Citizens' Climate Lobby UK

Author: Catherine Dawson

  • UN General Assembly to discuss a just solution to Loss and Damage reparations.

    UN General Assembly to discuss a just solution to Loss and Damage reparations.

    Worldwide adverse weather events this summer have reinforced the moral imperative of Loss and Damage funding, in particular the damage caused by flooding in Pakistan, a nation which contributes less than 1% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

    Last year there were several papers which argued for the solution of a global Climate Income policy to level the playing field between those who have historically benefited from fossil fuels and the global south. Oxfam is also interested in the concept. On Monday the 19th September the Guardian reported that a discussion paper has been prepared for the UN General Assembly meeting this week to ask for a ‘climate related and justice-based global tax’, possibly raised by a global carbon tax.

    Antigua and Barbuda have also submitted a discussion paper to the Assembly, warning that increasing sea and air temperatures in the Caribbean could create a superstorm within years that would wreak £7.9bn of damage in the island nation alone, six times its annual GDP. Walton Webson, Antigua and Barbuda’s ambassador to the UN and chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, said: “[We] deserve to live without the looming fear of debt and destruction. Our islands are bearing the heaviest burden of a crisis we did not cause, and the urgent establishment of a dedicated loss and damage response fund is key to sustainable recovery. We are experiencing climate impacts that become more and more extreme with each passing year.”

    Here’s hoping that the discussions will be productive; at the very least that an agreed framework for the delivery of Loss and Damage funding can be agreed at COP27, if not sooner, and ideally that the case for a socially just global carbon price will be heard and agreed!

  • Oxford University report argues that switching to renewable energy would be as good for the pocket as the planet.

    Oxford University report argues that switching to renewable energy would be as good for the pocket as the planet.

    The report titled Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition derives from a collaboration between the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, the Oxford Martin Programme on the Post-Carbon Transition, the Smith School of Enterprise & Environment at the University of Oxford, and SoDa Labs at Monash University.

    Professor Doyne Farmer told BBC News that.. “Even if you’re a climate denier, you should be on board with what we’re advocating…..Our central conclusion is that we should go full speed ahead with the green energy transition because it’s going to save us money,” ($12tn by 2050!). The report cites examples of cost predictions made by the IPPC and in the UK by Philip Hammond which it claims are erroneous and have been a deterrent to investment. 

    The report states that scaling up green technologies (solar and wind) will continue to drive down their costs. Why not also encourage the investment needed by putting a steadily rising price on the carbon content of fossil fuels to reflect their true cost to society and further encourage the uptake of renewables, returning the revenue to the populace to compensate for the rising prices of said fossil fuels during the transition period, aka Climate Income?

  • Three former UNFCCC Executive Secretaries speak out.

    Three former UNFCCC Executive Secretaries speak out.

    On the 1st June three former UN climate chiefs, Christian Figueres (2010-16), Yvo de Beor (2006-10) and Michael Zammit Cutajar (1991-2002) wrote a joint article in the Guardian. They state that in February the world’s governments endorsed the IPPC report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and thus the statement that…

    “The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and planetary health…. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.” 

    Despite this the trajectory of current worldwide climate policies would lead to a temperature rise of between 2.7C and a catastrophic 3.6C above pre-industrial levels. Governments can’t act as if other crises such as health, poverty and security can be tackled whilst ignoring the climate crisis, they are interlinked. Perhaps, they argue… 

    If science has not persuaded most governments to act, perhaps economics will. The IPCC provides clear evidence that societies will be more prosperous in a world where climate change is constrained, than in one left to burn. In the energy sector, evidence of the zero-carbon transition is all around us. Wind and solar generation shows compound growth of about 20% a year and is cheaper almost everywhere than the alternatives. Electric car sales doubled between 2020 and 2021.

    Unless one is invested in fossil fuels, there is now no reason not to take the clean energy path. Many corporate actors understand the need for early action on this front. But governments still need to incentivise the transition. The evolving Just Energy Transition packages may yet offer an investment pathway that can accelerate deployment in emerging and developing countries. Corporate action towards other targets such as reduction of methane emissions, also needs to be encouraged.

    Carbon pricing, we might add, would reinforce the argument for decarbonisation if it applied in a way that enables forward planning and enhances the economic well being of the majority of people, as with Climate Income.

  • Growing interest in the merits of carbon pricing in general and Climate Income in particular as the old arguments against it are losing ground….

    Growing interest in the merits of carbon pricing in general and Climate Income in particular as the old arguments against it are losing ground….

    It seems appropriate to be writing about a blog by an Oxfam researcher on this Jubilee weekend as the biblical purpose of Jubilee years was to release the indebted and restore their land to them. Climate change is a symptom of global economic and social injustice. In the debate about solutions carbon pricing is often criticised as a regressive and ineffectual policy favoured by those who want to keep the economic status quo – of course supporters of Climate Income know better! 

    James Morrissey, Senior Researcher at  Oxfam US recently wrote a blog titled – The best answer to climate change – or a regressive policy set to fail? A guide to the arguments over carbon pricing.  Morrissey has highlighted the issues about current carbon pricing policies which are also acknowledged by proponents of Climate Income…….

     IT’S CLEAR THAT CURRENT CARBON PRICES ARE TOO LOW

    Before we get to the arguments about whether carbon pricing can work, it’s essential to point out that carbon prices are currently inadequate to address climate change. In the vast majority of cases, prices are too low, and not applied to enough of the economy to drive decarbonisation at the rate necessary. The graph below shows how prices are generally below $50 per tonne of CO2 (they need to be closer to $100/tCO2) and only cover 15% of the global economy (they need to be at 100%). Despite these problems, it’s notable that carbon pricing is seeing increasing uptake over time – with more and more countries adopting prices and more of the global economy under a price.

     CARBON PRICING DOES NOT AFFECT EMISSIONS

    First is the argument that placing a price on carbon does not affect emissions. The empirical literature doesn’t support this claim. Numerous empirical studies of carbon pricing, using a variety of methods, demonstrate that carbon pricing has reduced emissions. There is some question over whether the emissions reductions have been large enough, but this really comes down to what you consider “large” and what sort of reductions might be expected at what prices. In general reductions in emissions have been small, but significant, especially considering the low prices in place.

    IT WON’T BE ENOUGH BY ITSELF TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE

    The second argument against carbon pricing’s effectiveness is that alone, it is inadequate to tackle climate change, because consumers don’t behave like economists assume: as rational cost minimisers. For example, people don’t just buy the cheapest car for their needs; they buy cars based on ideas of status and brand loyalty, among others. This is true and uncontroversial, we need more than price signals to move consumers. However, this argument is also something of a straw doll: most of the literature on carbon pricing acknowledges that carbon pricing will need to be complemented with other policies if it is to be effective in averting climate catastrophe. To this end, advocates of a carbon price who suggest it’s the only policy we need should be viewed with scepticism. 

    Note that CCI doesn’t call for Climate Income to be a stand alone policy and it has not been implemented as such in the countries like Canada which have adopted it thus far.

    IT WILL HURT THE POOREST PEOPLE WHEREVER IT’S IMPLEMENTED

    A big concern around carbon pricing is that increasing the cost of energy derived from fossil fuels will drive regressive impacts.

    Since energy is central to the functioning of the global economy, and we currently generate around 83% of primary energy from fossil fuels, a carbon price will make almost all goods in the economy more expensive. Because low-income groups tend to spend a greater portion of their income on energy-intensive goods, a carbon price will have a disproportionately large negative impact on their well-being compared to wealthy households – making the policy notably regressive.

    However, a huge advantage of carbon pricing is that the price also generates revenues. Importantly, wealthy groups tend to consume more energy-intensive goods than low-income groups (even though they spend a smaller proportion of their income on these goods). What this means is that, despite regressive cost-side impacts, you can use the revenues to make carbon pricing substantially progressive. There are a number of ways to do this, but the simplest is to just return all the revenues to everyone, equally (ie on a per capita basis). Doing so would result in low-income populations receiving more than they pay in increased prices, while the opposite would be true for wealthy populations. (My emphasis).

    Morrisey does point out that the policy has to overcome public antipathy to the concept of increasing taxation, which also makes the policy easier for opponents to criticise than less visible regulations and subsidies. He argues, however, that these alternative policies also encounter opposition and are no more capable of solving the problem of climate change on their own than is carbon pricing. He concludes that if there is some momentum for carbon pricing NGOs should support it with the caveats that ….

    The revenues produced by carbon pricing must be used to effectively address all regressive impacts created by the price. Prices must either be set high enough to drive ambitious emissions reductions or, if prices are to start low and increase over time to overcome political opposition, the process for increasing prices needs to be automatic and insulated from political push-back. (My emphasis).

    Carbon pricing can be effective but, by itself, it will not be enough to address climate change. Any carbon price will require complementary policies. The most important will relate to addressing other market failures (such as the need for public investment in research and development) and addressing network problems (such as supporting electric vehicle charging infrastructure), but will also include policies for numerous markets where price signals are insufficient to shift behaviour.  

    Along with the recent reports in Nature and by the Autonomy think tank, this blog and the related Oxfam primer on carbon pricing show growing support for the concept that a Climate Income policy will not only alleviate climate change but also the gross inequalities impeding sustainable development in the Global South. 

    Finally I must mention a very apposite blog by fellow Citizens’ Climate Europe member Brigitte Vangerven about the idea that protecting the climate requires sacrifice. …

    Pricing pollution will make polluting products more expensive than clean products. The price difference will make people and companies choose the clean alternatives. It will greatly accelerate decarbonisation and the widespread deployment of clean alternatives. The proceeds are used to support the people in the energy transition.

    Everybody receives a Climate Income. Most households, especially low and mid incomes are better off or break even through this policy.

    It is simple, transparent, just and effective, and I hope that for many people it will dispel their reservations.

    This makes it possible to implement an ambitious climate policy, that will receive broad support from the people. There is no longer a conflict.

  • Growing support for an international carbon price floor.

    Growing support for an international carbon price floor.

    Last year the IMF called for a globally applied carbon price floor corresponding to a country’s wealth, with a suggested tariff in 2021 of $75 for the wealthiest countries and $25 for less developed countries. Today in the Times (paywall) Mehreen Khan, the economics editor, makes the case for an effective international carbon pricing system rather than occasional windfall taxes…. 

    “One levy notably absent from the present debate is a global carbon tax to provide an incentive for the huge shifts required to hit the global net-zero target. Even in relatively benign times, politicians have taken fright at the idea of taxing carbon use, thinking that it will disadvantage their industry at the expense of foreign rivals…

    Arguments against national carbon taxes wither away if all countries agree to impose a price. The International Monetary Fund has devised an international carbon floor where the price paid corresponds to a country’s wealth. It would mean America, Britain and Europe would use a minimum floor of $75 a tonne, falling to $25 for the poorest. This collective jump into carbon taxation would not disadvantage industries in richer countries, the fund says, and would dramatically reduce emissions.” 

    Citizens Climate International supports a carbon price floor mechanism as a necessary step to the goal of Climate Income….

    We support establishment of a global “price floor”, supported by national policies to impose a steadily intensifying price signal disfavoring climate pollution. As the IEA has reported, “There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply…” Pricing systems should effectively and efficiently eliminate climate pollution while building incomes for people and enhancing international cooperation for a zero-emissions future.

    Recent studies such as the report in Nature and the Autonomy report have also suggested how Climate Income could be a game changer for the Global South….

    While countries in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South-Asia and many other parts of the Global South would profit immensely, most developed economies would only see proportionally relatively small losses.

    …..As a global policy, it could wipe out extreme poverty and easily dwarf the scope of any existing development aid and debt relief schemes, illustrating that, in this sense, it is the Global North that owes an immense debt to the populations in the Global South, not the other way round. It would also go a long way to alleviate the disastrous impacts the Covid pandemic has had on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, with for instance an additional 100m children falling into poverty, and prevent global disparities from deepening as richer countries recover while poorer countries fall even further behind (UNICEF 2021b). Such a global carbon dividend scheme could end the bitter reality of mass hunger and destitution and be a key building stone of a fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive post-pandemic economy. (Toll gates and money pumps, Autonomy, p.51)

    It is good to see growing support for a carbon pricing system which would remove the uncertainty and short termism thwarting the rapid decarbonisation which the world needs!

  • ‘Its been a great meeting!’ … as the activist said to the Bishop

    ‘Its been a great meeting!’ … as the activist said to the Bishop

    Rob Paton updates us on the fantastic progress made by Citizens:mk and its future ambitions to go global, or at least England and Wales!

    Last September at the Citizens:mk climate assembly, the Bishop of Oxford agreed to a request for a meeting to discuss Climate Income, and whether he might use his position on the House of Lords Climate & Environment Committee to promote the idea.  He has a very full schedule, so December was the first available date… and then just beforehand, he suffered a nasty bout of Covid!. Finally, in late April, the meeting took place. 

    So what happened?  Lauren Jeffrey presented our first ‘ask’: we wanted to cite him as a supporter of Climate Income and of our campaign, as we took it national through the network of chapters that make up Citizens UK.  Would he consent to this?  The reply was immediate – yes indeed  (and without us needing to clear statements through his office in advance).

    Then our second ‘ask’: would he invite us to the Lords to a meeting, whether formal or informal, as he thought best, to help increase understanding and support for Climate Income among parliamentarians?

    Again he replied positively, though not unconditionally.  Characteristically thoughtful, he said he needed time to consider when and how the meeting could best be ‘anchored’ in the processes of the Lords (and its Climate and Environment committee in particular – of which he is a member).  Then he gave us an important and unexpected bonus  – direct access to his two advisors (both of whom were clearly willing, thoughtful, and very well informed on Parliamentary processes as well as climate issues).

    It was an intense two hours including some lively exchanges around how to bring the need for rising carbon prices into the policy process and public debate.  We left feeling tired but elated. We had an important ally for what we see as our next steps – both locally, and working across the Citizens UK network to spread this word and bring other chapters on board, turning it into a national campaign.   All that is needed is lots more hard work! – if you might like to be involved, please get in touch.

    For more about the meeting, visit http://www.citizensmk.org.uk/2022/05/16/onwards-and-upwards-for-climate-campaign/ 

    To see if there is a Citizens UK chapter in your neck of the woods click here.

    Pictured above:

    Representatives of the Citizens:mk Climate team, L to R: Rev. Catherine Butt (St Frideswides); 

    Rob Paton (MK Quakers); Lauren Jeffrey (Lakes Estate Renewal Forum); Stephanie Laing, Community Organizer.

  • How to ensure private investment companies do the right thing, also known as the Carlsberg solution!

    How to ensure private investment companies do the right thing, also known as the Carlsberg solution!

    The Independent recently reported on a speech by Dr Jean Rogers, head of ESG at global asset management company Blackstone. Speaking at the Dublin Climate Summit on the 12th May, Dr Rogers argued that whilst 90% of the world’s GDP is now covered by climate commitments but still only 20% of the world’s emissions are priced it is difficult for investment companies to avoid putting investor’s money into future stranded assets. The solution, she argued, is a carbon pricing policy like Canada’s, which is predictable and progressively rises…..

    “One thing that can really move the needle is actually pricing carbon and the reason for that is that it then becomes investable – you can take that future liability and turn it into an asset by investing against it now.”

    The fact that the Canadian carbon tax will rise from $50 a tonne now to $170 by 2030 incentivises investors to finance the decarbonisation of the copper mine of which she is a board member…..

    “We’d never want to pay a dime against that tax… and that is, I think, a really important mechanism.” 

    The predictability of such a carbon tax would enable the case for investment in decarbonisation to be clearly put across to investors…

    “We now need to be talking about long term capital strategies, and we need the tools, but we need the incentives to do that really well,”.

    The article also reported on Mark Carney’s appearance at the Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the 22nd April. Carney was former Governor of the Bank of England and is now special envoy for climate action and finance at the United Nations. The committee was discussing how the financial sector should be regulated to enable the move to net zero whilst preventing fear of stranded assets moving investors away from the regulated market. 

    Carney was asked, ‘Would not this add up to a further case for a carbon tax which would reach part of the financial sector which regulation can’t reach?’ To which he replied, ‘Carlsberg solution, the case is very strong for a carbon price widely applied with maybe an appropriate rebate for less well off households to ensure it is resilient.’ – aka Climate Income!

  • A few thoughts on the British Energy Security Strategy…

    A few thoughts on the British Energy Security Strategy…

    The crisis caused by the war in Ukraine has prompted the Government to rejig its energy policy in order to increase energy security by reducing the need for imported fuel. This rethink could have been an opportunity to move away from the use of gas as our base load fuel and stick to our commitments to achieving NZ by 2050 by not licensing any more oil and gas fields or fracking. 

    The Government could have prioritised increasing onshore wind and solar farms which are the quickest and cheapest ways to increase our low carbon energy supply to the promised 95% by 2030, backed up by a campaign to insulate our poor housing stock to reduce the demand for gas. Although planning rules have been made less restrictive in the strategy, onshore wind and solar will still require unanimous consent, unlike roads and incinerators; it has also been reported that more ambitious plans were watered down the night before the strategy was released.

    The Government has instead decided to launch a new licensing round for oil and gas fields in the autumn. It will take years for these to come onstream and unless rules are changed the fuel will be sold on the international market as now. This  announcement came 3 days after the latest IPCC report had warned that we have reached the now or never moment and have to leave the oil and gas in the ground.

    The Climate Change Committee stated that….“Recognising the difficulties in implementing effective policy quickly, it is still disappointing not to see more on energy efficiency and on supporting households to make changes that can cut their energy bills now. Government has reiterated its commitment to do more and we look forward to seeing details in the coming months” – here’s hoping! 

    Micharl Lewis, CEO E.ON UK was even more forthright….. “Energy efficiency is the fabled ‘silver bullet’ for a future energy system: it cuts bills and carbon emissions today, it creates jobs and it reduces our reliance on foreign gas. By abandoning any extra commitment to helping people to improve their homes, today’s announcement condemns thousands more customers to living in cold and draughty homes, wasting energy and paying more than they need to for their heating”. 

    Now could have been the moment for the Government to look again at the case for Climate Income which it had acknowledged in The Future of UK Carbon Pricing (2020), ideally with the ability to borrow against future dividend payments for investments in energy efficiency and retrofitting.

     Advocates of the approach highlight that a well-designed scheme would have social and environmental benefits, equitably distributing the revenues and stimulating investment in low carbon technologies……..emissions to be reduced in a cost effective and technology-neutral way, while mobilising the private sector to invest in emissions reduction technologies and measures.

  • How Climate Income could transform the world….

    How Climate Income could transform the world….

    The progressive think tank Autonomy, which researches solutions for climate change, the future of work and economic planning published a (very readable) report titled ‘Toll Gates and Money Pumps: Why carbon taxation could be a simple, fair and transformative policy instrument’ on the 21st of March. The report outlines how a globally applied carbon fee and dividend policy would be extremely effective at lifting the poorest countries out of poverty and more than a billion people above the global poverty line, as well as combating climate change. There is an article on the report in the Independent.

    The researchers modelled the global, European and nation state application of the scheme using two carbon prices. The lower carbon price is the current highest carbon tax worldwide, that of Sweden, at $137 per tonne, a price which makes it into the range  indicated by IPCC to be needed by 2030 to stay below 1.5°C-warming. The higher carbon price modelled was $195, this is the rate for advanced economies proposed by the Federal Environment Agency of Germany. It states that the policy is not intended to preclude public spending on decarbonising industry, agriculture, homes and transport and commodities should be clearly labelled with the GHG emissions expended in manufacture. 

    The report states that the (lower) Swedish carbon price, applied globally, would be transformative, raising $2.69tn annually …… 

    While countries in South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South-Asia and many other parts of the Global South would profit immensely, most developed economies would only see proportionally relatively small losses.

    …..As a global policy, it could wipe out extreme poverty and easily dwarf the scope of any existing development aid and debt relief schemes, illustrating that, in this sense, it is the Global North that owes an immense debt to the populations in the Global South, not the other way round. It would also go a long way to alleviate the disastrous impacts the Covid pandemic has had on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, with for instance an additional 100m children falling into poverty, and prevent global disparities from deepening as richer countries recover while poorer countries fall even further behind (UNICEF 2021b). Such a global carbon dividend scheme could end the bitter reality of mass hunger and destitution and be a key building stone of a fairer, more sustainable and more inclusive post-pandemic economy. 

    The authors do not address the issue of diminishing returns as the world economy decarbonises but the assumption is that the proceeds of the tax will enable all countries to embrace sustainable and fair economic development. The authors even suggest that the visible benefits of the fair distribution of the dividend could lead to… 

     the introduction of a more comprehensive, far-reaching UBI – implementing a global infrastructure for roll-out and, more importantly, materially recognize and implement the right to equal use of our planet.

    Now that the results of our dependence on fossil fuels are so visible in the war on ‘our doorstep’ the world may be ready to welcome such ideas!

  • The latest IPCC Report and the invasion of Ukraine emphasise why we need to ditch fossil fuels!

    The latest IPCC Report and the invasion of Ukraine emphasise why we need to ditch fossil fuels!

    The latest IPCC Report confirms that the most dire predicted consequences of climate change are happening to our planet right now and will only get worse if we don’t act immediately. There is a useful summary of the key points in this freely accessible Belfast Telegraph article and an in depth Q &A in Carbon Brief. For the Citizens Climate International analysis read here.

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine has also alerted Europe, particularly Germany, to its dangerous dependence on imported fossil fuels; prompting it to aim for an almost 100% renewable energy supply by 2035 rather than the previous vague ‘well before 2040’. Oil companies like BP and Shell are also pulling out their stakes in Russian owned oilfields and the Nordstrom pipeline. 

    Today’s Bloomberg Green newsletter reports that a Russian member of the IPPC research team apologised for the invasion in an UN organised virtual meeting last weekend, responding to this remark by Ukrainian researcher Svitlana Krakovska.

    “Someone could question us that IPCC is not a political body, and should only assess science related to climate change. Let me assure you that this human-induced climate change and war against Ukraine have direct connections and the same roots. They are fossil fuels and humanity’s dependence on them“.

    “While emissions of greenhouse gas have changed the energy balance of the planet, the ease of receiving energy from burning coal, oil and gas has changed the balance of power in the human world. We cannot change laws of the physical world but it is our responsibility to change laws of human civilization towards a climate resilient future“.

    We need to move away from fossil fuels sooner rather than later for the sake of the health of the planet and all its inhabitants. Countries must aim to be no longer beholden to the realpolitick of fossil fuel supply. 

    Climate Income is the most effective way to price fossil fuels out of the market without making life worse for people. 

    Finally this interesting article points out how a worldwide Climate Income could alleviate poverty worldwide

    …..We find that if all countries adopt the necessary uniform global carbon tax and then return the revenues to their citizens on an equal per capita basis, it will be possible to meet a 2 °C target while also increasing wellbeing, reducing inequality and alleviating poverty. These results indicate that it is possible for a society to implement strong climate action without compromising goals for equity and development. (The principle would stand for the new target of 1.5 degrees).