The first annual report to Parliament by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was published last week. It concludes that a step change is required in the pace of UK emissions reduction to meet carbon budgets, and that in some areas, new policy approaches will be required to deliver the government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan.
This is the second broadside against government action on energy infrastructure and environmental policy in as many weeks. It follows Ofgem’s detailed and sobering report on the state of Britain’s energy supplies, which highlighted the country’s growing exposure to the volatile global gas market and an electricity generating infrastructure that is creaking at the seams.
The key findings of the CCC report reveal that emissions reductions are averaging just 0.5 per cent per annum, whereas reductions of 2-3 per cent per annum will be required to meet the carbon budgets. In order to ensure delivery of the first three carbon budgets, the report suggests either a revision or a strengthening of policy in three key areas: electricity generation, domestic and commercial building energy conservation, and road transport.
Rapid ‘decarbonisation’ of electricity generation is a crucial priority, the report’s authors say. In order to achieve a reduction in grams per kWh from today’s 540g CO2/kWh to less than 300g CO2/kWh by 2020, huge investment will be needed. This might include 23GW of new wind capacity, as many as three new nuclear power stations and up to four carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration plants by 2016.
In its report, Ofgem attempts to put a figure on this investment of between £95bn and £200bn, and warns that much of it will have to be picked up by the domestic consumer. Domestic gas and electricity bills could, as a result, see hikes of between 14 per cent and 25 per cent in little over a decade, with spikes of as much as 60 per cent in the interim. It bases these forecasts on ‘worst’ and ‘best’ case scenarios dictated by the recession and our recovery from it, and global gas supply competition.
In its response to the Ofgem report, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) agreed that there was no such thing as a ‘low-cost high carbon future’. Energy secretary, Ed Miliband claimed the government was already on top of new nuclear power, new renewables and clean coal, but said that reforms to the planning system and gaining more favourable public attitudes towards renewables were also part of the strategy. Government intervention is inevitable to ensure greener, more secure energy supplies. The proposed levy on domestic bills to help pay for clean coal power stations was cited as an example. “If we leave it to the market we won’t build clean coal,” asserts Mr Miliband.
CCC chairman, Lord Turner says that with the carbon budgets in place, we now need to achieve a step change in the pace of emissions reduction. “The Government needs to build on its ‘Low Carbon Transition Plan’ and put in place a comprehensive delivery framework. What [the CCC has] proposed is achievable and affordable but action needs to be taken now if we are to make our contribution to combating climate change.”
Is the scrappage scheme green?
Car sales figures ensured continuing smiles on dealers’ faces throughout September but is the UK scrappage scheme – largely credited for the increase in car sales – actually green? According to a poll earlier this month by TheGreenCarWebsite, the UK public is not at all sure it is. Some 60% of respondents thought the UK scrappage scheme was doing nothing positive for the environment. Add to this a failure to introduce a cap on the CO2 emissions for new cars purchased under the scheme, and you begin to see their point.
Despite evidence that the scheme is helping to reduce car emissions, the public remains sceptical. In particular, people are not convinced that the reduction in tailpipe emissions, usually shown in the exchange of an old for a new car via the scheme, actually completely counters the energy consumed and emissions created during the scrapping of the old vehicle and the manufacture of the new one.
TheGreenCarWebsite editor, Faye Sunderland says that the total energy consumption of car use is on average 54.7 per cent higher than the tank-to-wheel energy consumption alone (basing this on an academic study in Finland of life-cycle energy consumption and emissions from cars). Moreover, research from the Netherlands suggests that the average yearly distance driven by cars ten years or older is less than half that of a new car. Owning a new car apparently encourages motorists to use their cars more so, arguably, the fuel efficiency of the new car needs to be twice that of the old car for the scheme to make environmental sense.
Ms Sunderland says, “You have to look at the whole picture, including individual car use, whether a new car is lower in emissions and consider whether there is a better option for your old car like proper maintenance, or a hybrid or LPG retrofit.”
Les Hunt
Editor
PS – I fear a statement I made about the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) in my last newsletter may have been misleading, as electrical engineer, David Cox has taken the trouble to point out. Chastened by my abortive attempt at explaining an immensely complex subject in the words of a single sentence, I am not about to repeat the exercise, but instead urge interested readers to visit this link for clarification. I am grateful to Mr Cox for supplying the link, and apologise to readers who may have been confused by the figures stated in my article. L.H.