GWPF Newsletter: Emerging nations join forces to oppose ‘carbon border tax’

 

Why Net Zero won't happen

In this newsletter:

1) Emerging nations join forces to oppose ‘carbon border tax’
Times of India, 10 April 2021
 
2) Emerging economies share ‘grave concern’ over EU plans for a carbon border levy
EurActiv, 12 April 2021

3) India tells Kerry: We’re meeting Paris targets, but where are the $100 billion Obama promised?
Associated Press, 8 April 2021
 
4) Global CO2 emissions far off Net-Zero trajectory
John Kemp, Reuters, 9 April 2021
 
5) Benny Peiser: Why Net Zero won't happen
TalkRadio, 7 April 2021
 
6) Clive Best: Net Zero by 2050
Clive Best, 5 April 2021

7) Prince Philip, the Royal climate sceptic
Rowan Dean, The Spectator Australia, 10 April 2021

8) Judith Curry: How we fool ourselves. Scientific consensus building
Climate Etc, 10 April 2021
 
9) US Republicans plan legislation to counter Biden’s climate summit and Paris Agreement reentrance
The Washington Examiner, 8 April 2021

10) And finally: UK electric bus makers face extinction without huge subsidies
Financial Times, 10 April 2021

Full details:

1) Emerging nations join forces to oppose ‘carbon border tax’
Times of India, 10 April 2021

NEW DELHI: At a time when the European Union is toying with the idea of ‘carbon border tax as part of its green push, the BASIC nations — Brazil, South Africa, India and China — have jointly opposed the move, saying such trade barrier would not only be discriminatory but also against the principles of equity under the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The BASIC nations expressed concerns over the issue while discussing climate actions during the two-day ministerial meeting which concluded on Thursday. India was the host of the 30th BASIC ministerial meeting, chaired by environment minister Prakash Javadekar.

 
The EU is mulling a ‘carbon border tax’ (carbon border adjustment) on imports in order to force emerging economies to adopt cleaner (non-fossil fuel-based) practices to manufacture goods. Several reports suggest that the Union, representing 27 nations, would come out with its formal proposal in June with a clear roadmap to discuss the issue ahead of the 26th session of the UN climate conference (COP26) to be held in Glasgow (UK) in November.
 
The Group’s joint stand against the proposed carbon trade tax assumes significance ahead of the upcoming leaders’ summit on climate on April 22-23 where 40 world leaders, including from EU nations, UK, India, China and Australia, may express their views on such trade barriers. The US, host of the summit, is expected to clear its stand on the issue at the forum.
 
It is believed by policy-makers in emerging economies that the ‘carbon border adjustment’ concept is being discussed in the garb of pushing developing countries to ‘net-zero’ (emission minus removal of carbon amounts to zero) goals on the basis of untested and expensive technologies for carbon removal.
 
Besides the controversial issue of carbon trade tax, the BASIC nations also raised the issue of climate finance noting that “finance is the key enabler of enhanced ambitions and climate action, particularly at a time when developing countries are facing multiple developmental challenges and the devastating impact of the Covid-19 pandemic”.
 
The meeting also expressed concern over the rich nations’ failure to fulfil their pre 2020 promises under the Kyoto Protocol whose Doha amendment, incidentally, entered into force just a day before it was due to expire.
 
“Commitments made by developed countries in the pre-2020 period must be honoured even as we have moved into the post2020 era. The substantial gaps in mitigation, adaptation and support provided by developed countries to developing countries in the pre-2020 period must be counterbalanced by ambitious climate change action by developed countries in the post-2020 period,” said the joint statement.
 
Full story
 
2) Emerging economies share ‘grave concern’ over EU plans for a carbon border levy
EurActiv, 12 April 2021

European Union plans to impose taxes on carbon at its border are “discriminatory” and unfair to developing nations, ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China have warned. 
 
In a joint statement, the four nations, known as the BASIC countries, “expressed grave concern regarding the proposal for introducing trade barriers such as unilateral carbon border adjustment”.

The EU has proposed to impose a levy on carbon-intensive products imported into the union from countries which do not have a price on carbon. Its supporters argue it is necessary to avoid carbon leakage, where producers of energy-intensive products like steel, cement and aluminum move out of the EU to countries with weaker environmental regulations.
 
But ministers from large emerging economies described the proposal as “discriminatory and against the principles of equity and [common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities]” – a UN term meaning that developed countries, which are historically responsible for causing the climate crisis, should do more to address it than developing ones.
 
Byford Tsang, policy adviser at think tank E3G, told Climate Home News he believed this was the first time the group of BASIC countries had issued such a rebuke against the EU’s plan.
 
“It’s a reflection of the concerns that developing countries have,” he said. “All will rest on how the EU designs this proposal and whether it will consult with its partners ahead of the official launch, which is not expected until 2023”.
 
European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans recently told an event that if other countries moved to tax carbon on exports, then “the reason for a [carbon levy on imports] disappears”. If they don’t, he said, he would have “no hesitation what so ever” in moving forward with the plan. The EU is expected to unveil its proposal amid a climate policy package in June.

The European Union’s proposed carbon border charge is essential to the survival of its own industries and the bloc will impose the levy on non-EU competitors unless they commit to lowering their emissions, the bloc’s climate policy chief said on Monday (18 January).
 
Full story
 
3) India tells Kerry: We’re meeting Paris targets, but where are the $100 billion Obama promised?
Associated Press, 8 April 2021
 
Indian PM tells US climate envoy New Delhi is committed to meeting pledges under 2015 Paris climate change agreement and that it is on track to meet them. 
 
 
Kerry meets India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi [Press Information Bureau/Handout via Reuters]
 
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has told the United States’s climate envoy, John Kerry, that India was committed to meeting its climate change pledges and Kerry said the US would support those goals with affordable access to green technologies and financing.

India’s foreign ministry disclosed their comments after the two met on Wednesday in New Delhi.

Kerry is visiting the United Arab Emirates (UAE), India and Bangladesh before President Joe Biden holds a virtual summit on climate change on April 22-23.

Modi said cooperation between India and the US, particularly on financing innovation and faster deployment of green technologies, would have a positive effect on other countries, according to the statement.

Modi told Kerry that India was on track to meet its pledges under the 2015 Paris climate change agreement.

Kerry, the special presidential envoy for climate, said he spoke with Modi about how the US could help mobilise finance by bringing “concessionary finance” to the table to reduce India’s risks in dealing with first losses on the transition to clean energy.

Then the US could “bring more money to the table for a normal commercial investment that could quickly start producing alternative fuel,” said Kerry, speaking in an International Monetary Fund seminar from New Delhi.

India committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions intensity of its gross domestic product (GDP) by 33-35 percent by 2030, increase non-fossil fuel power capacity to 40 percent from 28 percent in 2015 and substantially boost forest cover to reduce carbon dioxide.
 
Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar recently said India already has achieved 21 percent of its pledge to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic output by 33-35 percent by 2030.

Full story
 
see also: India hits out at US on linking climate issues to economic recovery
 
4) Global CO2 emissions far off Net-Zero trajectory
John Kemp, Reuters, 9 April 2021
 
LONDON (Reuters) – The global energy system has become greener over the last decade, but most countries are nowhere near on track to achieve net zero emissions by the middle of this century.

Net zero has become symbolically and diplomatically important for policymakers, but the goal will remain far out of reach without much faster change.
 
In recent years, energy consumption has become less carbon-intensive, but not fast enough to offset the rapid increase in energy use as a result of rising populations, incomes, and demand for energy services in developing countries.
 
Worldwide energy consumption rose at a compound annual rate of 1.9% in the ten years before the coronavirus epidemic while energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increased at an average rate of 1.4%.
 
Replacing coal-fired power generation by gas, wind and solar, as well as improvements in combustion efficiency, has reduced emissions per unit of energy consumption in most countries (tmsnrt.rs/2OAydcX).
 
But underlying increases in energy demand drove a rise in total energy-related emissions, according to estimates from BP.
 
In the advanced economies of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), energy consumption increased only slightly (+0.4% per year) while emissions fell (-0.4% per year).

 

There were significant annual emissions reductions in Denmark (-4.0%), Britain (-2.8%), Italy (-1.8%), France (-1.7%), Spain (-1.3%), Germany (-1.0%) and the United States (-0.6%).
 
In developing economies outside the OECD, however, there were large annual increases in both energy consumption (averaging +3.1%) and emissions (averaging +2.5%).
 
There were large average emissions increases in Brazil (+2.3%), China (+2.5%) and India (+4.5%), and even faster increases in Indonesia (+5.0%), the Philippines (+6.5%), Bangladesh (+8.0%) and Vietnam (+10.8%).
 
OECD energy-related emissions peaked as long ago as 2007 but there is no sign of a similar peak in the rest of the world (“BP Statistical Review of World Energy”, 2020).
 
As a result, global energy-related CO2 emissions hit a record 34.2 billion tonnes in 2019, up from 29.7 billion tonnes in 2009 and 23.1 billion tonnes in 1999.
 
The coronavirus epidemic, quarantines, and business cycle downturn are likely to have cut energy consumption and emissions in 2020.
 
However, as the economy recovers, lockdowns ease and international passenger aviation resumes, energy consumption and emissions are likely to increase again and will probably hit a new record by 2023/24.
 
Full post
 
5) Benny Peiser: Why Net Zero won't happen
TalkRadio, 7 April 2021
 
Decarbonising housing, heat pumps & Net Zero. GWPF director Benny Peiser speaks to Mike Graham about why the government’s utopian Net Zero agenda won’t work.
 
 
 Click on image to watch interview
 
6) Clive Best: Net Zero by 2050
Clive Best, 5 April 2021

The 2008 Climate Change Act introduced by Ed Milliband committed the UK in law to cut CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050. This target was already difficult to achieve, but since then Theresa May went one better in the weeks before she left office, by enshrining  in law a commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Neither she nor Ed Milliband had really any idea just how to achieve such lofty moral goals, but in 2050 they would both be long retired, and their short term political legacy clearly benefited them. The  Climate Change Committee (CCC) with Lord Debben as long term chairman now smugly define our  allowed 5-yearly “carbon budgets”.
 
The UK acting alone makes no sense unless the rest of the world follows our example, and that is very unlikely to happen while the developing world strive to improve their living standards and population increases. So how feasible is it for the UK to reach net zero emissions and what are the implications?  A group of academics have been looking into exactly that question. How do you stop emitting any CO2?
 
Firstly everything has to be electrified – heating, transport, trade, food. Secondly we  have to somehow rely mainly on Renewable energy (an  expansion of Nuclear Power is not considered). This means drastically reducing our net per capita energy consumption and adapting  to living instead with variable seasonal power sources. Thirdly we also have to decarbonise agriculture, industry and international trade. This means new steel production in blast furnaces is out, and only recycling scrap steel is allowed. Cement production is out because it generates large amounts of CO2. Aviation is out since  electrifying planes is not feasible any time soon. Likewise shipping, fishing and international trade is out because they depend on burning oil.

“Key Message: In addition to reducing our energy demand, delivering zero emissions with today’s technologies requires the phasing out of flying, shipping, lamb and beef, blast-furnace steel and cement.”
 
The problem is that  shipping is currently crucial to our well-being – we import 50% of our food, and we don’t know how to build new buildings or install renewables without cement. Here is their roadmap
 

Click to expand
 
I am sure that if the UK public were made aware of all what is planned for their future there would be a public uproar.
 
* No Flying after 2030 (except VIPs of course)

* No gas central heating within ~12 years.  Heat pumps only allowed and colder houses.

* Only electric cars post 2030 and a 40% reduction in traffic.

* Vegetarian only diet and no imported food.

* Shutdown of international trade and reduction in living standards

* International travel curbed except by train.
 
Perhaps COVID lockdowns are simply preparing us for something far worse – what the Climate Scientists and Greenpeace all have in store for us to save the “climate”.
 
Full post & comments

7) Prince Philip, the Royal climate sceptic
Rowan Dean, The Spectator Australia, 10 April 2021

Prince Philip was a climate change sceptic
 


In correspondence to Spectator Australia contributor and author Ian Plimer back in 2018, the Duke of Edinburgh not only compliments Professor Plimer on his most recent book, The Climate Change Delusion, but also praises his previous book ‘Heaven and Earth’, which similarly questioned the ‘missing science’ behind the global warming scam.

Furthermore, in the letter which Ian has kindly provided to The Spectator Australia, the late Prince — who was never one to mince his words — described the wind turbines now blotting the landscapes globally as ‘monstrosities’.

Here is the letter from Windsor castle, dated 29 April 2018:



What a great question. As we can see, Prince Philip, a Patron of the Royal Geographical Society admired the work and writing of geologist Ian Plimer. In fact, the Prince attempted to invite Professor Plimer to London to address the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) on the topic of climate change. That invitation was later rescinded by the mandarins at the Palace, as was documented by James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph at the time. As Delingpole wrote:

Prince Philip, a Patron of the Royal Geographical Society admired the work and writing of geologist Ian Plimer. In fact, in 2010 the Prince attempted to invite Professor Plimer to London to give the Prince Philip Lecture at the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) on the topic of climate change. That invitation was swiftly rescinded by the mandarins at the Palace, as was documented by James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph at the time. As Delingpole wrote: 
 
Here’s part of the embarrassed kiss-off Prof Plimer received from the RSA’s chief executive:
 
"I am afraid I am writing to you with some disappointing news regarding the Prince Philip Annual Lecture on 5 May.

As you well know, the debate around climate change has recently become highly politically charged, both globally and especially in your home country.  Equally, as I am sure you are aware, members of the Royal Family need to be scrupulous in avoiding any appearance of advocating or supporting a particular political stance.  The RSA’s charitable status also requires us to maintain absolute political independence in our programme of events and research events.
 
After discussion with Buckingham Palace, it is therefore with great regret that we must withdraw your invitation to give this year’s PrincePhilip Lecture. The Duke of Edinburgh is personally disappointed as he read your book with great interest and was looking forward to hearing you speak, but I know that you will recognise that the now highly controversial debate surrounding this issue would make it inevitable that he was seen to be taking a particular position."
 
What is extraordinary about that letter is that as well as confirming the Prince’s admiration for the Professor, it points out that the Royal Family should have nothing to do with the politics of climate change….
 
Full post
 
8) Judith Curry: How we fool ourselves. Scientific consensus building
Climate Etc, 10 April 2021

“Like a magnetic field that pulls iron filings into alignment, a powerful cultural belief is aligning multiple sources of scientific bias in the same direction." – policy scientist Daniel Sarewitz
 
Statistician Regina Nuzzo summarizes the problem:
 
“This is the big problem in science that no one is talking about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception. In today’s environment, our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness, to ignore alternative explanations for a result or to accept ‘reasonable’ outcomes without question — that is, to ceaselessly lead ourselves astray without realizing it.”
 
Psychologists Richard Simmons et al. find that researcher bias can have a profound influence on the outcome of a study. Such ‘researcher degrees of freedom’ include choices about which variables to include, which data to include, which comparisons to make, and which analysis methods to use. Each of these choices may be reasonable, but when added together they allow for researchers to extract statistical significance or other meaningful information out of almost any data set. Researchers making necessary choices about data collection and analysis believe that they are making the correct, or at least reasonable, 
choices. But their bias will influence those choices in ways that researchers may not be aware of. Further, researchers may simply be using the techniques that work – meaning they give the results the researcher wants.
 
The objective of scientific research is to find out what is really true, not just verify our biases. If a community of scientists has a diversity of perspectives and different biases, then the checks and balances in the scientific process including peer review will eventually counter the biases of individuals. Sometimes this is true—but often this does not happen quickly or smoothly. Not only can poor data and wrong ideas survive, but good ideas can be suppressed.
 
However, when biases caused by motivated reasoning and career pressures become entrenched in the institutions that support science – the professional societies, scientific journals, universities and funding agencies – then that subfield of science may be led astray for decades.
 
Biases caused by a consensus building process
 
Consensus is viewed as a proxy for truth in many discussions of science. A consensus formed by the independent and free deliberations of many is a strong indicator of truth. However, a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.
 
A scientific argument can evolve prematurely into a ruling theory if cultural forces are sufficiently strong and aligned in the same direction. Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken. Nuzzio (2015) refers to this as ‘hypothesis myopia.’
 
If the objective of scientific research is to obtain truth and avoid error, how might a consensus seeking process introduce bias into the science and increase the chances for error?
 
‘Confirmation bias’ is a well-known psychological principle that connotes the seeking or interpretation of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or an existing hypothesis. Confirmation bias usually refers to unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and interpretation of evidence.
 
Full post & comments

9) US Republicans plan legislation to counter Biden’s climate summit and Paris Agreement reentrance
The Washington Examiner, 8 April 2021

House Republicans plan to unveil legislation in the coming weeks designed to set parameters for President Joe Biden’s reengagement in the Paris climate agreement he just rejoined.

The bill will be part of a package of climate legislation House Republicans aim to roll out to counter a virtual climate summit event the Biden administration is hosting on Earth Day with the leaders of top greenhouse gas-emitting countries, people familiar with the discussions told the Washington Examiner.
 
Hosting the summit April 22-23 was one of Biden’s campaign promises as a means toward encouraging countries to strengthen their commitments as part of the Paris Agreement.
 
The Republican legislation, which is still being finalized, would likely require Biden to report to Congress before he submits a target to reduce emissions under the Paris climate agreement. Biden has promised to announce an aggressive pledge before the climate summit for the United States to cut emissions by 50% or more by 2030, a target that would nearly double the Obama administration’s commitment from 2016.
 
The legislative package is being led by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, who wants to demonstrate that the GOP has its own agenda to address climate change but that the party disagrees with the aggressive path being charted by Biden and Democrats in Congress.
 
Biden’s $2.3 infrastructure plan contains massive spending and regulations to combat climate change, including subsidies to spur electric vehicles, a mandate to eliminate carbon emissions from the power sector by 2035, and tax incentives to build up U.S. capacity to manufacture clean energy technologies.
 
The Republican legislation, some of which will include new versions of previously introduced bills, will have a narrower focus and won’t include mandated limits on emissions.
 
There will be measures promoting innovation in clean energy technologies through research and development spending.

Rep. Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, the top Republican of the Natural Resources Committee, will introduce a new version of his “Trillion Trees Act” to plant trees to absorb carbon.

Other legislation would spur domestic production of critical minerals needed to build electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines.

Full story
 
10) And finally: UK electric bus makers face extinction without huge subsidies
Financial Times, 10 April 2021
 
Electric buses cost twice as much upfront as diesel. It means the big operators need huge subsidies if they are going to invest in orders for battery-powered vehicles.
 
The commute on the number 43 bus past the Bank of England between London Bridge and Friern Barnet highlights the critical challenge facing the UK bus industry.

The sleek double-decker is one of the capital’s 450 electric buses, but no more than a third of the seats are full during midweek rush hour as the industry struggles with the collapse in passenger numbers.

For the producers of electric and hydrogen vehicles, the coronavirus crisis came just at the wrong time as they prepared to overhaul Britain’s fleet of 38,200 buses and take advantage of diesel falling out of favour.

The ambition to transform the market to green powertrains remains — but now the primary concern is how it can stagger back to health after passenger numbers dived more than 80 per cent at one point during the crisis last year.

“We’re running towards a cliff edge, if we don’t start getting orders,” said Andy Palmer, chair of Leeds-based bus maker Switch Mobility and former Aston Martin chief executive. “The key point is speed. The industry needs to get back on its feet and manufacture at scale.”

To get those orders, manufacturers need government help, which ministers recognised with a promise of £5bn for buses and other transport in early 2020.

This was narrowed down in England’s national bus strategy — the biggest transformation since the sector was deregulated in 1986 — to £3bn in March, specifically for buses and the reaffirming of support for building 4,000 low-emission vehicles.

As part of this strategy, the government launched the tender for the first tranche to support 500 buses at the end of March.

Still, some operators worry government money may be as slow in arriving as some of the country’s buses, undermining their desire to pump money into the electric sector.

“It’s only through making profits that we can invest,” said David Brown, chief executive of Newcastle-based Go-Ahead. He points out that electric buses cost twice as much upfront as diesel.

It means the big operators, which include National Express, Stagecoach and FirstGroup as well as Go-Ahead, need the subsidies soon if they are going to invest in orders for battery-powered vehicles.

Paul Davies, president of the UK’s largest bus and coach manufacturer Alexander Dennis Limited, ADL, said orders were about 1,000 units lower than expected in 2020, almost half of pre-pandemic expectations.

Other groups needed intervention to survive. Northern Ireland-based Wrightbus was on the verge of collapse before being rescued by businessman Jo Bamford, the heir to JCB, Britain’s construction equipment manufacturer, known for its yellow diggers.

Bamford, however, is upbeat, saying orders for electric buses will come, helped by moves towards low-emission street regulations in cities and operators such as National Express committing to a zero-emission bus fleet by 2030.

But, even on optimistic forecasts, the UK’s three main electric bus manufacturers — ADL, Switch and Wrightbus — face big challenges from overseas rivals.

China’s Yutong Bus, the world’s largest producer, is way ahead of them, having sold 15,300 low-emission buses globally last year.

Its sights are also firmly set on exporting globally, selling 130 buses in the UK in the past 12 months and receiving an order in March for 55 more from Scotland’s McGill’s Buses.

ADL is attempting to meet this challenge by joining forces with Chinese battery maker BYD, while Bamford has turned to hydrogen as a way to get an edge. He owns Ryse, a hydrogen fuelling company.

“When someone has 73 per cent market share [of the global automotive electric battery market], it’s difficult to knock them off their perch,” he said, explaining his bet on hydrogen.

That bet was given a boost in March with a £11.2m government subsidy to create a hydrogen technology centre in Northern Ireland, where Bamford’s Wrightbus is based.

Even with government backing, the challenges for UK producers remain great, with groups such as Yutong on its third-generation of fuel cell buses in China, according to its UK boss Ian Downie.

In contrast, Britain’s biggest producer ADL is still on its second-generation and, like Wrightbus, which says it is constantly updating its technology, is reliant on fuel cells from Canada’s Ballard.

The UK government could also run into trouble with the World Trade Organization if it explicitly advocates supporting local procurement, said a person familiar with Department for Transport discussions on the policy.

On top of this, the British groups face a challenge from Arrival, which listed in the US in March through a special purpose acquisition company and is backed by South Korea’s Hyundai. It aims to start producing buses from its “microfactory” by the end of the year.

In the view of Palmer at Switch, the UK groups will need to develop overseas markets to achieve the economies of scale to make profits.

“Can you survive on the basis of the UK alone? Our conclusion is you can’t,” said the chair of Switch, which is owned by Indian auto group Ashok Leyland. He pointed to India’s ambition to order 7,000 low-emissions buses by the end of its 2022 fiscal year that could benefit Switch.....

The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.