In this newsletter:
1) Russia demands sanctions relief for climate deal at COP26
Bloomberg, 22 October 2021
2) Welcome to Net Zero power: Putin issues ultimatum to Germany as EU summit exposes divide on energy crisis
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
3) COP26: US has doubts over $100 billion cash pledge for developing nations
The Times, 22 October 2021
6) Editorial: The government’s Net Zero strategy doesn’t add up
The Spectator, 23 October 2021
7) Jeremy Warner: This COP26 fiasco threatens to leave Britain humiliated
The Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2021
8) Richard Littlejohn: Boris Johnson's Eco Dream is the longest economic suicide note in history
9) Andrew Montford: The void at the centre of Britain’s net zero strategy
Spectator, 21 October 2021
10) The days of cheap solar are fading fast
OilPrice.com, 21 October 2021
Bloomberg, 22 October 2021
2) Welcome to Net Zero power: Putin issues ultimatum to Germany as EU summit exposes divide on energy crisis
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
3) COP26: US has doubts over $100 billion cash pledge for developing nations
The Times, 22 October 2021
4) COP26 officials consider delay of climate agreement as concerns grow that Glasgow summit will flop
The Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2021
The Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2021
5) Queen’s COP26 attendance in question, says Royal expert
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
6) Editorial: The government’s Net Zero strategy doesn’t add up
The Spectator, 23 October 2021
7) Jeremy Warner: This COP26 fiasco threatens to leave Britain humiliated
The Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2021
8) Richard Littlejohn: Boris Johnson's Eco Dream is the longest economic suicide note in history
9) Andrew Montford: The void at the centre of Britain’s net zero strategy
Spectator, 21 October 2021
10) The days of cheap solar are fading fast
OilPrice.com, 21 October 2021
11) And finally: 2021 on track to be coldest year since 2014
Clive Best, 21 October 2021
Clive Best, 21 October 2021
Full details:
1) Russia demands sanctions relief for climate deal at COP26
Bloomberg, 22 October 2021
Russia will seek sanctions relief on green investment projects for state-run energy giants such as Gazprom at next month’s COP26 climate summit, as it comes under growing pressure to join a commitment to slash methane emissions.
“We are being urged to reduce methane leakages and yet we have Gazprom under sanctions,” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s climate envoy, Ruslan Edelgeriyev, said in an interview Wednesday at the annual Valdai Club meeting in Sochi. “Let’s take climate projects out of sanctions, so that Gazprom has access to green financing, access to technologies.”
Amid surging Covid-19 infections at home, Putin has opted not to travel to Glasgow for the summit.
Edelgeriyev said he had pursued the sanctions exemption proposal with U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry, as well as at a pre-COP ministerial meeting earlier this month. “If we want to reduce emissions, then climate projects should not be sanctioned wherever they are - in Russia, Iran, Turkey, in America, in Britain,” he said.
Edelgeriyev didn’t elaborate on what specific sanctions he was referring to. Gazprom itself isn’t subject to the kind of sweeping financial restrictions that some other Russian energy giants are, though it does face limits on access to technology, goods and services related to oil production in some areas
He indicated Russia could accept more ambitious climate goals if it gets what it wants at the summit. Its position underlines the difficulty of isolating climate change negotiations from wider geopolitical disputes, something the U.S. has repeatedy said it wants to do. Gazprom was among entities sanctioned by the U.S. and the European Union after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Full story
2) Welcome to Net Zero power: Putin issues ultimatum to Germany as EU summit exposes divide on energy crisis
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
Vladimir Putin issued a stern ultimatum against Germany as EU leaders clashed over solutions to the energy crisis in Brussels.
EU leaders on Thursday struggled to agree on a common response to soaring energy prices, which have exposed familiar rifts over the bloc's climate change goals and divided countries on whether the price crunch warrants an overhaul of EU energy market rules. Jumping on divisions in the bloc, Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the gas crisis and record high prices on the EU's energy policy.
The Russian leader said he could start supplying natural gas to Europe via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as soon as it gets the green light from Germany.
The pipeline, funded by Kremlin-owned energy giant Gazprom and its European partners, is expected to obtain certification from a German regulator to begin commercial sales of natural gas, though the approval process could take several months.
"If the German regulator hands its clearance for supplies tomorrow, supplies of 17.5 billion cubic metres will start the day after tomorrow," Putin told a televised forum.
Full story 3) COP26: US has doubts over $100 billion cash pledge for developing nations
The Times, 22 October 2021
The United States is holding up negotiations to provide developing countries with $100 billion a year to combat climate change, Boris Johnson has been warned.
Bloomberg, 22 October 2021
Russia will seek sanctions relief on green investment projects for state-run energy giants such as Gazprom at next month’s COP26 climate summit, as it comes under growing pressure to join a commitment to slash methane emissions.
“We are being urged to reduce methane leakages and yet we have Gazprom under sanctions,” Russian President Vladimir Putin’s climate envoy, Ruslan Edelgeriyev, said in an interview Wednesday at the annual Valdai Club meeting in Sochi. “Let’s take climate projects out of sanctions, so that Gazprom has access to green financing, access to technologies.”
Amid surging Covid-19 infections at home, Putin has opted not to travel to Glasgow for the summit.
Edelgeriyev said he had pursued the sanctions exemption proposal with U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry, as well as at a pre-COP ministerial meeting earlier this month. “If we want to reduce emissions, then climate projects should not be sanctioned wherever they are - in Russia, Iran, Turkey, in America, in Britain,” he said.
Edelgeriyev didn’t elaborate on what specific sanctions he was referring to. Gazprom itself isn’t subject to the kind of sweeping financial restrictions that some other Russian energy giants are, though it does face limits on access to technology, goods and services related to oil production in some areas
He indicated Russia could accept more ambitious climate goals if it gets what it wants at the summit. Its position underlines the difficulty of isolating climate change negotiations from wider geopolitical disputes, something the U.S. has repeatedy said it wants to do. Gazprom was among entities sanctioned by the U.S. and the European Union after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.
Full story
2) Welcome to Net Zero power: Putin issues ultimatum to Germany as EU summit exposes divide on energy crisis
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
Vladimir Putin issued a stern ultimatum against Germany as EU leaders clashed over solutions to the energy crisis in Brussels.
EU leaders on Thursday struggled to agree on a common response to soaring energy prices, which have exposed familiar rifts over the bloc's climate change goals and divided countries on whether the price crunch warrants an overhaul of EU energy market rules. Jumping on divisions in the bloc, Russian President Vladimir Putin blamed the gas crisis and record high prices on the EU's energy policy.
The Russian leader said he could start supplying natural gas to Europe via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline as soon as it gets the green light from Germany.
The pipeline, funded by Kremlin-owned energy giant Gazprom and its European partners, is expected to obtain certification from a German regulator to begin commercial sales of natural gas, though the approval process could take several months.
"If the German regulator hands its clearance for supplies tomorrow, supplies of 17.5 billion cubic metres will start the day after tomorrow," Putin told a televised forum.
Full story
The Times, 22 October 2021
The United States is holding up negotiations to provide developing countries with $100 billion a year to combat climate change, Boris Johnson has been warned.
In a move that threatens the chances of an ambitious deal at the Cop26 conference in Glasgow, America is understood to have rejected proposals to reassure poorer nations that the money would actually be delivered.
Under plans being backed by the government, developed nations would pledge to make up any shortfall in the $100 billion annual target if the countries failed to meet it, as planned, by next year. This was rejected by the Biden administration, which expressed concern about having to meet a higher target to make up for any funding shortfall.
British sources said the pledge was vital to a successful outcome at the conference, which runs in Glasgow from October 31 to November 12, by giving developing countries confidence that the money would be forthcoming.
The fear is that without it those countries will refuse to keep to their own carbon emissions targets. That is vital if the conference is to achieve its objective of getting collective pledges to limit global warming to within two degrees.
One source described the negotiations as “bloody difficult” while another said there were fears that Cop26 could fall short of the ambitions set by Johnson at the United Nations last month. “We need to be realistic about what we can achieve,” the source said. “At the moment not everyone is being [as] upfront as we’d like them to be.”
Full story (£)
5) Queen’s COP26 attendance in question, says Royal expert
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
The Queen's attendance at this year's COP26 climate summit in Glasgow has been called into question amid health concerns, a US royal commentator has claimed.
US Royal Commentator Richard Berthelsen has spoken out about the Queen’s recent stay in hospital, where he admits there could be uncertainty whether she attends COP26 next month in Glasgow.
This week, Buckingham Palace announced the Queen had cancelled her planned trip to Northern Ireland over health concerns and was later revealed she had spent a night in hospital for tests.
Addressing the Queens current health concerns, Mr Berthelsen, told CTV News:
“The Queen was looking forward to hosting world leaders in Glasgow next week, in conjunction with the environment summit, obviously it’s very important to both Prince Charles and Prince William who are also participating.
“It’s a full court of press, it’s important to the UK government, it’s important to many people around the globe, I think the Queen wants to be there, there’s no question if there are any concerns over her health, that will not happen.”
Full story
Under plans being backed by the government, developed nations would pledge to make up any shortfall in the $100 billion annual target if the countries failed to meet it, as planned, by next year. This was rejected by the Biden administration, which expressed concern about having to meet a higher target to make up for any funding shortfall.
British sources said the pledge was vital to a successful outcome at the conference, which runs in Glasgow from October 31 to November 12, by giving developing countries confidence that the money would be forthcoming.
The fear is that without it those countries will refuse to keep to their own carbon emissions targets. That is vital if the conference is to achieve its objective of getting collective pledges to limit global warming to within two degrees.
One source described the negotiations as “bloody difficult” while another said there were fears that Cop26 could fall short of the ambitions set by Johnson at the United Nations last month. “We need to be realistic about what we can achieve,” the source said. “At the moment not everyone is being [as] upfront as we’d like them to be.”
Full story (£)
4) COP26 officials consider delay of climate agreement as concerns grow that Glasgow summit will flop
The Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2021
COP26 officials are seeking an agreement for new climate change targets from global leaders as soon as next year, as concerns grow that the Glasgow summit will fall short of its aims.
The Daily Telegraph, 22 October 2021
COP26 officials are seeking an agreement for new climate change targets from global leaders as soon as next year, as concerns grow that the Glasgow summit will fall short of its aims.
The summit, in a week’s time, is highly unlikely to secure commitments that will keep global warming below 1.5C, officials and observers say.
It came as leaked documents revealed that major emitters had lobbied the United Nations to tone down a UN scientific report on the impact of climate change.
Current global pledges put the world on track for 2.9C of warming, according to the organisation Climate Action Tracker.
China, the world’s biggest emitter, is yet to present its own plans and hopes are vanishing that they will be ambitious enough to declare the summit an outright success.
Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, is unlikely to attend the event, having not left China since the coronavirus pandemic began.
Russia, a major fossil fuel producer, has also failed to commit to more ambitious emissions cuts. Vladimir Putin, its president, has said he will not attend the event.
‘Everything is gearing up for a pretty nasty fight’
Perceived failure at the summit would undermine the British Government’s attempt to present itself as a global climate leader in its first big, post-Brexit diplomatic role.
Smaller developing states most vulnerable to climate change are now leading a push for countries to return as soon as next year to provide new targets to cut emissions before 2030, as well as new financing.
Under the Paris Agreement, governments would not have to present new plans until 2025, for new 2035 targets.
“There will be a huge amount of pressure for some commitment to return to the table sooner than 2025,” said Peter Betts, a former lead climate negotiator for the UK.
A combination of global and domestic politics, as well as restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, have undermined the UK’s efforts to secure a clear win.
“Everything is gearing up for a pretty nasty fight,” said Li Shuo, a veteran observer of the talks and expert at Greenpeace China.
Mr Li said Cop26 could be the most difficult event of its kind since Copenhagen in 2009, when countries left without an agreement.
There is also frustration among the British Cop26 team that Boris Johnson and other ministers have raised unreasonable expectations for the event.
Full story
It came as leaked documents revealed that major emitters had lobbied the United Nations to tone down a UN scientific report on the impact of climate change.
Current global pledges put the world on track for 2.9C of warming, according to the organisation Climate Action Tracker.
China, the world’s biggest emitter, is yet to present its own plans and hopes are vanishing that they will be ambitious enough to declare the summit an outright success.
Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, is unlikely to attend the event, having not left China since the coronavirus pandemic began.
Russia, a major fossil fuel producer, has also failed to commit to more ambitious emissions cuts. Vladimir Putin, its president, has said he will not attend the event.
‘Everything is gearing up for a pretty nasty fight’
Perceived failure at the summit would undermine the British Government’s attempt to present itself as a global climate leader in its first big, post-Brexit diplomatic role.
Smaller developing states most vulnerable to climate change are now leading a push for countries to return as soon as next year to provide new targets to cut emissions before 2030, as well as new financing.
Under the Paris Agreement, governments would not have to present new plans until 2025, for new 2035 targets.
“There will be a huge amount of pressure for some commitment to return to the table sooner than 2025,” said Peter Betts, a former lead climate negotiator for the UK.
A combination of global and domestic politics, as well as restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, have undermined the UK’s efforts to secure a clear win.
“Everything is gearing up for a pretty nasty fight,” said Li Shuo, a veteran observer of the talks and expert at Greenpeace China.
Mr Li said Cop26 could be the most difficult event of its kind since Copenhagen in 2009, when countries left without an agreement.
There is also frustration among the British Cop26 team that Boris Johnson and other ministers have raised unreasonable expectations for the event.
Full story
5) Queen’s COP26 attendance in question, says Royal expert
Daily Express, 22 October 2021
The Queen's attendance at this year's COP26 climate summit in Glasgow has been called into question amid health concerns, a US royal commentator has claimed.
US Royal Commentator Richard Berthelsen has spoken out about the Queen’s recent stay in hospital, where he admits there could be uncertainty whether she attends COP26 next month in Glasgow.
This week, Buckingham Palace announced the Queen had cancelled her planned trip to Northern Ireland over health concerns and was later revealed she had spent a night in hospital for tests.
Addressing the Queens current health concerns, Mr Berthelsen, told CTV News:
“The Queen was looking forward to hosting world leaders in Glasgow next week, in conjunction with the environment summit, obviously it’s very important to both Prince Charles and Prince William who are also participating.
“It’s a full court of press, it’s important to the UK government, it’s important to many people around the globe, I think the Queen wants to be there, there’s no question if there are any concerns over her health, that will not happen.”
Full story
6) Editorial: The government’s Net Zero strategy doesn’t add up
The Spectator, 23 October 2021
The commitment to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050 is the most expensive government proposal in modern history. Yet it was rushed through parliament with minimal debate or scrutiny, thanks to a last-minute pledge by Theresa May in 2019, weeks before she left office. She had no credible plan, just a lofty ambition without costings. It has taken the government two-and-a-half years to come up with a proposal — and it is not convincing.
The Net Zero Strategy document published this week opens with the Prime Minister’s trademark optimism. ‘We can build back greener, without so much as a hair shirt in sight,’ he writes. ‘In 2050, we will still be driving cars, flying planes and heating our homes, but our cars will be electric, gliding silently around our cities, our planes will be zero emission, allowing us to fly guilt-free, and our homes will be heated by cheap reliable power drawn from the winds of the North Sea.’
This stands at odds with the Treasury’s Net Zero Review, published on the same day. The difference in tone between the two reviews underlines the chasm between 10 and 11 Downing Street over the likely cost of the transition. The Treasury review states, for example, that ‘policies to support the adoption of electric vehicles may disproportionately benefit higher-income groups, and the costs of any policies that affect the remaining drivers may fall disproportionately on low-income groups’.
While there is still no clear figure for the cost of achieving net zero (previous leaked estimates had put it at £1 trillion) the Treasury review includes a graph which suggests that the additional investment required will hit £60 billion a year by the next decade. Government estimates are notoriously in-accurate — just witness the spiralling costs of HS2. Given the state’s inability to deliver a train line on budget, it is hard to have much faith in its forecasts about developments for which we do not currently have the technology, such as decarbonised steel and cement industries or emission-free planes.
Even if we were to take the Treasury’s figures at face value, it is still far from clear where the burden of the extra costs will fall. The plans announced this week for installing heat pumps offer little guidance, with grants of £5,000 open to a maximum of 90,000 households. Because there are 28 million households in the UK, and the government wants every single one of them to be off the gas grid by 2050, there is a huge question mark over who will pay for this. At a cost of around £10,000, heat pumps remain prohibitively expensive for many households. While it is likely that prices will fall, there is no guarantee they will ever be as cheap and effective as gas boilers. Moreover, the Net Zero Strategy appears to retract some of the faith previously put into hydrogen as an alternative — a decision on whether to promote hydrogen boilers has been put off until 2026.
The legal commitment to net zero remains a huge hostage to fortune, a destination without a plausible roadmap. Unless the government is frank about the costs, it cannot claim to be serious about achieving it. Anyone can promise to abolish child poverty: the job of the politician is to say how it would be done, how much it costs and who pays. Only when this is clear (and approved by voters) can ministers claim to have a plan.
The Prime Minister claims that most of the world has followed Britain’s lead. In fact, only a handful of countries have made a legally binding commitment to net zero. China, which accounts for 27 per cent of global emissions, has set itself targets expressed in terms of per unit of GDP — making it clear that it will not sacrifice economic growth to meet them — and has set 2060 as the deadline. Unless China eliminates emissions, the UK will struggle to make a difference on its own, given we account for only 1 per cent of global emissions.
There is a serious danger that Britain’s carbon targets could have the perverse incentive of driving industry and jobs abroad, reducing our territorial emissions but leading to an increase in overall emissions.
Full editorial (£)
7) Jeremy Warner: This COP26 fiasco threatens to leave Britain humiliated
The Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2021
Just a few weeks away, COP26 shows every sign of turning into a public relations disaster – at best a damp squib, and the way things are going, very possibly an abject humiliation.
Time to start managing down expectations. It seemed to be an early triumph for Boris Johnson’s premiership when Glasgow was chosen two years ago to host the Cop26 Climate Change summit, just the sort of thing he needed to showcase Britain’s new, post-Brexit leadership role in the world. Yet now just a few weeks away, the conference shows every sign of turning into a public relations disaster – at best a damp squib, and the way things are going, very possibly an abject humiliation.
It’s not just that bin collectors and train drivers have announced strike action to coincide with the event, that you cannot get a hotel room for love or money, or that with delegates and media flying in from all over the world, the conference threatens to be a giant Covid superspreader event.
Troubling though these issues might be from a reputational perspective, they would soon be forgotten if the breakthrough on climate change commitments the Government once hoped for could be achieved. This, unfortunately, seems ever less likely. Insiders speak of little or no meaningful progress, with the conference widely expected to go down as just another staging post, rather than the historic, global settlement once promised.
So underwhelming is the summit predicted to be that some leaders, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, say they won't be going. Others cite Britain’s soaring Covid infection rate as an excuse for absenting themselves.
It wouldn’t matter if China’s President Xi Jinping were to turn up with concrete proposals for transforming the world’s biggest polluter into a carbon neutral economy, but this seems about as likely as a month of Sundays. Xi hasn’t left the country for nearly two years now, an absence from the world stage which is officially put down to China’s strict Covid policies, but is rather more plausibly explained by the current breakdown in relations with the United States and other Western democracies.
The feast without President Xi will look odd indeed, for unless there are firm commitments from China, and more importantly, a credible plan for achieving them, all other efforts will be in vain. Xi hasn’t yet definitely ruled himself out, so there is still a remote chance of Boris carrying the day, but it is not looking good.
There are plenty of holes in the strategy the UK announced this week for achieving net zero, but it was at least a strategy – “world beating”, one might even say. But the field is not exactly a competitive one; the difficulty is persuading others to join the chase. There is a growing mismatch between Britain’s pursuit of a carbon free economy, and the international effort, which despite fine words is in many cases just a charade.
A leak of preparatory Cop26 documents to the BBC shows strong pushback against climate change goals from countries with a vested interest in fossil fuels, meat production, and some of those expected to cough up the money to help the developing world make the transition.
In an impact assessment published this week, the UK Treasury manfully attempted to argue that the economic opportunities of pursuing net zero outweigh its costs, and even that it will provide a substantial boost for the UK economy. Up to a point, there may be some truth in the contention. A long standing structural weakness in the UK economy is too much consumption, not enough investment. The very high levels of investment needed to meet climate change commitments might partially correct this imbalance.
More money spent on investment, on the other hand, means less money for consumption; it means this generation making sacrifices for the next. That’s never going to be an easy sell for democratically elected governments. If it goes wrong, moreover, the investment will destroy wealth, rather than create it.
Therein lies the nub of the problem. Britain is 1 per cent of global emissions; if nobody else is serious about reducing their’s, what’s the point in us doing it?
We can lead – and indeed are pressured to do so in penance for the supposed sin of initiating the great leap forward in living standards brought about by the industrial revolution – but others have to make greater sacrifices still, or whatever we do is just spitting against the wind.
Trail blazers can seek to protect their industries from the high transitional costs of net zero with carbon border taxes and government subsidy, but this would only further antagonise the lagards, undermining the international cooperation needed to make progress.
In the meantime, Boris’s needy use of the climate change agenda to carve out a new global leadership role for Britain is seriously compromising other foreign policy goals. We hold back in our criticism of China in part because without China, the pursuit of net zero is dead in the water.
Similarly with Northern Ireland; we don’t go through with threats to withdraw from the Northern Ireland Protocol because we know it would infuriate Joe Biden, and that the US President too might therefore boycott the conference. The omens are already bad enough for the event, but that would be the final straw.
The Spectator, 23 October 2021
The commitment to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050 is the most expensive government proposal in modern history. Yet it was rushed through parliament with minimal debate or scrutiny, thanks to a last-minute pledge by Theresa May in 2019, weeks before she left office. She had no credible plan, just a lofty ambition without costings. It has taken the government two-and-a-half years to come up with a proposal — and it is not convincing.
The Net Zero Strategy document published this week opens with the Prime Minister’s trademark optimism. ‘We can build back greener, without so much as a hair shirt in sight,’ he writes. ‘In 2050, we will still be driving cars, flying planes and heating our homes, but our cars will be electric, gliding silently around our cities, our planes will be zero emission, allowing us to fly guilt-free, and our homes will be heated by cheap reliable power drawn from the winds of the North Sea.’
This stands at odds with the Treasury’s Net Zero Review, published on the same day. The difference in tone between the two reviews underlines the chasm between 10 and 11 Downing Street over the likely cost of the transition. The Treasury review states, for example, that ‘policies to support the adoption of electric vehicles may disproportionately benefit higher-income groups, and the costs of any policies that affect the remaining drivers may fall disproportionately on low-income groups’.
While there is still no clear figure for the cost of achieving net zero (previous leaked estimates had put it at £1 trillion) the Treasury review includes a graph which suggests that the additional investment required will hit £60 billion a year by the next decade. Government estimates are notoriously in-accurate — just witness the spiralling costs of HS2. Given the state’s inability to deliver a train line on budget, it is hard to have much faith in its forecasts about developments for which we do not currently have the technology, such as decarbonised steel and cement industries or emission-free planes.
Even if we were to take the Treasury’s figures at face value, it is still far from clear where the burden of the extra costs will fall. The plans announced this week for installing heat pumps offer little guidance, with grants of £5,000 open to a maximum of 90,000 households. Because there are 28 million households in the UK, and the government wants every single one of them to be off the gas grid by 2050, there is a huge question mark over who will pay for this. At a cost of around £10,000, heat pumps remain prohibitively expensive for many households. While it is likely that prices will fall, there is no guarantee they will ever be as cheap and effective as gas boilers. Moreover, the Net Zero Strategy appears to retract some of the faith previously put into hydrogen as an alternative — a decision on whether to promote hydrogen boilers has been put off until 2026.
The legal commitment to net zero remains a huge hostage to fortune, a destination without a plausible roadmap. Unless the government is frank about the costs, it cannot claim to be serious about achieving it. Anyone can promise to abolish child poverty: the job of the politician is to say how it would be done, how much it costs and who pays. Only when this is clear (and approved by voters) can ministers claim to have a plan.
The Prime Minister claims that most of the world has followed Britain’s lead. In fact, only a handful of countries have made a legally binding commitment to net zero. China, which accounts for 27 per cent of global emissions, has set itself targets expressed in terms of per unit of GDP — making it clear that it will not sacrifice economic growth to meet them — and has set 2060 as the deadline. Unless China eliminates emissions, the UK will struggle to make a difference on its own, given we account for only 1 per cent of global emissions.
There is a serious danger that Britain’s carbon targets could have the perverse incentive of driving industry and jobs abroad, reducing our territorial emissions but leading to an increase in overall emissions.
Full editorial (£)
7) Jeremy Warner: This COP26 fiasco threatens to leave Britain humiliated
The Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2021
Just a few weeks away, COP26 shows every sign of turning into a public relations disaster – at best a damp squib, and the way things are going, very possibly an abject humiliation.
Time to start managing down expectations. It seemed to be an early triumph for Boris Johnson’s premiership when Glasgow was chosen two years ago to host the Cop26 Climate Change summit, just the sort of thing he needed to showcase Britain’s new, post-Brexit leadership role in the world. Yet now just a few weeks away, the conference shows every sign of turning into a public relations disaster – at best a damp squib, and the way things are going, very possibly an abject humiliation.
It’s not just that bin collectors and train drivers have announced strike action to coincide with the event, that you cannot get a hotel room for love or money, or that with delegates and media flying in from all over the world, the conference threatens to be a giant Covid superspreader event.
Troubling though these issues might be from a reputational perspective, they would soon be forgotten if the breakthrough on climate change commitments the Government once hoped for could be achieved. This, unfortunately, seems ever less likely. Insiders speak of little or no meaningful progress, with the conference widely expected to go down as just another staging post, rather than the historic, global settlement once promised.
So underwhelming is the summit predicted to be that some leaders, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, say they won't be going. Others cite Britain’s soaring Covid infection rate as an excuse for absenting themselves.
It wouldn’t matter if China’s President Xi Jinping were to turn up with concrete proposals for transforming the world’s biggest polluter into a carbon neutral economy, but this seems about as likely as a month of Sundays. Xi hasn’t left the country for nearly two years now, an absence from the world stage which is officially put down to China’s strict Covid policies, but is rather more plausibly explained by the current breakdown in relations with the United States and other Western democracies.
The feast without President Xi will look odd indeed, for unless there are firm commitments from China, and more importantly, a credible plan for achieving them, all other efforts will be in vain. Xi hasn’t yet definitely ruled himself out, so there is still a remote chance of Boris carrying the day, but it is not looking good.
There are plenty of holes in the strategy the UK announced this week for achieving net zero, but it was at least a strategy – “world beating”, one might even say. But the field is not exactly a competitive one; the difficulty is persuading others to join the chase. There is a growing mismatch between Britain’s pursuit of a carbon free economy, and the international effort, which despite fine words is in many cases just a charade.
A leak of preparatory Cop26 documents to the BBC shows strong pushback against climate change goals from countries with a vested interest in fossil fuels, meat production, and some of those expected to cough up the money to help the developing world make the transition.
In an impact assessment published this week, the UK Treasury manfully attempted to argue that the economic opportunities of pursuing net zero outweigh its costs, and even that it will provide a substantial boost for the UK economy. Up to a point, there may be some truth in the contention. A long standing structural weakness in the UK economy is too much consumption, not enough investment. The very high levels of investment needed to meet climate change commitments might partially correct this imbalance.
More money spent on investment, on the other hand, means less money for consumption; it means this generation making sacrifices for the next. That’s never going to be an easy sell for democratically elected governments. If it goes wrong, moreover, the investment will destroy wealth, rather than create it.
Therein lies the nub of the problem. Britain is 1 per cent of global emissions; if nobody else is serious about reducing their’s, what’s the point in us doing it?
We can lead – and indeed are pressured to do so in penance for the supposed sin of initiating the great leap forward in living standards brought about by the industrial revolution – but others have to make greater sacrifices still, or whatever we do is just spitting against the wind.
Trail blazers can seek to protect their industries from the high transitional costs of net zero with carbon border taxes and government subsidy, but this would only further antagonise the lagards, undermining the international cooperation needed to make progress.
In the meantime, Boris’s needy use of the climate change agenda to carve out a new global leadership role for Britain is seriously compromising other foreign policy goals. We hold back in our criticism of China in part because without China, the pursuit of net zero is dead in the water.
Similarly with Northern Ireland; we don’t go through with threats to withdraw from the Northern Ireland Protocol because we know it would infuriate Joe Biden, and that the US President too might therefore boycott the conference. The omens are already bad enough for the event, but that would be the final straw.
8) Richard Littlejohn: Boris Johnson's Eco Dream is the longest economic suicide note in history
Daily Mail, 22 October 2021
We ended up with a so-called Conservative Government which, when it comes to climate change and energy policy, seems to take dictation from Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and a handful of headbangers glued to the M25.
Daily Mail, 22 October 2021
We ended up with a so-called Conservative Government which, when it comes to climate change and energy policy, seems to take dictation from Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and a handful of headbangers glued to the M25.
[...] Throughout history the climate has been constantly evolving. In the Middle Ages, England boasted both flourishing vineyards and ice fayres on the River Thames.
Some of the worst winters we've experienced in recent history were during the immediate period after World War II when most of our electricity came from coal-fired power stations, which we are now told are responsible for melting the polar ice caps, contaminating atmosphere and blackening the sky.
In the early to mid-1970s, the alarmists were all banging on about the coming of a new Ice Age. Then came two years of scorching summers and widespread drought. A Labour minister called Denis Howell was put in charge of tackling the water shortage and in desperation even imported a Red Indian medicine man to do a rain dance.
By the late 1980s we were being assured that it was only a matter of time before there would be wildebeest sweeping majestically across the veldt outside Leamington Spa.
Global warming became the new orthodoxy. But when temperatures defied predictions and actually fell for a few years, global warming morphed into 'man-made climate change' and founded a new religion.
Which is how we ended up where we are today, with a so-called Conservative Government which, when it comes to climate change and energy policy, seems to take dictation from Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and a handful of headbangers glued to the M25.
Not to mention 'the science', cynical big business and the smug, self-serving environmental establishment, all of whom have a vested financial interest in pushing the green agenda.
Look, none of this is to deny that human activity has an influence on climate and the overall environment. Most people want to live in a cleaner world, which is why we go along with everything from three-weekly refuse collections and byzantine seven-bin recycling schemes to supporting campaigns against plastic waste.
But there's mounting resentment here in Britain that we're being dragged farther and faster into an uncertain future.
The arguments are well-known and the proposals widely documented. Why should we have to lead the word in decarbonisation, when the UK is responsible for just one per cent of the world's emissions, and countries like China are opening hundreds of coal-fired power stations with abandon?
The rest of the world is either moving more slowly or doing absolutely nothing other than paying lip service to 'net zero'.
Why is a Tory Government determined to make us colder and poorer? Why should we be punished to pay for a political vanity project based on dubious technology?
In 1983, the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman described his party's election manifesto as the 'longest suicide note in history'. Boris Johnson's Green Manalishi manifesto is the longest economic suicide note in history.
But when the lights go out and we sit shivering in our homes because the heat pump we have been forced to install expensively has failed yet again — or been eaten by a badger — neither Boris nor any of the other green cheerleaders will be around to carry the can. No one voted for any of this. Yet all the political parties support it, which is always a recipe for disaster — just as it was in relation to everything from EU membership to mass immigration.
The green plan is going through on the nod, with debate being suppressed not just in Parliament but on the broadcast media. It's like climate change.
They've declared that the case is 'settled' and no argument can be allowed.
Only our Free Press is challenging the assumptions and questioning the cost to taxpayers and the probable economic catastrophe which awaits us.
And if you think heat pumps and hundreds more bike lanes and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods — which were only supposed to be temporary during the Covid lockdown — are as bad as it gets, wait until you see what else they've got in store for us. ...
None of this has been costed or thought through. We're not talking joined-up government here.
On the day it was revealed there are plans for a 'meat tax', it was also announced with great ceremony that we've just struck a trade deal with New Zealand which will supply us with container-loads of cheap lamb chops.
Unlike Covid, there's no Plan B, either. It used to be said that Britain was a blessed island built on coal and surrounded by fish.
Today, we are fortunate to be sitting on decades of reserves of shale gas, with gazillions of barrels of North Sea oil just waiting to be extracted. We could not only be self-sufficient in energy, we could be an exporter, like the U.S. — and no longer dependent on the Middle East, Russia, Norway and France.
But just as the politicians gave away our fish and closed the coal mines, they refuse to consider an energy security future which includes shale, oil or any other fossil fuel.
They're even proposing to build more of those hideous onshore War of the Worlds windmills, which have done so much to scar our green and pleasant.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The politicians seem hellbent of taking us back to the Stone Age.
Full post
Some of the worst winters we've experienced in recent history were during the immediate period after World War II when most of our electricity came from coal-fired power stations, which we are now told are responsible for melting the polar ice caps, contaminating atmosphere and blackening the sky.
In the early to mid-1970s, the alarmists were all banging on about the coming of a new Ice Age. Then came two years of scorching summers and widespread drought. A Labour minister called Denis Howell was put in charge of tackling the water shortage and in desperation even imported a Red Indian medicine man to do a rain dance.
By the late 1980s we were being assured that it was only a matter of time before there would be wildebeest sweeping majestically across the veldt outside Leamington Spa.
Global warming became the new orthodoxy. But when temperatures defied predictions and actually fell for a few years, global warming morphed into 'man-made climate change' and founded a new religion.
Which is how we ended up where we are today, with a so-called Conservative Government which, when it comes to climate change and energy policy, seems to take dictation from Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and a handful of headbangers glued to the M25.
Not to mention 'the science', cynical big business and the smug, self-serving environmental establishment, all of whom have a vested financial interest in pushing the green agenda.
Look, none of this is to deny that human activity has an influence on climate and the overall environment. Most people want to live in a cleaner world, which is why we go along with everything from three-weekly refuse collections and byzantine seven-bin recycling schemes to supporting campaigns against plastic waste.
But there's mounting resentment here in Britain that we're being dragged farther and faster into an uncertain future.
The arguments are well-known and the proposals widely documented. Why should we have to lead the word in decarbonisation, when the UK is responsible for just one per cent of the world's emissions, and countries like China are opening hundreds of coal-fired power stations with abandon?
The rest of the world is either moving more slowly or doing absolutely nothing other than paying lip service to 'net zero'.
Why is a Tory Government determined to make us colder and poorer? Why should we be punished to pay for a political vanity project based on dubious technology?
In 1983, the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman described his party's election manifesto as the 'longest suicide note in history'. Boris Johnson's Green Manalishi manifesto is the longest economic suicide note in history.
But when the lights go out and we sit shivering in our homes because the heat pump we have been forced to install expensively has failed yet again — or been eaten by a badger — neither Boris nor any of the other green cheerleaders will be around to carry the can. No one voted for any of this. Yet all the political parties support it, which is always a recipe for disaster — just as it was in relation to everything from EU membership to mass immigration.
The green plan is going through on the nod, with debate being suppressed not just in Parliament but on the broadcast media. It's like climate change.
They've declared that the case is 'settled' and no argument can be allowed.
Only our Free Press is challenging the assumptions and questioning the cost to taxpayers and the probable economic catastrophe which awaits us.
And if you think heat pumps and hundreds more bike lanes and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods — which were only supposed to be temporary during the Covid lockdown — are as bad as it gets, wait until you see what else they've got in store for us. ...
None of this has been costed or thought through. We're not talking joined-up government here.
On the day it was revealed there are plans for a 'meat tax', it was also announced with great ceremony that we've just struck a trade deal with New Zealand which will supply us with container-loads of cheap lamb chops.
Unlike Covid, there's no Plan B, either. It used to be said that Britain was a blessed island built on coal and surrounded by fish.
Today, we are fortunate to be sitting on decades of reserves of shale gas, with gazillions of barrels of North Sea oil just waiting to be extracted. We could not only be self-sufficient in energy, we could be an exporter, like the U.S. — and no longer dependent on the Middle East, Russia, Norway and France.
But just as the politicians gave away our fish and closed the coal mines, they refuse to consider an energy security future which includes shale, oil or any other fossil fuel.
They're even proposing to build more of those hideous onshore War of the Worlds windmills, which have done so much to scar our green and pleasant.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The politicians seem hellbent of taking us back to the Stone Age.
Full post
9) Andrew Montford: The void at the centre of Britain’s net zero strategy
Spectator, 21 October 2021
Spectator, 21 October 2021
Boris Johnson wants to turn your house green. This week, he published the plan for doing it. In fact, the strategy for delivering net zero carbon emissions is, in essence, to convert the whole economy — including your home — to electric power and then to deliver most of that power using offshore windfarms.
The fundamental problem with this approach, however, is what we will do when the wind isn’t blowing, or, just as importantly, when it unexpectedly stops blowing. The failure to address this issue upfront means that net zero is likely to fail, expensively. The stubborn refusal to do so, even now, means that failure may well be a catastrophic one.
As Steve Baker recently pointed out, successive governments have chosen to ‘wing it’ over the tricky details of net zero; energy storage is the trickiest detail of them all. Ministers sometimes mention batteries as part of the answer, but this is simple deception. The grid already uses batteries for stabilisation of grid frequency, but they are simply not plausible for bulk storage — Professors Peter Edwards and Peter Dobson of Oxford University recently noted that sufficient batteries to see us through a ten-day wind lull would cost around £160,000 per household. In reality, we’d need enough to get through lulls much longer than that.
Each and every new decarbonisation strategy, therefore, needs to be assessed by how it will work when the wind dies.
Electric heat pumps, which form the core of the UK’s strategy to decarbonise homes, are not going to be immune. Unless the electricity storage issue is solved, a lull in the wind will inevitably mean that demand from homes will need to be reduced. This could be done through smart meters, which an increasingly desperate government is trying to force every home in the country to install. These can encourage users to reduce their electricity demand ‘voluntarily’, through pricing mechanisms, but if that proves inadequate, they can also adjust the temperature on your thermostat (this is reported to have happened in the US already) and even cut the power to individual appliances — your heat pump or your electric vehicle charger — or to the home as a whole.
And if the wind lull coincides with cold weather — as is quite normal — things could get very ugly indeed. The cold will increase demand in its own right, but it will also cut heat pump efficiency, putting up the load on the grid still further (the Climate Change Committee itself has admitted that this could cause a major demand spike on the grid). If that happens, expect your power to be cut in very short order. You may well be very cold, and possibly for weeks at a time. Don’t even dream of charging your electric car.
If, after considering all of the above, a heat pump seems a less-than-ideal solution, it is also worth considering the costs involved. Not only are heat pumps more expensive to run, but the capital cost of installing them in every home in the land will be substantial (or even ruinous). A typical home may well require complete replumbing on top of the cost of the heat pump itself, so you are looking at £12,000 to start with. And then, because heat pumps deliver only very gentle heat, most homes will need expensive upgrades to their insulation. The bill here could be extraordinary: a Whitehall pilot project in 2009 implied a cost for decarbonising the nation’s homes of between £2 to £4 trillion, depending on how optimistic you were about future price reductions. To put that in perspective, we are talking up to £140,000 per household, about half the value of the average UK house.
Ministers and environmentalists tend to wave these problems away; when quizzed, they intone the names of technologies that they say will save us but are, in reality, either vastly too expensive (hydrogen), will only help at the margins (heat batteries and interconnectors), or are barely off the drawing board.
But we are rapidly approaching a time when wishful thinking collides with reality. The decarbonisation bills are going to start arriving in the post very soon, and then the truths will out: renewables are not getting that much cheaper, decarbonisation is very hard, and the price for trying to achieve it means real hardship. The public reaction is likely to be unforgiving.
Action must be taken and it must be taken now. I hope, particularly for the sake of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society, that Boris Johnson and his policy makers wake up to this impending crisis before it is too late.
The fundamental problem with this approach, however, is what we will do when the wind isn’t blowing, or, just as importantly, when it unexpectedly stops blowing. The failure to address this issue upfront means that net zero is likely to fail, expensively. The stubborn refusal to do so, even now, means that failure may well be a catastrophic one.
As Steve Baker recently pointed out, successive governments have chosen to ‘wing it’ over the tricky details of net zero; energy storage is the trickiest detail of them all. Ministers sometimes mention batteries as part of the answer, but this is simple deception. The grid already uses batteries for stabilisation of grid frequency, but they are simply not plausible for bulk storage — Professors Peter Edwards and Peter Dobson of Oxford University recently noted that sufficient batteries to see us through a ten-day wind lull would cost around £160,000 per household. In reality, we’d need enough to get through lulls much longer than that.
Each and every new decarbonisation strategy, therefore, needs to be assessed by how it will work when the wind dies.
Electric heat pumps, which form the core of the UK’s strategy to decarbonise homes, are not going to be immune. Unless the electricity storage issue is solved, a lull in the wind will inevitably mean that demand from homes will need to be reduced. This could be done through smart meters, which an increasingly desperate government is trying to force every home in the country to install. These can encourage users to reduce their electricity demand ‘voluntarily’, through pricing mechanisms, but if that proves inadequate, they can also adjust the temperature on your thermostat (this is reported to have happened in the US already) and even cut the power to individual appliances — your heat pump or your electric vehicle charger — or to the home as a whole.
And if the wind lull coincides with cold weather — as is quite normal — things could get very ugly indeed. The cold will increase demand in its own right, but it will also cut heat pump efficiency, putting up the load on the grid still further (the Climate Change Committee itself has admitted that this could cause a major demand spike on the grid). If that happens, expect your power to be cut in very short order. You may well be very cold, and possibly for weeks at a time. Don’t even dream of charging your electric car.
If, after considering all of the above, a heat pump seems a less-than-ideal solution, it is also worth considering the costs involved. Not only are heat pumps more expensive to run, but the capital cost of installing them in every home in the land will be substantial (or even ruinous). A typical home may well require complete replumbing on top of the cost of the heat pump itself, so you are looking at £12,000 to start with. And then, because heat pumps deliver only very gentle heat, most homes will need expensive upgrades to their insulation. The bill here could be extraordinary: a Whitehall pilot project in 2009 implied a cost for decarbonising the nation’s homes of between £2 to £4 trillion, depending on how optimistic you were about future price reductions. To put that in perspective, we are talking up to £140,000 per household, about half the value of the average UK house.
Ministers and environmentalists tend to wave these problems away; when quizzed, they intone the names of technologies that they say will save us but are, in reality, either vastly too expensive (hydrogen), will only help at the margins (heat batteries and interconnectors), or are barely off the drawing board.
But we are rapidly approaching a time when wishful thinking collides with reality. The decarbonisation bills are going to start arriving in the post very soon, and then the truths will out: renewables are not getting that much cheaper, decarbonisation is very hard, and the price for trying to achieve it means real hardship. The public reaction is likely to be unforgiving.
Action must be taken and it must be taken now. I hope, particularly for the sake of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in society, that Boris Johnson and his policy makers wake up to this impending crisis before it is too late.
10) The days of cheap solar are fading fast
OilPrice.com, 21 October 2021
The cost of going green is about to become more expensive as polysilicon prices are erupting and will likely remain elevated due to factory shutdowns in China.
Polysilicon is a superrefined form of silicon used in solar panels for its semiconductor-like material properties. Spot prices for polysilicon bottomed at $6.30/kg in mid-2020 and have jumped 600% to $36.09/kg as of last week, according to BloombergNEF.
China is a top producer of polysilicon. The latest factory shutdowns of energy-intensive factories, such as ones that refine silicon, have resulted in declining output that will affect global supply. Countries, in a rush, to greenify their economies are increasing demand for solar panels that are pressuring polysilicon prices higher.
"It's been a very crazy year," Sakura Yamasaki, the Singapore Solar Exchange director, said during a recent Roth Capital Partners webinar. She said polysilicon prices could stabilize in the second quarter of 2022 but thinks prices will continue to increase.
"The ride up is not over," Yamasaki said.
She said the market will remain "chaotic" in 2022 as other costs such as freight and commodities will make the cost of producing solar panels much higher than in previous years.
"There will be no relief in 2022," she said, with the outlook "as crazy as this year."
Perhaps the cost of polysilicon and ultimately solar panels will continue to move higher over the years as Bank of America recently noted: no less than a stunning $150 trillion in new capital investment would be required to reach a "net zero" world over 30 years - equating to some $5 trillion in annual investments - and amounting to twice current global GDP.
The move to a net zero global economy is shockingly expensive. For the US alone, President Biden wants 40% of the US power grid sourcing solar generation by 2035, either a bunch of new polysilicon factories will need to be built, or the cost of going green will be astronomically expensive.
"It's been a very crazy year," Sakura Yamasaki, the Singapore Solar Exchange director, said during a recent Roth Capital Partners webinar. She said polysilicon prices could stabilize in the second quarter of 2022 but thinks prices will continue to increase.
"The ride up is not over," Yamasaki said.
She said the market will remain "chaotic" in 2022 as other costs such as freight and commodities will make the cost of producing solar panels much higher than in previous years.
"There will be no relief in 2022," she said, with the outlook "as crazy as this year."
Perhaps the cost of polysilicon and ultimately solar panels will continue to move higher over the years as Bank of America recently noted: no less than a stunning $150 trillion in new capital investment would be required to reach a "net zero" world over 30 years - equating to some $5 trillion in annual investments - and amounting to twice current global GDP.
The move to a net zero global economy is shockingly expensive. For the US alone, President Biden wants 40% of the US power grid sourcing solar generation by 2035, either a bunch of new polysilicon factories will need to be built, or the cost of going green will be astronomically expensive.
11) And finally: 2021 on track to be coldest year since 2014
Clive Best, 21 October 2021
The average temperature was 0.81 C in September. This was up a little from August (0.76C). However 2021 is turning out to cooler than recent years with an average annual temperature with 3 months remaining of 0.69C. This makes it on track to be the coolest year since 2014.
Clive Best, 21 October 2021
The average temperature was 0.81 C in September. This was up a little from August (0.76C). However 2021 is turning out to cooler than recent years with an average annual temperature with 3 months remaining of 0.69C. This makes it on track to be the coolest year since 2014.
Annual average temperatures (2021 first 9 months)
With just 3 months to go and a continuing la Nina, it looks almost certain that 2021 will either be the coldest or the next coldest of the last 7 years.
Full post
With just 3 months to go and a continuing la Nina, it looks almost certain that 2021 will either be the coldest or the next coldest of the last 7 years.
Full post
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.