In this newsletter:
1) UN climate alliance scraps emissions rules for insurers after exodus
Reuters, 6 July 2023
2) Green hysteria as Rishi Sunak is accused of planning to ditch £11.6bn climate finance pledge
The National, 6 July 2023
3) Jim Ratcliffe accuses UK energy policy of wrecking industries
Bloomberg, 6 July 2023
4) Net Zero Tories: Sunak 'leading Tories to catastrophe' as bombshell poll forecasts total election wipeout
Daily Express, 7 July 2023
5) Green madness: EU needs to spend an extra €700 billion a year for Net Zero
Bloomberg, 4 July 2023
The National, 6 July 2023
3) Jim Ratcliffe accuses UK energy policy of wrecking industries
Bloomberg, 6 July 2023
4) Net Zero Tories: Sunak 'leading Tories to catastrophe' as bombshell poll forecasts total election wipeout
Daily Express, 7 July 2023
5) Green madness: EU needs to spend an extra €700 billion a year for Net Zero
Bloomberg, 4 July 2023
6) Ben Marlow: Britain’s energy failure risks killing off what is left of our manufacturing base
The Daily Telegraph, 7 July 2023
The Daily Telegraph, 7 July 2023
7) James Billot: Is Europe going cold on Net Zero?
Unherd, 6 July 2023
8) Matthew Lynn: Good riddance to the Tory greensUnherd, 6 July 2023
The Daily Telegraph, 5 July 2023
9) The Tory civil war over climate policy is heating up - and there is no peace deal in sight
Business Green, 3 July 2023
10) And finally: Damaged electric cars ‘quarantined’ over fears they will explode
The Daily Telegraph, 6 July 2023
The Daily Telegraph, 6 July 2023
Full details:
1) UN climate alliance scraps emissions rules for insurers after exodus
8) Matthew Lynn: Good riddance to the Tory greens
The Daily Telegraph, 5 July 2023
The Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA) has ditched all requirements for members to set or publish greenhouse gas emission-reduction targets, the U.N. said on Wednesday, a major rewrite of its rules after U.S. political pressure led to a member exodus.
The NZIA is one of several United Nations-backed alliances that are supposed to coalesce financial institutions to drive efforts towards reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
But the group has come under pressure this year from some Republican politicians in the United States, who accuse it of violating antitrust rules and pushing up insurance costs. More than half of NZIA's members, fearing a regulatory and litigation blowback, have quit since attorneys general from 23 Republican-led U.S. states in May sent a letter threatening legal action.
"Going forward, NZIA member companies have no obligation to set or publish targets: rather, individual member companies will be responsible and publicly accountable for any targets they set, the methodologies used to set them, the timeline on which they decide to publish any targets, and the progress they are making," the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said in a statement.
The statement confirms a Reuters story on Tuesday that the NZIA, which is down to 12 members from a peak of 30 after major firms such as AXA , Allianz and Tokio Marine quit, was set to ease the rules in a bid to keep the coalition going.
Full story
The NZIA is one of several United Nations-backed alliances that are supposed to coalesce financial institutions to drive efforts towards reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
But the group has come under pressure this year from some Republican politicians in the United States, who accuse it of violating antitrust rules and pushing up insurance costs. More than half of NZIA's members, fearing a regulatory and litigation blowback, have quit since attorneys general from 23 Republican-led U.S. states in May sent a letter threatening legal action.
"Going forward, NZIA member companies have no obligation to set or publish targets: rather, individual member companies will be responsible and publicly accountable for any targets they set, the methodologies used to set them, the timeline on which they decide to publish any targets, and the progress they are making," the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) said in a statement.
The statement confirms a Reuters story on Tuesday that the NZIA, which is down to 12 members from a peak of 30 after major firms such as AXA , Allianz and Tokio Marine quit, was set to ease the rules in a bid to keep the coalition going.
Full story
2) Green hysteria as Rishi Sunak is accused of planning to ditch £11.6bn climate finance pledge
The National, 6 July 2023
The National, 6 July 2023
Rishi Sunak’s government is being accused of “moral bankruptcy” after a document given to the Foreign Office suggested it was on track to discard its international climate finance policy.
The Prime Minister was warned scrapping the promise would “echo around the world” and affect those most vulnerable to global warming.
Seen by The Guardian and the BBC, the document says: "Our commitment to double our international climate finance to £11.6 billion was made in 2019, when we were still at 0.7 [per cent of GDP spent on international aid] and pre-Covid."
Officials have calculated the government would have to spend 83 per cent of the Foreign Office’s development assistance budget on the international climate fund, the leaked report suggests. This “would squeeze out room for other commitments such as humanitarian and women and girls”, civil servants noted in the report.
The Foreign Office refuted the suggestions.
The UK government has been warned that dropping its international climate finance pledge will affect those most vulnerable to global warming. AFP
“Claims that the International Climate Finance pledge is being dropped are false,” a government representative said.
“As the Prime Minister set out at Cop27, the government remains committed to spending £11.6 billion on international climate finance and we are delivering on that pledge.
“We spent over £1.4 billion on international climate finance over the course of the 2021/22 financial year, supporting developing countries to reduce poverty and respond to the causes and impacts of climate change.
“We will publish the latest annual figures in due course.”
Mr Sunak's climate policies have come under scrutiny after international environment minister Zac Goldsmith resigned last week.
He attacked the Prime Minister's approach to environmental issues, saying the government was "uninterested". He said Britain had "visibly stepped off the world stage and withdrawn our leadership on climate and nature".
Mr Goldsmith on Wednesday suggested any U-turn would "be seen as an act of betrayal on a profound level and will cause us irreparable reputational harm".
The peer in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British Parliament, said the fact the pledge had been made consistently by Mr Sunak and his predecessors Liz Truss and Boris Johnson "adds to a sense that the UK is no longer a reliable partner".
"Our competitors will be licking their lips," he said, adding that the Sunak administration "must keep this promise, or be made to".
In a further blow to Mr Sunak's green agenda, Britain's advisers on the Climate Change Committee (CCC) also last week said the nation had lost its position as a global leader on environmental action. The committee said ministers were not taking the robust action needed to meet the 2050 net-zero target.
Full story
3) Jim Ratcliffe accuses UK energy policy of wrecking industries
Bloomberg, 6 July 2023
The Prime Minister was warned scrapping the promise would “echo around the world” and affect those most vulnerable to global warming.
Seen by The Guardian and the BBC, the document says: "Our commitment to double our international climate finance to £11.6 billion was made in 2019, when we were still at 0.7 [per cent of GDP spent on international aid] and pre-Covid."
Officials have calculated the government would have to spend 83 per cent of the Foreign Office’s development assistance budget on the international climate fund, the leaked report suggests. This “would squeeze out room for other commitments such as humanitarian and women and girls”, civil servants noted in the report.
The Foreign Office refuted the suggestions.
The UK government has been warned that dropping its international climate finance pledge will affect those most vulnerable to global warming. AFP
“Claims that the International Climate Finance pledge is being dropped are false,” a government representative said.
“As the Prime Minister set out at Cop27, the government remains committed to spending £11.6 billion on international climate finance and we are delivering on that pledge.
“We spent over £1.4 billion on international climate finance over the course of the 2021/22 financial year, supporting developing countries to reduce poverty and respond to the causes and impacts of climate change.
“We will publish the latest annual figures in due course.”
Mr Sunak's climate policies have come under scrutiny after international environment minister Zac Goldsmith resigned last week.
He attacked the Prime Minister's approach to environmental issues, saying the government was "uninterested". He said Britain had "visibly stepped off the world stage and withdrawn our leadership on climate and nature".
Mr Goldsmith on Wednesday suggested any U-turn would "be seen as an act of betrayal on a profound level and will cause us irreparable reputational harm".
The peer in the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the British Parliament, said the fact the pledge had been made consistently by Mr Sunak and his predecessors Liz Truss and Boris Johnson "adds to a sense that the UK is no longer a reliable partner".
"Our competitors will be licking their lips," he said, adding that the Sunak administration "must keep this promise, or be made to".
In a further blow to Mr Sunak's green agenda, Britain's advisers on the Climate Change Committee (CCC) also last week said the nation had lost its position as a global leader on environmental action. The committee said ministers were not taking the robust action needed to meet the 2050 net-zero target.
Full story
3) Jim Ratcliffe accuses UK energy policy of wrecking industries
Bloomberg, 6 July 2023
British billionaire Jim Ratcliffe lambasted the UK’s energy policy, saying “daft” decisions in areas including nuclear power are crushing manufacturing in the country.
The owner of chemicals giant Ineos Group Holdings called for more investment in reactors and repeated calls for the UK government to allow hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. At an event in London Wednesday evening, he said conversations with ministers to find solutions were “frustrating.”
The UK and Europe grappled with natural gas shortages last year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine curbed supplies, exposing flaws in the region’s energy policies. High energy costs hurt manufacturing, with firms from chemicals giants to glass makers and metal smelters forced to reduce output or shut down altogether.
“The UK has made some daft decisions in nuclear,” Ratcliffe said. “Competitive energy is critically important if you want to continue to have people investing in your manufacturing base. And if you don’t invest in the manufacturing base, it slowly dwindles away and dies.”
Ratcliffe’s criticism comes at time when the UK and Europe are facing increasing competition for investments as the US expands green-energy subsidies. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, in particular, has lured energy investments to the US.
At the event to mark the launch of his new book, Grit, Rigour & Humour: The Ineos Story, Ratcliffe said Ineos is now seeing the majority of its profits coming from the US.
The Brexit backer has made a string of attacks on the UK government and the state of manufacturing. He criticized the Competition and Markets Authority after it raised concerns about a proposed acquisition by Ineos, resulting in the collapse of the deal.
“There has to be reasons to invest in the UK,” he said. “You can think of the reasons you might invest in America and you can think of the reasons you might invest in China, but what are the reasons you would invest in the UK?”
Full story
4) The price of Net Zero: Sunak 'leading Tories to catastrophe' as bombshell poll forecasts total election wipeout
Daily Express, 7 July 2023
Rishi Sunak has been accused by Conservative MPs of "leading the party to catastrophe" as the latest Techne UK weekly tracker poll has given Labour a 21 point lead.
The owner of chemicals giant Ineos Group Holdings called for more investment in reactors and repeated calls for the UK government to allow hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. At an event in London Wednesday evening, he said conversations with ministers to find solutions were “frustrating.”
The UK and Europe grappled with natural gas shortages last year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine curbed supplies, exposing flaws in the region’s energy policies. High energy costs hurt manufacturing, with firms from chemicals giants to glass makers and metal smelters forced to reduce output or shut down altogether.
“The UK has made some daft decisions in nuclear,” Ratcliffe said. “Competitive energy is critically important if you want to continue to have people investing in your manufacturing base. And if you don’t invest in the manufacturing base, it slowly dwindles away and dies.”
Ratcliffe’s criticism comes at time when the UK and Europe are facing increasing competition for investments as the US expands green-energy subsidies. President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, in particular, has lured energy investments to the US.
At the event to mark the launch of his new book, Grit, Rigour & Humour: The Ineos Story, Ratcliffe said Ineos is now seeing the majority of its profits coming from the US.
The Brexit backer has made a string of attacks on the UK government and the state of manufacturing. He criticized the Competition and Markets Authority after it raised concerns about a proposed acquisition by Ineos, resulting in the collapse of the deal.
“There has to be reasons to invest in the UK,” he said. “You can think of the reasons you might invest in America and you can think of the reasons you might invest in China, but what are the reasons you would invest in the UK?”
Full story
4) The price of Net Zero: Sunak 'leading Tories to catastrophe' as bombshell poll forecasts total election wipeout
Daily Express, 7 July 2023
Rishi Sunak has been accused by Conservative MPs of "leading the party to catastrophe" as the latest Techne UK weekly tracker poll has given Labour a 21 point lead.
It means that almost all the gains made in the polls since Mr Sunak took over from Liz Truss have been lost and his party is, according to electoral Calculus, on course to win less than 100 seats for the first time in their 345 year history.
The findings from a survey of 1,632 voters put Labour on 47 points with the Tories on a mere 26 percent.
If this was the result of an election Sir Keir Starmer would enter Downing Street with a 328 seat majority while the Tories would be virtually wiped out on just 89 seats.
The poll also put the Lib Dems on 10 percent (down one), Reform UK unchanged on 6 percent and the Greens also unchanged on 5 percent.
Full story
5) Green madness on stilts: EU needs to spend an extra €700 billion a year for Net Zero
Bloomberg, 4 July 2023
The European Union must invest an additional €700 billion ($763 billion) a year if it’s to green the economy and shut out cheap Russian fossil fuels, according to a draft report from the bloc’s executive arm.
Most of that figure will have to be privately sourced, the European Commission said in the draft seen by Bloomberg News. The vast sum — significantly higher than that proposed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen less than two years ago — underlines the escalating costs of reaching net zero goals.
“The green transition requires unprecedented investments,” the commission said in its so-called Strategic Foresight report, which is still subject to change before publication Wednesday. “The full costs and consequences of the climate and biodiversity crisis are unknown.”
The EU, targeting a 55% cut in emissions this decade, needs to boost spending on clean technologies amid growing competition from the US and China. The bloc must also ensure energy security as it weans itself off Russian gas, while tackling rising borrowing costs and huge debts built up by companies during the pandemic.
The EU has already earmarked €578 billion, almost a third of its multiannual budget, for climate-related action from 2021 to 2027. In November 2021 — before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered an energy crisis and runaway inflation — von der Leyen said an additional €470 billion a year would be needed. That figure is dwarfed by the commission’s latest recommendation.
Given the limited resources of the EU’s budget, the bulk of the new investment will have to come from the private sector, while member states must also tap their own funds, according to the report. It highlighted the risk of a subsidy race among nations, which would put a strain on the bloc’s single market.
Full story
The findings from a survey of 1,632 voters put Labour on 47 points with the Tories on a mere 26 percent.
If this was the result of an election Sir Keir Starmer would enter Downing Street with a 328 seat majority while the Tories would be virtually wiped out on just 89 seats.
The poll also put the Lib Dems on 10 percent (down one), Reform UK unchanged on 6 percent and the Greens also unchanged on 5 percent.
Full story
5) Green madness on stilts: EU needs to spend an extra €700 billion a year for Net Zero
Bloomberg, 4 July 2023
The European Union must invest an additional €700 billion ($763 billion) a year if it’s to green the economy and shut out cheap Russian fossil fuels, according to a draft report from the bloc’s executive arm.
Most of that figure will have to be privately sourced, the European Commission said in the draft seen by Bloomberg News. The vast sum — significantly higher than that proposed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen less than two years ago — underlines the escalating costs of reaching net zero goals.
“The green transition requires unprecedented investments,” the commission said in its so-called Strategic Foresight report, which is still subject to change before publication Wednesday. “The full costs and consequences of the climate and biodiversity crisis are unknown.”
The EU, targeting a 55% cut in emissions this decade, needs to boost spending on clean technologies amid growing competition from the US and China. The bloc must also ensure energy security as it weans itself off Russian gas, while tackling rising borrowing costs and huge debts built up by companies during the pandemic.
The EU has already earmarked €578 billion, almost a third of its multiannual budget, for climate-related action from 2021 to 2027. In November 2021 — before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered an energy crisis and runaway inflation — von der Leyen said an additional €470 billion a year would be needed. That figure is dwarfed by the commission’s latest recommendation.
Given the limited resources of the EU’s budget, the bulk of the new investment will have to come from the private sector, while member states must also tap their own funds, according to the report. It highlighted the risk of a subsidy race among nations, which would put a strain on the bloc’s single market.
Full story
6) Ben Marlow: Britain’s energy failure risks killing off what is left of our manufacturing base
The Daily Telegraph, 7 July 2023
The Daily Telegraph, 7 July 2023
The backlash against net zero is intensifying, not because the UK is a nation of climate change deniers but because the Government thinks the magic solution is to impose expensive and flawed technology such as electric cars and heat pumps on everyone.
For a man who couldn’t wait to get out of Britain when he thought the political winds weren’t blowing his way, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a lot to say about how the country is being run.
Some might say a little too much, particularly given that moving to Monaco seems like an odd way to demonstrate his outspoken support for Brexit. But then the billionaire industrialist has explained that his big fear was a Corbyn government, something most big businesses would relate to.
He also has a book to sell to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the chemicals giant he has built largely out of various BP cast-offs down the years. It’s called Grit, Rigour & Humour: The Ineos Story – yet if the flurry of angry interviews that the shaggy-haired 70-year-old has given in recent days are anything to go by, it is likely to be fairly light on laughs.
Having lambasted the poor old Competition and Markets Authority – everyone’s favourite whipping boy right now - earlier in the week, Sir Jim’s ire has turned to Britain’s energy policy, which he eloquently describes as both “crap” and “daft”.
Sir Jim, with his sprawling, energy-intensive manufacturing empire and past investment in fracking, can hardly be regarded as a disinterested, neutral observer on the subject.
However, that doesn’t mean he is wrong in his central assessment, which is essentially that a seemingly endless stream of poor decisions on energy threatens to kill off what is left of this country’s manufacturing base.
The consequences of several decades of failed policy were brought into sharp view by Moscow’s war in Ukraine – largely in the form of sky-high bills – while the growing threat of blackouts is another dim reminder of just how far those of all political stripes have fallen short.
Meanwhile, the backlash against net zero is intensifying, not because the UK is a nation of climate change deniers but because the Government thinks the magic solution is to impose expensive and flawed technology such as electric cars and heat pumps on everyone.
Yet incredibly, 18 months after the Kremlin unleashed hell on its neighbour, it is hard to pinpoint any real progress on energy security.
Sir Jim’s comments are yet another wake-up call to sleepy ministers. With all the focus on household bills it is easy to forget about the ruinous impact that spiralling energy costs have had on companies, particularly those with high consumption.
One of the failings of the state-backed bailout scheme was that it focused disproportionately on hard-up families, at the expense of businesses with support being abruptly cut in April despite many firms complaining that suppliers had failed to pass on lower wholesale prices to customers.
Yet the wave of shutdowns at major fertiliser plants across the Continent in the wake of Moscow’s invasion demonstrated acutely the perils of major companies being overwhelmed by soaring energy costs.
Britain’s largest, CF Fertilisers, was forced to temporarily halt production, sparking widespread disruption in the food supply chain, and even among beer brewers – a national crisis if ever there was one.
Steel manufacturing was affected too as the industry warned that electricity prices were 30 times higher than normal. It was a horrifying vision of what is to come if the Government doesn’t start to get things right.
The painful foot-dragging on mini-nukes is a perfect example of what Sir Jim derides as “daft decisions in nuclear”, or more accurately: no decision. With a deal on who will build the first plant understood to be at least six months away, we risk falling behind in what could prove to be one of the most important technological developments of the 21st century.
A general election could mean decisions on the country’s new nuclear programme are pushed out even further. The lack of urgency and action is utterly maddening. If the Government can’t get its act together after a shock of this magnitude then what hope is there of it ever responding properly?
Sir Jim is also right to contrast the UK business environment with that of other major nations. “You can think of the reasons you might invest in America and you can think of the reasons you might invest in China, but what are the reasons you would invest in the UK?”
Joe Biden’s vast green subsidies blitz means competition to woo foreign investors and companies has never been more fierce. At the same time, energy prices are cheaper in Europe than they are in Britain, putting us at a double disadvantage.
By the same token, Sir Jim is correct to say that the dynamics could shift quickly if the Government was successful in bringing down energy bills. As he puts it: “cut the cost and industry will come”.
But that requires the country to become more self-sufficient, which means finding a way to replace foreign oil and gas with reliable homegrown supplies. Fracking is dead, despite Sir Jim’s enthusiasm for it.
Wind, as he says, is not going to power the whole of the UK; ditto solar.
And though he claims we cannot survive without hydrocarbons, we are probably going to have to one day – not least because the North Sea is essentially a sunset industry. New nuclear – zero-carbon and reliable – has to play a major part, yet it is a long way from even getting off the ground.
Whatever the mix, the rewards from making energy cheaper will be massive, including allowing manufacturing to survive and prosper.
Yet it requires a genuine and lasting commitment from the Government – and so far there are few, if any, signs that the current crop of politicians are up to the challenge.
For a man who couldn’t wait to get out of Britain when he thought the political winds weren’t blowing his way, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a lot to say about how the country is being run.
Some might say a little too much, particularly given that moving to Monaco seems like an odd way to demonstrate his outspoken support for Brexit. But then the billionaire industrialist has explained that his big fear was a Corbyn government, something most big businesses would relate to.
He also has a book to sell to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the chemicals giant he has built largely out of various BP cast-offs down the years. It’s called Grit, Rigour & Humour: The Ineos Story – yet if the flurry of angry interviews that the shaggy-haired 70-year-old has given in recent days are anything to go by, it is likely to be fairly light on laughs.
Having lambasted the poor old Competition and Markets Authority – everyone’s favourite whipping boy right now - earlier in the week, Sir Jim’s ire has turned to Britain’s energy policy, which he eloquently describes as both “crap” and “daft”.
Sir Jim, with his sprawling, energy-intensive manufacturing empire and past investment in fracking, can hardly be regarded as a disinterested, neutral observer on the subject.
However, that doesn’t mean he is wrong in his central assessment, which is essentially that a seemingly endless stream of poor decisions on energy threatens to kill off what is left of this country’s manufacturing base.
The consequences of several decades of failed policy were brought into sharp view by Moscow’s war in Ukraine – largely in the form of sky-high bills – while the growing threat of blackouts is another dim reminder of just how far those of all political stripes have fallen short.
Meanwhile, the backlash against net zero is intensifying, not because the UK is a nation of climate change deniers but because the Government thinks the magic solution is to impose expensive and flawed technology such as electric cars and heat pumps on everyone.
Yet incredibly, 18 months after the Kremlin unleashed hell on its neighbour, it is hard to pinpoint any real progress on energy security.
Sir Jim’s comments are yet another wake-up call to sleepy ministers. With all the focus on household bills it is easy to forget about the ruinous impact that spiralling energy costs have had on companies, particularly those with high consumption.
One of the failings of the state-backed bailout scheme was that it focused disproportionately on hard-up families, at the expense of businesses with support being abruptly cut in April despite many firms complaining that suppliers had failed to pass on lower wholesale prices to customers.
Yet the wave of shutdowns at major fertiliser plants across the Continent in the wake of Moscow’s invasion demonstrated acutely the perils of major companies being overwhelmed by soaring energy costs.
Britain’s largest, CF Fertilisers, was forced to temporarily halt production, sparking widespread disruption in the food supply chain, and even among beer brewers – a national crisis if ever there was one.
Steel manufacturing was affected too as the industry warned that electricity prices were 30 times higher than normal. It was a horrifying vision of what is to come if the Government doesn’t start to get things right.
The painful foot-dragging on mini-nukes is a perfect example of what Sir Jim derides as “daft decisions in nuclear”, or more accurately: no decision. With a deal on who will build the first plant understood to be at least six months away, we risk falling behind in what could prove to be one of the most important technological developments of the 21st century.
A general election could mean decisions on the country’s new nuclear programme are pushed out even further. The lack of urgency and action is utterly maddening. If the Government can’t get its act together after a shock of this magnitude then what hope is there of it ever responding properly?
Sir Jim is also right to contrast the UK business environment with that of other major nations. “You can think of the reasons you might invest in America and you can think of the reasons you might invest in China, but what are the reasons you would invest in the UK?”
Joe Biden’s vast green subsidies blitz means competition to woo foreign investors and companies has never been more fierce. At the same time, energy prices are cheaper in Europe than they are in Britain, putting us at a double disadvantage.
By the same token, Sir Jim is correct to say that the dynamics could shift quickly if the Government was successful in bringing down energy bills. As he puts it: “cut the cost and industry will come”.
But that requires the country to become more self-sufficient, which means finding a way to replace foreign oil and gas with reliable homegrown supplies. Fracking is dead, despite Sir Jim’s enthusiasm for it.
Wind, as he says, is not going to power the whole of the UK; ditto solar.
And though he claims we cannot survive without hydrocarbons, we are probably going to have to one day – not least because the North Sea is essentially a sunset industry. New nuclear – zero-carbon and reliable – has to play a major part, yet it is a long way from even getting off the ground.
Whatever the mix, the rewards from making energy cheaper will be massive, including allowing manufacturing to survive and prosper.
Yet it requires a genuine and lasting commitment from the Government – and so far there are few, if any, signs that the current crop of politicians are up to the challenge.
7) James Billot: Is Europe going cold on Net Zero?
Unherd, 6 July 2023
In recent weeks, several countries and alliances have been calling for a pause, while others have been quietly abandoning climate targets altogether.
When the EU passed its landmark climate policy in April, it was heralded as the bloc’s most ambitious to date. Under the new terms, emissions are to be slashed by 62% from 2005 levels before 2030, paving the way for the EU to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
But since the passage of that deal, cracks in the European alliance have started to emerge. In recent weeks, several countries and alliances have been calling for a pause, while others have been quietly abandoning climate targets altogether. In the past week alone, Austria’s federal environmental agency warned that the country’s climate target for 2030 would not be reached in time — just as leaked documents showed that Britain, a fellow traveller on green policy, dropped its flagship £11.6 billion climate pledge to developing countries (a week earlier, a separate report found that the government was set to miss the majority of its climate targets too).
According to the leak, the UK government has chosen to reorient its development focus away from green policies in order to deal with its post-Covid recovery, Ukraine and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. At the same time, Rishi Sunak has approved the country’s first deep coal mine in 30 years and promised to look into nuclear power as part of his energy security strategy.
Nuclear energy remains a divisive issue in the EU, but some countries are pursuing it nonetheless. Two weeks ago, Sweden’s parliament reformulated its energy target from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil-free electricity”, opening the door to the use of nuclear energy.
Elsewhere, countries have offered varying degrees of resistance or scepticism about the speed of the bloc’s climate agenda. While some leaders, namely Emmanuel Macron, have called for a “pause” in environmental legislation, other countries are taking a more aggressive approach. Last month, Poland’s climate minister promised to take the EU to court over its combustion-engine car ban.
Even Germany, arguably the EU’s biggest cheerleader for ambitious environmental targets, is struggling to stay on track. Earlier this year, the government’s decision to phase out gas and oil heating threw the coalition into a crisis, resulting in Robert Habeck and his Green Party plummeting in the polls. Just before the EU passed its emissions plan, Germany reneged on a deal to ban the sale of new internal combustion engines in the EU by 2035.
Ahead of European elections next year, an ideological split over the bloc’s green policy is taking shape. On the more sceptical side, a constellation of Right-leaning groups, ranging from the centre-Right EPP (which counts European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s CDU as a member) to the far-Right Identity & Democracy, have become increasingly critical of the green agenda. In April, these groups proposed several amendments calling for various aspects of the green agenda to be slashed or removed altogether. Meanwhile, the EU’s Left-leaning alliances are far more divided.
Towards the end of last month, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition. Next week, there will be a much clearer picture as to whether he is correct when MEPs are set to vote again on a controversial nature restoration law that resulted in a 44-44 tie last month. For now, it seems possible that the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda.
Unherd, 6 July 2023
In recent weeks, several countries and alliances have been calling for a pause, while others have been quietly abandoning climate targets altogether.
When the EU passed its landmark climate policy in April, it was heralded as the bloc’s most ambitious to date. Under the new terms, emissions are to be slashed by 62% from 2005 levels before 2030, paving the way for the EU to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
But since the passage of that deal, cracks in the European alliance have started to emerge. In recent weeks, several countries and alliances have been calling for a pause, while others have been quietly abandoning climate targets altogether. In the past week alone, Austria’s federal environmental agency warned that the country’s climate target for 2030 would not be reached in time — just as leaked documents showed that Britain, a fellow traveller on green policy, dropped its flagship £11.6 billion climate pledge to developing countries (a week earlier, a separate report found that the government was set to miss the majority of its climate targets too).
According to the leak, the UK government has chosen to reorient its development focus away from green policies in order to deal with its post-Covid recovery, Ukraine and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. At the same time, Rishi Sunak has approved the country’s first deep coal mine in 30 years and promised to look into nuclear power as part of his energy security strategy.
Nuclear energy remains a divisive issue in the EU, but some countries are pursuing it nonetheless. Two weeks ago, Sweden’s parliament reformulated its energy target from “100% renewable” to “100% fossil-free electricity”, opening the door to the use of nuclear energy.
Elsewhere, countries have offered varying degrees of resistance or scepticism about the speed of the bloc’s climate agenda. While some leaders, namely Emmanuel Macron, have called for a “pause” in environmental legislation, other countries are taking a more aggressive approach. Last month, Poland’s climate minister promised to take the EU to court over its combustion-engine car ban.
Even Germany, arguably the EU’s biggest cheerleader for ambitious environmental targets, is struggling to stay on track. Earlier this year, the government’s decision to phase out gas and oil heating threw the coalition into a crisis, resulting in Robert Habeck and his Green Party plummeting in the polls. Just before the EU passed its emissions plan, Germany reneged on a deal to ban the sale of new internal combustion engines in the EU by 2035.
Ahead of European elections next year, an ideological split over the bloc’s green policy is taking shape. On the more sceptical side, a constellation of Right-leaning groups, ranging from the centre-Right EPP (which counts European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s CDU as a member) to the far-Right Identity & Democracy, have become increasingly critical of the green agenda. In April, these groups proposed several amendments calling for various aspects of the green agenda to be slashed or removed altogether. Meanwhile, the EU’s Left-leaning alliances are far more divided.
Towards the end of last month, EU climate chief Frans Timmermans warned that plans to reach Net Zero by 2050 now risked being derailed by political opposition. Next week, there will be a much clearer picture as to whether he is correct when MEPs are set to vote again on a controversial nature restoration law that resulted in a 44-44 tie last month. For now, it seems possible that the EU’s landmark emissions plan in April may come to be viewed as the high watermark for the bloc’s green agenda.
8) Matthew Lynn: Good riddance to the Tory greens
The Daily Telegraph, 5 July 2023
£12 billion on climate aid is money the UK can ill-afford to spend. If that upsets the Conservative party's green wing, so much the better
The Conservatives Party’s green wing is outraged. Lord Goldsmith believes we are breaking promises made by successive prime ministers; reports that the government iss planning to drop an £11.6 billion climate pledge caused former COP26 President Alok Sharma to say the move would hit some of the most “climate vulnerable” countries in the world.
The Government has denied that the commitment will be dropped. Yet while Prime Minister Rishi Sunak might have difficulty fulfilling his famous five pledges to the British people, this is an inherited promise he would be right to abandon. If this money came from existing funding, it would take up 83 per cent of the aid budget, while adding almost £12 billion to that budget does not seem particularly affordable for Britain right now. Outraged comments and resignations should be ignored: it’s time to say good riddance to the Tory green headbangers. They are surely doing the party and the country more harm than good.
Getting rid of this millstone would be the most tangible evidence so far that his administration is dialing down the climate change extremism of its predecessors. In 2019, the UK signed up to a $100 billion global programme to help developing countries cut emissions and cope with the impact of extreme weather. While it may have seemed like a good idea then, it makes little sense today. At a time when budgets are tight, taxes are being pushed up to 70-year highs and strikes over pay are crippling public services, it seems crazy to think the UK could carry on spending at that scale.
If this means that Sunak isn’t taking green issues as seriously as Boris Johnson or Theresa May, that’s all to the good. Very few people disagree with the idea that climate change is a serious issue and one that needs to be addressed, even if the urgency of the crisis and how much the UK can do on its own can be questioned. But there are two big problems with constantly trying to be a world leader.
The first is that it doesn’t make much difference. The Just Stop Oil crowd isn’t going to vote Conservative any more anyway, while the increasing cost of meeting all the pledges we’ve signed up to is slowly piling onto household bills and the tax burden. The second is that there is potentially a big competitive advantage for the UK in staying in the “middle lane” on climate change. If we can be the one place where companies are not bogged down in green targets, where energy supplies are secure and reasonably priced, and where imports are not subject to crazy “carbon adjustment” levies, then despite high taxes and terrible infrastructure we might still be an attractive place to locate a business.
If we drop the aid pledge, it could be the start of junking the rest of the green baggage. It is ridiculous that we are banning petrol cars in 2030, five years ahead of most other countries (including far-right states such as, er, Justin Trudeau’s Canada). Or commitment to totally unproven heat pumps is turning into a fiasco. And our refusal to allow new oil and gas fields to be developed in the North Sea is making us dangerously reliant on expensive imports as well as crippling what could still be a major British industry. If we swept all of that aside, the UK would automatically be in a far stronger position.
Rishi Sunak will almost certainly go down to a crushing defeat at the election next year. But if he can turn the Conservatives into economic realists rather than green idealists, he will leave the party in better shape than he found it – and perhaps carve out the issue that will eventually return it to power.
9) The Tory civil war over climate policy is heating up - and there is no peace deal in sight
Business Green, 3 July 2023
The Conservatives Party’s green wing is outraged. Lord Goldsmith believes we are breaking promises made by successive prime ministers; reports that the government iss planning to drop an £11.6 billion climate pledge caused former COP26 President Alok Sharma to say the move would hit some of the most “climate vulnerable” countries in the world.
The Government has denied that the commitment will be dropped. Yet while Prime Minister Rishi Sunak might have difficulty fulfilling his famous five pledges to the British people, this is an inherited promise he would be right to abandon. If this money came from existing funding, it would take up 83 per cent of the aid budget, while adding almost £12 billion to that budget does not seem particularly affordable for Britain right now. Outraged comments and resignations should be ignored: it’s time to say good riddance to the Tory green headbangers. They are surely doing the party and the country more harm than good.
Getting rid of this millstone would be the most tangible evidence so far that his administration is dialing down the climate change extremism of its predecessors. In 2019, the UK signed up to a $100 billion global programme to help developing countries cut emissions and cope with the impact of extreme weather. While it may have seemed like a good idea then, it makes little sense today. At a time when budgets are tight, taxes are being pushed up to 70-year highs and strikes over pay are crippling public services, it seems crazy to think the UK could carry on spending at that scale.
If this means that Sunak isn’t taking green issues as seriously as Boris Johnson or Theresa May, that’s all to the good. Very few people disagree with the idea that climate change is a serious issue and one that needs to be addressed, even if the urgency of the crisis and how much the UK can do on its own can be questioned. But there are two big problems with constantly trying to be a world leader.
The first is that it doesn’t make much difference. The Just Stop Oil crowd isn’t going to vote Conservative any more anyway, while the increasing cost of meeting all the pledges we’ve signed up to is slowly piling onto household bills and the tax burden. The second is that there is potentially a big competitive advantage for the UK in staying in the “middle lane” on climate change. If we can be the one place where companies are not bogged down in green targets, where energy supplies are secure and reasonably priced, and where imports are not subject to crazy “carbon adjustment” levies, then despite high taxes and terrible infrastructure we might still be an attractive place to locate a business.
If we drop the aid pledge, it could be the start of junking the rest of the green baggage. It is ridiculous that we are banning petrol cars in 2030, five years ahead of most other countries (including far-right states such as, er, Justin Trudeau’s Canada). Or commitment to totally unproven heat pumps is turning into a fiasco. And our refusal to allow new oil and gas fields to be developed in the North Sea is making us dangerously reliant on expensive imports as well as crippling what could still be a major British industry. If we swept all of that aside, the UK would automatically be in a far stronger position.
Rishi Sunak will almost certainly go down to a crushing defeat at the election next year. But if he can turn the Conservatives into economic realists rather than green idealists, he will leave the party in better shape than he found it – and perhaps carve out the issue that will eventually return it to power.
9) The Tory civil war over climate policy is heating up - and there is no peace deal in sight
Business Green, 3 July 2023
The long-running cold war between the green and climate sceptic wings of the Conservative Party is in danger of turning hot, after yet another weekend of hostile briefing and pointed criticism of the government's net zero policies from the opposing flanks of the Party.
The past few days have seen a flurry of media stories - presumably co-ordinated - attacking electric vehicles (EVs) and the government's plans to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2030. The Sun went with 'Drivers warned of seven problems with electric cars including one that makes them more expensive to run than petrol vehicles' and accompanied it with 'Why owning an electric car could be more expensive than you think - and it's set to get worse'.
The Telegraph opted for 'Britain is accelerating towards a petrol ban carmageddon' with a side order of 'The electric car 'revolution' is a disaster before it's begun' and a report based on its own data suggesting potholes do more damage to EVs can internal combustion engine cars. And the Sunday Times ran comments from the manager of hydrogen technology at BMW suggesting that 'if the UK government wants to decarbonise, then get a hydrogen strategy, decarbonise the commercial vehicle sector and roll it out to passenger vehicles'.
What all these stories had in common was a remarkable ability to gloss over the fact EV sales are continuing to boom, exceeding expectations in markets all around the world. Somewhat amusingly, they jostled for space online with the latest news from Tesla that it delivered a record number of cars in the three months to the end of June.
The flurry of stories attacking EVs acted as a warm-up for The Daily Mail's front page splash this morning, revealing that 'MPs and industry leaders' are urging Ministers to 'put brakes on 'damaging' drive to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030'. Drawing on a survey it had commissioned, the paper reported that only 28 per cent of the public think the ban of new petrol and diesel vehicle sales in 2030 is a good idea, compared with 53 per cent who think it is a bad idea.
Former Brexit Minister and trustee of the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation Lord Frost, leapt on the results, telling the paper that the polling "shows that voters are deeply hostile to the constraints on their freedom and lifestyle that net zero requires. They can see that Britain has no chance of being ready to use electric cars en masse in 2030 and are beginning to rebel. The Conservative Party should take note of public opinion and scrap this disastrous policy while it still can".
Former Conservative Leader Iain Duncan Smith struck a similar note, arguing that the 2030 deadline had become akin to 'some kind of peculiar religion' among ministers. "We are literally refusing to accept reality," he said. "Reality means that if we want to keep a UK industry, the industry needs time to get itself across this line and it is not ready yet."
Neither of the Tory grandees set out an alternative plan for how the UK could meet its climate goals or maintain its competitiveness in the fast-expanding EV industry.
Crucially, the paper reported that Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch has raised concerns with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Transport Secretary Mark Harper about the 2030 target date. "Kemi is responsible for the car industry and she has heard concerns from the industry about the zero emissions vehicle mandate, so she is raising it with colleagues," they said.
Full story
The past few days have seen a flurry of media stories - presumably co-ordinated - attacking electric vehicles (EVs) and the government's plans to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2030. The Sun went with 'Drivers warned of seven problems with electric cars including one that makes them more expensive to run than petrol vehicles' and accompanied it with 'Why owning an electric car could be more expensive than you think - and it's set to get worse'.
The Telegraph opted for 'Britain is accelerating towards a petrol ban carmageddon' with a side order of 'The electric car 'revolution' is a disaster before it's begun' and a report based on its own data suggesting potholes do more damage to EVs can internal combustion engine cars. And the Sunday Times ran comments from the manager of hydrogen technology at BMW suggesting that 'if the UK government wants to decarbonise, then get a hydrogen strategy, decarbonise the commercial vehicle sector and roll it out to passenger vehicles'.
What all these stories had in common was a remarkable ability to gloss over the fact EV sales are continuing to boom, exceeding expectations in markets all around the world. Somewhat amusingly, they jostled for space online with the latest news from Tesla that it delivered a record number of cars in the three months to the end of June.
The flurry of stories attacking EVs acted as a warm-up for The Daily Mail's front page splash this morning, revealing that 'MPs and industry leaders' are urging Ministers to 'put brakes on 'damaging' drive to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030'. Drawing on a survey it had commissioned, the paper reported that only 28 per cent of the public think the ban of new petrol and diesel vehicle sales in 2030 is a good idea, compared with 53 per cent who think it is a bad idea.
Former Brexit Minister and trustee of the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation Lord Frost, leapt on the results, telling the paper that the polling "shows that voters are deeply hostile to the constraints on their freedom and lifestyle that net zero requires. They can see that Britain has no chance of being ready to use electric cars en masse in 2030 and are beginning to rebel. The Conservative Party should take note of public opinion and scrap this disastrous policy while it still can".
Former Conservative Leader Iain Duncan Smith struck a similar note, arguing that the 2030 deadline had become akin to 'some kind of peculiar religion' among ministers. "We are literally refusing to accept reality," he said. "Reality means that if we want to keep a UK industry, the industry needs time to get itself across this line and it is not ready yet."
Neither of the Tory grandees set out an alternative plan for how the UK could meet its climate goals or maintain its competitiveness in the fast-expanding EV industry.
Crucially, the paper reported that Business and Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch has raised concerns with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and Transport Secretary Mark Harper about the 2030 target date. "Kemi is responsible for the car industry and she has heard concerns from the industry about the zero emissions vehicle mandate, so she is raising it with colleagues," they said.
Full story
10) And finally: Damaged electric cars ‘quarantined’ over fears they will explode
The Daily Telegraph, 6 July 2023
The Daily Telegraph, 6 July 2023
Practice threatens to increase costs for insurance industry by more than £600m
Electric cars that sustain minor bumps are being kept 15 meters apart in repair yards over fears they might explode, adding to insurance bills.
Government guidelines recommend electric vehicles with damaged batteries should be “quarantined” from other vehicles due to the risk of battery fires. Damaged batteries pose a risk of “thermal runaway” where the energy stored in the battery releases rapidly, creating temperatures of up to 400C.
But the practice threatens to increase costs for the insurance industry by more than £600m, costs which ultimately could be passed onto drivers in increased premiums, according to a report by automotive risk firm Thatcham Research.
It said insurers would need to spend an additional £900m a year on quarantine facilities for damaged cars as a result of the safety measures by 2035, as more battery-powered vehicles take to the roads. The extra costs risk adding £20 a year onto all car insurance premiums, rising to £28 by 2050 when there are expected to be some 360,000 electric cars on the road network.
Just two damaged electric cars can fit into the same space that would otherwise fit 100 petrol or diesel cars, under current the DVLA and Transport Department guidelines.
Full story
Electric cars that sustain minor bumps are being kept 15 meters apart in repair yards over fears they might explode, adding to insurance bills.
Government guidelines recommend electric vehicles with damaged batteries should be “quarantined” from other vehicles due to the risk of battery fires. Damaged batteries pose a risk of “thermal runaway” where the energy stored in the battery releases rapidly, creating temperatures of up to 400C.
But the practice threatens to increase costs for the insurance industry by more than £600m, costs which ultimately could be passed onto drivers in increased premiums, according to a report by automotive risk firm Thatcham Research.
It said insurers would need to spend an additional £900m a year on quarantine facilities for damaged cars as a result of the safety measures by 2035, as more battery-powered vehicles take to the roads. The extra costs risk adding £20 a year onto all car insurance premiums, rising to £28 by 2050 when there are expected to be some 360,000 electric cars on the road network.
Just two damaged electric cars can fit into the same space that would otherwise fit 100 petrol or diesel cars, under current the DVLA and Transport Department guidelines.
Full story
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