The UK government joined those of Wales and Scotland in announcing a climate emergency yesterday. I could suggest that's better late than never, but however appropriate that might be it would be churlish of me: politicians always follow, and this time too late.
Of course, they might not have followed at all without Extinction Rebellion. The power of peaceful direct-action campaigning can now be considered proven. Expect a lot more of it.
I wish I could be so sure that anything else can be anticipated. It cannot be. Although the only logical reason for declaring an emergency is to provide the stimulus for the exceptional behaviour required in response to it, yesterday's announcement revealed no sense of urgency amongst either Conservative or Labour politicians.
The third runway at Heathrow was not cancelled.
Nor was fracking.
The decision to allow a new colliery in Cumbria was not over-turned.
North Sea oil is not staying underwater.
Subsidies to carbon based fuels were not withdrawn.
There was no plan for a Green New Deal.
There were just some lukewarm words.
It was if this emergency was akin to that announced when a household runs out of biscuits, but everyone is told that it's OK, because there's cake instead. Panic does not prevail. Tea is still taken. Life carries on pretty much as already planned. And the supposed crisis is forgotten.
Except this crisis is not going away. This one is for real. And this one really does demand action. And that nothing goes on as previously.
Over the last ten years I have written quite a lot on how to change the UK economy in a practical way to deal with this issue. From cancelling HS2 and substituting local transport schemes. To building zero carbon housing where it is needed. And converting every building to an insulated power station. To investing in flood protection. And the technology to make tidal power a viable source of energy. And the alternative forms of transport we will need, which might look nothing like existing cars. The list goes on: the opportunities are enormous.
And the funding for them is also available if any government is willing to believe in its own power to effect change.
But it appears our government and official opposition still lack that belief.
In which case campaigning has to go in, in all its various forms, to persuade them that their words should have some meaning attached to them. Before it is too late.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]
I rather like the tone of and agree with all that is in Richards post,
I think we need to be giving politicians, worldwide, a simple and terse message:
“Lead, follow, or get out of the way”
I’m anticipating further prevarication from the world of politics and expect another wave of rebellion against extinction to be required,
we should mentally prepare ourselves and be ready to participate “en masse”
Agreed
This is a timely piece – given the publication by the Climate Change Committee of two reports (one general – one “technical) on the UK’s path to zero emissions. I’m sorry to say that much of its is nonesense and/or just plumb wrong. What follows is a bad tempered rant – wrt the first few pages – I gave up after that.
We face a climate emergency – which I have been saying for some years – it gives me no pleasure to be right & indeed causes me distress.
Emergencies by definition need responses that are fundamentally different from responses in a “steady-state” BAU situation. The concluding chapters of the book “Voltaire’s Bastards” (J R Saul) covers this. Unfortunately, the people that produced the CCC report are also the people that Saul eviscerates (the only word applicable) in his book. They are “the safe pair of hands” who will give an acceptable (“right response”) to those in power. The fact that the Committee is headed by Gummer an ex-politico demonstrates the truth of this statement.
The report is also a framing exercise, evidenced when the CCC report talks about “costs” – when it means capital investment and rate of return for a given output (or levelised cost of electricity). A TECHNICAL report, one supposes, is written for experts & thus demands some precision in expression. That there is lack of precision suggests a framing exercise – & given the make-up of the committee (one member ex-Treasury) this seems likely.
The report also suggests significant “group think” – certainly with respect to CCS – which addresses a symptom (CO2 emissions) rather than a cause (fossil fuel burning). UK production of hydrogen (from renewable resources) seems to be dismissed and the report notes that “Imports of low-carbon hydrogen might complement domestic production” (from SMR/CCS). Why not take a DIY approach? After all the UK some pretty good electrolyser companies – perhaps supporting UK companies was not in the remit of the CCC?
There is also the blithe assumption that in a hi-RES situation there is still a place for nuclear. There might be, but only if, on a nice sunny day (the UK has them) you constrain off PV – & you will need to constrain off a great deal. The report also offers hostages to fortune with statements such as “so-called ‘merchant’ renewables – projects that don’t rely on a Government backed contract – will likely be limited in volume and are considered highly unlikely for offshore wind”. There have been several zero-subsidy off-shore wind projects – more are likely & it will only be a matter of time before merchant projects occur. One is left with the impression that the CCC does not want to see such projects since they would upset some of the reports key points (particularly wrt to CCS and H2).
The report also contains some wishful thinking – page 24 – “further new build nuclear” – begging the question – who will do the building? who will fund it? Certainly not the Japanese (ref: Toshiba & Hitachi exit), the Russians? the Chinese?
Page 25 contains this interesting statement: “These scenarios assume that most of the UK’s heating systems switch to electric heat pumps”. This statement predicates:
a) a re-build of the totality of the UK electricity distribution network
b) an in-depth energy renovation of every house.
The section on RES potential sees the CCC asserting that off-shore wind potential is 95 – 245GW. This assertion is backed by the statement: “Offshore wind farms also face siting restrictions, such as seabed depth, and avoiding areas sensitive to wildlife (including bird migration routes), fishing and shipping routes and military zones” The report notes that the “Further Ambition Scenario” would see 75GW of off-shore wind built by 2050 (i.e. 2.3GW per year) and this would cover 1 – 2% of the UK’s seabed. The implication is that the UK seabed is so constrained (by existing interest) that only 1 to 2% is available. Note: we face a climate emergency – but the CCC report suggests anything but. Indeed, 2.5GW/year for off-shore wind is not “mobilising for a war against climate change” it is BAU.
LCOEs contained in the report are also highly questionable – these are very high when compared to mainland Europe (particularly so with respect to wind) and suggests a mix of British insularity and complacence (with respect to the possibility that a) they are high b) they could be brought down). Having had meetings with BEIS in the past, I can state that whilst publicly it supports high LCOEs (presumably to keep gas in business), privately it accepts points a) and b) – thus is policy hypocrisy alive and well in government institutions.
The tech report is 300 pages long. the above is intended as illustrative. The report is produced by the wrong people, lacks urgency, assumes BAU and features group think on a large scale. It should be binned and something fit for purpose produced and with a bias in terms of “it’s an emergency, what do we need to do fast and how can we make sure UK industry is part of the solution and not a bystander.
I have only read reports
All imply it’s greenwash
the phrase ‘imports of carbon neutral hydrogen’ made my teeth grit because I’m aware the majority of commercially produced hydrogen is synthesised from natural gas.
Mike,
How much UK land / sea area in km2 do you envision a 100% renewable non-nuclear future would need? And how much overseas land / sea area do you envision any imported energy (e.g. bio fuels or desert solar) would need, to cover any shortfall in UK land available?
https://withouthotair.com/c27/page_203.shtml
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/18/sir-david-mackay-obituary
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay/
You ask “— page 24 — “further new build nuclear” — begging the question — who will do the building? who will fund it? Certainly not the Japanese (ref: Toshiba & Hitachi exit), the Russians? the Chinese?”
This pages gives some detailed answers.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx
Regards,
Natasha
You are wasting my time
I think you need to stop doing so
Richard
I will reply to Natasha & add a bit of detail.
The report notes that 79GW of off-shore would occupy around 2% of the UKs seabed. Thus 16% would give around circa 800GW. This would be more than sufficient to power the whole of the UK, provide elec (or H2) for transport, & space heating & de-carb steel production (both primary and elec-arc) & provide feedstock for the chem sector. There would be no need to source any energy from elsewhere. This does not take into account, for example, the fact that the UK could install 50 – 100GW of PV – mostly on roof tops – thus covering large amounts of late-spring/summer/early autumn demand. As for Mckay – he made a large number of incorrect assumptions which biased everything else he produced – not least he ignored tech/cost developments (wind) and the fact that PV is IC-based (integrated circuit) & thus driven by the economics/cost declines that drive that industry.
Kevin Anderson of Manchester University made the following comments wrt the CCC report he expresses more elegantly my own (often un-printable views):
“…the relationship the CCC have chosen to have with parliament generally and incumbent gov’ more specifically. The relationship has seen the CCC adopt and fine-tune their assumptions to deliver conclusions commensurate with what it perceives to be contemporary political sensibilities. …………..much of the research agenda on UK mitigation has been set, implicitly, by the CCC, with analysis that counters it typically viewed with suspicion”.
So there you have it: the CCC – a safe set of hands – doling out politically acceptable proposals that fit with current political biases. Frankly, the academics and other orgs that contributed to the report and wrote it are prostitutes – no more, no less. The Uk deserves better than this.
Thanks
Mike,
Mckay deliberately excluded a focus on economics and costs because he specifically wanted to draw our attention to what the physical limits are – e.g. estimating the land / sea area required to yield whatever energy output any particular proposed plan. These are not “incorrect assumptions.” Physical limits are not a subset of the economy.
In Mckay’s own words: “Let me close this chapter with a few more warnings to the reader. Not only will we make a habit of approximating the numbers we calculate; we’ll also neglect all sorts of details that investors, managers, and economists have to attend to, poor folks. If you’re trying to launch a renewable technology, just a 5% increase in costs may make all the difference between success and failure, so in business every detail must be tracked. But 5% is too small for this book’s radar. This is a book about factors of 2 and factors of 10. It’s about physical limits to sustainable energy, not current economic feasibility. While economics is always changing, the fundamental limits won’t ever go away. We need to understand these limits.”
https://withouthotair.com/c1/page_16.shtml
What Mckay claimed to be doing was make it easy for others to scrutinise their plan by plugging physical limits into them. As such he proposed the kWh/day/person to enable others to get some traction on the physical impacts of their proposal and share their results in easy to understand ways.
You write “The report notes that 79GW of off-shore would occupy around 2% of the UKs seabed. Thus 16% would give around circa 800GW”
This is incorrect, 79GW x (16% / 2%) = 632GW
To which report and page number(s) are you referring? And can you translate to kWh/day/person. Thanks.
Regards,
James Ratcliffe was interviewed yesterday when he was at the opening ceremony of the Tour de Yorkshire and he said outright that fracking protesters were ignoramuses. Nothing wrong with fracking. The US has been doing it for years and has never had a problem. Therefore, no good reason to stop Ineos. One of the reporters said that some claim that his company’s support of the cycling team was an attempt to greenwash his company’s image and perhaps his. If so, I don’t think it worked.
Nothing wrong with fracking?
So burning more has no consequence?
And earthquakes do not matter?
And nor do poisoned watercourses?
And come to that – the financial returns are also not looking good either
But there’s nothing wrong with fracking? Oh,come on. Let’s be clear who is being stupid here….and it’s not those objecting
Yes, Ratcliffe is quite incredible in his excuses for his outrageous actions. Calling those who don’t like fracking ignorant is quite incredible.
Apologies for this but page 68 of the CCCs Technical report left me weeping with laughter:
“‒ In non-residential buildings, alternative forms of anaesthesia could replace N2O.”
so it would seem that some kind of “final solution” will be applied to the UK population (or perhaps – more likely – they mean “in hospitals, alternative forms of ….” (a mallet?)
good to see the tech report was well edited – one wonders about other mistakes (with the numbers).
???????:
I agree with you Richard.
I won’t bother commenting on old energy apologists, I’m done with that. If they still want to swallow propaganda, after all the evidence, nothing will stop them. For them it’s a matter of faith. Nothing can be done to change that.
I read the Climate Emerged document published by the Senedd. It is full of “we will”…”we will”…The are few specifics, but I suppose that’s for experts to put together…in time?
There is no time. There are ready, though perfectable, proposed projects out there. What there is not is funding. Yet there is funding for HS2, for expansion of airports and motorways. I’m quite sure that politicians are just jumping on the Extinction Rebellion bandwagon, grandstanding to appease the rowdy rebels, but don’t really mean what they say.
The movement is not naive, they know the tricks, they won’t stop.
So when will politicians wake up? When’s the next election?
I fear they won’t wake up….
Not until the water is lapping around Westminster corridors
Cancel HS2? Why? Surely we need to get diesel lorries, particularly, and cars off the roads. We hear about electric cars but not (yet, and for a long time to come) electric lorries. More and more rail please. Living in the south of France I see continuous convoys of lorries streaming out and back to Spain. They dug a rail tunnel through the Pyrenees but the French have not found the funding to link up TGV trains from Montpellier yet – disgraceful! The HS2 infrastructure project within UK has to be good for spreading employment and wealth lower down – doesn’t it? Print some money!
HS2 is not about freight
Thanks Mike, I will digest your comments, assess their relevance and modify my understanding accordingly, Regards
Richard,
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. — J Robert Oppenheimer.
Regards,
And the enquiry has been made and the conclusions drawn
Richard,
But those “conclusions drawn” cannot rationally be set in stone forever.
Karl Popper’s basic scientific principle was ‘falsifiability’ which defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis. In this instance, the hypothesis you support is that there is ‘sufficient’ land / sea (both politically & practically) in the UK / overseas to transition the UK by 2050 to a non-nuclear 100% zero carbon renewables power generation capability.
But you refuse to reveal in Km2 how much UK and overseas land / sea the hypothesis would need – as a matter of physical fact – since plant takes up land / sea area, and not all area is equally suitable for new plant build. So we cannot test the above hypothesis that you support.
All that is being asked is that you obtain and publish the projected land use data so it can be checked because “in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”.
Those who have estimated & calculated land / sea areas (e.g. McKay etc.) conclude the hypothesis is incorrect. Please help me prove (until new data arrives) that McKay etc. are wrong, and the hypotheses above holds.
Regards
I do not need to answer your questions
I have other experts I rely on for such issues and do not claim expertise
But I assure you nothing will ever make me change my mind on nuclear power
Richard, Forget nuclear technology exists: the non-trivial question of land / sea use in Km2 both domestic and overseas in energy generation proposals remains because “they ‘aint making any more of it”. Land is a ‘natural monopoly’ and belongs to all of us.
As such, policy makers, planers, engineers etc. all need to know the entire ‘resources & bill of materials’ before fully committing to any CO2 reduction plan such as the GND is proposing, which demands major changes of UK land / sea use, of the order of a quarter of the entire UK area if we don’t import any energy (according to David JC MacKay and others).
The “other experts” you “rely on” do not provide any data on projected land / sea area use in their proposals e.g. (which does assume its OK to pay African’s $3 a day to grow biofuel over most of the semi arid regions of the continent, which African’s themselves of course object to, they don’t want yet more robbery & colonialism to support western life styles).
The CCC’s report also fails, other than to recommend the UK grows 700,000 hectares (3% of UK) with biofuel by 2050.
This is a serious gap in our shared knowledge to deal with the climate emergency.
According to the GND webs site the group has been meeting since early 2007. Would you raise the UK / overseas, land / sea area question at its next meeting and ask them to publish something? Thanks. Regards.
We will not be wasting our time in this issue, I assure you
Because it is not an issue