Ed Miliband’s Low Carbon Transition Plan
Posted by Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, at 11:05, Wed 5 August 2009:
In my last post I talked about the Government’s plans to introduce higher Air Passenger Duty as a “green” tax. I talked about how it was unfair that travellers to the Caribbean would be paying more Air Passenger Duty for flying a shorter distance than passengers to other parts of the world. Since then Ed Miliband (Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change) has announced the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s Low Carbon Transition Plan – which is really a raft of measures designed to set out how the UK can move into being a low carbon society. There is a lot to be admired in the plans. The Government will give £120 million for offshore wind farms and £60 million for marine energy. These schemes have the potential to create 250,000 “green collar” jobs. All Government departments will have a carbon budget in the same way they currently have a financial budget. The first aim will be a 34% cut in carbon emissions by 2020. And in transport, the Government will be encouraging the production of low emission and electric cars as well as bringing in more low emissions buses and the electrification of the rail network.
Interestingly, the plans at the moment make flying exempt from emissions cuts targets. Ed Miliband has said that forcing the flight industry to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 (as others will have to do) would take us back to 1974 levels of flying, when only the rich could afford to fly. Instead the Government hopes that its tough plans for cutting emissions elsewhere will allow for a similar level of flying we are used to now.
Whilst I am pleased that the Government seems to be making the low carbon society a political priority, it is essential that action to tackle climate change is global. The Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December provides the perfect opportunity to come up with a plan for a global low carbon society. However concerns have already been raised that the Summit is too supportive of carbon offsetting as a means of cutting the carbon emissions of rich countries. Carbon offsets give Governments and businesses the chance to provide funding for carbon cutting initiatives (often in poorer countries) in return for not lowering their own carbon emissions. It’s a nice idea but it is seen by many as a get out clause for richer countries. Ed Miliband has been a bit vague on his stance on carbon offsetting. He has said that ideally carbon offsets will not be included in the emissions cuts targets for the UK. But it is difficult to see how this will work if the rest of the developed world is relying on carbon offsetting.
What do constituents think? Is the UK leading the way in the fight against climate change or are the ideas in the Low Carbon Transition Plan not enough? And how well can any national plans work if we continue with carbon offsetting?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Andrew Senior, 11:40, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Carbon Offsetting's likely result will be to line the pockets of some poor countries politicians and do nothing to reduce carbon emmisions.
The money would be better spent by helping our own manufacturers to pay for new technology to be installed.
The consumer does not choose the packaging or delivery method of the goods the manufacturers produce, it should be their onus to produce less waste and better recycling goods, not just a punishing tax on the end consumer.
Posted by richard howard, 11:48, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Carbon offsetting is the most stupid politically expedient load of rubbish I have ever heard. The real deal is pay for someone else to take your emissions on their statistics while you continue to create as much as you had before. This is insulting to voters that have any idea of what is going on. It is about time that MPs stopped treating us all like a bunch of fools.
Posted by John Knight-Barnard, 12:58, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
A Fellow of the Royal Society to which we must add a Companion of Honour. Who? James Lovelock who suggests in his latest book that we replace all carbon-based electric power stations with atomics. Wind power looks interesting but how do you tie down the generating propellor blades? With a block of re-inforced concrete that creates a decent volume of CO2! Hmm!!!
Posted by Jed Keenan, 14:11, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
The US economy didn’t offset typewriters to produce microchip technology they pumped public funds into research and development. Pollution is low-tech and incredibly inefficient but if it was paid for by the current electorate and not our children’s generation of voters it would attract tens of billions in “tax payers’ money” each year. So China and India will wholeheartedly support offsetting while investing heavily in clean energy R&D before competing to commercially provide technology and supplies to the global market.
The exemption for air transport emissions includes the worst polluting engines so that the SUVs of the sky are taxed equally like the bad old days of road transport. So British Airways with its again fleet propelled by the most the most polluting engines is the beneficiary and its heavyweight lobby machine has achieving a good deal for people with non-leisure or non-business reasons for air transport.
Posted by John Callon, 14:39, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I am not sure you are correct, Diane, when you assert the UK is leading the way on climate change. In words, perhaps, in action on the ground, I'm not so sure.
That aside, you have raised an interesting question with regard to carbon trading.
We have one example to draw on to illustrate how well international systems can address this problem. I am speaking of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. While there seem to several reviews as to the administrative working of the scheme, I can only find one review that actually attempts to establish whether the scheme is achieving what it set out to do.
The Audit Office report of March this year (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/eu_emissions_trading_scheme.aspx) indicated there was "an inherent difficulty of assessing the effectiveness of the EU ETS". Pages 32 and beyond in the pdf file accessible from that link explain why such a difficulty exists.
So the first question is - how to translate words and administrative schemes into an actual system that can lead to a measurable reduction in greenhouse and other noxious gases.
The EU is an organisation that has built up an experience of working to implement administrative measures across its multi-state membership. What body has that experience on a global context that might administer a carbon offsetting scheme such as Milliband proposes? The answer is none.
To be effective, this is going to have to be a supranational scheme where all states are going to have to cede a certain amount of sovereignty to a global body. The nearest equivalent that exists is the WTO which can impose sanctions in the resolution of disputes over the implementation of trading rules. If carbon trading and other similar schemes are going to really work, then it will be necessary to establish something like a World Carbon Trading Organisation (WCTO) with the same sort of regime that the WTO has.
Of course, the WTO acquired a reputation of developed countries doing down less- and under- developed countries; to be fair, this has lessened in more recent times as the balance of power has begun to change, but the potential for the same situation to arise again is real - for the very same reasons as happened in the first place in the WTO.
There will be huge problems in sorting out the fine print on this following on from any conference communique. There needs to be significant protection for the recipient countries and other measures - additional measures - in developed countries for them to actually reduce their emissions, if for no other reason than to benefit the health and well-being of those people who breathe the air around areas of pollution, be they industrial complexes or just big cities.
Posted by Robert Pendar-Hughes, 14:52, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Carbon offsetting, sounds grandiose doesn't it? It's just a bureaucrats lazy option like Nuclear. We need sensible joined up thinking from a government that leads by example. How many government offices have, for example fitted; PV tiles, solar panels, ground source heating or double glazing even? The relevant domestic schemes to date have been skimpy, piecemeal and poorly posted. Yet local micro-generation of power and hi-tech insulation is the way forward, not falling back on Nuclear Power! It is the ultimate unGreen power source and the argument against it was won years ago.
Let's have a national push to get the majority of homes off-grid by 2020 using those clever carbon free technologies that are readily available now. Just imagine - no 12year lead-in time required, no multimillion pound concrete monoliths to blight our countryside, no drums of hideous waste that even experts aren't sure how to cope with....no brainer.
Posted by Michael Llewellyn, 15:15, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
I remain very suspicious of this Government's ability to deliver on any of its climate change initiatives. The continual emphasis on wind power, although highly desirable, seems to be a blinkered approach. The population of this country could contribute directly if the government made it quite clear how solar power could be implemented domestically on a mass scale. This would not only produce some free electricity and bring the current high price of installation down, but would enable us all to participate in the vital effort to reduce global warming. If I was being very cynical, I would suspect this may be because all the solar industries in the UK are small and would be unable to offer any of the cabinet etc jobs after the next election.
Posted by Mark Douglas, 17:06, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Carbon offsetting will likely be highly ineffective in combating climate change in the long-run and will quite likely lead to developing countries deciding to flout carbon caps when they see rich western nations continuing to emit huge levels of carbon and offsetting. It's been a useful tool to get everyone talking about climate change but it's time face facts and bite the bullet now. We ALL have to cap our own carbon emissions, on an individual, household, company or organisation level, nationally and globally. Ideally voluntarily but it's more likely it will end up being be coercion - through taxation and embargoes, which is sad. Yes it is important that all countries behave the same but how about the richest 4 leading the way? Then no one can argue can they? The only realistic way to do this is to lead by example - we are the wealthiest, so it will be the easiest ride for us to de-power and de-carbonise anwyay. Countless reports have indicated that the UK (yes some areas more easily than others) can generate between 65 and 95 per cent of its energy consumption from renewable sources - mainly wind and tidal, and some wave and solar. We have plenty of wind and the second highest tide in the world - but not so much sun. Domestic solar thermal and PV do not provide heat and power all year round in the UK. With other innovations like the Ceres fuel cells, plus a concerted effort by everyone - lead and encouraged by government - to reduce their actual energy consumption, we might even have little need for nuclear. Lets not forget what renewable means: inexhaustible - uranium is a finite resource too, just like coal, gas and oil, it is running out. As for the embodied energy cost of construction of wind turbines - this is a tiny fraction of a nuclear or coal-fired power station and actually there are alternatives to concrete for building and anchorages etc, such as hempcrete which can be produced in this country cheaply and it actually sequests carbon in the process. It is quite possible for this country and the world to comfortably transition to a low-energy renewable economy, even without offsetting - but it requires a government with real guts, awesomely strong leadership, and a very thick skin to push this stuff through an apathetic and unsympathetic electorate. A government we sadly do not have.
Posted by Simon Pennington, 17:08, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by Charlie Hore, 19:12, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
One immediate way to show a commitment to a low-carbon future would be to take the Vestas factory into public ownership.
Charlie Hore
Posted by Jo Homan, 21:25, Wed 5 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Flying should be expensive; you're sitting in a piece of metal in the air, for goodness' sake!
Carbon offsetting is just a big red herring. We need to do real things, now. I don't think there's time for anything other than political bravery.
Posted by ron riley, 19:56, Thu 6 August 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
There are low tech things that should be done now, e.g. paint all upward facing surfaces white to compensate for the massive loss of reflective ice at the poles. The government should legislate for and fund this work and get started on it immediately.