In this newsletter:
1) COP26 deals unravel under closer scrutiny
Bloomberg, 4 November 2021
2) Money for poor countries must rise tenfold, says UN
The Times, 5 November 2021
Bloomberg, 4 November 2021
2) Money for poor countries must rise tenfold, says UN
The Times, 5 November 2021
3) Africa wants $1.3 trillion annual climate finance as rich nations miss target
Bloomberg, 4 November 2021
4) Gavin Schmidt vs Benny Peiser on COP26 & Net Zero
Spectator TV, 4 November 2021
9) Editorial: The flaw in Britain’s net-zero plan
The Spectator, 6 November 2021
Bloomberg, 4 November 2021
4) Gavin Schmidt vs Benny Peiser on COP26 & Net Zero
Spectator TV, 4 November 2021
5) A nuclear-powered shower? Russia tests small nuclear power plants
The New York Times, 5 November 2021
The New York Times, 5 November 2021
6) Landlords face £10bn bill in energy efficiency drive
The Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2021
The Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2021
7) The Tory destruction of childhood: Children as young as five will be taught to be little eco-warriors
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
8) Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% higher than petrol models - and claims it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
8) Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% higher than petrol models - and claims it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
9) Editorial: The flaw in Britain’s net-zero plan
The Spectator, 6 November 2021
10) Gavin Rice: No one is being honest about the effect of Net Zero on Britain's poorest families
The Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2021
Full details:
1) COP26 deals unravel under closer scrutiny
Bloomberg, 4 November 2021
A day after U.K. COP26 organizers celebrated a major pledge to protect the world’s forests, one of the most important signatories said it didn’t actually sign up to end deforestation by the end of the decade.
Indonesia, the top producer of palm oil, said it only agreed to keep its forest cover steady over the period — meaning trees could still be cut down and replaced. Brazil, another key member, said it would only target “illegal” deforestation.
Indonesia also signed up to a pledge aimed at ending coal use, but a closer look at the terms shows it will be able to continue building coal plants at home.
The U.K. highlighted Poland as one of the major signatories of that same deal, but Warsaw said it won’t phase out coal until the 2040s — the same timescale it was already planning — casting doubt on how much value the new accord adds.
As talks continued for a fifth day, divisions emerged over a big item on the agenda: rules for a global carbon market. Developing countries want a percentage of the proceeds from all trading to be channeled to poor nations. The EU is resisting calls to apply the fee to transactions between nations — and says it’s a red line.
2) Money for poor countries must rise tenfold, says UN
The Times, 5 November 2021
Developing countries need up to ten times more money than wealthy nations are providing at present to help them survive the impacts of climate change, a UN report says.
The costs of adapting to rising seas and more frequent droughts, heatwaves and floods in developing countries will reach up to £300 billion a year by 2030 and up to £500 billion a year by 2050, the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) said.
Developed countries provided almost £60 billion in public and private climate finance for poorer nations in 2019 but only about a fifth was for measures to protect them against the impacts of climate change. Most of it was for emissions reduction projects.
The report warns that the gap is widening between the sums needed by developing countries and the costs of adaptation. Even if warming is limited to 1.5C, the “aspirational” target in the 2015 Paris agreement, the impacts of climate change will last for decades, it says. Before Cop26, the UN assessed that the pledges of the world’s governments put the Earth on a path for 2.7C of warming.
The International Energy Agency said yesterday that warming could be limited to 1.8C if all the pledges announced so far at Cop26 were implemented, including the commitment by more than 100 countries to cut methane by 30 per cent by 2030.
Unep said that despite the growing urgency, the flow of finance directed at adaptation “seems to be levelling off”. Brian O’Callaghan, a co-author of the report and a researcher at the Oxford University Economic Recovery Project, said: “By failing to invest in climate adaptation, it seems like we’ve gone skydiving and decided we don’t need a parachute. Investing in climate adaptation is a bit like getting insurance for a known event. We pay $1 today to save ourselves $10 tomorrow.”
Inger Andersen, executive director of Unep, said: “As the world looks to step up efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions . . . it must also dramatically up its game to adapt to climate change. Even if we were to turn off the tap on greenhouse gas emissions today, the impacts of climate change would be with us for many decades to come.”
Full story
3) Africa wants $1.3 trillion annual climate finance as rich nations miss target
Bloomberg, 4 November 2021
A key African climate group called for a 13-fold increase in finance from rich nations to help poorer countries make the green transition and protect their economies from the worst impacts of global warming.
Bloomberg, 4 November 2021
A key African climate group called for a 13-fold increase in finance from rich nations to help poorer countries make the green transition and protect their economies from the worst impacts of global warming.
The African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change wants $1.3 trillion of finance a year made available from 2025, according to the bloc’s chair Tanguy Gahouma-Bekale. That compares with a decade-old target of $100 billion that was supposed to be reached by 2020, but has been repeatedly missed.
While a deal on the higher goal is not expected at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, it highlights growing irritation among developing countries that their rich counterparts have failed to meet existing targets. U.S. Special Climate Envoy John Kerry made a renewed effort to get countries to hit the $100 billion goal, saying on Tuesday that they were only $2 billion shy for next year.
“We need to take action and we need support to reflect the real cost of climate change,” Gahouma-Bekale said in an interview at the COP26 summit. “The $100 billion was a pledge from more than 10 years ago. It’s already absurd.”
Former central bank governor Mark Carney said Wednesday that financial firms representing $130 trillion have pledged to meet net-zero CO2 targets by the middle of the century. While that reflects the huge sums required to fund the green transition, a growing number of nonprofit organizations, academics and activists are questioning the credibility of those commitments.
Full story
4) Gavin Schmidt vs Benny Peiser on COP26 & Net Zero
Spectator TV, 4 November 2021
Spectator editor Fraser Nelson is joined by Gavin Schmidt, senior adviser at Nasa and Benny Peiser, director of Net Zero Watch.
While a deal on the higher goal is not expected at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow, it highlights growing irritation among developing countries that their rich counterparts have failed to meet existing targets. U.S. Special Climate Envoy John Kerry made a renewed effort to get countries to hit the $100 billion goal, saying on Tuesday that they were only $2 billion shy for next year.
“We need to take action and we need support to reflect the real cost of climate change,” Gahouma-Bekale said in an interview at the COP26 summit. “The $100 billion was a pledge from more than 10 years ago. It’s already absurd.”
Former central bank governor Mark Carney said Wednesday that financial firms representing $130 trillion have pledged to meet net-zero CO2 targets by the middle of the century. While that reflects the huge sums required to fund the green transition, a growing number of nonprofit organizations, academics and activists are questioning the credibility of those commitments.
Full story
4) Gavin Schmidt vs Benny Peiser on COP26 & Net Zero
Spectator TV, 4 November 2021
Spectator editor Fraser Nelson is joined by Gavin Schmidt, senior adviser at Nasa and Benny Peiser, director of Net Zero Watch.
Click on the image to watch the full discussion which starts at 34min.
5) A nuclear-powered shower? Russia tests small nuclear power plants
The New York Times, 5 November 2021
A remote Siberian town now has its own miniature nuclear plant as a Russian state company tests a new model for residential heating. Some see it as a tool to minimize climate change.
PEVEK, Russia — The water was hot, steamy and plentiful, and Pavel Rozhkov let it flow over his body, enjoying a shower that is not for the squeamish: On his bare skin, he was feeling the heat produced by an atomic reaction, pumped directly from a nuclear reactor into his home.
“Personally, I’m not worried,” Mr. Rozhkov said.
His shower came courtesy of nuclear residential heating, which remains exceedingly rare and was introduced in the remote Siberian town of Pevek only a year ago. The source is not a typical reactor with huge cooling towers but is the first of a new generation of smaller and potentially more versatile nuclear plants — in this case aboard a barge floating nearby in the Arctic Ocean.
As countries from across the globe meet in Scotland this week to try to find new ways to mitigate climate change, Russia has embraced nuclear residential heating as one potential solution, while also hoping it can bring a competitive advantage.
Companies in the United States, China and France are considering building the type of small reactors connected now to Pevek’s waterworks.
“It’s very exciting,” Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in a telephone interview. These small reactors, he said, could also warm greenhouses or provide heat for industrial purposes. In bringing to life the new approach, he said, “the Russians are ahead.”
Nuclear-powered residential heating is distinct from running space or water heaters with electricity generated from nuclear sources. Direct nuclear heating, tried in small pockets of Russia and Sweden, circulates water between a power plant and homes, transferring heat directly from fissioning uranium atoms to residences.
Warming homes with nuclear power also has environmental benefits, advocates of the idea say.
Primarily, it avoids wasting the heat that is typically vented as steam through the conical cooling towers of nuclear plants, and instead captures it for use in residential heating, if customers are fine with it.
Still, some experts are concerned about the potential risks, pointing to the many spills and accidents on Soviet and Russian submarines and icebreakers that used similar small reactors. Nuclear submarines sank in 1989 and 2000, for example.
“It is nuclear technology, and the starting point needs to be that it is dangerous,” said Andrei Zolotkov, a researcher with Bellona, a Norwegian environmental group. “That is the only way to think about it.”
Mr. Rozhkov’s wife, Natalia, was initially skeptical. They can see the new nuclear facility, which is about a mile away, from their kitchen window. She said she “worried for the first two days” after their apartment was connected to one of the cooling loops of the reactors. But the feeling passed.
“Whatever is new is scary,” Ms. Rozhkova said. Still, somebody has to be first, she suggested, adding, “We were the closest, so they hooked us up first.”
Full storyThe New York Times, 5 November 2021
A remote Siberian town now has its own miniature nuclear plant as a Russian state company tests a new model for residential heating. Some see it as a tool to minimize climate change.
PEVEK, Russia — The water was hot, steamy and plentiful, and Pavel Rozhkov let it flow over his body, enjoying a shower that is not for the squeamish: On his bare skin, he was feeling the heat produced by an atomic reaction, pumped directly from a nuclear reactor into his home.
“Personally, I’m not worried,” Mr. Rozhkov said.
His shower came courtesy of nuclear residential heating, which remains exceedingly rare and was introduced in the remote Siberian town of Pevek only a year ago. The source is not a typical reactor with huge cooling towers but is the first of a new generation of smaller and potentially more versatile nuclear plants — in this case aboard a barge floating nearby in the Arctic Ocean.
As countries from across the globe meet in Scotland this week to try to find new ways to mitigate climate change, Russia has embraced nuclear residential heating as one potential solution, while also hoping it can bring a competitive advantage.
Companies in the United States, China and France are considering building the type of small reactors connected now to Pevek’s waterworks.
“It’s very exciting,” Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in a telephone interview. These small reactors, he said, could also warm greenhouses or provide heat for industrial purposes. In bringing to life the new approach, he said, “the Russians are ahead.”
Nuclear-powered residential heating is distinct from running space or water heaters with electricity generated from nuclear sources. Direct nuclear heating, tried in small pockets of Russia and Sweden, circulates water between a power plant and homes, transferring heat directly from fissioning uranium atoms to residences.
Warming homes with nuclear power also has environmental benefits, advocates of the idea say.
Primarily, it avoids wasting the heat that is typically vented as steam through the conical cooling towers of nuclear plants, and instead captures it for use in residential heating, if customers are fine with it.
Still, some experts are concerned about the potential risks, pointing to the many spills and accidents on Soviet and Russian submarines and icebreakers that used similar small reactors. Nuclear submarines sank in 1989 and 2000, for example.
“It is nuclear technology, and the starting point needs to be that it is dangerous,” said Andrei Zolotkov, a researcher with Bellona, a Norwegian environmental group. “That is the only way to think about it.”
Mr. Rozhkov’s wife, Natalia, was initially skeptical. They can see the new nuclear facility, which is about a mile away, from their kitchen window. She said she “worried for the first two days” after their apartment was connected to one of the cooling loops of the reactors. But the feeling passed.
“Whatever is new is scary,” Ms. Rozhkova said. Still, somebody has to be first, she suggested, adding, “We were the closest, so they hooked us up first.”
6) Landlords face £10bn bill in energy efficiency drive
The Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2021
Millions of landlords face a bill of almost £10bn to make their properties better insulated if the Government forges ahead with plans to make rented accommodation more energy efficient, according to analysis from a leading law firm.
The Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2021
Millions of landlords face a bill of almost £10bn to make their properties better insulated if the Government forges ahead with plans to make rented accommodation more energy efficient, according to analysis from a leading law firm.
JMW Solicitors estimates that around 2m landlords will be stung by the proposals from the Business Department, which will require all houses for tenants to achieve a rating of at least band C under the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) scheme.
The firm warned that the cost of installing new insulation and other energy saving measures would run to £4,700 per property – or £9.4bn in total.
David Smith, a partner at JMW, said: “The approach taken by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy in their proposal is difficult to understand as it fails to take into consideration the reality of properties in the UK.
"There are some new build properties which do not meet the new requirement of a band C EPC and older properties which will never be able to meet it, regardless of the owners’ best efforts and intentions.”
The EPC regime measures how good a house is at retaining heat, with ratings from Band A (Very efficient) to Band G (Inefficient). The average UK house is in Band D.
Ministers are now seeking to force all rental properties to have a rating of at least C by 2025 in a bid to cut carbon emissions, in proposals outlined in a government consultation earlier this year.
If a property does not meet minimum standards, landlords could be levied with fines of up to £30,000 per property, according to the consultation documents.
Proposals will also include a private property database requiring landlords to disclose an EPC rating before a property can be advertised, and prohibiting letting agents and online property platforms from renting out properties which are not compliant with the new rules.
Full story
The firm warned that the cost of installing new insulation and other energy saving measures would run to £4,700 per property – or £9.4bn in total.
David Smith, a partner at JMW, said: “The approach taken by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy in their proposal is difficult to understand as it fails to take into consideration the reality of properties in the UK.
"There are some new build properties which do not meet the new requirement of a band C EPC and older properties which will never be able to meet it, regardless of the owners’ best efforts and intentions.”
The EPC regime measures how good a house is at retaining heat, with ratings from Band A (Very efficient) to Band G (Inefficient). The average UK house is in Band D.
Ministers are now seeking to force all rental properties to have a rating of at least C by 2025 in a bid to cut carbon emissions, in proposals outlined in a government consultation earlier this year.
If a property does not meet minimum standards, landlords could be levied with fines of up to £30,000 per property, according to the consultation documents.
Proposals will also include a private property database requiring landlords to disclose an EPC rating before a property can be advertised, and prohibiting letting agents and online property platforms from renting out properties which are not compliant with the new rules.
Full story
7) The Tory destruction of childhood: Children as young as five will be taught to be little eco-warriors
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
Teaching primary pupils that humans harm the planet can be our ‘key weapon’ in the fight against climate change, the Education Secretary claimed yesterday.
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
Teaching primary pupils that humans harm the planet can be our ‘key weapon’ in the fight against climate change, the Education Secretary claimed yesterday.
Nadhim Zahawi is to urge schools to equip children as young as five with ‘the skills and knowledge to build a sustainable future’.
Teachers will also be encouraged to install bird boxes and other wildlife features on school grounds to boost ‘biodiversity’.
For the first time, primary schools will be told to include climate change in the science curriculum. Secondary schools will be shown how to address the topic in other subjects, such as English.
The plans were welcomed by the UN last night – although one critic raised fears that fuelling ‘panic’ among pupils could damage their mental health.
For the first time, primary schools will be told to include climate change in the science curriculum. Secondary schools will be shown how to address the topic in other subjects, such as English (stock image)
The Department for Education said the green policy, to be formally announced by Mr Zahawi today at the Cop26 summit, will ‘put climate change at the heart of education’.
Although teaching the new content will be voluntary, schools will be told it is ‘best practice’ to take it on board.
Climate change is already on secondary schools’ statutory national curriculum in science, citizenship and geography.
But the DfE now wants it covered in other subjects too, and will issue lesson plans showing teachers how to do so.
Full story
8) Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% higher than petrol models - and claims it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
Volvo has said that emissions from the production of electric cars are far higher than a petrol equivalent, as it called on world leaders and energy providers to significantly boost investments in green energy to reduce the carbon footprint of plug-in models.
Teachers will also be encouraged to install bird boxes and other wildlife features on school grounds to boost ‘biodiversity’.
For the first time, primary schools will be told to include climate change in the science curriculum. Secondary schools will be shown how to address the topic in other subjects, such as English.
The plans were welcomed by the UN last night – although one critic raised fears that fuelling ‘panic’ among pupils could damage their mental health.
For the first time, primary schools will be told to include climate change in the science curriculum. Secondary schools will be shown how to address the topic in other subjects, such as English (stock image)
The Department for Education said the green policy, to be formally announced by Mr Zahawi today at the Cop26 summit, will ‘put climate change at the heart of education’.
Although teaching the new content will be voluntary, schools will be told it is ‘best practice’ to take it on board.
Climate change is already on secondary schools’ statutory national curriculum in science, citizenship and geography.
But the DfE now wants it covered in other subjects too, and will issue lesson plans showing teachers how to do so.
Full story
8) Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% higher than petrol models - and claims it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener
Daily Mail, 5 November 2021
Volvo has said that emissions from the production of electric cars are far higher than a petrol equivalent, as it called on world leaders and energy providers to significantly boost investments in green energy to reduce the carbon footprint of plug-in models.
The Swedish car maker said that over a car's lifetime the electric version will become greener overall, though this will only be achieved after covering between 30,000 and 68,400 miles - taking between four and nine years for the average UK motorist.
The claims were made to coincide with the COP26 climate summit taking place in Glasgow and as part of a revolutionary new transparency approach adopted by the brand, which includes publishing its latest 'Life Cycle Assessment' report for the pure-electric £57,400 C40 Recharge.
It shows that greenhouse gas emissions during production of the electric vehicle are nearly 70 per cent higher than a petrol model, which is mainly due to the carbon intensity of battery and steel production, as well as from the increased share of aluminium in the plug-in car.
But Volvo said as an EV the C40 Recharge has a far lower carbon footprint than its comparable petrol version during the 'use phase', though suggests it would take a prolonged period of ownership before it offsets its higher emissions from production.
When charged with clean energy, such as wind power, the lifecycle CO2 footprint of the new electric SUV comes down to approximately 27 tonnes of CO2, compared with 59 tonnes for an XC40 compact SUV powered by a combustion engine.
However, when drivers charge their C40 Recharge using an average global energy mix (which is generated for around 60 per cent from fossil fuels), the car’s lifecycle CO2 tonnage can increase to as much as 50 tonnes, significantly reducing the environmental gains versus a traditionally powered car.
Volvo estimated that an electric Volvo C40 needs to be driven around 68,400 miles to have a lower total carbon footprint than its petrol equivalent, if the former is powered by the current global electricity mix.
Full story
The claims were made to coincide with the COP26 climate summit taking place in Glasgow and as part of a revolutionary new transparency approach adopted by the brand, which includes publishing its latest 'Life Cycle Assessment' report for the pure-electric £57,400 C40 Recharge.
It shows that greenhouse gas emissions during production of the electric vehicle are nearly 70 per cent higher than a petrol model, which is mainly due to the carbon intensity of battery and steel production, as well as from the increased share of aluminium in the plug-in car.
But Volvo said as an EV the C40 Recharge has a far lower carbon footprint than its comparable petrol version during the 'use phase', though suggests it would take a prolonged period of ownership before it offsets its higher emissions from production.
When charged with clean energy, such as wind power, the lifecycle CO2 footprint of the new electric SUV comes down to approximately 27 tonnes of CO2, compared with 59 tonnes for an XC40 compact SUV powered by a combustion engine.
However, when drivers charge their C40 Recharge using an average global energy mix (which is generated for around 60 per cent from fossil fuels), the car’s lifecycle CO2 tonnage can increase to as much as 50 tonnes, significantly reducing the environmental gains versus a traditionally powered car.
Volvo estimated that an electric Volvo C40 needs to be driven around 68,400 miles to have a lower total carbon footprint than its petrol equivalent, if the former is powered by the current global electricity mix.
Full story
9) Editorial: The flaw in Britain’s net-zero plan
The Spectator, 6 November 2021
We need a Plan B in the event of decarbonisation technology failing to advance in the way that is hoped
The COP26 summit is unlikely to be an outright flop. There has been no shortage of drama, with speakers seeming to compete with each other to see who could use the most histrionic language. Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to compare the attending leaders to Nazi appeasers. He later apologised.
Some progress, albeit small, is being made. A hundred countries have been persuaded, some on the promise of sweeteners worth £14 billion, to sign a pledge to end deforestation by 2030. Brazil, the most important of all, is among them. India has agreed, for the first time, to set itself a date for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions — although its target, 2070, is two decades beyond what the United Nations would have liked. Most leaders at Glasgow will be dead by then.
One thing is unlikely to have changed by the end of the two-week conference. For all the pledges made and aspirations expressed by countries around the world, Britain will remain one of a tiny handful of countries to have turned its carbon-reduction pledges into law. Almost all the others will do as they have previously done and allow themselves some wriggle room. Pointedly, China’s short-term carbon-reduction targets are expressed ‘per unit of GDP’ — emphasising that it has no intention of sacrificing economic growth on the altar of tackling climate change.
This leaves Britain with a very serious problem: what to do if some of the technology which will be required to reach net zero disappoints? It is very noble to want to set an example to the rest of the world by legally committing yourself to eliminating carbon emissions. It will not look so clever in, say, 15 years’ time if we are still struggling to store copious quantities of energy generated on sunny and windy days for sunless and becalmed days when our wind farms and solar farms are generating next to nothing.
The Prime Minister insists there is nothing ‘hair-shirt’ about his decarbonisation plans, yet for this to be true he would need technology that has not yet been invented and no one really expects to be any time soon. Technology does often surprise on the upside — nobody could have predicted the scale of the computing revolution we have seen in recent years. It can also disappoint. Half a century ago, nuclear fusion was seen by many as the answer to all our energy needs, providing almost limitless quantities of energy at next to no cost. Yet had we wagered our future on its success at that point, closing down all alternative sources of power, we would now be living in the dark.
In 2019, parliament waved through the net-zero target without even a Commons vote. MPs relied at that point on an estimate by the Committee on Climate Change that achieving net zero would cost in the order of £1 trillion by 2050. Two years on, the Treasury says it cannot put a figure on the costs — and no wonder, when much of the technology which will be required either doesn’t exist or has yet to be scaled up. All we can be sure about is that the policies so far announced, such as banning new gas boilers by 2035, will cost households many thousands of pounds — both in buying alternative heat pumps and in insulating homes to make them effective.
It is highly improbable that other countries will choose to make their people poorer, or colder, in order to meet arbitrary carbon reduction targets. Even Germany — seen by many as one of the more enlightened countries in tackling climate change — has signalled its intent by responding to the spike in global gas prices by upping coal-burning. Like Britain, it had been phasing out coal, but it will not do that at the price of leaving the country short of affordable power.
What our own government needs — but there is scant sign it has yet — is a Plan B in the event of decarbonisation technology failing to advance in the way that is hoped. Specifically, is Britain prepared to relax the 2050 deadline if it becomes clear that to proceed means undermining our remaining heavy industry and causing severe economic hardship? So far, the government has not attempted to answer this question. For now, its main agenda seems to be to up the rhetoric of doom, so as to argue that there is simply no alternative to achieving net zero by 2050 — that to fail to do so would be to lay waste to the Earth and the economy likewise. This is hyperbole, deployed to conceal the lack of a clear plan.
Glasgow was supposed to mark the moment when the rest of the world shifted towards sharing Britain’s sense of urgency on climate change. Yet for all the progress which has been made this week, there is little sign that other countries are prepared to go along. People want to know: how can net zero be reached without trapping millions of people in poverty? There is still no answer.
The Spectator, 6 November 2021
We need a Plan B in the event of decarbonisation technology failing to advance in the way that is hoped
The COP26 summit is unlikely to be an outright flop. There has been no shortage of drama, with speakers seeming to compete with each other to see who could use the most histrionic language. Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to compare the attending leaders to Nazi appeasers. He later apologised.
Some progress, albeit small, is being made. A hundred countries have been persuaded, some on the promise of sweeteners worth £14 billion, to sign a pledge to end deforestation by 2030. Brazil, the most important of all, is among them. India has agreed, for the first time, to set itself a date for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions — although its target, 2070, is two decades beyond what the United Nations would have liked. Most leaders at Glasgow will be dead by then.
One thing is unlikely to have changed by the end of the two-week conference. For all the pledges made and aspirations expressed by countries around the world, Britain will remain one of a tiny handful of countries to have turned its carbon-reduction pledges into law. Almost all the others will do as they have previously done and allow themselves some wriggle room. Pointedly, China’s short-term carbon-reduction targets are expressed ‘per unit of GDP’ — emphasising that it has no intention of sacrificing economic growth on the altar of tackling climate change.
This leaves Britain with a very serious problem: what to do if some of the technology which will be required to reach net zero disappoints? It is very noble to want to set an example to the rest of the world by legally committing yourself to eliminating carbon emissions. It will not look so clever in, say, 15 years’ time if we are still struggling to store copious quantities of energy generated on sunny and windy days for sunless and becalmed days when our wind farms and solar farms are generating next to nothing.
The Prime Minister insists there is nothing ‘hair-shirt’ about his decarbonisation plans, yet for this to be true he would need technology that has not yet been invented and no one really expects to be any time soon. Technology does often surprise on the upside — nobody could have predicted the scale of the computing revolution we have seen in recent years. It can also disappoint. Half a century ago, nuclear fusion was seen by many as the answer to all our energy needs, providing almost limitless quantities of energy at next to no cost. Yet had we wagered our future on its success at that point, closing down all alternative sources of power, we would now be living in the dark.
In 2019, parliament waved through the net-zero target without even a Commons vote. MPs relied at that point on an estimate by the Committee on Climate Change that achieving net zero would cost in the order of £1 trillion by 2050. Two years on, the Treasury says it cannot put a figure on the costs — and no wonder, when much of the technology which will be required either doesn’t exist or has yet to be scaled up. All we can be sure about is that the policies so far announced, such as banning new gas boilers by 2035, will cost households many thousands of pounds — both in buying alternative heat pumps and in insulating homes to make them effective.
It is highly improbable that other countries will choose to make their people poorer, or colder, in order to meet arbitrary carbon reduction targets. Even Germany — seen by many as one of the more enlightened countries in tackling climate change — has signalled its intent by responding to the spike in global gas prices by upping coal-burning. Like Britain, it had been phasing out coal, but it will not do that at the price of leaving the country short of affordable power.
What our own government needs — but there is scant sign it has yet — is a Plan B in the event of decarbonisation technology failing to advance in the way that is hoped. Specifically, is Britain prepared to relax the 2050 deadline if it becomes clear that to proceed means undermining our remaining heavy industry and causing severe economic hardship? So far, the government has not attempted to answer this question. For now, its main agenda seems to be to up the rhetoric of doom, so as to argue that there is simply no alternative to achieving net zero by 2050 — that to fail to do so would be to lay waste to the Earth and the economy likewise. This is hyperbole, deployed to conceal the lack of a clear plan.
Glasgow was supposed to mark the moment when the rest of the world shifted towards sharing Britain’s sense of urgency on climate change. Yet for all the progress which has been made this week, there is little sign that other countries are prepared to go along. People want to know: how can net zero be reached without trapping millions of people in poverty? There is still no answer.
10) Gavin Rice: No one is being honest about the effect of Net Zero on Britain's poorest families
The Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2021
To replace the gas with electrical power would imply a rise in household bills of 160 per cent
Whether it’s Boris Johnson taking a private jet home from the COP26 jamboree, Greta Thunberg’s Monty Python-esque impressions of John the Baptist, or Labour MP Zara Sultana suggesting we replace fossil fuels by “revolutionising” industries like care and teaching, there is something otherworldly about the green politics of our elites.
This otherworldliness is quite literal in the case of Jeff Bezos, who recounted on Twitter his Damascene realisation of the earth’s intrinsic fragility from the cockpit of his fuel-guzzling spaceship, giving alarming realism to the phrase “living on another planet.”
In the midst of this quasi-religious ethereal haze lies a much colder economic reality. The truth is that no-one seems to know how the costs of net zero will be absorbed, and no-one is being honest about the impact on Britain’s most financially vulnerable families.
Let’s start with the maths. Looking at prices as they were before the current spurt of inflation, gas is normally around three times the price of electricity. The average household uses approximately 80 per cent gas and 20 per cent electricity. To replace the gas with electrical power would imply a rise in household bills of 160 per cent.
This will fall disproportionately on the poor. Low-income households spend around three times as much on energy as a proportion of their income as the top 10 per cent, around 7.8 per cent of their weekly budget. Gas prices rising by 12 per cent is already causing widespread panic about a winter cost of living crisis. What if replacing that gas meant a rise of 200 per cent?
The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated the cost to the average household of attaining net zero at £50,000, or £32 per week, for the next 30 years. This is one estimate within a range that could be as high as £100,000. Concern about these eye-watering costs spans the political spectrum, with the GMB Union saying the costs are “way beyond the means of families on average incomes or below.”
The response from the Government is usually that environmentalist policies are popular. And they are - until you start costing them. A recent poll found that 62 per cent support replacing gas boilers with just 17 per cent who are opposed. However, once personal costs were included, support collapsed to 32 per cent support with 39 per cent opposing. Support for low traffic neighbourhoods was found to be high initially at 53 per cent, but fell to just 18 per cent once costs were included. This is unsurprising given that 68 per cent of Britons – those outside major cities – rely on cars to get to work.
There could be highly socially unjust consequences: insufficient electrical supplies would inevitably be rationed by means of fluctuating prices – something most readily responded to by the poorest. Britain’s lowest income families would be consigned to switching off the heating to cut bills – an outrage for which Labour, when it was still a working-class party, historically lambasted the Tories.
Fossil fuels have clear downsides and viable alternatives need to be found. But they have also generated the single biggest upsurge in living standards in global history. GDP per capita in England is now five times what it was in 1900, adjusting for inflation, and around 13 times higher than before the industrial revolution. Gas allows us to get to work, to drive a car, to stay warm, to keep the lights on, and to power NHS hospitals.
Before we embrace the space-cadet thinking of international celebs for whom money is no object, we must make sure the numbers add up. It’s the industrial revolution that projected our species out of subsistence farming. Its achievements mean we can feed our current population, travel, and develop medical technologies that make life more bearable. It was economic modernisation that ended once and for all the horror of infant mortality from which our species suffered for most of history, and which made diseases treatable.
If there is a serious plan, then let’s hear it. But let’s remember it’s something we now all take for granted – energy – that hangs in the balance, and it’s the poorest who stand to lose out.
Gavin Rice is Policy Director at the Centre for Social Justice
The Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2021
To replace the gas with electrical power would imply a rise in household bills of 160 per cent
Whether it’s Boris Johnson taking a private jet home from the COP26 jamboree, Greta Thunberg’s Monty Python-esque impressions of John the Baptist, or Labour MP Zara Sultana suggesting we replace fossil fuels by “revolutionising” industries like care and teaching, there is something otherworldly about the green politics of our elites.
This otherworldliness is quite literal in the case of Jeff Bezos, who recounted on Twitter his Damascene realisation of the earth’s intrinsic fragility from the cockpit of his fuel-guzzling spaceship, giving alarming realism to the phrase “living on another planet.”
In the midst of this quasi-religious ethereal haze lies a much colder economic reality. The truth is that no-one seems to know how the costs of net zero will be absorbed, and no-one is being honest about the impact on Britain’s most financially vulnerable families.
Let’s start with the maths. Looking at prices as they were before the current spurt of inflation, gas is normally around three times the price of electricity. The average household uses approximately 80 per cent gas and 20 per cent electricity. To replace the gas with electrical power would imply a rise in household bills of 160 per cent.
This will fall disproportionately on the poor. Low-income households spend around three times as much on energy as a proportion of their income as the top 10 per cent, around 7.8 per cent of their weekly budget. Gas prices rising by 12 per cent is already causing widespread panic about a winter cost of living crisis. What if replacing that gas meant a rise of 200 per cent?
The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated the cost to the average household of attaining net zero at £50,000, or £32 per week, for the next 30 years. This is one estimate within a range that could be as high as £100,000. Concern about these eye-watering costs spans the political spectrum, with the GMB Union saying the costs are “way beyond the means of families on average incomes or below.”
The response from the Government is usually that environmentalist policies are popular. And they are - until you start costing them. A recent poll found that 62 per cent support replacing gas boilers with just 17 per cent who are opposed. However, once personal costs were included, support collapsed to 32 per cent support with 39 per cent opposing. Support for low traffic neighbourhoods was found to be high initially at 53 per cent, but fell to just 18 per cent once costs were included. This is unsurprising given that 68 per cent of Britons – those outside major cities – rely on cars to get to work.
There could be highly socially unjust consequences: insufficient electrical supplies would inevitably be rationed by means of fluctuating prices – something most readily responded to by the poorest. Britain’s lowest income families would be consigned to switching off the heating to cut bills – an outrage for which Labour, when it was still a working-class party, historically lambasted the Tories.
Fossil fuels have clear downsides and viable alternatives need to be found. But they have also generated the single biggest upsurge in living standards in global history. GDP per capita in England is now five times what it was in 1900, adjusting for inflation, and around 13 times higher than before the industrial revolution. Gas allows us to get to work, to drive a car, to stay warm, to keep the lights on, and to power NHS hospitals.
Before we embrace the space-cadet thinking of international celebs for whom money is no object, we must make sure the numbers add up. It’s the industrial revolution that projected our species out of subsistence farming. Its achievements mean we can feed our current population, travel, and develop medical technologies that make life more bearable. It was economic modernisation that ended once and for all the horror of infant mortality from which our species suffered for most of history, and which made diseases treatable.
If there is a serious plan, then let’s hear it. But let’s remember it’s something we now all take for granted – energy – that hangs in the balance, and it’s the poorest who stand to lose out.
Gavin Rice is Policy Director at the Centre for Social Justice
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