healthier, happier and richer

This week, I have been to Poland to talk at a Demos Europa conference on CCS in that country. Poland has the ninth largest global coal reserves, but does not have significant oil or gas reserves. In 2006, 93% of its electricity came from coal and 91% of its heat, so 58.5% of total energy was from coal. Its economy is growing, despite the recession, and a significant number of existing coal stations will have to close over the next 15 years.

This morning, the Centre for European Reform (www.cer.org.uk) launched the report, which Simon Tilford and I have written, about what the EU should do about CCS. We argue that large-scale demonstration will require public money, and that widespread and rapid deployment will require regulation, ideally at European level.

Last Friday Eon, announced that it is postponing its plan to build a new power station in Kent that would have demonstrated that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology can be retrofitted. The same day, the energy regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), published a report accepting that energy prices would have to increase, but would increase much less under a move to low-carbon energy than under a scenario under which the UK relies on gas and oil. And today, the Committee on Climate Change launches its first report on how the UK is doing on meetings its carbon budgets – basic message: ‘not nearly well enough’.

The President of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, is aiming to make his country the first 100% renewable economy (for electricity, heat and transport).

To maintain its leading global position on climate change, the EU must speed up its funding of carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects. It is more important to show that very large amounts of low-carbon electricity can be generated than it is to debate endlessly about what international targets and timetables should be set.

Today, I attended a conference organised by Business for a New Europe and the Centre for European Reform on Is the EU good for business?. The general answers was (unsurprisingly, given the organisers) ‘yes, generally, but could be better’.

On Monday, 13 July 2009, Ed Miliband, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, opened the Little Cheyne Court wind farm in Kent. With a capacity of just under 60Mw, this is the largest wind farm in South East England.

Burning coal is an extremely damaging way to generate electricity. Coal has a very high carbon content, so is a major source of greenhouse gasses. Burning it also results in pollutants that are directly damaging to human health, such as sulphur dioxide.

This morning I attended an event called ‘Ask a Climate Question’ organised by a coalition of environment and development groups. The most striking aspect of the discussion was that, with the exception of nuclear power, there was broad consensus among the four parties.

Yesterday, I attended a talk by Pat McFadden, a minister in the UK’s Business Department, about how the UK should move to a low-carbon economy. His main point was that the UK is still a manufacturing economy, despite the common view that everything manufactured is now imported. He also talked about the enormous opportunity for people in the UK to make wind turbines.

China now emits 18% of total global greenhouse gases. This is the same as the USA – possibly more. So, it is obviously essential to engage the Chinese people, government and businesses over climate control. But this doesn’t mean that China and the US (or Europe) are equally ‘responsible’.

The UK has reduced total greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 by 15%. However, this has not primarily been achieved by government policies introduced to protect the climate.

Angela Merkel’s victory in Germany’s election was not unexpected. What was less clear was who her coalition partner would be, but we now know that it will be the FDP. This party is liberal, in both economic and social senses. It is also very pro-business and in favour of tax cuts and is now arguing for reductions in subsidies.

Yesterday I went to Brussels for a seminar on CCS with Ruud Lubbers, who used to be prime minister of the Netherlands and is now running the Rotterdam Climate Initiative.

On Tuesday 2 February 2010, European Union member states agreed to European Commission proposals on how to distribute billions of Euros collected under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to CCS and renewable energy projects.

The US budget deficit has more than tripled to a record $1.4trn (£877bn, €948bn) in the year to 30 September 2009, due to increased government spending and a big drop in tax revenues. So, how is the US going to pay for a transition to a low-carbon economy?

Coal has a very high carbon content, so is a major source of greenhouse gasses and the economic costs of polluting the atmosphere are not borne by the polluter, In economic jargon, ‘the externalities are not internalised’.

Coal will be the biggest single source of electricity for decades to come. Yet the EU is doing far too little to encourage the take-up of carbon capture and storage, a technology which could make coal a low-carbon fuel. This failure threatens not only Europe’s leadership of global climate change policy but also its ability to profit from the emergence of a huge global market for equipment and expertise. Stephen Tindale and Simon Tilford argue that more public money is needed for the construction of demonstration projects, while regulation and strong market signals will be required to ensure mass deployment of the technology.

Coal will be the biggest single source of electricity for decades to come. Yet the EU is doing far too little to encourage the take-up of carbon capture and storage, a technology which could make coal a low-carbon fuel. This failure threatens not only Europe’s leadership of global climate change policy but also its ability to profit from the emergence of a huge global market for equipment and expertise. Stephen Tindale and Simon Tilford argue that more public money is needed for the construction of demonstration projects, while regulation and strong market signals will be required to ensure mass deployment of the technology.

Our website, Climateanswers.info, is broadly split up into three: technological answers, political answers and behavioural answers.

Why have we done this?

Well, this site is really about actions and not prohibitions – what we can do, rather than just what we shouldn’t. We do not wear hair shirts at Climate Answers and we are born optimists!

All three main UK parties take climate seriously and promise to reduce emissions and expand low-carbon energy. They all recognise the energy security and employment benefits. This article includes quotations from the relevant parts of the manifestos of the three main parties on heat and electricity – energy efficiency, fuel poverty and energy production.

Rapid and extensive demonstration of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is necessary to show that it works as well at larger scales as it does at smaller scales, and that it works throughout the generation, capture, transport and storage process.

How well have Obama and Energy Secretary Chu done so far on promoting energy efficiency, renewables, CCS and electric vehicles? A very positive assessment is made by the Center for American Progress.

Yesterday (9 November 2008), the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, published National Policy Statements (NPS) outlining the government policy on energy. They consist of guidance to the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which, from next March, is due to grant or refuse planning permission on major energy and transport infrastructure projects. The statements are area a mixed bag – good on renewables, nuclear and electricity networks, but less good on coal.