers say is likely to outdo the vote on tuition fees, when 21 of the party's number broke ranks.
The rebellion extends to ministerial level, with Norman Baker, the transport minister, writing to the climate secretary and fellow Lib Dem Chris Huhne to protest about the cuts, under which incentives to install solar panels would be halved, with potentially disastrous results for the fledgling industry. Baker said: "I have reservations about the speed and level of the proposed changes for community size projects [usually for panels to be installed on social housing] and I am therefore asking the secretary of state to examine urgently the case for some flexibility to mitigate any adverse effects of the changes."
Insiders say more than 40 Lib Dem MPs have expressed concern over the cuts, which are causing turmoil and job losses in solar companies – but, under pressure from the coalition whips, not all of these may decide to register their disapproval by voting with the opposition.
However, many are likely to be made just as uncomfortable by the extent of pressure being brought to bear outside parliament and among voters in key constituencies. On Tuesday, a rally against the cuts brought green protesters and solar industry workers to parliament.
Local government officials are also applying pressure– a briefing document seen by the Guardian shows deep opposition to the plans. In the document, the Lib Dems among the Local Government Association are vocal in their criticism of the cuts, acutely aware that environmental issues, and the creation of green jobs, are crucial issues for a large proportion of Lib Dem voters. The document says: "We fought the last general election on getting more green jobs. The feed-in tariff was helping to grow a new industry and get more people into work. We don't want to see this put at risk. [The cut] flies in the face of the government's hard work in schemes such as the regional growth fund and the Growing Places fund to help create employment."
Plans to halve the feed-in tariffs available for households installing solar panels were unveiled by ministers last month, after ministers took fright at media headlines attacking "green" subsidies and taxes as the source of energy bill rises – even though research by the regulator Ofgem and others shows fossil fuel price volatility to be the main cause of bill increases. They were also concerned that recent falls in the cost of solar technology meant companies were making excess profits from the panels, and that the boom in take-up would mean the £860m allocated for them would soon be used up.
Halving the feed-in tariffs for solar, however, is likely to save as little as 60p on an annual energy bill, which according to the industry would be outweighed by the loss of tax revenue and the impact of job cuts. They also point out that lower income households and those in fuel poverty are likely to be worst hit, as social housing landlords will find it hardest to get financing for installing panels, as will schemes for lower income households to have panels installed at no upfront cost.
Nigel Barnard, a director of Westward Housing Group, which is installing panels on 900 properties, said: "[The cuts] will have a considerable impact on our ability to help alleviate fuel poverty for many of our customers, though we are continuing to work hard to find positive solutions."
Most solar companies agree that, given the reductions in cost, the tariffs should be reduced. But they are concerned that the cuts are too deep, and the sudden introduction of the cuts – which will take effect from 12 December – is causing chaos as companies struggle to fulfil orders in time. Investors have also been scared off by the government's actions, as sudden changes to the subsidies make it hard to develop medium- and long-term business plans.
Several solar companies are bringing legal actions against the government, arguing that the rushed introduction of the cuts is illegal, because it is happening in advance of the consultation on the issue.
Labour, which introduced the feed-in tariffs late in its last term, is determined to take the government to task on the issue. Caroline Flint, shadow energy and climate change secretary, said: "The government's cuts to feed-in tariffs will hit families, put thousands of jobs at risk and destroy the solar industry. This is just the latest example of a government which is out of touch, cutting too far and too fast, with no plan for jobs and growth. They must think again, revise their scheme and extend their tariff deadline."
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 November 2011 19.14 GMT
The coalition will seek to head off one of the biggest rebellions on policy yet on Wednesday when MPs debate drastic cuts to the subsidies that have sparked a 39,000-job boom in solar power.
More than 20 Liberal Democrat MPs are likely to vote against the plans, in a revolt that observers say is likely to outdo the vote on tuition fees, when 21 of the party's number broke ranks.
The rebellion extends to ministerial level, with Norman Baker, the transport minister, writing to the climate secretary and fellow Lib Dem Chris Huhne to protest about the cuts, under which incentives to install solar panels would be halved, with potentially disastrous results for the fledgling industry. Baker said: "I have reservations about the speed and level of the proposed changes for community size projects [usually for panels to be installed on social housing] and I am therefore asking the secretary of state to examine urgently the case for some flexibility to mitigate any adverse effects of the changes."
Insiders say more than 40 Lib Dem MPs have expressed concern over the cuts, which are causing turmoil and job losses in solar companies – but, under pressure from the coalition whips, not all of these may decide to register their disapproval by voting with the opposition.
However, many are likely to be made just as uncomfortable by the extent of pressure being brought to bear outside parliament and among voters in key constituencies. On Tuesday, a rally against the cuts brought green protesters and solar industry workers to parliament.
Local government officials are also applying pressure– a briefing document seen by the Guardian shows deep opposition to the plans. In the document, the Lib Dems among the Local Government Association are vocal in their criticism of the cuts, acutely aware that environmental issues, and the creation of green jobs, are crucial issues for a large proportion of Lib Dem voters. The document says: "We fought the last general election on getting more green jobs. The feed-in tariff was helping to grow a new industry and get more people into work. We don't want to see this put at risk. [The cut] flies in the face of the government's hard work in schemes such as the regional growth fund and the Growing Places fund to help create employment."
Plans to halve the feed-in tariffs available for households installing solar panels were unveiled by ministers last month, after ministers took fright at media headlines attacking "green" subsidies and taxes as the source of energy bill rises – even though research by the regulator Ofgem and others shows fossil fuel price volatility to be the main cause of bill increases. They were also concerned that recent falls in the cost of solar technology meant companies were making excess profits from the panels, and that the boom in take-up would mean the £860m allocated for them would soon be used up.
Halving the feed-in tariffs for solar, however, is likely to save as little as 60p on an annual energy bill, which according to the industry would be outweighed by the loss of tax revenue and the impact of job cuts. They also point out that lower income households and those in fuel poverty are likely to be worst hit, as social housing landlords will find it hardest to get financing for installing panels, as will schemes for lower income households to have panels installed at no upfront cost.
Nigel Barnard, a director of Westward Housing Group, which is installing panels on 900 properties, said: "[The cuts] will have a considerable impact on our ability to help alleviate fuel poverty for many of our customers, though we are continuing to work hard to find positive solutions."
Most solar companies agree that, given the reductions in cost, the tariffs should be reduced. But they are concerned that the cuts are too deep, and the sudden introduction of the cuts – which will take effect from 12 December – is causing chaos as companies struggle to fulfil orders in time. Investors have also been scared off by the government's actions, as sudden changes to the subsidies make it hard to develop medium- and long-term business plans.
Several solar companies are bringing legal actions against the government, arguing that the rushed introduction of the cuts is illegal, because it is happening in advance of the consultation on the issue.
Labour, which introduced the feed-in tariffs late in its last term, is determined to take the government to task on the issue. Caroline Flint, shadow energy and climate change secretary, said: "The government's cuts to feed-in tariffs will hit families, put thousands of jobs at risk and destroy the solar industry. This is just the latest example of a government which is out of touch, cutting too far and too fast, with no plan for jobs and growth. They must think again, revise their scheme and extend their tariff deadline."
China pre-empts Durban conference with boasts on green progress
White paper outlining China's recent achievements seen as attempt to minimise blame if talks in Durban break down
Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 November 2011 17.19 GMT
China's climate negotiators fired off a pre-emptive volley on Wednesday, with the most detailed report to date on the progress the country has made to ease greenhouse gases, and the strategy it will adopt at next week's climate talks in Durban.
With the world's biggest carbon emitter expected to come under intense pressure in South Africa, the government released the white paper to highlight its achievements on renewables, afforestation and industrial efficiency, and set the stage for closer collaboration with Europe and developing nations.
It is both a last-ditch attempt to salvage a deal and a political insurance policy aimed at minimising blame – and most likely deflecting it to the US – if the talks break down.
The document released by the State Council – China's cabinet – contained no new details, but it spelled out the measures the government has taken to meet the commitment made at Copenhagen: a reduction in carbon emissions relative to GDP by 40-45% between 2005 and 2020.
The paper also spells out the steps that will be taken over the next five years to increase forest cover by 12.5m hectares and lift the non-fossil fuel share of energy consumption to 11.4%.
Despite widespread pessimism about the prospects for a deal, Xie Zhenhua, the head of the Chinese delegation to Durban, said China wanted to overcome the impasse between rich and poor countries by getting Europe to commit to a renewal of the Kyoto Protocol, and other nations – who are unwilling to sign – to make comparable voluntary cuts or provide technology and financial assistance.
Xie said an extension to the Kyoto Protocol – the first commitment phase of which is currently set to end in 2012 – was crucial: "How to solve this problem is actually a very central, very key problem at the Durban meeting".
A comprehensive deal still looks elusive and the Guardian reported this week that rich countries have privately admitted that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016 at the earliest, but hopes have been rekindled by signs that Europe, China and the G77 group of developing nations have been working constructively in recent months. There is a faint possibility that Europe may agree to a new commitment period if China and the G77 promise to accept binding cuts by 2015 or 2020.
Yang Fuqiang, senior climate adviser to the US-based Natural Resource Defence Council, said the paper showed a more co-operative and transparent approach.
"This new white paper shows China's new policy towards climate change is more constructive, more flexible," he said. "This white paper will help to release the pressure if China is unfairly accused in Durban."
Other NGO analysts concurred. Wu Changhua, the greater China director of the Climate Group, said: "I don't think this white paper will influence the process of the Durban conference, but it is a form of communication with the world. It shows what China has done."
Other observers saw hints of a more fundamental shift, including a recognition by the government that its existing approach is insufficient because the economy is growing so fast that even if China achieves its carbon intensity goals the overall amount of emissions will surge.
Li Yan of Greenpeace said she was encouraged that Xie was talking openly about the need to control total energy consumption, rather than just its intensity relative to GDP.
"I think Xie admitted the China's energy structure is the big problem for China carbon emission. To control the use of coal energy is key to control carbon emissions," Li said. "The central government has the policy, but the problem is how to implement it."
But most noted the strategic role of the paper in highlight how much China has done in recent years compared to the US and other so-called "boulder nations" that are increasingly seen as obstacles to progress.
• Additional research by Cecily Huang
Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 November 2011 17.19 GMT
China's climate negotiators fired off a pre-emptive volley on Wednesday, with the most detailed report to date on the progress the country has made to ease greenhouse gases, and the strategy it will adopt at next week's climate talks in Durban.
With the world's biggest carbon emitter expected to come under intense pressure in South Africa, the government released the white paper to highlight its achievements on renewables, afforestation and industrial efficiency, and set the stage for closer collaboration with Europe and developing nations.
It is both a last-ditch attempt to salvage a deal and a political insurance policy aimed at minimising blame – and most likely deflecting it to the US – if the talks break down.
The document released by the State Council – China's cabinet – contained no new details, but it spelled out the measures the government has taken to meet the commitment made at Copenhagen: a reduction in carbon emissions relative to GDP by 40-45% between 2005 and 2020.
The paper also spells out the steps that will be taken over the next five years to increase forest cover by 12.5m hectares and lift the non-fossil fuel share of energy consumption to 11.4%.
Despite widespread pessimism about the prospects for a deal, Xie Zhenhua, the head of the Chinese delegation to Durban, said China wanted to overcome the impasse between rich and poor countries by getting Europe to commit to a renewal of the Kyoto Protocol, and other nations – who are unwilling to sign – to make comparable voluntary cuts or provide technology and financial assistance.
Xie said an extension to the Kyoto Protocol – the first commitment phase of which is currently set to end in 2012 – was crucial: "How to solve this problem is actually a very central, very key problem at the Durban meeting".
A comprehensive deal still looks elusive and the Guardian reported this week that rich countries have privately admitted that no new global climate agreement will be reached before 2016 at the earliest, but hopes have been rekindled by signs that Europe, China and the G77 group of developing nations have been working constructively in recent months. There is a faint possibility that Europe may agree to a new commitment period if China and the G77 promise to accept binding cuts by 2015 or 2020.
Yang Fuqiang, senior climate adviser to the US-based Natural Resource Defence Council, said the paper showed a more co-operative and transparent approach.
"This new white paper shows China's new policy towards climate change is more constructive, more flexible," he said. "This white paper will help to release the pressure if China is unfairly accused in Durban."
Other NGO analysts concurred. Wu Changhua, the greater China director of the Climate Group, said: "I don't think this white paper will influence the process of the Durban conference, but it is a form of communication with the world. It shows what China has done."
Other observers saw hints of a more fundamental shift, including a recognition by the government that its existing approach is insufficient because the economy is growing so fast that even if China achieves its carbon intensity goals the overall amount of emissions will surge.
Li Yan of Greenpeace said she was encouraged that Xie was talking openly about the need to control total energy consumption, rather than just its intensity relative to GDP.
"I think Xie admitted the China's energy structure is the big problem for China carbon emission. To control the use of coal energy is key to control carbon emissions," Li said. "The central government has the policy, but the problem is how to implement it."
But most noted the strategic role of the paper in highlight how much China has done in recent years compared to the US and other so-called "boulder nations" that are increasingly seen as obstacles to progress.
• Additional research by Cecily Huang
Monday, 21 November 2011
Prince Philip: Only tickling the nose of our energy crisis
The Duke of Edinburgh has said just what we’re all thinking about our disgraceful wind farms, says Clive Aslet.
By Clive Aslet
You have to hand it to the Duke of Edinburgh. At 90, he is still as incisive as ever. Once again, the Royal family has articulated what ordinary people, without the ear of the media, have long felt. His son might have called the wind farms that are besmirching our mountains and waving their giant arms inanely out at sea “a monstrous carbuncle”. Prince Philip chose “disgrace”. So they are. The politicians who foisted them upon us should be put in the stocks.
Wind farms are Blairism incarnate. Wanting to look big on the international stage, he committed Britain to some preposterously over-ambitious targets for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. As ever, this was glittering, shop-window stuff, the bill for which would somehow be obfuscated by the dour Scot in accounts. After due nail-biting, Brown came up with a system so convoluted that most people have only just realised that the person who ultimately pays is the consumer.
We are all generously subsidising the wind farms which many of us hate through our electricity bills. Why? Because unlike other forms of renewable energy, which would have required the Treasury to build huge civil engineering projects, the cost could be met through a trade in Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs). It works like this. Power companies are required by law to provide a proportion of green energy and if they don’t meet the target, they are fined. But they can avoid the fine if they buy-in green energy credits, which are traded in the shape of ROCs.
The money from selling ROCs is far more attractive to the wind farm speculators than the value of the energy itself. The power companies simply pass on the cost to the poor sap who buys their electricity. It’s Machiavellian. Worse, it’s Brownian — and, as the Duke says, a disgrace. But from the Blairite shallows, it was much better than having to confront a decision that might have incurred short-term unpopularity, but is all but inevitable for our future energy security: the building of more nuclear power stations.
Of course, in the boom times, when the economy was growing, this green indulgence might have been like that extra chocolate you shouldn’t have; nobody would notice it when the suit had been let out. We have now found that the waist band isn’t infinitely elastic. But just as belts are being tightened, green energy has bloated our bills by, as Lord Marland from the Department of Energy and Climate Change revealed in the House of Lords last month, a whopping £7.1 billion. Think how many libraries that would keep open. It is due to get worse. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, whose sums have so far proved accurate, that figure will have risen to some £40 billion by 2020 — that’s between £6 billion and £8 billion a year; nearly all of it taken by wind.
I’m not the first person to have noticed that wind farms only generate electricity when the wind is blowing. On a freezing day, when the country turns up its electric blanket, the ear hearkens to what Robert Bridges called “the stillness of the solemn air”. No wind. However many turbines bristle on Welsh mountain tops or pylons stride through the Great Glen, we’ll only be tickling the nose of our energy crisis. We’re missing those targets to reduce emissions by a country mile. Yet as the winter progresses, life for some of the poorest members of society will become more difficult because of it. Food and fuel are going up in price, fuel by more than it need do because of those wretched wind farms.
We all know about David Cameron’s green instincts: he paraded them before the election as part of the campaign to convince voters that the Tories weren’t simply driven by the bottom line. He even put a windmill on his London chimney, even though there is not enough wind in cities. Now he should go and see that Meryl Streep film, and remind himself of the great lesson that Mrs Thatcher taught us: subsidies for industry don’t work.
We need more research into renewables, to find technologies that will work. But no form of green energy except nuclear is ready to take over from present sources of production. As fossil fuel prices rise, entrepreneurs will find ways of producing energy more cheaply. Wind farms are the modern British Leyland; the Government tried to pick a winner, but picked wrong.
Throw them out. Throw out the windmonger in chief, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne, and leave it to the money men. Green MP Caroline Lucas may instinctively defend the interests of people rich enough to put solar panels on their roofs against those of the lowly consumers who have to pay to subsidise them, but the Treasury is, quite rightly, reducing the feed-in tariff for solar panels.
Less attention has been attracted by the intention to reduce subsidies for wind. Not by very much, mind you, and not by enough; but sufficient to send a signal to would-be investors that this rash, fierce blaze of riot cannot last. We can’t go on wrecking the landscape and spending money we don’t have. As the Admiral would have said in Mary Poppins, heavy weather is brewing for wind farms. It can’t arrive a moment too soon.
Clive Aslet is Editor at Large of 'Country Life’
By Clive Aslet
You have to hand it to the Duke of Edinburgh. At 90, he is still as incisive as ever. Once again, the Royal family has articulated what ordinary people, without the ear of the media, have long felt. His son might have called the wind farms that are besmirching our mountains and waving their giant arms inanely out at sea “a monstrous carbuncle”. Prince Philip chose “disgrace”. So they are. The politicians who foisted them upon us should be put in the stocks.
Wind farms are Blairism incarnate. Wanting to look big on the international stage, he committed Britain to some preposterously over-ambitious targets for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. As ever, this was glittering, shop-window stuff, the bill for which would somehow be obfuscated by the dour Scot in accounts. After due nail-biting, Brown came up with a system so convoluted that most people have only just realised that the person who ultimately pays is the consumer.
We are all generously subsidising the wind farms which many of us hate through our electricity bills. Why? Because unlike other forms of renewable energy, which would have required the Treasury to build huge civil engineering projects, the cost could be met through a trade in Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROCs). It works like this. Power companies are required by law to provide a proportion of green energy and if they don’t meet the target, they are fined. But they can avoid the fine if they buy-in green energy credits, which are traded in the shape of ROCs.
The money from selling ROCs is far more attractive to the wind farm speculators than the value of the energy itself. The power companies simply pass on the cost to the poor sap who buys their electricity. It’s Machiavellian. Worse, it’s Brownian — and, as the Duke says, a disgrace. But from the Blairite shallows, it was much better than having to confront a decision that might have incurred short-term unpopularity, but is all but inevitable for our future energy security: the building of more nuclear power stations.
Of course, in the boom times, when the economy was growing, this green indulgence might have been like that extra chocolate you shouldn’t have; nobody would notice it when the suit had been let out. We have now found that the waist band isn’t infinitely elastic. But just as belts are being tightened, green energy has bloated our bills by, as Lord Marland from the Department of Energy and Climate Change revealed in the House of Lords last month, a whopping £7.1 billion. Think how many libraries that would keep open. It is due to get worse. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, whose sums have so far proved accurate, that figure will have risen to some £40 billion by 2020 — that’s between £6 billion and £8 billion a year; nearly all of it taken by wind.
I’m not the first person to have noticed that wind farms only generate electricity when the wind is blowing. On a freezing day, when the country turns up its electric blanket, the ear hearkens to what Robert Bridges called “the stillness of the solemn air”. No wind. However many turbines bristle on Welsh mountain tops or pylons stride through the Great Glen, we’ll only be tickling the nose of our energy crisis. We’re missing those targets to reduce emissions by a country mile. Yet as the winter progresses, life for some of the poorest members of society will become more difficult because of it. Food and fuel are going up in price, fuel by more than it need do because of those wretched wind farms.
We all know about David Cameron’s green instincts: he paraded them before the election as part of the campaign to convince voters that the Tories weren’t simply driven by the bottom line. He even put a windmill on his London chimney, even though there is not enough wind in cities. Now he should go and see that Meryl Streep film, and remind himself of the great lesson that Mrs Thatcher taught us: subsidies for industry don’t work.
We need more research into renewables, to find technologies that will work. But no form of green energy except nuclear is ready to take over from present sources of production. As fossil fuel prices rise, entrepreneurs will find ways of producing energy more cheaply. Wind farms are the modern British Leyland; the Government tried to pick a winner, but picked wrong.
Throw them out. Throw out the windmonger in chief, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne, and leave it to the money men. Green MP Caroline Lucas may instinctively defend the interests of people rich enough to put solar panels on their roofs against those of the lowly consumers who have to pay to subsidise them, but the Treasury is, quite rightly, reducing the feed-in tariff for solar panels.
Less attention has been attracted by the intention to reduce subsidies for wind. Not by very much, mind you, and not by enough; but sufficient to send a signal to would-be investors that this rash, fierce blaze of riot cannot last. We can’t go on wrecking the landscape and spending money we don’t have. As the Admiral would have said in Mary Poppins, heavy weather is brewing for wind farms. It can’t arrive a moment too soon.
Clive Aslet is Editor at Large of 'Country Life’
Gates pushes for green investment
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and one of the richest men in the world, has called upon the US government to triple its research spending on clean-energy technology to ensure that America is not left behind in the search for alternatives to fossil fuels.
Mr Gates said that market incentives alone will not raise the amounts of money needed for the kind of long-term development of alternative sources of energy that will replace the need to burn vast quantities of oil, coal and natural gas. "I believe it is imperative that the government commit to clean energy innovation at a level similar to its research investments in health and defence," Mr Gates says in a guest editorial for the journal Science.
"There is really no other choice. Carbon-based fuels are prone to wild price gyrations and are causing the planet to overheat. The United States spends close to $1 billion (£640m) a day on foreign oil, while countries such as China, Germany, Japan and Korea are making huge investments in clean-energy technologies," said Mr Gates, who called on the US government to boost spending on energy research from $5bn to $16bn a year.
Mr Gates said that market incentives alone will not raise the amounts of money needed for the kind of long-term development of alternative sources of energy that will replace the need to burn vast quantities of oil, coal and natural gas. "I believe it is imperative that the government commit to clean energy innovation at a level similar to its research investments in health and defence," Mr Gates says in a guest editorial for the journal Science.
"There is really no other choice. Carbon-based fuels are prone to wild price gyrations and are causing the planet to overheat. The United States spends close to $1 billion (£640m) a day on foreign oil, while countries such as China, Germany, Japan and Korea are making huge investments in clean-energy technologies," said Mr Gates, who called on the US government to boost spending on energy research from $5bn to $16bn a year.
EPA Lists Cars with Best Fuel Economy, Past and Present
By Jonathan Welsh
The federal fueleconomy.gov site that carries information from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency about fuel economy, fuel prices and related topics released its annual list of cars with the best fuel economy.
One notable development is that all of the vehicles on the top-10 list for the 2012 model year have pure electric or hybrid powertrains. The results reflect the growing range of these vehicles available as well as their overall efficiency.
The site also named the top-10 cars in fuel-economy rankings dating to 1984. While half of the all-time greats on this year’s list are 2012 models, it is still worth noting that cars like a mid-1980s Chevy Sprint, a mid-1990s Honda Civic and the 2000 Honda Insight hybrid make the cut despite their advanced age. Older, relatively low-tech vehicles apparently still have a few lessons for modern automotive engineers.
The following charts show which cars lead the pack in fuel economy today, and which older models are still among the all-time leaders.
For charts see: http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/11/20/epa-lists-cars-with-best-fuel-economy-past-and-present/?KEYWORDS=environmental+news
The federal fueleconomy.gov site that carries information from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency about fuel economy, fuel prices and related topics released its annual list of cars with the best fuel economy.
One notable development is that all of the vehicles on the top-10 list for the 2012 model year have pure electric or hybrid powertrains. The results reflect the growing range of these vehicles available as well as their overall efficiency.
The site also named the top-10 cars in fuel-economy rankings dating to 1984. While half of the all-time greats on this year’s list are 2012 models, it is still worth noting that cars like a mid-1980s Chevy Sprint, a mid-1990s Honda Civic and the 2000 Honda Insight hybrid make the cut despite their advanced age. Older, relatively low-tech vehicles apparently still have a few lessons for modern automotive engineers.
The following charts show which cars lead the pack in fuel economy today, and which older models are still among the all-time leaders.
For charts see: http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/11/20/epa-lists-cars-with-best-fuel-economy-past-and-present/?KEYWORDS=environmental+news
China's green growth potential 'could create 9.5m new jobs'
Report urges China to replace dirty, energy intensive industries with renewable technology and other 'green' businesses
Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 November 2011 10.40 GMT
China can make a net gain of 9.5m jobs over the next five years if it phases out its dirtiest, energy intensive industries and replaces them with renewable technology and other "green" businesses, according to an influential advisory body.
The potential for green growth was flagged up in a report that highlights the "Jeckyl and Hyde" nature of the environmental situation in China, which can claim both the world's biggest investment in new energy and the most dangerous levels of pollution. The report was released this week by the China Council of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, which is headed by Li Keqiang – widely tipped to become the next prime minister – and includes 200 domestic and overseas experts and leading figures in the United Nations and other world bodies.
On the economics of a shift to a more sustainable development path, it is brimful of ambition and optimism. The council advises the government to spend 5.8 trillion yuan (£61bn) on measures to save energy, protect the environment and replace polluting industries with hi-tech firms. It estimates this would create 10.6m jobs, boost GDP by 8 trillion yuan and result in energy savings worth another 1.4 trillion yuan. These gains, it says, would far exceed the costs of eliminating the dirtier sectors of the economy, which are calculated as a loss of 950,000 jobs and 100bn yuan in output.
At their annual meeting, the council emphasised the need to shift track – a process that the government has tried to promote in its latest five-year plan. "The industrial sector is still the prime energy consumer and a major cause of pollution, so greening the sector is key for China's green transformation," Li Ganjie, vice minister of environmental protection and the council's secretary general was quoted as saying by the China Daily.
On the environmental situation, however, the report painted a far bleaker picture for the next 10 years of worsening levels of toxic waste, ecological degradation and water shortages. At the release of the report, Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, praised China's $49bn (£31bn) investment last year in renewable energy, but said the country is also paying an alarming health cost for the past three decades of dirty growth. "They are paying a price first of all individually by premature deaths ... Respiratory diseases and premature deaths in the hundreds of thousands," he said.
The report - which was three years in the making - placed much of the blame on an obsession with GDP expansion, particularly at a local government level, which has resulted in lax implementation of environmental goals. "The blind pursuit of economic growth has now become a huge obstacle for China's green growth," it says.
It suggests the introduction of a carbon tax and new pricing mechanisms that would encourage more efficient use of scarce resources such as water. The central government says it is also trying to rebalance environmental quality with economic quantity, partly by setting new goals to reduce pollution.
In the latest promise of improvement, the Ministry of Environmental Protection said it will tighten air quality monitoring and include PM2.5 small particulate matter in the index for the first time. Zhou Shengxian, the environment minister, told the council that China would move towards international standards of monitoring, but warned that there was still a long way to go. "It will be a gradual process, and won't be achieved all at once," Zhou said while outside Beijing was shrouded in a thick haze.
Jonathan Watts
guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 November 2011 10.40 GMT
China can make a net gain of 9.5m jobs over the next five years if it phases out its dirtiest, energy intensive industries and replaces them with renewable technology and other "green" businesses, according to an influential advisory body.
The potential for green growth was flagged up in a report that highlights the "Jeckyl and Hyde" nature of the environmental situation in China, which can claim both the world's biggest investment in new energy and the most dangerous levels of pollution. The report was released this week by the China Council of International Co-operation on Environment and Development, which is headed by Li Keqiang – widely tipped to become the next prime minister – and includes 200 domestic and overseas experts and leading figures in the United Nations and other world bodies.
On the economics of a shift to a more sustainable development path, it is brimful of ambition and optimism. The council advises the government to spend 5.8 trillion yuan (£61bn) on measures to save energy, protect the environment and replace polluting industries with hi-tech firms. It estimates this would create 10.6m jobs, boost GDP by 8 trillion yuan and result in energy savings worth another 1.4 trillion yuan. These gains, it says, would far exceed the costs of eliminating the dirtier sectors of the economy, which are calculated as a loss of 950,000 jobs and 100bn yuan in output.
At their annual meeting, the council emphasised the need to shift track – a process that the government has tried to promote in its latest five-year plan. "The industrial sector is still the prime energy consumer and a major cause of pollution, so greening the sector is key for China's green transformation," Li Ganjie, vice minister of environmental protection and the council's secretary general was quoted as saying by the China Daily.
On the environmental situation, however, the report painted a far bleaker picture for the next 10 years of worsening levels of toxic waste, ecological degradation and water shortages. At the release of the report, Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, praised China's $49bn (£31bn) investment last year in renewable energy, but said the country is also paying an alarming health cost for the past three decades of dirty growth. "They are paying a price first of all individually by premature deaths ... Respiratory diseases and premature deaths in the hundreds of thousands," he said.
The report - which was three years in the making - placed much of the blame on an obsession with GDP expansion, particularly at a local government level, which has resulted in lax implementation of environmental goals. "The blind pursuit of economic growth has now become a huge obstacle for China's green growth," it says.
It suggests the introduction of a carbon tax and new pricing mechanisms that would encourage more efficient use of scarce resources such as water. The central government says it is also trying to rebalance environmental quality with economic quantity, partly by setting new goals to reduce pollution.
In the latest promise of improvement, the Ministry of Environmental Protection said it will tighten air quality monitoring and include PM2.5 small particulate matter in the index for the first time. Zhou Shengxian, the environment minister, told the council that China would move towards international standards of monitoring, but warned that there was still a long way to go. "It will be a gradual process, and won't be achieved all at once," Zhou said while outside Beijing was shrouded in a thick haze.
Friday, 18 November 2011
How long do we have to wait before solar technology reaches 'grid parity'?
The solar energy industry needs the electricity it produces to cost the same as electricity generated from fossil fuels
With Solyndra failing and solar technology being highly subsidised, how long to go before we achieve grid parity?
Karan Mangotra, via Twitter
There is little point denying that the renewable energy industry faces an uphill challenge in persuading both governments and consumers that it should be favoured over the fossil fuel industry when it comes to generating electricity.
The economic maelstrom that rages around us all at the moment means that everyone is concentrating on the bottom line. Nowhere is this focus more acute than with the cost of energy. It takes a brave politician - of which we seem to have very few - to stand up for any fledgling industry needing financial support in the way of subsidies. And the solar energy industry is a sector which is currently seeing any support it has received in the past fast withering.
For example, the recent announcement by the government that it intends to slash the feed-in tariff aimed at kick-starting the solar industry in the UK has caused much consternation across the renewables sector. And, in the US, the media and political spotlight is currently focused on the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra and the details of the $535m loan guarantee it received from the US Department of Energy.
The solar industry would have a much easier ride, of course, if it could proclaim "grid parity": the moment when the electricity it produces costs the same as the electricity generated by fossil fuels. Just when this magical moment is due to arrive is, quite naturally, the subject of much speculation. And any calculations are made much harder when governments send out mixed messages to the industry.
Last year, these pages hosted a hotly contested debate between George Monbiot and Solarcentury's Jeremy Leggett. In the course of the debate, Leggett accepted Monbiot's £100 bet that Leggett's prediction that solar photovoltaic electricity in homes will be no more pricey in 2013 than "conventional" electricity will turn out to be wrong.
One year on, has there been any progress in the pursuit of grid parity for solar energy? One recent calculation, for example, predicted 2018 was a more likely date for grid parity in developing nations blessed with strong solar radiation, but not feed-in tariffs. Are the prices of panels falling? And, if so, will they continue to do so? Or has the pressure on subsidies pushed the arrival of grid parity further back?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your own thoughts below (as opposed to emailing them) and, if quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
With Solyndra failing and solar technology being highly subsidised, how long to go before we achieve grid parity?
Karan Mangotra, via Twitter
There is little point denying that the renewable energy industry faces an uphill challenge in persuading both governments and consumers that it should be favoured over the fossil fuel industry when it comes to generating electricity.
The economic maelstrom that rages around us all at the moment means that everyone is concentrating on the bottom line. Nowhere is this focus more acute than with the cost of energy. It takes a brave politician - of which we seem to have very few - to stand up for any fledgling industry needing financial support in the way of subsidies. And the solar energy industry is a sector which is currently seeing any support it has received in the past fast withering.
For example, the recent announcement by the government that it intends to slash the feed-in tariff aimed at kick-starting the solar industry in the UK has caused much consternation across the renewables sector. And, in the US, the media and political spotlight is currently focused on the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra and the details of the $535m loan guarantee it received from the US Department of Energy.
The solar industry would have a much easier ride, of course, if it could proclaim "grid parity": the moment when the electricity it produces costs the same as the electricity generated by fossil fuels. Just when this magical moment is due to arrive is, quite naturally, the subject of much speculation. And any calculations are made much harder when governments send out mixed messages to the industry.
Last year, these pages hosted a hotly contested debate between George Monbiot and Solarcentury's Jeremy Leggett. In the course of the debate, Leggett accepted Monbiot's £100 bet that Leggett's prediction that solar photovoltaic electricity in homes will be no more pricey in 2013 than "conventional" electricity will turn out to be wrong.
One year on, has there been any progress in the pursuit of grid parity for solar energy? One recent calculation, for example, predicted 2018 was a more likely date for grid parity in developing nations blessed with strong solar radiation, but not feed-in tariffs. Are the prices of panels falling? And, if so, will they continue to do so? Or has the pressure on subsidies pushed the arrival of grid parity further back?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your own thoughts below (as opposed to emailing them) and, if quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Britain must lead the way in green technology
The only way Britain can get out of the economic crisis is to invest in the development of new technology, according to Simon Singh, one of Britain's most respected science writers.
By Matthew Bayley, Kerala
1:19PM GMT 17 Nov 2011
Simon Singh said that the study of pure science was hugely beneficial to the economy and urged the government to make the country 'world leaders' in green technology.
'The only way we're going to get out of this is investment,' he said. 'We could be world leaders in tidal energy research, wind power, solar cell technology. These are areas where someone is going to lead the way.'
Speaking to an audience at the Hay Festival in Kerala - sponsored by The Daily Telegraph - the author of Fermat's Last Theorem and The Big Bang explained why government investment in scientific research could be justified at a time of economic turmoil.
'Pure science pays back,' he said, citing the example of the creation of the internet at the CERN particle physics research laboratory by British scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee in the early 1990s.
Originally it had just been a way of helping scientists around the world communicate better, he said. 'Decades later it's changed culture, society and made economies more efficient.'
New medical scanning techniques to help pregnant women were developed from sensors built to look for minute particles in the same lab, he said. Yet the cost of building the £6 billion facility was equivalent to the whole population of Europe buying a single pint of beer each.
'Can you justify the cost of research?' he asked. 'Yes you can. We're humans. We're creative, we're curious. We have to continue to answer these questions. We also have to treat it well for society.
'A lot of kids get excited by this (cosmology),' he said. After doing research at Cambridge, Singh said he had gone into writing, while his colleagues had gone into engineering and banking, all of them contributing to the economy.
He cited figures that suggested that a graduate with a physics, engineering or computing degree was likely to earn on average 50 per cent more than other degree holders over their lifetime.
'These people at college are going off and adding to the GDP of the country.'
Singh praised David Cameron and his ministers for not slashing government money spent on science research by as much as had been expected.
'It's still a 10 per cent cut over five years,' he warned.
During his hour long talk about the Big Bang, Singh also suggested that Professor Stephen Hawking may never win a Nobel Prize for science because his ideas on black holes have still yet to be proven.
During his presentation Singh sketched out the major developments that led scientists to conclude that the universe had probably started from a single point, rather than exisiting forever in a 'steady state'.
To illustrate one point he played the Led Zeppelin song 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards to show the audience that if they listened hard enough it contained lyrics relating to the Devil, including the line 'There was a little tool shed where he made us suffer, sad Satan'.
He aso disclosed that the pop star Katie Melua had rerecorded a song specially for him after he publicly criticised her when the original version contained scientific inaccuracies, including the claim that the age of the universe was 12 billion years, and even that was 'a guess'.
13 billion years was the correct age, Singh said.
In one humorous moment he also explained a mathematical formula he had devised that he said proved the Teletubbies television show was 'evil'.
By Matthew Bayley, Kerala
1:19PM GMT 17 Nov 2011
Simon Singh said that the study of pure science was hugely beneficial to the economy and urged the government to make the country 'world leaders' in green technology.
'The only way we're going to get out of this is investment,' he said. 'We could be world leaders in tidal energy research, wind power, solar cell technology. These are areas where someone is going to lead the way.'
Speaking to an audience at the Hay Festival in Kerala - sponsored by The Daily Telegraph - the author of Fermat's Last Theorem and The Big Bang explained why government investment in scientific research could be justified at a time of economic turmoil.
'Pure science pays back,' he said, citing the example of the creation of the internet at the CERN particle physics research laboratory by British scientist Sir Tim Berners-Lee in the early 1990s.
Originally it had just been a way of helping scientists around the world communicate better, he said. 'Decades later it's changed culture, society and made economies more efficient.'
New medical scanning techniques to help pregnant women were developed from sensors built to look for minute particles in the same lab, he said. Yet the cost of building the £6 billion facility was equivalent to the whole population of Europe buying a single pint of beer each.
'Can you justify the cost of research?' he asked. 'Yes you can. We're humans. We're creative, we're curious. We have to continue to answer these questions. We also have to treat it well for society.
'A lot of kids get excited by this (cosmology),' he said. After doing research at Cambridge, Singh said he had gone into writing, while his colleagues had gone into engineering and banking, all of them contributing to the economy.
He cited figures that suggested that a graduate with a physics, engineering or computing degree was likely to earn on average 50 per cent more than other degree holders over their lifetime.
'These people at college are going off and adding to the GDP of the country.'
Singh praised David Cameron and his ministers for not slashing government money spent on science research by as much as had been expected.
'It's still a 10 per cent cut over five years,' he warned.
During his hour long talk about the Big Bang, Singh also suggested that Professor Stephen Hawking may never win a Nobel Prize for science because his ideas on black holes have still yet to be proven.
During his presentation Singh sketched out the major developments that led scientists to conclude that the universe had probably started from a single point, rather than exisiting forever in a 'steady state'.
To illustrate one point he played the Led Zeppelin song 'Stairway to Heaven' backwards to show the audience that if they listened hard enough it contained lyrics relating to the Devil, including the line 'There was a little tool shed where he made us suffer, sad Satan'.
He aso disclosed that the pop star Katie Melua had rerecorded a song specially for him after he publicly criticised her when the original version contained scientific inaccuracies, including the claim that the age of the universe was 12 billion years, and even that was 'a guess'.
13 billion years was the correct age, Singh said.
In one humorous moment he also explained a mathematical formula he had devised that he said proved the Teletubbies television show was 'evil'.
Groups oppose clean energy funds for trash burning
Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. — Environmental groups are pressing state regulators to reject a petition seeking renewable energy subsidies for trash-burning power plants, saying the incinerators are big polluters that destroy paper, plastic and other materials that should be recycled instead.
The Public Service Commission is expected to rule on Covanta Energy's petition at its meeting Thursday in Albany. Covanta, based in Morristown, N.J., operates 44 energy-from-waste plants in the United States, including seven in New York.
Covanta has asked the PSC to add trash burning to the list of renewable energy technologies eligible for state subsidies. At a news conference Tuesday, the New York Public Interest Research Group and several other environmental organizations said they've asked the commission to reject Covanta's petition, saying incinerators generate air pollution and toxic ash.
Covanta spokesman James Regan disputed the groups' claims, saying the company presented evidence to the PSC that waste-to-energy plants using the latest technology are cleaner than some sources of energy eligible for subsidies. The petition only applies to new plants, not existing ones, he said.
In a report released Tuesday, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, a coalition of environmental groups, said the incinerator industry is pursuing a strategy across the nation seeking clean-energy subsidies. The report said most federal energy subsidies that benefit trash incineration are intended to foster the development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and small hydroelectric plants.
The report said incineration is the most expensive form of energy production in the United States per unit of electricity produced, citing a U.S. Energy Information Administration finding that the cost of building waste-to-energy plants was 60 percent higher than that of new nuclear plants, and the operating costs are 10 times higher than coal. Harrisburg, Pa., filed for bankruptcy last month because of $300 million in debt tied to a Covanta incinerator there.
In Connecticut, Covanta paid a $400,000 fine in July for releasing unsafe levels of toxic dioxin from its trash-burning plant in Wallingford. In 2009, Covanta paid a $355,000 fine for unsafe dioxin emissions from its Wallingford and Hartford plants.
"Waste-to-energy facilities create more air pollution and climate-altering greenhouse gases than coal plants," said Ross Gould of Environmental Advocates. "Investing in waste-to-energy projects undermines New York's renewable energy goals by diverting money intended for clean energy such as solar and wind."
In documents submitted to the Public Service Commission, Covanta said its waste incinerators in New York routinely operate well below their permit limits for air emissions, with all emissions except nitrogen oxides at least 55 percent below the permitted emission limits and some, including mercury, metals and dioxins, being at least 80 percent below New York's strict emission limits.
Covanta said a new trash-burning plant can generate up to 750 kilowatts of electricity per ton of trash, 14 times more than that produced by landfill gas-to-energy plants, which are eligible in New York for renewable energy subsidies.
According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 18 states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, recognize municipal waste-to-energy plants as eligible for renewable energy funds.
New York's renewable energy fund, supported by a surcharge on utility bills averaging 25 cents per month, spends about $250 million annually.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press
ALBANY, N.Y. — Environmental groups are pressing state regulators to reject a petition seeking renewable energy subsidies for trash-burning power plants, saying the incinerators are big polluters that destroy paper, plastic and other materials that should be recycled instead.
The Public Service Commission is expected to rule on Covanta Energy's petition at its meeting Thursday in Albany. Covanta, based in Morristown, N.J., operates 44 energy-from-waste plants in the United States, including seven in New York.
Covanta has asked the PSC to add trash burning to the list of renewable energy technologies eligible for state subsidies. At a news conference Tuesday, the New York Public Interest Research Group and several other environmental organizations said they've asked the commission to reject Covanta's petition, saying incinerators generate air pollution and toxic ash.
Covanta spokesman James Regan disputed the groups' claims, saying the company presented evidence to the PSC that waste-to-energy plants using the latest technology are cleaner than some sources of energy eligible for subsidies. The petition only applies to new plants, not existing ones, he said.
In a report released Tuesday, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, a coalition of environmental groups, said the incinerator industry is pursuing a strategy across the nation seeking clean-energy subsidies. The report said most federal energy subsidies that benefit trash incineration are intended to foster the development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and small hydroelectric plants.
The report said incineration is the most expensive form of energy production in the United States per unit of electricity produced, citing a U.S. Energy Information Administration finding that the cost of building waste-to-energy plants was 60 percent higher than that of new nuclear plants, and the operating costs are 10 times higher than coal. Harrisburg, Pa., filed for bankruptcy last month because of $300 million in debt tied to a Covanta incinerator there.
In Connecticut, Covanta paid a $400,000 fine in July for releasing unsafe levels of toxic dioxin from its trash-burning plant in Wallingford. In 2009, Covanta paid a $355,000 fine for unsafe dioxin emissions from its Wallingford and Hartford plants.
"Waste-to-energy facilities create more air pollution and climate-altering greenhouse gases than coal plants," said Ross Gould of Environmental Advocates. "Investing in waste-to-energy projects undermines New York's renewable energy goals by diverting money intended for clean energy such as solar and wind."
In documents submitted to the Public Service Commission, Covanta said its waste incinerators in New York routinely operate well below their permit limits for air emissions, with all emissions except nitrogen oxides at least 55 percent below the permitted emission limits and some, including mercury, metals and dioxins, being at least 80 percent below New York's strict emission limits.
Covanta said a new trash-burning plant can generate up to 750 kilowatts of electricity per ton of trash, 14 times more than that produced by landfill gas-to-energy plants, which are eligible in New York for renewable energy subsidies.
According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 18 states, including Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, recognize municipal waste-to-energy plants as eligible for renewable energy funds.
New York's renewable energy fund, supported by a surcharge on utility bills averaging 25 cents per month, spends about $250 million annually.
—Copyright 2011 Associated Press
Monday, 14 November 2011
Bob Holt guides energy firm to £10m listing
Bob Holt, the long-standing chairman of support services group Mears, is to bring a new energy consultancy to the London Stock Exchange's junior Aim market in a £10m-plus listing.
By James Quinn and Helia Ebrahimi
8:00AM GMT 13 Nov 2011
The news comes a week after Mr Holt, who bought a controlling stake in Mears in the mid-1990s and subsequently floated it on Aim, was forced to issue a profit warning after changes to Government subsidies for domestic solar power use meant its solar panel installation had to close, leading to a £2m write-off.
However, in a rare public new issue, given the turbulent state of the equity capital markets, Mr Holt has stewarded a £3.34m fundraising by Inspired Energy, a Lancashire-based company which specialises in maximising energy efficiency for business users and reducing bills.
Inspired Energy is poised to reverse into Finemore Energy, a cash shell which listed earlier this year with the purpose of acquiring British companies in the energy sector.
The deal is expected to be announced as soon as tomorrow, with institutional backing from a number of well-known fund managers including ISIS Equity Partners and Octopus Investments. Shore Capital led the fundraising.
Mr Holt will chair the company, with Janet Thornton, the company's co-founder in 2000 along with husband Matthew, becoming chief executive.
By James Quinn and Helia Ebrahimi
8:00AM GMT 13 Nov 2011
The news comes a week after Mr Holt, who bought a controlling stake in Mears in the mid-1990s and subsequently floated it on Aim, was forced to issue a profit warning after changes to Government subsidies for domestic solar power use meant its solar panel installation had to close, leading to a £2m write-off.
However, in a rare public new issue, given the turbulent state of the equity capital markets, Mr Holt has stewarded a £3.34m fundraising by Inspired Energy, a Lancashire-based company which specialises in maximising energy efficiency for business users and reducing bills.
Inspired Energy is poised to reverse into Finemore Energy, a cash shell which listed earlier this year with the purpose of acquiring British companies in the energy sector.
The deal is expected to be announced as soon as tomorrow, with institutional backing from a number of well-known fund managers including ISIS Equity Partners and Octopus Investments. Shore Capital led the fundraising.
Mr Holt will chair the company, with Janet Thornton, the company's co-founder in 2000 along with husband Matthew, becoming chief executive.
Backlash grows over Cameron's green sell-out
Business leaders and environmental campaigners unite in plea to halt the cut in funding for solar panel schemes.
Jane Merrick, Matt Chorley
Sunday 13 November 2011
David Cameron today faces a revolt of business leaders, councils, environment campaigners and unions furious at his decision to cut funding for household solar energy, severely undermining his claim that the coalition would be the "greenest government ever".
In a letter to the Prime Minister seen by The Independent on Sunday, a coalition of 55 individuals and groups warns he will "strangle at birth" Britain's booming solar panel industry – threatening 25,000 jobs – by halving the state subsidy for the popular "feed-in tariff" scheme.
The funding for households who feed excess electricity generated by their solar panels into the national grid is to be cut from 43p to 21p per kilowatt hour (kwh) from next month, doubling the length of time people would have to wait before their solar panels became economically viable.
The feed-in tariff scheme is one of the most popular environmental measures introduced by any government. It has already been adopted by 100,000 private and housing association homes, and was championed by David Cameron within weeks of him becoming Conservative leader.
Yet last month ministers announced that, from 12 December, the subsidies would be cut in half, despite claims they were consulting on the plan.
A letter by a broad alliance – from the Federation of Small Businesses and house-building organisations to council leaders from all three political parties, as well as the Town and Country Planning Association – has been organised by Friends of the Earth and the Cut Don't Kill campaign, which is pressing for the Government to temper the reforms. Mr Cameron and Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, are also under pressure from the Confederation of British Industry, whose chief, John Cridland, said the measure was an "own goal". Mr Huhne has also been warned that 20 Liberal Democrat MPs – more than a third of the parliamentary party – are fighting the proposals.
In scathing language, the letter tells Mr Cameron: "This could only knock confidence in the UK's determination to build a low-carbon economy and hugely undermine your determination to lead the 'greenest Government ever'."
In his first week as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron told civil servants at the Department for Energy and Climate Change: "I want us to be the greenest government ever – a very simple ambition and one that I'm absolutely committed to achieving." Yet the solar electricity cut is just the latest in a series of U-turns and retreats on environmental policies by the coalition government.
The boom in solar energy has not been confined to middle-class families: 100,000 properties belonging to housing associations have applied for panels on their roofs.
The feed-in tariff scheme's popularity has led to its downfall, as ministers claim they must scale back the subsidies to keep funds within the £867m budget.
Howard Johns, of the Cut Don't Kill campaign, said: "This is poorly thought out, counterproductive and absurdly rushed. David Cameron can set this right and prove his commitment to green growth by stepping in to prevent such a deep cut. We can accept a cut, but the current proposal is devastating."
Caroline Flint, Labour's climate change spokesperson, said: "Until consumers are offered a simple, fair tariff, and all energy producers are forced to sell their energy to any supplier, the public will not be given a fair choice; people power alone will be unable to force down prices."
But Greg Barker, Climate Change minister, said: "My priority is to put the solar industry on a firm footing so that it can remain a successful and prosperous part of the green economy, and so that it doesn't fall victim to boom and bust."
A typical solar panel installation costs around £12,000, meaning homeowners have to wait eight years under the feed-in-tariff rate of 43p per kwh to earn the money back. This would double to 16 years' payback time under the new 21p rate.
Environmental u-turns: How PM has failed to make his government 'greenest ever'
Planning New rules will strip away protection of the countryside from development – the Government has so far resisted a continuing, widespread campaign against the plans.
Motorway speeds To the horror of environmental campaigners, the Government is raising the limit to 80mph, adding more than two million tons a year to carbon emissions.
Forests Ministers announced last year a mass sell-off, despite no reference in the Conservative manifesto or coalition agreement, but a public campaign forced a U-turn.
Green investment bank A flagship environmental policy has been severely undermined by a Treasury block on it providing loans. It will not be allowed to borrow until 2015.
Eco-homes Another legacy of Labour, but any new homes built with "zero carbon" credentials will not have carbon emissions from electrical appliances counted, undermining the definition.
Quangos The Forestry Commission, Natural England and the Environment Agency have all been prevented from policy-making, while the Sustainable Development Commission and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution have been axed.
Illegal tropical timber Ministers have scrapped a Conservative manifesto pledge to criminalise the possession of illegal tropical timber.
Aggregates The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, which diverted £20m in taxes raised from the sand and gravel industry to 200 green projects, has been scrapped.
Jane Merrick, Matt Chorley
Sunday 13 November 2011
David Cameron today faces a revolt of business leaders, councils, environment campaigners and unions furious at his decision to cut funding for household solar energy, severely undermining his claim that the coalition would be the "greenest government ever".
In a letter to the Prime Minister seen by The Independent on Sunday, a coalition of 55 individuals and groups warns he will "strangle at birth" Britain's booming solar panel industry – threatening 25,000 jobs – by halving the state subsidy for the popular "feed-in tariff" scheme.
The funding for households who feed excess electricity generated by their solar panels into the national grid is to be cut from 43p to 21p per kilowatt hour (kwh) from next month, doubling the length of time people would have to wait before their solar panels became economically viable.
The feed-in tariff scheme is one of the most popular environmental measures introduced by any government. It has already been adopted by 100,000 private and housing association homes, and was championed by David Cameron within weeks of him becoming Conservative leader.
Yet last month ministers announced that, from 12 December, the subsidies would be cut in half, despite claims they were consulting on the plan.
A letter by a broad alliance – from the Federation of Small Businesses and house-building organisations to council leaders from all three political parties, as well as the Town and Country Planning Association – has been organised by Friends of the Earth and the Cut Don't Kill campaign, which is pressing for the Government to temper the reforms. Mr Cameron and Chris Huhne, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, are also under pressure from the Confederation of British Industry, whose chief, John Cridland, said the measure was an "own goal". Mr Huhne has also been warned that 20 Liberal Democrat MPs – more than a third of the parliamentary party – are fighting the proposals.
In scathing language, the letter tells Mr Cameron: "This could only knock confidence in the UK's determination to build a low-carbon economy and hugely undermine your determination to lead the 'greenest Government ever'."
In his first week as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron told civil servants at the Department for Energy and Climate Change: "I want us to be the greenest government ever – a very simple ambition and one that I'm absolutely committed to achieving." Yet the solar electricity cut is just the latest in a series of U-turns and retreats on environmental policies by the coalition government.
The boom in solar energy has not been confined to middle-class families: 100,000 properties belonging to housing associations have applied for panels on their roofs.
The feed-in tariff scheme's popularity has led to its downfall, as ministers claim they must scale back the subsidies to keep funds within the £867m budget.
Howard Johns, of the Cut Don't Kill campaign, said: "This is poorly thought out, counterproductive and absurdly rushed. David Cameron can set this right and prove his commitment to green growth by stepping in to prevent such a deep cut. We can accept a cut, but the current proposal is devastating."
Caroline Flint, Labour's climate change spokesperson, said: "Until consumers are offered a simple, fair tariff, and all energy producers are forced to sell their energy to any supplier, the public will not be given a fair choice; people power alone will be unable to force down prices."
But Greg Barker, Climate Change minister, said: "My priority is to put the solar industry on a firm footing so that it can remain a successful and prosperous part of the green economy, and so that it doesn't fall victim to boom and bust."
A typical solar panel installation costs around £12,000, meaning homeowners have to wait eight years under the feed-in-tariff rate of 43p per kwh to earn the money back. This would double to 16 years' payback time under the new 21p rate.
Environmental u-turns: How PM has failed to make his government 'greenest ever'
Planning New rules will strip away protection of the countryside from development – the Government has so far resisted a continuing, widespread campaign against the plans.
Motorway speeds To the horror of environmental campaigners, the Government is raising the limit to 80mph, adding more than two million tons a year to carbon emissions.
Forests Ministers announced last year a mass sell-off, despite no reference in the Conservative manifesto or coalition agreement, but a public campaign forced a U-turn.
Green investment bank A flagship environmental policy has been severely undermined by a Treasury block on it providing loans. It will not be allowed to borrow until 2015.
Eco-homes Another legacy of Labour, but any new homes built with "zero carbon" credentials will not have carbon emissions from electrical appliances counted, undermining the definition.
Quangos The Forestry Commission, Natural England and the Environment Agency have all been prevented from policy-making, while the Sustainable Development Commission and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution have been axed.
Illegal tropical timber Ministers have scrapped a Conservative manifesto pledge to criminalise the possession of illegal tropical timber.
Aggregates The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, which diverted £20m in taxes raised from the sand and gravel industry to 200 green projects, has been scrapped.
Green bond offers 6% return
Green electricity firm Ecotricity launches bond to raise money for developing wind-farm capacity
Miles Brignall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 November 2011 23.02 GMT
If you like the idea of investing in renewable energy, but think that installing solar panels sounds like too much aggravation, green electricity firm Ecotricity has just launched a bond promising to pay a 6% return.
"Ecobond two" aims to raise £10m and allow people to share in the benefits of the green energy revolution "without needing to stick anything on their roof". The bond has an initial four-year term and will pay an annual rate of interest of 6%, rising to 6.5% for Ecotricity customers. The latest offer is a repeat of the firm's Ecobond one, launched in October last year, which was oversubscribed by 50%.
The bonds are open to UK-based individuals, companies, trusts and charities and the minimum investment is £500. Issuing them allows the company to bypass the banks, raising cash that will be spent on developing its wind-farm capacity.
Ecotricity says that for investors, the bond is a great alternative to feed-in tariffs, though unlike that scheme, the income is taxable and is not inflation linked. It should also be noted it is not without risk. Investors putting the same money into a top-paying bank/building society four-year fixed rate savings bond would currently get a little over 4%, but if the worst happened and the bank went bust, the first £85,000 of your investment would be protected. In the unlikely event Ecotricity folded, savers would be likely to lose some or all of their investment.
If you want a more traditional savings account, some top payers have been launched this week. Close Brothers Savings has a "Premium Gold" two-year fixed rate account paying 4.25% on a minimum investment of £10,000.
Meanwhile, Kent Reliance has a one-year fixed rate bond that pays 3.6% with a minimum investment of £1,000. There is no minimum age – the account can be operated on behalf of a child – and withdrawals are allowed, but are subject to a penalty of 180 days' interest on the amount withdrawn.
Miles Brignall
guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 November 2011 23.02 GMT
If you like the idea of investing in renewable energy, but think that installing solar panels sounds like too much aggravation, green electricity firm Ecotricity has just launched a bond promising to pay a 6% return.
"Ecobond two" aims to raise £10m and allow people to share in the benefits of the green energy revolution "without needing to stick anything on their roof". The bond has an initial four-year term and will pay an annual rate of interest of 6%, rising to 6.5% for Ecotricity customers. The latest offer is a repeat of the firm's Ecobond one, launched in October last year, which was oversubscribed by 50%.
The bonds are open to UK-based individuals, companies, trusts and charities and the minimum investment is £500. Issuing them allows the company to bypass the banks, raising cash that will be spent on developing its wind-farm capacity.
Ecotricity says that for investors, the bond is a great alternative to feed-in tariffs, though unlike that scheme, the income is taxable and is not inflation linked. It should also be noted it is not without risk. Investors putting the same money into a top-paying bank/building society four-year fixed rate savings bond would currently get a little over 4%, but if the worst happened and the bank went bust, the first £85,000 of your investment would be protected. In the unlikely event Ecotricity folded, savers would be likely to lose some or all of their investment.
If you want a more traditional savings account, some top payers have been launched this week. Close Brothers Savings has a "Premium Gold" two-year fixed rate account paying 4.25% on a minimum investment of £10,000.
Meanwhile, Kent Reliance has a one-year fixed rate bond that pays 3.6% with a minimum investment of £1,000. There is no minimum age – the account can be operated on behalf of a child – and withdrawals are allowed, but are subject to a penalty of 180 days' interest on the amount withdrawn.
Friday, 11 November 2011
Energy Agency Warns Governments to Take Action Against Global Warming
By JAMES HERRON
LONDON—Dangerous climate change will be essentially irreversible within a little over five years, the International Energy Agency said in an annual report urging governments to do what they can to prevent this outcome.
To prevent long-term average global temperatures rising more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels—seen as the maximum possible increase without serious climate disruption—immediate, drastic changes to energy and industrial policies are needed, the IEA said in its World Energy Outlook.
Such a shift looks unlikely given current global economic problems and the move away from low-carbon nuclear power in some countries after the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, the IEA said. Promises to invest to curb carbon dioxide emissions have in many cases failed to acquire legislative urgency.
The report also highlights the challenge posed by the rapidly rising use in emerging economies of the fossil fuels, particularly coal, that many scientists believe are a key contributor to climate change.
"The door to reach two degrees is about to close. In 2017 it will be closed forever," Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist, said in an interview.
Carbon-dioxide emissions in 2010 grew by an "almost unprecedented" 5.3% to 30.4 billion metric tons, the IEA said in the report.
"Coal was the biggest source of emissions growth in 2010, primarily driven by use in China and India," it said. This increase capped a decade of booming use of coal, the most readily available fuel in emerging economies, even as concern about climate change grew, the IEA said.
China and India have participated in climate-change negotiations, but have not made binding commitments to curb emissions.
On the world's current trajectory, the long-term increase in average global temperatures will exceed six degrees Celsius, the IEA said, without specifying when it projected that forecast to arrive.
Even if all countries follow through on promises they have already made to curb emissions and invest in clean energy, many of which are threatened by the current economic distress, temperatures will rise by 3.5 degrees Celsius, it said.
An increase of this size would have severe consequences, including a sea level rise of up to two meters—causing dislocation of human settlements—and drought, floods and heat waves that would severely affect food production, rates of disease and mortality, the IEA said.
The IEA uses conclusions from research collated by the United Nations. Most climate scientists agree with the U.N. conclusions, although recent polls show a growing proportion of the public in many countries is skeptical of climate change.
The agency represents the energy interests of many developed economies, but doesn't have a direct role in international climate change negotiations.
Limiting the increase in temperatures to two degrees Celsius, widely seen as the maximum safe increase, would require the reversal of several of the strongest trends in energy consumption.
The use of both coal and oil, which together provided 60% of world energy in 2009, would need to start falling by 2016, the IEA said. Under current trends, coal and oil use are forecast to rise by 60% and 25% respectively from 2009 to 2035.
At the same time, the rate of increase in energy efficiency and the amount of energy generated by wind, wave and solar and nuclear power will have to increase dramatically, the IEA said.
These changes would require an additional $15.2 trillion investment in clean energy by 2035, the IEA said. This cost would be offset somewhat by a $4.6 trillion reduction in the need for investment in fossil fuel production and lower forecasts for oil, gas and coal prices.
In the current political situation, it would be "a very big surprise" if the world managed such a transformation, Mr. Birol said, adding recent moves to curb emissions in Australia and China amount to "putting out a forest fire with a cup of water."
Write to James Herron at james.herron@dowjones.com
LONDON—Dangerous climate change will be essentially irreversible within a little over five years, the International Energy Agency said in an annual report urging governments to do what they can to prevent this outcome.
To prevent long-term average global temperatures rising more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels—seen as the maximum possible increase without serious climate disruption—immediate, drastic changes to energy and industrial policies are needed, the IEA said in its World Energy Outlook.
Such a shift looks unlikely given current global economic problems and the move away from low-carbon nuclear power in some countries after the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, the IEA said. Promises to invest to curb carbon dioxide emissions have in many cases failed to acquire legislative urgency.
The report also highlights the challenge posed by the rapidly rising use in emerging economies of the fossil fuels, particularly coal, that many scientists believe are a key contributor to climate change.
"The door to reach two degrees is about to close. In 2017 it will be closed forever," Fatih Birol, IEA chief economist, said in an interview.
Carbon-dioxide emissions in 2010 grew by an "almost unprecedented" 5.3% to 30.4 billion metric tons, the IEA said in the report.
"Coal was the biggest source of emissions growth in 2010, primarily driven by use in China and India," it said. This increase capped a decade of booming use of coal, the most readily available fuel in emerging economies, even as concern about climate change grew, the IEA said.
China and India have participated in climate-change negotiations, but have not made binding commitments to curb emissions.
On the world's current trajectory, the long-term increase in average global temperatures will exceed six degrees Celsius, the IEA said, without specifying when it projected that forecast to arrive.
Even if all countries follow through on promises they have already made to curb emissions and invest in clean energy, many of which are threatened by the current economic distress, temperatures will rise by 3.5 degrees Celsius, it said.
An increase of this size would have severe consequences, including a sea level rise of up to two meters—causing dislocation of human settlements—and drought, floods and heat waves that would severely affect food production, rates of disease and mortality, the IEA said.
The IEA uses conclusions from research collated by the United Nations. Most climate scientists agree with the U.N. conclusions, although recent polls show a growing proportion of the public in many countries is skeptical of climate change.
The agency represents the energy interests of many developed economies, but doesn't have a direct role in international climate change negotiations.
Limiting the increase in temperatures to two degrees Celsius, widely seen as the maximum safe increase, would require the reversal of several of the strongest trends in energy consumption.
The use of both coal and oil, which together provided 60% of world energy in 2009, would need to start falling by 2016, the IEA said. Under current trends, coal and oil use are forecast to rise by 60% and 25% respectively from 2009 to 2035.
At the same time, the rate of increase in energy efficiency and the amount of energy generated by wind, wave and solar and nuclear power will have to increase dramatically, the IEA said.
These changes would require an additional $15.2 trillion investment in clean energy by 2035, the IEA said. This cost would be offset somewhat by a $4.6 trillion reduction in the need for investment in fossil fuel production and lower forecasts for oil, gas and coal prices.
In the current political situation, it would be "a very big surprise" if the world managed such a transformation, Mr. Birol said, adding recent moves to curb emissions in Australia and China amount to "putting out a forest fire with a cup of water."
Write to James Herron at james.herron@dowjones.com
UK solar companies take legal action against subsidies cuts
The legal action comes soon after the government's announcement it will cut feed in fariffs from 43p per kWh to 21p
Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 November 2011 17.37 GMT
A coalition of UK solar companies has initiated legal action against the government in response to its plans to more than halve solar subsidies.
The action focuses on the recent announcement by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) to cut the rate paid to householders with solar panels under the feed-in tariff from 43p per kWh to 21p, significantly reducing the attractiveness of the technology to customers and investors.
Decc has said that the new rates will apply from 12 December, just six weeks after the announcement was made and before the consultation on the proposed changes closes on 23 December.
The lawyers acting for the solar companies will argue that the 12 December deadline is unlawful on the grounds that it prejudges the consultation process and is being implemented without adherence to the correct procedures. The lawyers will also argue that the deadline is "unreasonable" because of its impact on the industry and on groups which have spent time and money developing projects that will have to be cancelled if they can't be completed by 12 December.
The coalition – which is working with solicitors at Prospect Law – includes Solarcentury, and a "handful" of other companies that are currently remaining anonymous.
The action will take the form of a judicial review in the high court. Such actions usually take many months, but the court has agreed to expedite the case given the proximity of the contested December deadline. According to Solarcentury, this means that Decc will have to submits its defence by 21 November. The case could appear in court soon after that date.
Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, said: "We expected a proper and fair consultation on the review of Fits. We expected to have the time to plan for the next stage of the development of the market. We were all expecting a new tariff from April 2012. Instead we get a ready-made decision which seriously harms the solar industry and everyone in it and gives us less than six weeks to save the businesses we have built up over multiple years."
A Decc spokesperson said: "We're consulting on proposed new tariffs for a reason – to protect consumers from footing the bill for excessive subsidies. This is a live consultation and it will be open for people to comment until 23 December. We can confirm that an application has been made for judicial review of certain aspects of the current consultation, which we shall be defending."
The solar companies involved in the action hope that the court will quash the government's decision to cut the rates from 12 December, but they acknowledge that even if this happens the reduced rates would most likely still be enforced within a few months.
John Faulks, company secretary of Solarcentury, said: "It wouldn't be a massive win. But there's a wider point of principle here about arbitrary government decisions destroying industry."
The government also faces a second legal challenge on the same issue from Friends of the Earth (FoE). The group intends to lodge a judicial review early next week if the government doesn't agree by tomorrow to drop the deadline. Gita Parihar of FoE said that, if the group's legal action goes ahead, she expects the two claims to be heard in court together.
The pressure on the government over its handling of the Fits review will be stepped up this evening in a speech by the John Cridland, director general of the CBI. Addressing the CBI East Midlands Annual Dinner, Cridland is expected to denounce the dramatic cut in solar feed-in tariffs as "the latest in a string of government own goals".
Leaders of the solar industry also met the energy minister, Greg Barker, today but came away fuming. "The government needs to be seen to consult on the feed-in tariffs, but it is clear from this meeting this is all a foregone conclusion," said Daniel Green, chief executive of HomeSun. "Three legal actions against the government are in process. Today's meeting will stimulate more. This is disastrous and irresponsible decision making by the government. The thinking isn't joined up."
He continued: "According to a report from Element Energy to be published in the next few weeks, the Fits cost around £220m yearly but generate £280m in taxes (jobs and VAT). Why cut a programme that is making money and making the green revolution accessible to everyday consumers?"
• Additional reporting by Terry Macalister
Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 November 2011 17.37 GMT
A coalition of UK solar companies has initiated legal action against the government in response to its plans to more than halve solar subsidies.
The action focuses on the recent announcement by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) to cut the rate paid to householders with solar panels under the feed-in tariff from 43p per kWh to 21p, significantly reducing the attractiveness of the technology to customers and investors.
Decc has said that the new rates will apply from 12 December, just six weeks after the announcement was made and before the consultation on the proposed changes closes on 23 December.
The lawyers acting for the solar companies will argue that the 12 December deadline is unlawful on the grounds that it prejudges the consultation process and is being implemented without adherence to the correct procedures. The lawyers will also argue that the deadline is "unreasonable" because of its impact on the industry and on groups which have spent time and money developing projects that will have to be cancelled if they can't be completed by 12 December.
The coalition – which is working with solicitors at Prospect Law – includes Solarcentury, and a "handful" of other companies that are currently remaining anonymous.
The action will take the form of a judicial review in the high court. Such actions usually take many months, but the court has agreed to expedite the case given the proximity of the contested December deadline. According to Solarcentury, this means that Decc will have to submits its defence by 21 November. The case could appear in court soon after that date.
Jeremy Leggett, founder of Solarcentury, said: "We expected a proper and fair consultation on the review of Fits. We expected to have the time to plan for the next stage of the development of the market. We were all expecting a new tariff from April 2012. Instead we get a ready-made decision which seriously harms the solar industry and everyone in it and gives us less than six weeks to save the businesses we have built up over multiple years."
A Decc spokesperson said: "We're consulting on proposed new tariffs for a reason – to protect consumers from footing the bill for excessive subsidies. This is a live consultation and it will be open for people to comment until 23 December. We can confirm that an application has been made for judicial review of certain aspects of the current consultation, which we shall be defending."
The solar companies involved in the action hope that the court will quash the government's decision to cut the rates from 12 December, but they acknowledge that even if this happens the reduced rates would most likely still be enforced within a few months.
John Faulks, company secretary of Solarcentury, said: "It wouldn't be a massive win. But there's a wider point of principle here about arbitrary government decisions destroying industry."
The government also faces a second legal challenge on the same issue from Friends of the Earth (FoE). The group intends to lodge a judicial review early next week if the government doesn't agree by tomorrow to drop the deadline. Gita Parihar of FoE said that, if the group's legal action goes ahead, she expects the two claims to be heard in court together.
The pressure on the government over its handling of the Fits review will be stepped up this evening in a speech by the John Cridland, director general of the CBI. Addressing the CBI East Midlands Annual Dinner, Cridland is expected to denounce the dramatic cut in solar feed-in tariffs as "the latest in a string of government own goals".
Leaders of the solar industry also met the energy minister, Greg Barker, today but came away fuming. "The government needs to be seen to consult on the feed-in tariffs, but it is clear from this meeting this is all a foregone conclusion," said Daniel Green, chief executive of HomeSun. "Three legal actions against the government are in process. Today's meeting will stimulate more. This is disastrous and irresponsible decision making by the government. The thinking isn't joined up."
He continued: "According to a report from Element Energy to be published in the next few weeks, the Fits cost around £220m yearly but generate £280m in taxes (jobs and VAT). Why cut a programme that is making money and making the green revolution accessible to everyday consumers?"
• Additional reporting by Terry Macalister
Thursday, 10 November 2011
The burning issue of energy cannot wait for economic good times
Carbon emissions are rising by record amounts, stoked by political inaction and fossil fuel subsidies. We are almost out of time to douse the climate change crisis
The house is ablaze and we are throwing bucket after bucket at it - buckets of petrol. Worse, if that is possible, the world's politicians are not stepping in to stop us stoking the flames: instead they are helping us pay for the petrol.
That simple, devastating analogy captures entirely the current global action on climate change. Despite warnings from scientists that have been clear for years, the globe is not curbing its carbon emissions: they are rising by record amounts. We are not even getting more efficient in our use of fossil fuels to power our economies, we are now getting worse. And the rising subsidies poured into fossil fuels swamp those for clean energy by six to one.
The previous charge made against the world's leaders - you are not moving forward fast enough - failed to spark action. Will the new message - you are now reversing at speed towards a hellish future - change that? The UN negotiations on a global climate change agreement, reconvening in Durban shortly, will be the first test of whether this new reality has sunk in.
But, with tackling global warming tumbling down the agenda with politicians transfixed by economic crisis, the omens are gloomy. The new warning this Wednesday from the International Energy Agency, a deeply conservative organisation, could not be more stark. Unless we shift the global energy supertanker off its current, dirty course by 2017, we will have locked in enough greenhouse gas pollution to condemn the world to a temperature rise above the 2C deemed "safe" by governments. Yet the best aspirations for Durban look utterly inadequate. UK's climate change minister Greg Barker recently said having a global climate deal ready to "click in" by 2020 was realistic.
The IEA predict a temperature rise of 3.5C if current energy policies around the world are delivered but no more. That means a future world of mass migration, severe water shortages and England having the summer climate of Morocco today. If those policies fail to materialise, the IEA predicts 6C. That's Armageddon: large parts of the planet uninhabitable and the risk of runaway warming threatening the rest.
So what to do? The IEA says the wide difference between these scenarios and one that limits warming to 2C "underlines the critical role of governments to define the objectives and implement the policies necessary to shape our energy future." The current silence on tackling the energy crisis and climate change from Prime Minister David Cameron and the antipathy from Chancellor George Osborne is simply shameful. The investment needed for a clean energy future is already huge and is made yet more expensive by political uncertainty.
With the economies of developed nations stagnant, some are pleading poverty as an excuse for inaction. But, says the IEA, "delaying action is a false economy". It states that avoiding $1 of energy investment before 2020 will require $4.30 to compensate after that date.
If money needs to be saved, start with the $409bn gifted to the fossil fuel industry in 2010 in subsidies. The G20 backed this idea in 2009 but has yet to deliver. The subsidies do not enable the impoverished to access energy: just 8% of the subsidies reach the world's poorest 20% of people. Renewable energy, the only truly sustainable source of power, received just $66bn of support last year, and even the IEA thinks this will rise to no more than $180bn by 2035.
There's plenty more that ought to spur action in the IEA report. It predicts the oil cartel Opec will get more powerful and Russia will be confirmed as the "cornerstone" of the world's energy economy, with all that implies for energy security in importing countries. The IEA also foresees a "golden age of gas", replete with environmental challenges and with 20% coming from the fracking of shale.
The UK's first planned carbon capture and storage demonstration plant may have collapsed in farce, but making CCS technology work by the 2020s is critical, says the IEA. "If not," says the report, "an extraordinary burden would rest on other low-carbon technologies." New nuclear power plants must be built, the IEA says, especially in emerging economies.
The IEA acknowledges some "steps in the right direction", but the central message is a deafening alarm.
If you thought that tackling the red-hot issue of cleaning up energy now was tantamount to burning money, you ain't seen nothing yet. Without urgent and transformative action, today's conflagrations will seem like stray sparks compared to the wildfires to come.
The house is ablaze and we are throwing bucket after bucket at it - buckets of petrol. Worse, if that is possible, the world's politicians are not stepping in to stop us stoking the flames: instead they are helping us pay for the petrol.
That simple, devastating analogy captures entirely the current global action on climate change. Despite warnings from scientists that have been clear for years, the globe is not curbing its carbon emissions: they are rising by record amounts. We are not even getting more efficient in our use of fossil fuels to power our economies, we are now getting worse. And the rising subsidies poured into fossil fuels swamp those for clean energy by six to one.
The previous charge made against the world's leaders - you are not moving forward fast enough - failed to spark action. Will the new message - you are now reversing at speed towards a hellish future - change that? The UN negotiations on a global climate change agreement, reconvening in Durban shortly, will be the first test of whether this new reality has sunk in.
But, with tackling global warming tumbling down the agenda with politicians transfixed by economic crisis, the omens are gloomy. The new warning this Wednesday from the International Energy Agency, a deeply conservative organisation, could not be more stark. Unless we shift the global energy supertanker off its current, dirty course by 2017, we will have locked in enough greenhouse gas pollution to condemn the world to a temperature rise above the 2C deemed "safe" by governments. Yet the best aspirations for Durban look utterly inadequate. UK's climate change minister Greg Barker recently said having a global climate deal ready to "click in" by 2020 was realistic.
The IEA predict a temperature rise of 3.5C if current energy policies around the world are delivered but no more. That means a future world of mass migration, severe water shortages and England having the summer climate of Morocco today. If those policies fail to materialise, the IEA predicts 6C. That's Armageddon: large parts of the planet uninhabitable and the risk of runaway warming threatening the rest.
So what to do? The IEA says the wide difference between these scenarios and one that limits warming to 2C "underlines the critical role of governments to define the objectives and implement the policies necessary to shape our energy future." The current silence on tackling the energy crisis and climate change from Prime Minister David Cameron and the antipathy from Chancellor George Osborne is simply shameful. The investment needed for a clean energy future is already huge and is made yet more expensive by political uncertainty.
With the economies of developed nations stagnant, some are pleading poverty as an excuse for inaction. But, says the IEA, "delaying action is a false economy". It states that avoiding $1 of energy investment before 2020 will require $4.30 to compensate after that date.
If money needs to be saved, start with the $409bn gifted to the fossil fuel industry in 2010 in subsidies. The G20 backed this idea in 2009 but has yet to deliver. The subsidies do not enable the impoverished to access energy: just 8% of the subsidies reach the world's poorest 20% of people. Renewable energy, the only truly sustainable source of power, received just $66bn of support last year, and even the IEA thinks this will rise to no more than $180bn by 2035.
There's plenty more that ought to spur action in the IEA report. It predicts the oil cartel Opec will get more powerful and Russia will be confirmed as the "cornerstone" of the world's energy economy, with all that implies for energy security in importing countries. The IEA also foresees a "golden age of gas", replete with environmental challenges and with 20% coming from the fracking of shale.
The UK's first planned carbon capture and storage demonstration plant may have collapsed in farce, but making CCS technology work by the 2020s is critical, says the IEA. "If not," says the report, "an extraordinary burden would rest on other low-carbon technologies." New nuclear power plants must be built, the IEA says, especially in emerging economies.
The IEA acknowledges some "steps in the right direction", but the central message is a deafening alarm.
If you thought that tackling the red-hot issue of cleaning up energy now was tantamount to burning money, you ain't seen nothing yet. Without urgent and transformative action, today's conflagrations will seem like stray sparks compared to the wildfires to come.
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
MP calls for transparency over green taxes on energy bills
Cost of levies should be published to ensure 'rational debate' on new low-carbon energy infrastructure in the UK, says Tim Yeo
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011 17.28 GMT
The cost of green taxes should be included on home energy bills to ensure a "rational debate" on paying for new low-carbon energy infrastructure in the UK, according to the influential head of the commons energy and climate change select committee.
The Conservative MP Tim Yeo also told the Guardian the tensions within government over its ambition to be the greenest ever risks losing economic opportunities for the UK and blames "special pleading" by heavy energy users.
Green levies add £80 a year (6%) to the average gas and electricity bill of £1,335, according to the regulator Ofgem's latest figures. Most of this money supports schemes to increase energy efficiency and decrease fuel poverty, with about £20 supporting the development of renewable energy, including windfarms and solar panels.
"The danger is that the levies are now hidden," Yeo said. "The cost of the levies should be published on a regular basis. We need to be honest with the public that we need to keep the lights on and in a low carbon way, and the consequence of that is higher bills. Then there can be a rational debate over which renewables are most cost-effective."
A stream of front-page newspaper reports, some now retracted after Press Complaints Commission complaints, have exaggerated current green and social levies on energy bills, claiming they were adding £200 or even £300 a year. Other stories have claimed future levies could add £1,000 a year: government figures predict a £135 increase by 2020, but with bills overall just £13 higher than if no policies to reduce carbon emissions had been implemented, owing to rising fossil fuel costs.
"There have been some wildly inaccurate claims about the cost on bills of policies to cut energy waste and secure a clean power supply," said Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth. "In reality, the cost is a fraction of our current energy bills and without them prices will skyrocket in the future – it's our addiction to expensive fossil fuels that's really ramping up bills."
At present, just one of the big six energy companies that supply 99% of the UK's energy – Scottish Power – presents on its customers' energy bills a breakdown of costs showing the size of the levies. Another big six company, SSE, told the Guardian it is committed to doing so from next year.
Ofgem calculates that company profits are currently 9% of bills, 50% more than the green and social levies. A spokesman for the regulator said: "Consumers do find their bills confusing. We are in favour of increasing the clarity in what makes up people's bills, and we will be consulting on this later this month." Both Decc and the consumer group Which? also backed the publishing of green levy levels, as part of a wider increase in bill transparency.
Christine McGourty, director at Energy UK which represents the UK energy industry, said: "It's important that consumers understand what they are paying for in their bills and various initiatives are underway to help explain this more clearly."
The government has committed to make it easier for customers to understand their bills and find cheaper tariffs and held a summit chaired byDavid Cameron last month. But the sole concrete outcome to date is a commitment from the big six to put a note on bills encouraging customers to call their supplier to see if they could be on a cheaper tariff. Yeo said: "The energy summit did not add up to a great deal."
Caroline Flint, shadow energy and climate change secretary, said: "It is time we did have transparency on bills with a breakdown of charges, including environmental costs. But we also need to open the books of the energy giants so that we can get at the real facts of what price they buy and sell energy at and stop people being ripped off."
Ofgem estimates the UK needs £200bn of investment in energy infrastructure by 2020. "The scale of investment needed is so enormous, greater than in any other business sector," said Yeo. "But in the UK there there is no god-given right for investment – it is an international business."
He warned that investors examine political signals as well as actual policy. The statement by chancellor George Osborne in October that "we're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business" was a major blow to green investors, as has been Cameron's failure to speak out on the issue.
"Those businesses are bound to look very closely, even subliminally, at the signals," Yeo said. "It is a pity because there is the opportunity for the UK to be a leader and we should not give that up for a few heavy energy-using industries."
The steel, cement and other energy-intensive industries are widely expected to be given exemptions from carbon-cutting policies in the coming weeks. "They are past masters at special pleading these people," said Yeo. "We should not let those concerns become the driver of energy policy: they are a factor but not the main one."
Yeo also suggested an independent committee, and not ministers, should decide how to share out available subsidies between different low-carbon energy sources, in an analogous way to how the Monetary Policy Committee sets bank interest rates. "It would not be driven by short-term issues," he said, which would "avoid short term political changes of direction." On Monday, ministers cut the support for solar power by 50% with just six weeks notice. However, Yeo also criticised the solar industry as "subsidy junkies."
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011 17.28 GMT
The cost of green taxes should be included on home energy bills to ensure a "rational debate" on paying for new low-carbon energy infrastructure in the UK, according to the influential head of the commons energy and climate change select committee.
The Conservative MP Tim Yeo also told the Guardian the tensions within government over its ambition to be the greenest ever risks losing economic opportunities for the UK and blames "special pleading" by heavy energy users.
Green levies add £80 a year (6%) to the average gas and electricity bill of £1,335, according to the regulator Ofgem's latest figures. Most of this money supports schemes to increase energy efficiency and decrease fuel poverty, with about £20 supporting the development of renewable energy, including windfarms and solar panels.
"The danger is that the levies are now hidden," Yeo said. "The cost of the levies should be published on a regular basis. We need to be honest with the public that we need to keep the lights on and in a low carbon way, and the consequence of that is higher bills. Then there can be a rational debate over which renewables are most cost-effective."
A stream of front-page newspaper reports, some now retracted after Press Complaints Commission complaints, have exaggerated current green and social levies on energy bills, claiming they were adding £200 or even £300 a year. Other stories have claimed future levies could add £1,000 a year: government figures predict a £135 increase by 2020, but with bills overall just £13 higher than if no policies to reduce carbon emissions had been implemented, owing to rising fossil fuel costs.
"There have been some wildly inaccurate claims about the cost on bills of policies to cut energy waste and secure a clean power supply," said Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth. "In reality, the cost is a fraction of our current energy bills and without them prices will skyrocket in the future – it's our addiction to expensive fossil fuels that's really ramping up bills."
At present, just one of the big six energy companies that supply 99% of the UK's energy – Scottish Power – presents on its customers' energy bills a breakdown of costs showing the size of the levies. Another big six company, SSE, told the Guardian it is committed to doing so from next year.
Ofgem calculates that company profits are currently 9% of bills, 50% more than the green and social levies. A spokesman for the regulator said: "Consumers do find their bills confusing. We are in favour of increasing the clarity in what makes up people's bills, and we will be consulting on this later this month." Both Decc and the consumer group Which? also backed the publishing of green levy levels, as part of a wider increase in bill transparency.
Christine McGourty, director at Energy UK which represents the UK energy industry, said: "It's important that consumers understand what they are paying for in their bills and various initiatives are underway to help explain this more clearly."
The government has committed to make it easier for customers to understand their bills and find cheaper tariffs and held a summit chaired byDavid Cameron last month. But the sole concrete outcome to date is a commitment from the big six to put a note on bills encouraging customers to call their supplier to see if they could be on a cheaper tariff. Yeo said: "The energy summit did not add up to a great deal."
Caroline Flint, shadow energy and climate change secretary, said: "It is time we did have transparency on bills with a breakdown of charges, including environmental costs. But we also need to open the books of the energy giants so that we can get at the real facts of what price they buy and sell energy at and stop people being ripped off."
Ofgem estimates the UK needs £200bn of investment in energy infrastructure by 2020. "The scale of investment needed is so enormous, greater than in any other business sector," said Yeo. "But in the UK there there is no god-given right for investment – it is an international business."
He warned that investors examine political signals as well as actual policy. The statement by chancellor George Osborne in October that "we're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business" was a major blow to green investors, as has been Cameron's failure to speak out on the issue.
"Those businesses are bound to look very closely, even subliminally, at the signals," Yeo said. "It is a pity because there is the opportunity for the UK to be a leader and we should not give that up for a few heavy energy-using industries."
The steel, cement and other energy-intensive industries are widely expected to be given exemptions from carbon-cutting policies in the coming weeks. "They are past masters at special pleading these people," said Yeo. "We should not let those concerns become the driver of energy policy: they are a factor but not the main one."
Yeo also suggested an independent committee, and not ministers, should decide how to share out available subsidies between different low-carbon energy sources, in an analogous way to how the Monetary Policy Committee sets bank interest rates. "It would not be driven by short-term issues," he said, which would "avoid short term political changes of direction." On Monday, ministers cut the support for solar power by 50% with just six weeks notice. However, Yeo also criticised the solar industry as "subsidy junkies."
US airlines begin powering flights with biofuels
US airlines are attempting to demonstrate their clean energy credentials, scheduling flights partially powered by biofuels
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 November 2011 02.38 GMT
Do not be alarmed if your aircraft begins to smell suspiciously like a fast-food restaurant – or pond scum for that matter.
US airlines were racing this week to demonstrate their clean energy credentials, scheduling a number of flights powered partially by biofuels.
First United Continental announced the departure on Monday morning of Flight 1403 from Houston for Chicago – or the 'Eco Skies test flight' as the airline called it – using a mix of 60% conventional jet fuel and 40% algae-based fuels.
Alaska Airlines then announced it would operate 75 flights using a mix of 80% conventional jet fuels and 20% biofuels starting on Wednesday. Instead of algae-base, the airline is using used cooking oil or fast-food restaurant throwaways, said Robert Ames, vice-president of Dynamic Fuels, which produced the fuel.
"We can use vegetable oil. We can use used cooking oil," he said. "A good mental reference is McDonald's used fryer grease."
The flights will include 11 between Seattle and Washington DC, and 64 between Seattle and Portland, Oregon, the airline said.
"We wanted to demonstrate the use of sustainable biofuels both on a transcontinental route and on a short haul that competes with ground vehicle traffic," Bobbie Egan, a spokeswoman for Alaska, said in an interview.
The airline calculates the use of the biofuels mix cuts greenhouse gas emissions on those particular flights by 10%.
It's not clear, however, when – or even if – Alaska will begin running regular flights on biofuels.
The cooking oil substitute cost six times as much as conventional jet fuel, said Egan. That makes a permanent switch prohibitively expensive – unless production increases and prices come down.
Dynamic Fuels, a joint-venture between Tyson Foods Inc, the world leader in chicken, beef and pork production, and Syntroleum Corporation, is the only producer of this type of fuel in the US. The plant has been operating just over a year, and has an annual capacity of 75m gallons.
Ames would not discuss current prices, but he said he was hopeful they would eventually come down.
"There is enough used cooking oil," he said. "Are we shutting down Saudi Arabia? The answer clearly is no. In America, we like our fast food but we really don't have those kinds of quantities available."
Monday's flights were not exactly historic. Virgin Atlantic first began trying out biofuels three years ago, and KLM tested a 50/50 blend of conventional fuel and used cooking oil on its Paris-Amsterdam route last June.
The US airforce, meanwhile, plans to test 40 of its aircraft on a biofuels blend by 2013.
But the flights could encourage the rest of the industry move towards cleaner fuels.
Following Monday's flight, Solazyme said on its Facebook page it hoped to sell as much as 20m gallons of biofuel a year beginning in 2014.
"Sustainable biofuels, produced on a large scale at an economically viable price, can one day play a meaningful role in powering everyone's trip on an airline," the chief operating officer of United, Pete McDonald, said in a statement.
Egan said meanwhile she hoped Alaska's move would encourage other biofuels suppliers to get into the market, bringing costs down.
The test flights are also a sharp contrast to threats of a trade war by the US aviation industry to moves by European airports to charge carriers for greenhouse gas emissions.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 November 2011 02.38 GMT
Do not be alarmed if your aircraft begins to smell suspiciously like a fast-food restaurant – or pond scum for that matter.
US airlines were racing this week to demonstrate their clean energy credentials, scheduling a number of flights powered partially by biofuels.
First United Continental announced the departure on Monday morning of Flight 1403 from Houston for Chicago – or the 'Eco Skies test flight' as the airline called it – using a mix of 60% conventional jet fuel and 40% algae-based fuels.
Alaska Airlines then announced it would operate 75 flights using a mix of 80% conventional jet fuels and 20% biofuels starting on Wednesday. Instead of algae-base, the airline is using used cooking oil or fast-food restaurant throwaways, said Robert Ames, vice-president of Dynamic Fuels, which produced the fuel.
"We can use vegetable oil. We can use used cooking oil," he said. "A good mental reference is McDonald's used fryer grease."
The flights will include 11 between Seattle and Washington DC, and 64 between Seattle and Portland, Oregon, the airline said.
"We wanted to demonstrate the use of sustainable biofuels both on a transcontinental route and on a short haul that competes with ground vehicle traffic," Bobbie Egan, a spokeswoman for Alaska, said in an interview.
The airline calculates the use of the biofuels mix cuts greenhouse gas emissions on those particular flights by 10%.
It's not clear, however, when – or even if – Alaska will begin running regular flights on biofuels.
The cooking oil substitute cost six times as much as conventional jet fuel, said Egan. That makes a permanent switch prohibitively expensive – unless production increases and prices come down.
Dynamic Fuels, a joint-venture between Tyson Foods Inc, the world leader in chicken, beef and pork production, and Syntroleum Corporation, is the only producer of this type of fuel in the US. The plant has been operating just over a year, and has an annual capacity of 75m gallons.
Ames would not discuss current prices, but he said he was hopeful they would eventually come down.
"There is enough used cooking oil," he said. "Are we shutting down Saudi Arabia? The answer clearly is no. In America, we like our fast food but we really don't have those kinds of quantities available."
Monday's flights were not exactly historic. Virgin Atlantic first began trying out biofuels three years ago, and KLM tested a 50/50 blend of conventional fuel and used cooking oil on its Paris-Amsterdam route last June.
The US airforce, meanwhile, plans to test 40 of its aircraft on a biofuels blend by 2013.
But the flights could encourage the rest of the industry move towards cleaner fuels.
Following Monday's flight, Solazyme said on its Facebook page it hoped to sell as much as 20m gallons of biofuel a year beginning in 2014.
"Sustainable biofuels, produced on a large scale at an economically viable price, can one day play a meaningful role in powering everyone's trip on an airline," the chief operating officer of United, Pete McDonald, said in a statement.
Egan said meanwhile she hoped Alaska's move would encourage other biofuels suppliers to get into the market, bringing costs down.
The test flights are also a sharp contrast to threats of a trade war by the US aviation industry to moves by European airports to charge carriers for greenhouse gas emissions.
Monday, 7 November 2011
Greenhouse gas output hits record high as China overtakes US to become world's biggest polluter
Michael McCarthy
Soaring carbon dioxide emissions from China and the US have driven the world's output of greenhouse gases to its highest level, alarming new figures reveal.
Global CO2 emissions in 2010 reached 33.51 billion tonnes, up from 31.63 billion tonnes in 2009 – an increase of nearly 6 per cent. This is believed to be the highest-ever percentage increase year on year, despite growth in many industrial economies being sluggish or non-existent.
However, the figures from the US Department of Energy show clearly that it is the surging Chinese economy that is driving the growth: China's emissions in 2010 were 8.15 billion tonnes, up from 7.46 billion tonnes the year before – a 9.3 per cent increase in 12 months.
The 694-million-tonne increase alone dwarfs all the carbon emissions that Britain produces in a year. China now accounts for 24.3 per cent of global carbon emissions and has taken over the role, held by America for decades, of the world's biggest polluter.
The US, whose emissions totalled 5.49 billion tonnes in 2010, up from 5.27 billion tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 4.1 per cent – now accounts for 16 per cent of emissions worldwide. So although the Chinese did not overtake the US in carbon emissions until 2007, their share of the world total is now half as much again.
Between them, the two industrial giants produce 40 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, and neither shows any sign of slowing down.
The figures, produced by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, show another significant trend: India, the world's third-biggest carbon polluter, is rapidly catching up. In 2010, its annual emissions passed two billion tonnes of CO2 for the first time, totalling 2.06 billion tonnes. The increase of 178,330 million tonnes on the year before was 9.4 per cent, a growth rate now exceeding China's.
By contrast, Russia's emissions, the fourth highest, fell from 1.59 billion tonnes in 2009 to 1.38 billion tonnes in 2010 – a drop of 13 per cent.
The significance of the emissions growth is that none of the leading emitters is willing to sign a legally binding treaty for all countries to cut their greenhouse gases, still the stated aim of the UN climate negotiations.
At the UN climate conference that begins later this month in Durban, South Africa, Britain and the EU will continue to lead moves for a global climate treaty to replace the present Kyoto Protocol, which runs out at the end of next year. But with none of the major emitters interested in a new legal treaty, its present chances of being signed are zero. Britain's own emissions of CO2 in 2010, the figures indicate, were 493,000 million tonnes, up from 465,367 million tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 5.9 per cent.
These American calculations differ slightly from the Government's own provisional estimates, which show UK carbon emissions at 491.7 million tonnes for 2010, up from 473.7 million tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 3.8 per cent.
Soaring carbon dioxide emissions from China and the US have driven the world's output of greenhouse gases to its highest level, alarming new figures reveal.
Global CO2 emissions in 2010 reached 33.51 billion tonnes, up from 31.63 billion tonnes in 2009 – an increase of nearly 6 per cent. This is believed to be the highest-ever percentage increase year on year, despite growth in many industrial economies being sluggish or non-existent.
However, the figures from the US Department of Energy show clearly that it is the surging Chinese economy that is driving the growth: China's emissions in 2010 were 8.15 billion tonnes, up from 7.46 billion tonnes the year before – a 9.3 per cent increase in 12 months.
The 694-million-tonne increase alone dwarfs all the carbon emissions that Britain produces in a year. China now accounts for 24.3 per cent of global carbon emissions and has taken over the role, held by America for decades, of the world's biggest polluter.
The US, whose emissions totalled 5.49 billion tonnes in 2010, up from 5.27 billion tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 4.1 per cent – now accounts for 16 per cent of emissions worldwide. So although the Chinese did not overtake the US in carbon emissions until 2007, their share of the world total is now half as much again.
Between them, the two industrial giants produce 40 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, and neither shows any sign of slowing down.
The figures, produced by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, show another significant trend: India, the world's third-biggest carbon polluter, is rapidly catching up. In 2010, its annual emissions passed two billion tonnes of CO2 for the first time, totalling 2.06 billion tonnes. The increase of 178,330 million tonnes on the year before was 9.4 per cent, a growth rate now exceeding China's.
By contrast, Russia's emissions, the fourth highest, fell from 1.59 billion tonnes in 2009 to 1.38 billion tonnes in 2010 – a drop of 13 per cent.
The significance of the emissions growth is that none of the leading emitters is willing to sign a legally binding treaty for all countries to cut their greenhouse gases, still the stated aim of the UN climate negotiations.
At the UN climate conference that begins later this month in Durban, South Africa, Britain and the EU will continue to lead moves for a global climate treaty to replace the present Kyoto Protocol, which runs out at the end of next year. But with none of the major emitters interested in a new legal treaty, its present chances of being signed are zero. Britain's own emissions of CO2 in 2010, the figures indicate, were 493,000 million tonnes, up from 465,367 million tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 5.9 per cent.
These American calculations differ slightly from the Government's own provisional estimates, which show UK carbon emissions at 491.7 million tonnes for 2010, up from 473.7 million tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 3.8 per cent.