environment

Recycling - not the great panacea

Joe Otten — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:58:41 +0000

A Stern Warning

Joe Otten — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:32:53 +0000

The social cost of carbon emissions is $85 per tonne. This equates to £72 per person flying to New York or 9p per litre of petrol. This doesn't seem an awful lot. If the purpose of green taxes is to correct externalities, it would seem that petrol tax has overshot quite badly. Yes, I know it covers other things, and that there are non-carbon externalities, but nonetheless it suggests that perhaps motoring has acquired a totemic status among carbon-emitting behaviours. If we have any economists reading perhaps they can explain whether a social cost of $85 means a tax of $85 is correct, or whether and why the two figures should differ.

The other good headline figures to come out of the report are that at a cost of 1% of GDP (which is a huge cost), we can save 20% of GDP in economic decline and equivalent (somehow) loss of health and well being. This is a great expense and a great bargain.

The Lib Dems Green Tax Switch policy, which is perhaps in the process of being copied by the other parties meets the first of Stern's policy challenges: that of setting a price for carbon.

The second challenge is to support the urgent development of low-carbon and high efficiency technologies. I suspect that when the government publishes its proposals, this section will focus on nuclear power. That is, of course, a debate all of its own. But in any case there should be serious money going into offshore wind, tidal lagoons, CHP, transport solutions and so forth.

The third challenge is tackling the barriers to take up of efficient and low carbon technologies. Better product labelling, standards for energy efficiency and that sort of thing.

Stern also mentions the importance of adapting to the consequences of global warming. This is important. It is not a question of stopping warming altogether, but stopping it from being too severe, and adapting to the changes that do happen.

The point is well made that uncertainty over the figures is a reason for more action rather than less. We should act today on the best estimates we have today, and we can always move policy incrementally in response to new evidence.

I think the biggest obstacle we face to progress is the problem of freeloading, and the perception of the problem of freeloading. I will say two things against the problem of the perception.

Firstly, the costs of many of the measures discussed are very low or zero. Green taxes raise revenue and allow low carbon sectors to be taxed less and prosper. Having the carbon pricing infrastructure in place earlier and implementing it, even at a lower than desirable level can mean gaining a lead in low carbon technologies and practises that will pay dividends in future.

Secondly, it is a mistake to think there is a binary divide between tree-huggers and freeloaders. There is a continuum. China, India, the USA, they are all doing more than nothing. And the UK is doing rather less than some other countries. Yes, we want to say to the international community "come on chaps, we can do this" but to say it effectively we have to show some enthusiasm to do our part. Let's not sit on our arses complaining that somebody else is even lazier.

Greg Barker's dirty little secret

Peter Welch — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:03:50 +0100

I wasn't going to comment on the Barker affair, but then an ad in a magazine brought the memories floodling back.

This is the way the Mirror describes his guilty secret

He drives a silver Lexus RX400-h car which has been designed to emit fewer damaging emissions and was carefully chosen to fit his green political image.

OK I'll fess up. I went as far as looking at one myself. It was a bit out of my price range, but to feel good about the planet I was prepared to consider spending the money.

The problem is that the Lexus 400h does not deliver. The version Barker appears to drive pumps out around 192g/km.

Worse still, for a (sorry) family driver, it has the internal dimensions of a much smaller car. When I looked there was no seven-seater option. A Volvo XC90 diesel is equally efficient - and fits two extra passengers.

Now I don´t care what sort of car people drive. The impact on the environment is not really as dramatic as people assume. But putting pictures all over your website of a "green" vehicle when you know it is just a sham - that really gets me.

Trans Europe Express

Tabman — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:19:38 +0100

Rendezvous on Champs-Elysees
Leave Paris in the morning on T.E.E.
Trans-Europe Express

In Vienna we sit in a late-night cafe
Straight connection, T.E.E.
Trans-Europe Express

In the 1930s, long distance train travel was the only practical way to travel around Europe. Such travel was a liberating, dare one say liberal experience (if you could afford it): a trans-continental railway system entailing multi-national co-operation. Not only did this sytem cover Europe, but it stretched to the Middle East and even beyond to India.

The romantic in me is drawn to train travel in this way. Now that air travel is coming under increasing scrutiny because of its impact on climate change, the age of the train is increasingly with us again. For anyone who wants to travel Europe by train, the excellent The Man in Seat Sixty-One website gives you the information required to do so.

Nuclear power: time for a rethink?

Joe Otten — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:15 +0100

Gareth Aubrey has posted a technical defence of the safety and effectiveness of nuclear power, adding "In any case, if I were to post an extended pro-nuclear polemic, the grief received would not be worth it."

Let me take up this masochistic baton and see where I end up. I have blogged on nuclear power before here criticising the weakness of the arguments used against nuclear by the Sustainable Development Commission, but not coming to a firm conclusion.

The latest round of arguments seems to have been spurred by an article Greens aid destruction of planet in the Times. Doubtless that sort of headline sells papers, but at the cost of polarising a debate where clear heads are needed.

The environmentalist arguments against nuclear are typically a) that it is dangerous and that the problem of waste has not been solved, and b) that it is less effective than alternative ways of reducing carbon emissions.

Gareth Aubrey tackles the safety argument head-on, arguing in a very worst case scenario, the failure of deep storage would cause a "chance of contracting cancer from radiation is increased by the same amount as that of a person who moves house from London to Truro". (Is that due to the Radon in Truro?) It would be nice to see the figures for this calculation. And it places a burden on opponents of deep storage to produce their own calculations showing a greater risk.

The effectiveness argument also rather depends on figures. It is often said that if all the money spent on nuclear had been spent on windmills, we would have fantastic windmills by now. And it is probably true. But where are the figures indicating likely returns on future expenditure? This argument is asking us whether we want renewables or nuclear. But that is a loaded question. If we are serious about global warming, the question is whether we want fossil fuels or nuclear, in addition to whatever renewables we can develop.

Different generation technologies have different cost and performance characteristics which mean that it is good to have a mix. Nuclear is good at baseload generation because not a lot is saved by switching it off. Coal is also good at baseload because it is slow to start up and shut down. Gas is good at responding quickly to peaks in demand.

Renewables will reduce the amount of fuel needed in other plant, but don't replace capacity because they will not always be operating. They will increase uncertainty in the supply-demand balance and therefore the demands on responsive gas plant. Incidentally, this uncertainty can be mitigated by linking up grids supplied by renewables over large areas - because the variations tend to cancel out, and because the wind is always blowing somewhere. But this the opposite of decentralised distribution that we hear about from Greenpeace. Smart metering can also reduce this uncertainty and is a good idea however much or little renewables we have.

In addition a mix of generation technologies reduces dependence on a single type of fuel (or weather). With Russian gas likely to be turned off any time Putin wants to throw his weight around, relying on gas for baseload is an unfortunate risk.

So while an energy mix can be maintained without nuclear, a better mix would include it. In particular nuclear's role as a provider of reliable baseload is more suited to gas and coal than to renewables, so it is gas and coal that it is in competition with, more than renewables.

So I don't think we can question the usefulness of nuclear power, in reducing carbon emissions, and playing a different role in electricity generation to that played by renewables. Are there other environmental issues to consider? Gareth again:

If you lived one mile from both a nuclear power plant and a coal-fired power plant, which would give you the highest radiation dose? Coal contains uranium, thorium, radon and carbon-14, all of which is ejected directly to the environment when it is burnt. The answer, counter-intuitive though it may be, is that the coal station gives you a higher dose.

This is an extremely compelling argument. Can we see the figures, Gareth? It is up to the environmental movement, or the coal lobby to admit this or to provide alternative calculations.

But if this is right, we are left with the conclusion that nuclear is environmentally better all round than coal. It is not as good as renewables, but it doesn't have to be that good to qualify on environmental grounds for membership of the energy mix.

So it boils down to the question of whether nuclear is a cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions and improving energy security, not a question of whether it is wrong in principle. How does Greenpeace argue its corner now?

Greenpeace campaigns for 'distributed generation', their new name for Combined Heat and Power, and contrasts it with nuclear. CHP sells the waste hot water produced in generation as well as the electricity, giving an overall thermal efficiency around 80% rather than 35-40%. It is a good idea, but is limited by the infrastructure for distributing hot water, and by demand. It has its place, as part of the mix but is not an alternative to any other single type of generation. So what Greenpeace doesn't seem to be doing is tackling head-on the arguments for nuclear.

The Lib Dems as a pro-environment party has taken the environmentalist line on nuclear. Environmentalism is sincere and full of dedicated people, and it is right to defer to that movement in the first instance on environmental questions. But sincerity doesn't guarantee accuracy. And arguments that we don't like still have to be addressed on their merits, it is no good dismissing anything said by the nuclear industry as tainted. Windmills have a lobby too.

The question at the end of the day, is whether, in addition to everything else that we do, the cost of nuclear is worth paying for further reductions in carbon emissions. Global warming skeptics say no. Environmentalists say no. What an alliance! I am not nearly so complacent about global warming.

Change is a process, not a decision

Rob Knight — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:57:47 +0100

Caroline Lucas begins her article at CiF by welcoming the increasing political consensus on the need to tackle climate change. She then goes on to attack the two parties who have been most vocal in supporting this recent consensus - the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

To be fair to her, the vast majority of her criticism is directed at the Tories and, until such time as they put forward serious proposals (you may remember that the proposed Lib Dem-Conservative cooperation on the environment broke down over this issue) then her criticism rings entirely true. But what of her wider point? Her dismissal of Lib Dem environment proposals is based on the fact that Lib Dem councillors and MSPs have backed road-building and airport expansions:

But the Liberal Democrats' enthusiasm for "green" taxation at their conference in Brighton bore almost no relation to the reality of their elected councillors and MSPs backing more road-building and more airport expansion at every opportunity, making politically-expedient decisions at the local level at the expense of the very fight against climate change their party's leaders claim to be championing.

Does she have a point? In my view, no. There are two ways of looking at green politics, indeed of any political choice that has to be made. One, which I regard as being generally more compatible with a liberal view, is that we get to where we want to go by setting up processes to get there. The other says that we achieve change through taking decisions which enforce an outcome immediately. Lucas is looking at decisions, and ignoring the fact that the Lib Dem proposals are about creating a process.

The process of emissions reduction relies on incentives to do so. These incentives, applied principally through the tax system, will make polluters bear the cost of their pollution. It's not about banning cars, or reducing the number of roads to drive them on, or closing airports; it's about saying to people that they have a choice, but that the rewards for choosing a green option will outweigh the costs of pollution most of the time. Building new roads does not undermine this position; in fact, smart road building can cut journey times and distances, thus reducing emissions. Expansion of regional airports can reduce the need for connecting flights or long journeys to distant airports. Quite simply, the Lib Dems are consistently in favour of people choosing for themselves, and having the best range of choices at their disposal.

It's true that this lacks the simplistic appeal of 'less cars, fewer roads, less pollution', but it's also true that only such a process has a chance of succeeding. Lucas is favouring gesture politics over fully-rounded, thought-out ideas. Moreover, processes are about considering the effects over time, not just what will happen when we wake up tomorrow. By creating incentives rather than mandating short-term change, we can encourage positive behaviour as well as discourage negative behaviour. Taxes on pollution encourage the development of new technologies that can save households money by reducing their carbon emissions. These technologies do exist, and real cuts in emissions are achievable (see this post for some excellent examples).

But it seems that Lucas has heard this argument before, because she goes on to dismiss it. But she does so by throwing up a series of unconnected objections. Firstly:

The limitations of this approach are thrown into sharp relief in the light of increasing evidence that the era of cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy is about to end. A growing number of petroleum geologists believe that peak oil - the moment when global oil extraction peaks, and demand starts to outstrip supply - will be upon us very soon.

Secondly:

The argument is often made that we must have global growth in order to achieve poverty eradication. But, in truth, it's a very inefficient strategy. In 1990, 23% of the world's population was below the "$1-a-day" poverty line. But between 1990 and 2001, just 60 cents of every $100 of extra income generated by global growth reached the poorest. In other words, it took an extra $166 of production and consumption, with all the associated environmental damage, to generate each $1 of poverty reduction. If we are to get really serious about global poverty reduction, redistribution of income and wealth would be a far more effective method.

Finally:

Instead of attempting to support ever-increasing industrialised systems based on exponential growth, and then desperately trying to find the energy and materials to sustain them, we need to reverse the present paradigm, and make sufficiency, equity and sustainability our objectives, rather than ever-increasing economic growth.

On the point about peak oil, I am unsure what point she is trying to make. Should the oil begin to run out (as it eventually must), its price will increase dramatically and its use will decline until it runs out entirely. This will (and, following recent oil price rises, already does) cause individuals, companies and governments to look at alternative sources of energy. There's nothing here that anyone could disagree with.

On poverty eradication, surely nobody could argue with those figures? Well, I'm not going to argue with the fact that so many people live in such dire poverty is a terrible indictment of the state of global affairs. But the fact is that it is those countries which have made the greatest strides in economic growth which have succeeded in lifting their citizens out of poverty - India and China are often quoted as examples, but the economic story of the whole of Asia has been one of economic growth overcoming poverty.

Blaming economic growth for pollution is another failure to distinguish a process to tackle root causes from quick fix solutions. Yes, we could cut pollution if we cut economic growth. The Black Death, by decimating the population of Europe and devastating the Medieval economy, was responsible for such a fall in global CO2 that it is believed to have played a role in causing the Little Ice Age. I apologise if this seems like an unfair historical example to use, but it's worth remembering that real cuts in economic growth will have real consequences in falling living standards, unemployment and the slowing of the very technological progress we need to find new energy sources and rebuild our economy around low-emissions technology. What good is a Toyota Prius if nobody can afford to buy one? We need to protect and promote a vibrant, free economy; we also need to ensure that the economic incentives in place ensure that it is an economy built on clean energy.

Finally, Lucas calls for a completely new economic order. It seems strange that, having spent most of her article making easy arguments, she only tacks her solution to the problem on as an afterthought, with little explanation of what it would mean. Sufficiency, equity and sustainability are all fine words. But who decides what is sufficient? Who decides what is equitable? Who decides what is sustainable? Clearly Caroline Lucas doesn't trust ordinary people to make those decisions. The only mention of people's economic liberty is the suggestion that it should be curtailed by a global programme of redistribution. It is here that the contradiction is worst; it would be hard to afford any kind of redistribution whilst simultaneously restricting economic growth.

So, whilst I share her concern for the environment, I don't share her beliefs about how to solve the problem. I take heart from the fact that the environmental agenda is increasingly taken up by the Lib Dems; it cannot be left in the hands of the Greens.

Wedges - the solution to Climate Change?

Nerushimiy — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:44:03 +0100

One of the things I've found most frustrating in the climate change debate is the lack of concrete proposals. Most of us realise that we need to be taking urgent action. But very rarely do you hear someone proposing a full set of solutions to the problem that is both effective and practical. Everyone knows we need to cut carbon emissions: it's much more difficult to agree on how.

That's why I was so pleased to hear of the "wedges" idea developed by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala.

There's a handy online presentation. In short, they think that it's possible to cap global emissions at their current rate, and hence avoid total disaster. This means saving 7 billion tons of carbon emissions a year in 2050. And they have many ideas for individual steps which, if taken now, would result in savings of 1 billion tons each. Replacing enough coal plants with renewables, nuclear or even gas; actively applying carbon capture technology and pumping carbon emissions back into the ground. In a recent issue of Scientific American, Socolow and Pacala identified 15 possible 'wedges', all based on technology currently available.

It doesn't answer the questions of how to make these things happen - though the authors support the idea of a $100-a-ton price on carbon, much similar to the value placed on carbon in the existing European trading scheme.

But it's the first time I've seen a serious, global, proposal presented in such an accessible manner. Are wedges the future of the climate change debate?

The Tortoise and the Hare: Iain Dale in the New Statesman

Peter Welch — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:24:57 +0100

Iain Dale has a surprising interesting article in the New Statesman.

He suverys the Tories on the eve of one of the few Tory conferences in the last twenty years when the first prioirty of a large group of delgates has not been to "dump the leader".

Not that this instinct has entirely disappeared. The Cornerstone Group are certainly restive (not least their bashful "leader" Edward Leigh). Indeed Michael Howard has been wheeled out in the Times to try to keep the Right on board.

Dale argues that Cameron will only go so far in appeasing the right: If the price of getting the extra two million votes needed to win an election is to lose a few thousand "scorched earthers" on the right, it's a price he's only too happy to pay.

And he pinpoints one of the sources of friction between leadership and activists in conservative party. Cameron is consciously promoting himself in opposition to his party. Not for the first time it is a tactic reminiscent of Blair:

A cult of personality has been consciously engendered. He, not the party, is now the Conservative brand.

This is a dangerous tactic. Cameron is clearly a Conservative by caste and education. He is trying to distance himself from the policies that (let's not forget) expanded the appeal of the Tories under Thatcher, and are dear to the majority of their activists. Yet Cameron has no scalps to show the party and justify this denigratin of their history and traditions. The only "win" under his leadership has been the good local election results. But these were not quite as good as the spin suggested - and owed a massive amount to unrecosntucted right-wingers at local level. Opinion polls have improved. But given the Lib Dem crisis at the beginning of the year, and Labour's infighting and scandals, any leader would have achieved some upturn in the polls.

As a result, (as we reported from Brighton) "(Conservative) Membership is still on the slide".

Dale's conclusion is that the Tories still have it all to do. Without policies then can be all things to all men - and to most members. But as policies emerge, the level of Tory angst will rise - or voters will recoil and realise that they are "still the Conxervatives".

And so Conservatives "won't mind if Labour's leadership woes take the spotlight off them for the next six to nine months. It is this period that will determine the outcome of the whole Cameron project. After the glitz and headlines of the first ten months, it's where the legwork will be done."

Which cheered me up frankly. We have been a bit low on glitz and headlines (at least the right kind of headlines) for most of the year. But the headlines picked up at Conference. and we have started dong the legwork.

Green Taxes not Self-defeating

Joe Otten — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:57:01 +0100

There cannot be a Â£20 note lying on the pavement because somebody would have picked it up. Equally there cannot be a better way to tax, that doesnâ€™t have some hidden problem, or a government would have already adopted it. Journalists doing their job will be looking for the hidden problem that green taxes suffer. (The lazy ones will metaphorically put their fingers in their ears whenever the environment is mentioned, and emote their preference for SUVs.)

The obvious hidden problem for green taxes to have is that if they work, they will raise less revenue. Obvious, but in most cases quite wrong.

In a growing economy, if we want to levy enough tax merely to stabilise emissions, the levy will have to increase over time as society gets richer and willing to spend more money on whatever benefit the dirty process brings. This is increasing eco-tax revenues over time â€“ and stabilising emissions. That is a big benefit to both the treasury and the environment.

You could argue that only stabilising emissions is not really changing behaviour, it is not really a success. I think for most pollutants, and for carbon dioxide in particular, stabilisation, without harming prosperity, would be a big success and set a powerful example internationally. Perhaps the levels of green taxes the Lib Dems are proposing arenâ€™t even enough to stabilise emissions â€“ in which case the argument that they will lead to falling revenues has no merit whatever.

But letâ€™s suppose the idea really caught on, and we had such swingeing increases in eco-taxes that carbon emissions started to fall. Would this then cause us a problem in balancing the books? Would these increases mean falling revenues? Well no. Taxing 90 tonnes of something at Â£20 per tonne will raise more than taxing 100 tonnes at Â£10 per tonne. The tax rate at which revenues actually start to fall is much higher than the rate at which the level of emissions will stabilise and start to fall.

The demand for energy is, at current prices, still relatively inelastic. Most of us do not worry about the cost of energy when getting in the car or using domestic appliances. The downside may well be that reductions in emissions are hard to achieve, but the upside is that the potential for eco taxes to raise revenue is much higher. And as we raise eco-taxes, we cut taxes on work. Now it is possible that substituting one tax for another will hurt prosperity, but not to the same order of magnitude as raising extra taxes. And in this case we are taxing work less, so we should expect a positive effect on prosperity.

If you believe there canâ€™t be a Â£20 note lying on the pavement, you wonâ€™t try to pick one up if you think you see it. And if lots of people believe the same, it is quite easy for the note to remain on the pavement for quite some time. Magician Derren Brown famously left a wallet overflowing with Â£50 notes on a pavement in a busy shopping street for most of the day, the only protection being a yellow circle painted round it. The impossibility theorem is proved wrong by finding the impossible thing and taking the benefit. Thatâ€™s the Green Tax Switch.

Squeaky George: C+, Osborne, you're verging on plagiarism!

Tabman — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:57:44 +0100

Goodness me ... Squeaky George has come over all green. Well, maybe.

Apparently he is now "completely open minded" on what sort of taxes he might introduce. Open minded, or empty headed?

OK - maybe that's unfair. He does go on to say:

"I am clear the proportion of tax revenues drawn from environmental taxes needs to increase."

Well, yes Gideon - but what specifically do you intend to do about it? Hmmm?

The Cameron Conundrum is all about how Dave and his chums can square their waffle and fluffy platitudes with any policy beef, in such a fashion that the Core Vote doesn't splutter it's G&T down its collective blazers. Real environmental change involves decision making, and the possibility, as Bill McLaren might have said, that there will be "rioting on the streets of Tunbridge Wells tonight!"

Back to your desk, Osborne - this needs more work, more original thought, and fewer platitudes. I suggest you take a look at the already submitted essays of your elder Lib Dem peers.