I share the following by my Green New Deal colleague Colin Hines, first published on Social Europe:
The huge increase in support for a Green New Deal in Europe and the United States has led many groups, old and new, to clamour for such an initiative. Pamphlets have been written, placards designed, marches planned, but there is often a lack of detailed policies. This brings with it the danger of turning the Green New Deal into the social equivalent of the physicists' desired ‘theory of everything'.
That is why the UK Green New Deal Group has called on the government in London to adopt a ‘30 by 30' target, which involves bringing forward its 2050 goal of zero net carbon emissions to 2030 and–crucial to achieving this–ensuring that the 28 million UK dwellings and 2 million commercial and public-sector buildings are made energy-efficient by that date.
A huge advantage of such a climate-friendly infrastructure programme is the prioritisation of labour-intensive sectors, difficult to automate, which contribute to social and environmental sustainability. The jobs involved, many long-term and well-paid, will mostly be where the services are supplied, with associated business and investment opportunities in every community.
Local democracy could flourish, since enacting such a huge programme would require consultation and involvement of the workers and recipients. Providing employment in every constituency while tackling fuel poverty, it would be seen to benefit the majority and not just appeal to those for whom the environment is already their top concern.
The details of what such a programme could look like on the ground have been provided by the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group and E3G in their report, Affordable Warmth. Clean Growth. This calls not just for a comprehensive buildings energy-infrastructure programme but also a dedicated delivery agency to achieve major energy savings and decarbonise the UK heating supply. Achieving this goal will require adoption of high quality standards for retrofitting and constructing homes, area-based schemes led by local authorities, additional funding sources that won't raise energy bills and financial incentives to encourage households to take up energy-saving measures.
A ‘300 by 30' campaign
A similar EU wide approach could now be considered by all those calling for a European Green New Deal. A ‘300 by 30' campaign would prioritise making all the continent's roughly 300 million homes and other buildings energy-efficient and hence carbon-neutral by 2030. This would have a huge impact on the continent's CO2 emissions, since this sector represents almost 40 per cent of final energy consumption.
Such a demand Europe-wide could put flesh on the pledge by the incoming European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, for a ‘green new deal' within the first 100 days of her term, to cut the bloc's emissions by 55 per cent by 2030. Better still, the UK and the rest of the EU will have a global platform to promote such a large-scale, transformational energy-infrastructure programme, if as expected the UK and Italy jointly host the United Nations climate conference at the end of next year in Glasgow.
It should not however just be activists, NGOs, local governments and doubtless the European Parliament calling for a Green New Deal at this event, which will attract global attention. Solid commitments of support should also come from the European Central Bank and the commission. Christine Lagarde starts directing the ECB in November. She is on record as wanting the bank to shift from climate-warming investments to green bonds and has welcomed von der Leyen's support for a Green New Deal.
Were the ECB to start the massive green-bonds purchasing drive which could fund among other things a European ‘300 by 30' initiative, that would go some way to countering the jibe that ‘if the planet were a bank, it would have been saved by now'.
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:
how does making 300 million buildings ‘energy efficient’ suddenly render them ‘carbon neutral’?
is this some sort of magic energy efficiency that makes them not require energy at all?
and that link to the E3G report, it mentions ‘Clean Growth’
in the report it speaks of ‘ its Clean Growth Plan’ to ‘boost the economy’
it’s all very BAU, is the GND going to be outsourced to the private sector and turned into a ‘corporate jolly’ ?
we’ve been installing double glazing, draught excluders and loft insulation for decades, we’ve got the latest generation condensing gas boilers, our upgraded building regs stuff unbelievable amounts of insulation into every imaginable cavity,
is there really a great deal of scope for greater efficiency?
have any of the efficiency measures taken over the last few decades made the slightest dent in the inexorable rise in fossil fuel consumption?
consider this:
(Mtoe = millions of tons of oil equivalent)
In 2018 the world consumed 11,743 Mtoe in the form of coal, natural gas and petroleum. The combustion of these fossil fuels resulted in 33.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. In order for those emissions to reach net-zero, we will have to replace about 12,000 Mtoe of energy consumption expected for 2019.
there are 11,051 days left until January 1, 2050.
To achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions globally by 2050 thus requires the deployment of >1 Mtoe of carbon-free energy consumption (~12,000 Mtoe/11,051 days) every day, starting tomorrow and continuing for the next 30+ years.
so,
the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days,
or,
the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day,
these figures are poached from an article in Forbes by Roger Pielke,
this illustrates the enormity of the challenge we face,
also bear in mind the fossil fuels we are currently using are running out yet their consumption is increasing!
irrespective of the ecological implications of using fossil fuels we are heading directly into a huge energy supply problem,
a bit more energy efficiency doesn’t even put a scratch in the obstacle modern society faces,
I woudn’t be surprised if it only offset further increases in energy consumption,
the stark reality is we need massive and profound change far beyond anything even at the fringes of current understanding.
Let’s make some reasonable assumptions
One is we’re going to live and work in buildings
A second is most already exist
And third, in carbon terms it would be a disaster to replace them
Fourth is many are hopelessly energy inefficient
Fifth, evidence is that transforming this is the best way to save energy – which is the plan
Oh, and sixth, the private sector will still exist and there is no plan to get rid of it because if you do the GND will not happen in time
And you say we should not do this?
Not this alone, of course
But not do this? Why?
I think you have cherry picked there and have avoided dealing with Matt B’s hardest point to address. Suppose you do make all buildings energy efficient. The question is how does that make them CO2 neutral? They may last 500 years rather than 200 years – there’s still going to be a net CO2 input into building them and replacing them. You will still have energy losses when you open the door, and without using vacuums there will still be energy losses to the outside for as long as outside temperatures are on average lower than indoors. For sure, it’s nice to be energy efficient, especially if it saves consumers money, but this is not the same thing as the claim that the buildings are going to be CO2 neutral if the programme is government directed in my preferred manner.
If there is a CO2 tax, even better if there is an assymetric CO2 tax, then market forces are harnessed, we admit that CO2 neutrality is not going to happen with respect to buildings, and utility is optimised.
Which do you prefer – something that the laws of physics with respect to insulating materials don’t allow – or reality?
So, are you suggesting we give up buildings? Or cull people? Presumably via hypothermia as the poorest will not be able to pay a CO2 tax?
And I am not going to claim utopian buildings: but I can say we can do vastly better with the existing stock than now
What would you prefer?
I know the choices are hard. But let me spell out what you’re saying as well and ask you to address those hard facts too
I’m not the only one saying there are compromises required here: you are too
sure, we should do this but I’m afraid it only chips the tip off the top of the iceberg,
globally we use the equivalent of 12 billion barrels of oil in energy every year,
90% of that needs to be from non carbon emitting sources,
currently 14% is ‘clean’
it’s taken from the 1960’s till today to get from 8% to 14%
how do we get from 14% to 90% in a decade?
this is the magnitude of the challenge of trying to even approach carbon neutral by 2030
at this late stage even the most Herculean efforts imaginable may well fall short of what’s required,
I’m still prepared to give it a go though!
So am I
Which is why I am more radical on greening business than just about anyone, as far as I know
“Matt B consider this:
(Mtoe = millions of tons of oil equivalent)”
Hi Richard
I dont think Matt B was saying we should not try at all. I read it as the GND might not be ambitious enough :-O
M
I would love it to be more ambitious: I argue for it to be so
Politically it is already at the limit of possibility
I share the concern that may not be enough
I have pointed out more than once on GND topics, and received a vague answer.
How will the GND work for old buildings that require natural materials?
A good friend of mine wanted to put this in his roof as part of the free insulation scheme as it is natural, green and free of chemicals.
He was told he could only have the “standard” insulation (the one filled with chemicals, totally inappropriate for his property)
What measures could be taken to ensure any GND is not spoilt by large corporate interests?
Those we are talking to suggest this goal is achievable
And yes, they are industry specialists
And sure that includes corproate interests
How else is the GND going to happen? There isn;t time to build an economic alternative as well in the time available
Sorry to be vague – but I have not been a part of the discussions
“is there really a great deal of scope for greater efficiency?”
well, yes : install heat pumps- huge efficiency saving over gas
OK not a magic bullet but compared to most savings we can make the improvement is impressive.
Now, must do it myself….
This is a response to Matt B.
Improving the thermal performance of a building is requirement before moving to heating that uses renewables of any sort.
Currently, the EU residential sector uses around 1200TWh of natural gas per year.
This could be reduce by 50% through the simple (?) expedient of modern double glazing, wall insulation (cavity, internal or external) and 270mm or equivalent of loft insulation.
These are figures we (i.e. my company) modelled using data from various companies (providing glazing & insulation). They are firm figures, the 50% is realistic.
The 600TWh of energy for heating thermally efficiency houses/flats, could be met through a mix of heat pumps (estimate – 15%) , district heating (mostly inner city) and finally hydrogen – probably the bulk – 70%. Sticking with 600TWh – this could be delivered via 190GW of off-shore wind. The UK off-shore wind resource is roughly 650GW to 1200GW – enough to power the entirety of the EU – & then some. This does not include PV – which could be deployed at scale on buildings – an area barely nibbled at and which, for the Eu is certainly in the range 100 – 200GW.
In terms of storage, this can be addressed – through the re-purposing of the existing Euro gas network. Indeed a pan-European H2 network already exists & could be expanded/extended. Giving a feeling for quantities: the German gas network at any point in time holds 220TWh of gas. Putting this into context, Germany consumes around 500TWh of elec per year. Thus the German gas network (once converted) could easily store more than sufficient energy to meet lulls in renewable output. Hitachi-Mitsubish have a duel-purpose (nat-gas/H2) gas turbine “on the blocks”.
& to answer the obvious question: much of the low perssure network in most countries is already H2 ready. I have a range of reports by professionals, on this subject.
One last comment: MTOE is a meaningless measure & its definition varies from org to org and company to company. Energy is measured in the S.I unit Watts – end of.
I’m in agreement about improving building efficiency. However, the idea that our current natural gas usage could be replaced by H2 generated by wind farms is absolutely pie in the sky stuff, not least the idea that we could just use the current natural gas infrastructure to store it. There has been research to indicate that perhaps 10 or 15% of the volume could be blended hydrogen without too many problems, but replacing it altogether is a different matter. There’s a reason traditional hydrogen storage has high costs. Hydrogen would simply leak out of current pipelines and serious leaks would occur due to the embrittling effects of the gas. Not something you want from an invisible, odourless gas which burns with an almost invisible flame. Of course, keeping H2 under pressure or compressing makes it easier to handle, but this wastes energy and increases other costs. For me, other methods of energy storage would certainly be used in preference to conversion to hydrogen, though most would still be exceptionally costly at present.
Pumped heat storage seems to be a reasonable possibility, though the technology is still to be proven. There is a British company called Isentropic who has made some impressive claims and they have experiments underway but it remains to be seen if the technology will come to fruition.
As I’ve noted in the past, I still prefer plenty of Nuclear in the mix as nothing else can match the energy density or capacity factor to help us decarbonise as quickly as is required. Even the older Gen II reactor designs which are currently used would be fine for me, despite their weaknesses in comparison to the more modern Gen III(+) designs (and Gen IV reactors in planning). Perfect is the enemy of the good, as the saying goes. The waste can be dealt with in a number of ways once we’ve decarbonised – including through reprocessing for reuse in other reactor designs which would also burn the nastiest of the actinides.
Ultimately, we need to get on and do the easy things first of all – improve energy efficiency of our housing and buildings stock before anything else. This doesn’t require any new or high cost technology. Just resources and the will to do something.
just to say a passive council house development with super thick walls and low heating bills won the rbia stirling award broadcast last night…
In Norwich!
but seriously is it really a whole new deal? An example from the previous crisis…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Efficient_Homes_Package
Actually doing it is a new deal
That’s the point
It’s not been properly delivered before
“The infamous “pink batts scheme” claimed the lives of four young men before it was brought to an abrupt halt in 2010. And besides the tragic loss of life, the project was far from an unqualified success in terms of its stated goal of improving energy efficiency.
The scheme was hampered by poor installations, an overly narrow focus, and a failure to hit efficiency targets. However, it is also true that it delivered modest emissions reductions — and, crucially, it will give the construction industry valuable insight into how to do things better in the future.”
http://theconversation.com/pink-batts-what-did-it-teach-us-about-building-better-buildings-21644
You think it can’t be done better?
ANd you think we stop tackling climat5e change for that reason?
possibly. Just that the previous programme had mostly the same aims and failed in the implementation (and the failures were forseen but nevertheless occurred).
You don’t believe in learning curves?
This proposal seems to have met with fairly negative comments for some reason, so I just want to say that I think it’s an excellent initiative. Energy efficient buildings are an essential part to becoming sustainable, and it cuts heating costs enormously for people.
People just don’t trust the government (s) to do anything these days though. That’s the thing about all the ideas, there is no government competent to deliver them or so it seems.
I have to say the Scottish government did an excellent job on the M8 upgrade (or rather, upgrading the section that was still the A8 into the M8) – they awarded the contract based on innovative environmentally friendly and time saving proposals rather than cheapness, and it worked well – I can’t remember the details now, but they brought in a big old-road munching machine and used that munched up old stuff to lay the under-base (all locally done so no massive transport by lorries etc, and saved them money in the end). Nice bit of road have to say. The Queensferry Crossing has just won an award from some body as the best infrastructure thingy in the uk. It was delivered on time and within budget (though there are issues around integrating the surrounding infrastructure for traffic, not very good relations with locals and they are still snagging, but it’s effectively done and looks incredibly pretty). That gives me hope that governments CAN get these projects to work, if they award projects based on the right incentives (and not just based on whose pockets will be lined). It’s not just about introducing a policy and letting private companies battle it out to undercut and do a poor job, they have to be forced to create a minimum standard, and offer more.
Thanks
[…] the proposals of the Green New Deal Group. And in the process criticism has been levelled at the Green New Deal plan for ensuring 30 million buildings in the UK are made as efficient as possible, as if this goal is insufficient when it is, in fact, necessary. In the process a second concern […]
[…] the proposals of the Green New Deal Group. And in the process criticism has been levelled at the Green New Deal plan for ensuring 30 million buildings in the UK are made as efficient as possible, as if this goal is insufficient when it is, in fact, necessary. In the process a second concern […]
[…] I think he’s been reading the Green New Deal Group’s 30 million more efficient priorities by 2030 plan. […]