Citizens' Climate Lobby UK

Category: Climate Change

  • Tackling fuel poverty during the great transition – 7 principles for climate activists

    Tackling fuel poverty during the great transition – 7 principles for climate activists

    CCL member Rob Paton explains how Climate Income can be used as a solution to the fuel price crisis as well as the environmental one.

    1  The fuel poverty facing many households and the climate crisis facing us all must be tackled in synch. If they are not dealt with together, each problem worsens the other.  Fuel poverty, accentuated by a price spike, has led to calls questioning support for renewable energy and has clear potential for social and political instability. Yet the necessary action on fuel poverty must not be at the expense of the climate.  Households on benefits, or with low and insecure earnings, will be the least able to protect themselves from the consequences of weaker climate policies.  

    2  Fuel poverty should be addressed primarily by increased income, not reduced fuel prices.  What those in fuel poverty need is more money.  They know their priorities. And it must be money they can rely on – not complicated special payments, or means tested and arriving late to tackle a spike in prices..

    3  What businesses and our economy need for the transition to zero carbon is an underlying trend of rising carbon prices.  Economists and business federations agree on this. Most businesses can deal with price fluctuations, or are learning how to. Carbon subsidies and tax reliefs are a part of the problem not part of the solution. 

    4   The direction of travel for public finances should be away from the present high degree of carbon reliance and towards sustainable, post-carbon sources of revenue.  An overhaul of the UK’s current mish-mash of fossil fuel taxes and subsidies is long overdue.  A coherent approach would raise more funds, be fairer and simpler, support the drive to carbon neutrality.  This is bound to take time – so the sooner the taxation system starts down this road the better.

    5  Likewise, the direction of travel for income support during the great transition should be from indirect to direct payments. That is, from transfers hidden in a tax or benefits system to discrete, climate-related payments, labelled as such and paid directly. Citizens need to know that they are being supported in tackling the climate crisis, and enabled to play their part.

    6   Consistent policy on carbon pricing, fiscal reform and income support requires a cross-party political consensus.  Surveys have repeatedly shown that the public mood is to find and sustain the common ground, and to get on with the job.  Political contestation on other issues – including other climate and environmental policies – can and should continue, both locally and nationally. But a framework to tackle the great work of this decades-long transition is needed. These are three essential elements for such a framework. 

    7  Communicate, communicate, communicate. Public trust in politicians needs to be restored if sometimes unpopular policies are to be sustained. A cross-party consensus in Westminster needs the backing of public opinion, and its calls will be taken more seriously by the public than party-political pronouncements. Especially when promised action follows. Nothing is clearer and more convincing than a payment direct to your bank account.  

    Climate income offers a way forward with the clear potential to satisfy all these principles.  It may not be the only one. But it is the only one I am aware of.        

    Rob Paton 02/02/22 

    We are not the only ones with this message, today’s Carbon Brief Daily reports on two interesting reactions to the Levelling Up White Paper (Business Green is paywalled) ..

    Business Green’s James Murray, analysing the paper, writes that “a government that properly prioritised the net-zero transition, rather than treated them as a separate silo, would find it much easier to embed climate action in its response to the gas price crisis.”

    In another comment on levelling up in Business Green, Prof Henrietta Moore writes that “without tax reform, the cost of funding net-zero will fall disproportionately on the shoulders of those least able to afford but most likely to suffer the consequences of a rapidly degrading environment”. 

    Happily the fuel price crisis mitigation measures announced by Rishi Sunak today do not involve tinkering with carbon pricing and leave all to play for!

  • Another fantastic plug for Climate Income from one of our members!

    Another fantastic plug for Climate Income from one of our members!

    Last year Rob Paton and Citizens:MK succeeded in gaining unaminous support for Climate Income from Milton Keynes Council. Rob then went on to write about the campaign in the national Quaker magazine, The Friend.

    Rob has now succeeded in getting a full article published which he has given me permission to reproduce here. I attended a Zoom meeting organised by Rob for a local climate group and was able to see the issues people have with the concept of CI (which it is easy to lose sight of when you have been immersed in the campaign for three years!) which Rob describes – his approach has lessons for us all! Note that ‘testimony’ refers to the Quaker values of equality, peace, truth, justice and simplicity.

    A year of climate campaigning: What Rob Paton learned

    6 Jan 2022 | by Rob Paton

    ‘It’s often the testimony that does it.’

    ‘The alternative is to look for common ground.’ | Photo: by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

    I had been a ‘greenie’ for years, but not heard about Carbon Fee & Dividend (also known as Climate Income) until a Friend told me about it a couple of years ago. I visited the website of Citizens Climate Lobby UK – and wow! So simple. An arrangement that would turbo-charge all other carbon reduction policies, or render them superfluous. A way to make higher carbon prices not just acceptable, but popular. Like every good convert I set off with missionary zeal. At which point things became… interesting.

    Yes, sometimes people ‘got it’ quite quickly. What really struck me, though, was how often people didn’t (or couldn’t?) ‘get it’. For example, when another Friend passed on something I had written to her daughter, active in XR, the daughter was enthused. She shared it in her circle… to no avail whatsoever! Even professional campaigners who knew their economics seemed to ignore carbon pricing. It was the elephant in the room. As for Climate Income, well, on a good day it would be damned with faint praise. I asked several: ‘What should we be asking for at COP26? Wouldn’t it be great if we had one simple, specific “ask” that everyone could get behind, like “Drop the Debt”?’ Everyone liked the question, but their answers were either lengthy, or pithy but plaintive (‘just keep your promises’). No one expressed much interest in Climate Income. Gradually I came to realise – or re-learn – some important lessons.

    If people are not open, or ready, then I was probably wasting my time as well as theirs. It wasn’t just that trying to persuade people seldom helped. Things went better when people were stimulated to find out for themselves. For example, our local Citizens:mk climate campaign asked the leaders of the three main parties on Milton Keynes Council to consider supporting the idea. Initially, all were wary, but they agreed to check it out. When it came to the debate, genuinely enthusiastic speeches in support came from all sides, and the motion passed unanimously. Likewise, when we asked the local Anglican bishop to consider the idea and how he might use his position to promote it, he was sympathetically cautious: he would meet with us but the issues were complicated and he needed to find out more. But then before we knew it he was on board, asking a pointed question in the House of Lords!

    That illustrated another important point: it’s often the testimony that does it. A remarkable teenager in our campaign group had recounted being confronted with the harsh realities of what climate change would mean for her and her generation. She spoke simply, clearly and from the heart. It was moving and memorable in a way that bald facts and reasoning are not.

    I also noticed how widespread adversarial thinking is among green campaigners. The default stance is to campaign against things – and people. When I asked what was needed for a consensus in support of cutting out carbon, the answer was, essentially, for lots more people to care like we do. We have seen the light; we must convert others to our way of thinking. Worse still, I, too, slipped into adversarial thinking. At one point I was seeing the Treasury as a bogeyman. They didn’t like hypothecated taxes and would be bound to resist this idea. But one of the beauties of the arrangement is that it is revenue neutral – it is a transfer rather than a tax. It doesn’t add to government spending. Better still, by turbo-charging the switch to renewables, it reduces the need to subsidise green technologies which are a drain on the exchequer. It also gives a further basis for cutting out those subsidies still being paid to fossil fuel companies.

    The alternative is to look for common ground. Climate income provides such a common ground, securing support for long-term carbon reduction. In Canada, where this ‘fee & dividend’ approach has been adopted, governors of some provinces with high levels of fossil fuel activity thought they might roll back the legislation… until they found how popular it had become with voters.

    What really took me by surprise, though, was the way climate lobbying led into a deep consideration of truth, and our compromised capacity as humans to face it. I joined a Zoom course on how to engage with political leaders on climate issues. At one point the young course leader said words to this effect: ‘Look, we have enough information in this group to plunge half the country into a state of deep clinical depression. It’s just as well that many people are “in denial” – the health services would be overwhelmed if everyone suddenly woke up to what the disaster will mean for them. That wouldn’t do the planet any good.’

    Instead he introduced us to ways of meeting our leaders where they are, helping them recognise their own ambivalences and uncertainties, and helping them find their own safe next steps. This doesn’t mean that we should only engage with the political system in therapeutic mode – listening supportively, asking gentle questions, building trust. As we Quakers know, discernment requires threshing as part of the process. So explanations, facts, clarifications and analysis all have their place, collegially conducted, among those seeking further understanding. Here too I learned lessons.

    I had to treasure the disagreements and challenges I encountered. They were informative about what I had not explained. For example, if someone said, ‘Won’t people just use all their climate income paying for the higher price of fuels?’ I had to be ready to agree: yes, some would, to begin with. It would be their choice. Only then would it be worth my explaining how the steadily-increasing price of carbon (and climate income) would play out over the medium term: the higher the price the more incentive everyone has to switch to green alternatives. Instead of it being against our economic interests to ‘do the right thing’, we become (even) better off by ‘doing the right thing’.

    Another example: one councillor said we shouldn’t increase the price of fossil fuels until the cost of green alternatives had fallen to the level of current fuel prices, otherwise the poorest would be hard hit. This overlooks how climate income protects the least well off. But I sensed something else was confused in this observation, and it took me time to pin it down. In fact, the price of the alternatives will not fall until they are adopted on a large scale. So we need to make the green alternatives cheaper than fossil fuels in order to bring about large scale adoption. This is precisely what steadily increasing the price of carbon makes happen.

    I also came to appreciate the uncertainty in our predicament: no one knows what will be an achievable and sustainable mix of green fuels. The technologies are still a big cloud of unknowing. Some say heat pumps. Some believe hydrogen is the answer. According to others, the future is electric. Some think that Carbon Capture and Storage is crucial. Each of these has its advocates – and, happily, investors willing to back them.

    Finally I have had further lessons in patience and trust. Having been through panics about nuclear war, the scares about the millennium bug, and the fear that oil was running out, it is a little easier to hold my nerve. Yes, I do know about tipping points. The dangers are very, very real. But so are the emerging opportunities with many signs that the tide has turned. And so we choose life, doing what we can where we are.

  • CCL member decides to shake up Woman’s Hour!

    CCL member decides to shake up Woman’s Hour!

    Wiltshire CCL member Jane Renwick recently realised that a hallowed broadcasting institution which likes to think it is ‘cutting edge’ could do with shaking up when it comes to the most important issue of our time!

    But I know that CF&D makes sense and it frustrates me that so few people are talking about making it happen. 

    ” …..My grasp of CF&D is pretty akin to my knowledge of plumbing: I have a gist of an idea of the general principles (and the disasters that can occur if it’s not done properly) but not a lot of confidence when it comes to discussing anything beyond the tap that I’m turning or the chain that I’m flushing. Similarly, my knowledge of the workings of government and politics is weak, as is my understanding of economics, power production and the science of climate change. I do know a lot….. but nothing very relevant to this important issue it seems. 

    Our Parish Magazine carried an article by Rev Michael McHugh quoting James F Byrnes: “Curiosity will conquer fear even more than bravery will.” What an inspiring and liberating thought! So now, instead of thinking that I don’t know enough to join the debate I will think ‘I wonder what would happen if I sent a letter to Woman’s Hour’ or the Women’s Institute or another letter to my MP. What’s to lose? Surely the more people talking about it, the better.

    Dear Woman’s Hour

    Thank you for your recent item about women who are choosing not to have children because of fears about climate change – which illustrates just how much women are worrying about this. It is a HUGE issue for women and families. As a mother I am terrified. Sadly, I think women are struggling to visualise a positive route to addressing climate change that protects their family. 

    I would really like to hear Woman’s Hour address climate change, in a positive way, that presents politically effective family friendly strategies that women can campaign for, to make a real difference (in addition to recycling our clothes, reducing waste, eating less meat etc etc……) 

    For example – ‘Carbon Fee and Dividend’ is an approach that has been recognised by the Government as an effective method of carbon pricing that ‘has merits’ and is being considered as a way forward (The Times, 9 July 2021).

    The principles are simple:

    • Carbon fuels are still being used because they are relatively cheap.
    • If the Government introduced an incrementally rising charge on carbon fuels, industry would be motivated to explore other options quickly.
    • Money raised would be returned to every citizen (adult and child) which offsets rising household fuel bills and benefits those who live a less carbon hungry lifestyle. 
    • This is a fair, effective and free policy which supports families and those most vulnerable in the community.
    • 27 Nobel prize winning economists support CF&D   https://www.econstatement.org , as well as many prominent women in the UK e.g. the successful children’s author illustrator Mini Grey and another successful children’s author Judy Hindley who speaks very articulately on the subject.

    Talking about us all ‘doing our bit’ just isn’t working and women need to feel empowered to push for a change at a much higher level that supports families as well as industry through the tough choices and changes ahead. 

    Please would you consider raising this as a topic on Woman’s Hour – firstly by going on record in declaring a climate emergency and then by raising awareness of strategies such as Carbon Fee and Dividend as a way forward that puts families and the most vulnerable into the solution.

    Yours faithfully

    Jane Renwick

    p.s. A much better explanation than mine can be found at http://citizensclimatelobby.uk/

  • Members respond to the IPPC report – Part 2

    Members respond to the IPPC report – Part 2

    Please note that these essays are not the official view of CCL UK but of some of our members…..

    Carbon Fee and Dividend is structured to provide subsidy to ordinary householders as they begin to confront the costs of transitioning to a net zero carbon economy.  

    In addition, Carbon Fee and Dividend can be expected to accelerate the overdue reallocation of capital towards regenerative enterprise that fossil fuel divestment, by for example pension funds, has already provoked.  For the mainstream of society this is vital, since a transition to a low carbon circular economy based on regeneration and sustainable limits will provide the worthwhile and purposeful new jobs needed.  Hopefully, much of this innovation will be local or even community based and so lead to a multiplier effect as more of the money circulates locally and in turn leads to yet more enterprise and benefits. 

    A capsule of the actual problems lying behind Alok Sharma’s IPPC derived warnings might read: 

    The words assumption, belief, self-interest and delusion are all words that apply to the economic model (Neoliberalism) that has grown ever since money was finally liberated, in 1971, from the limits that being tied to the gold standard imposed.  There were no externality (environmental) costs built in, not least because of lobbying and deception strategies operated by large corporations.

    They appear to overlook that their concept is also the source of inequality; or put another way “too many in Maslow Deficit” (lower 3 tiers) and moreover, that their concept is the source of the debt which begets the growth dependency needed to pay it down.  With externalities largely ignored this all translates into the environmental destruction / climate breakdown that is bringing the world to its knees!   

    Andrew Stott

    On the 9th August 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first part, ‘Working Group I’, of its Sixth Assessment Report. Compiling over 14,000 scientific papers, the work of 234 scientists from 66 different countries, the report outlined and emphasised the need for immediate and drastic action to avoid a rise of over 2°C in the global temperature. A system where fossil fuels are taxed and the money returned to the public is one way to approach this, tackling both the environmental concern and dealing with the required economic traction to get it started. This is known as a carbon fee & dividend (CF&D) scheme.

    The declining cost of renewables

    Renewable energy prices are at the lowest they’ve ever been (according to an analysis by Lazard Ltd.) and the UK government predicts that levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) prices for renewables will drop even further while prices for fossil fuels will largely remain the same. 

    Figure 1 – Table showing LCOE for the next 20 years in £/MWh as predicted by the UK government in their 2020 report on Electricity Generation Costs.

    The earlier a complete change to renewable energy happens, the more money that will be saved in the long run. A myriad of reasons have prevented the switchover to renewables, despite the apparent advantages they currently have over fossil fuels. The associated costs with starting a new energy plant, new fracking technology significantly lowering the cost of natural gas, existing contracts tied up with fossil fuel suppliers, increased electricity bills for the general public and seasonal inconsistencies with renewable electricity generation are just some of the reasons why, initially, a switch to renewables may not be as economically attractive as one first expects. This is why a carbon tax would ‘even the playing field’ so to speak and incentivise investment into renewables.

    The EU ETS and Britain’s departure

    Economic incentives for reducing carbon emissions are not a foreign idea to the UK. The country used to be part of a cap and trade scheme used throughout the EU. The European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) is the largest of its kind in the world and consists of a scheme designed to limit the CO2 released into the atmosphere by allocating emissions allowances to member nations. If a country needs to generate more emissions they can trade for these allowances from a country that has successfully reduced its own. Thus, creating an economic incentive for a country to reduce its emissions. 

    Unfortunately, on the 31st January 2020, Britain left the EU and with it the EU ETS. A similar system was designed and incorporated known as the UK ETS. Emissions trading would continue but between the 4 nations of the UK rather than the 27 member nations and 3 trading partners (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) of the EU. However, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (GRICCE) indicated in their 2019 study that this would be “suboptimal” and a carbon tax would be more beneficial in reducing carbon emissions. Again, in 2019, the GRICCE theorised that “a tax of £40 per tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions turned into a £1000 annual return for UK households” would be one of the most ideal ways at reaching net zero emissions by 2050. It also recommends the £40 per tonne tax is just a starting point and the price should slowly be increased.

    How will the money be used?

    One of the main arguments against a carbon fee & dividend scheme is that the general public will bear the brunt of the tax and although environmentally beneficial, it will increase the cost of living. To low income families, an increase in the heating or electricity bill every month is very unappealing, especially as they would not experience the immediate benefits of reduced CO2 emissions. However, the scheme ensures that the money is equally distributed to everyone in a monthly dividend.

    Figure 2 – Courtesy of the Grantham Research Institute at LSE. Graph showing tax payments and dividend received by income decile.

    Looking at figure 2 we see that the lowest income decile households (1) would be better off with the flat £1000 dividend as it is a larger percentage of their total household expenditure. 

    Canada has a similar system and has been using it since as far back as 2008 (in British Columbia). Helen Mountford of the World Resources Institute states that citizens of Manitoba province, for example, would expect to see a rise of $174 CAD in cost due to the carbon tax. But receive a total rebate of $252 CAD resulting in a net gain of $78 CAD (~£45). Canada may only have a population of just over half of the UK but its CO2  emissions almost treble ours. If an industrial giant like Canada can implement a CF&D scheme and make it work, then so can we.

    The benefits of a CF&D scheme are clear. A switch to a more modern, cheaper and greener economy that will see benefits not only for our children and our children’s children but also us, we who are living currently. Alok Sharma’s warnings, ahead of COP26, are dire and desperately need to be listened to. Change is hard but if we don’t, our planet will.

    Luke Clews

  • The consensus is growing – what surveys, petitions and the media are saying and what we can do about it…

    The consensus is growing – what surveys, petitions and the media are saying and what we can do about it…

    Reading the daily email alert from Carbon Brief is fascinating and getting more and more time consuming! I have certainly noticed a real shift of media opinion towards the climate emergency over the past year, as the effects of climate change are becoming more and more immediate. There are very few denial editorials these days even if the solutions are still hotly debated.

    The media is reporting growing support for the government to go further and faster such as a Guardian report that ‘Over-50s want climate crisis addressed ‘even if it leads to high prices’. There were also reports in the Independent and Daily Telegraph. It is noteworthy that The Times and Daily Telegraph have written about the threat of famine in Madagascar without disputing the first ‘climate change famine’ description.

    What I found most encouraging in today’s email alert was a report on an editorial entitled ‘Don’t let climate goals be lost in culture wars – cutting emissions means decarbonising the way we live, not giving it up’ which appeared in yesterday’s Financial Times.

    The editorial suggests how politicians and, by implication, campaigners should be approaching the issue of gaining public support for the changes needed to fight climate change now we can no longer rely on the low hanging fruit of removing coal from the energy mix…..

    “…trying to convince everyone they must change their lifestyles radically” in order to tackle climate change is “unlikely to work: demands that essentially put the onus on individuals will alienate too many people in an environment of insufficient knowledge about what net zero means and distrust about the intentions of politicians”..

    Instead, the message politicians must communicate is twofold. First, emphasise the facts: climate change is an urgent threat, it requires all of us to act – but if we act together, the sacrifices are far from prohibitive. Second, acknowledge that people will need help to take the right choices – and ensure that it is forthcoming. A consensus around mass adoption of carbon-reducing technologies can be achieved if adoption is rewarded and costless for those at the bottom. The alternatives – insufficient action, or calls for asceticism — will lead to division and failure.”

    If that’s not an endorsement of Climate Income I don’t know what is! I also think it is a very useful hook for an email to a constituency MP, along with mentioning that over 100,000 people signed the ZeroC. petition  and even baby boomers are willing to put their money where their mouth is. (I am afraid I fit in that category but I am sure I am not alone in wanting more support and reassurance before I replace the fairly new gas boiler!)

    The UK has the chance to set an example to the world to make sure there will be no more climate change famines.

    If you email your MP please don’t forget to bcc us/forward to at [email protected].

  • The reality of climate change can no longer be ignored in North America but what is the best policy to combat it?

    The reality of climate change can no longer be ignored in North America but what is the best policy to combat it?

    The reality of climate change has hit hard over the past week with the deadly heatwave in the Pacific NW. The issue of how to combat rising emissions can no longer be kept off the front pages. On Friday 2nd Carbon Brief Daily reported that a frontpage story in the Times stated that “ministers have drawn up radical plans to reduce carbon emissions that would increase gas bills and the cost of running a car by hundreds of pounds a year”. They are proposing a carbon reduction scheme, copying the EU ETS plan to cover emissions caused by heating buildings and transport. The paper states that it “has been told that the prime minister does not want to include petrol in the scheme amid concerns that it would penalise motorists”, while the government “said last night that no decisions had been made”. This is the trouble with designing a regressive policy which will adversely affect most households. To be cynical is this a ‘leak’ in the hope that a backlash will mean it can be scrapped? 

    On Sunday there was an editorial in the Washington Daily Post arguing why a carbon fee and dividend plan would be a far more effective means of mitigating climate change in the US than Biden’s current strategy. One of the authors, Republican nonogenarian James A Baker co-authored the 2018 Baker Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan (this is not the plan supported by CCL US but shares similar principles). 

    The editorial points out the elephant in the room in discussions about climate change mitigation. Republicans in the US are worried that Biden’s plans, based on limiting US fossil fuel production without any plan to affect the price of imports, will reduce its competitiveness with China….Most nations won’t risk their own economic well-being in the hope of reversing what is clearly a global problem……  A plan co-authored by Secretary Baker and the late George P. Shultz holds the key to placing market pressure on China and other nations to start doing their part. It would place a fee on all carbon emissions in the United States, an approach that most economists believe is the most efficient and effective way to reduce such emissions.

    But rather than giving that money to the federal government, all of the revenue from the fee would be returned to Americans in the form of a quarterly dividend. A household of four would receive $2,000 annually, enough to provide the vast majority of households with more money than they would pay in higher energy costs. As a result, this fee would not expand the federal government, and therefore should not be considered a tax.

    But it would incentivize the private sector to find new and better ways to reduce emissions. This is a far better route than forcing the United States to wean itself from fossil fuels (while other nations fail to do so) because it harnesses a set of critically important strategic assets of our country: our abundance of affordable and cleaner energy, and our unmatched powers of innovation. 

    It discusses the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) plans  to place a tariff equivalent to the carbon price  on imports which have not had a price imposed in the country of origin – probably easier than trying to talk them into equally restricting their output!  It points out that…..The economic upside here is unmistakable. U.S. steelmakers, for example, are far more efficient in low-carbon production than their major global competitor, according to a recent study commissioned by the Climate Leadership Council. By applying a carbon fee to domestic and imported steel, U.S. industry would win across the board. Overall, the study found, the U.S. economy is 40 percent more carbon efficient than the world average, and nearly every U.S. industrial sector enjoys a carbon advantage over most of our key trading partners.

  • How do we talk to ‘big oil’?

    How do we talk to ‘big oil’?

    We had a very interesting national meeting this month entitled ‘How could the oil industry help decarbonise the global economy?’ It included a panellist from the US, Dr Larry Kremer,who  joined two of our UK CCL expert members, Dave Waltham, Professor of Geophysics, who used to lecture about releasing oil and now lectures about how to lock it up and Brian Utton, (ex Castrol), who between them can clock up almost a century of experience in the oil sector! 

    Oil and natural gas companies are fully aware that they will have to adapt to survive and that fossil fuels are in danger of becoming a stranded asset. Happily for the industry they have the technology, expertise and locations needed to operate Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Indeed the expertise has been developing since the 1930’s,  but there was no incentive because releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere didn’t cost anything. Not having to pay for the consequences of extraction was a very big invisible subsidy for the industry and it is interesting that Norway developed CCS at the Sleipner gasfield in order to offset the effects of a carbon price!

    The new Northern Lights project will be taking carbon ‘waste’ from all over Europe, because despite the carbon dioxide shortage causing a beer and lemonade crisis a few years back the beverage sector can’t absorb it all! It only takes a carbon price of $50 per tonne to make CCS cost effective. Larry pointed out that the corn oil ethanol production industry in US states with a carbon tax found CCS to be cost effective at a carbon price level of $32.

    The North Sea Basin is becoming the international leader in CCS – this chart shows what financial incentives have driven the development of the industry and the accompanying article, entitled Consistent policy support is key to unlocking investment in offshore carbon storage discusses the superiority of a carbon tax incentive as well as ‘consistent policy support’….

    Shifting funding priorities have undermined UK CCS policy

    The UK’s ruling Conservative Party has made investment in CCS a key pillar of its effort to decarbonize the economy. Opposition parties also support the technology, and the Scottish National Party (SNP) is spearheading efforts to develop a CCS industry in the region. Although the UK government has regularly provided funds for CCS research and demonstration projects, progress on launching full-scale developments has been limited so far due to significant and frequent shifts in state funding.…………..

    As one of our panellists pointed out, the UK oil industry does have a plan but there is still uncertainty over what the Government will support, which makes committing to investment difficult! The oil industry in general is known to be keen on carbon pricing rather than regulation, which, as has been very clear in the US over the last four years, is very vulnerable to regime change! 

    The take home message from the discussion is that the oil industry knows which way the wind is blowing and can, with the encouragement of a reliable and progressive carbon pricing mechanism like Climate Income, be incentivised to put its all into CCS. Climate Income would be a far more effective way to transform the oil industry than confrontation as it encourages the industry to finance transformation rather than shutting down and taking the economy and our pensions with it! 

  • The power of the pen/keyboard!

    The power of the pen/keyboard!

    The CCL Media Team (open to anyone) inspires members to write to newspapers and journals. We alert each other to opportunities and encourage each other’s efforts. It seems to be getting easier to get letters published because of the growing concern about climate change.

    I wrote a letter in response to the article by Mark Carney in the New Scientist back in March, not only was my letter published, but also a second letter responding to a criticism of my first letter!  This week another CCL Media team member, Gareth Ackland, has had his brilliant letter published: 

    Your excellent feature on the Climate Crisis was helpful in including a “What can I do?” section. While the impact of personal lifestyle changes is dwarfed by the impacts governments can make, if enough of us commit to reducing our carbon footprint, it can still accomplish a lot.

    However, the best option for an individual is surely to collapse that power gap. Organizations such as Hope for the Future and Citizens Climate Lobby insist that the most significant action an individual can take is to engage their elected representatives in the problems we face and their possible solutions. Those of us who live in democracies often forget that the wheels of power are intended to be subject to our views and interventions. If you’re not bending your government’s ear, then who is?

    Maybe I am being optimistic but three letters within two months seems to imply a growing interest in hearing about a fair and effective solution to creating the right conditions for a low carbon economy to take root. Our MPs and Councils may also be more receptive, especially if they are aware of the new IEA report!

    For further advice on letter writing or lobbying please see the Who supports a Climate Income, Climate Income/Carbon fee and dividend – further information and Take Action pages for inspiration and information and consider joining our media team for team support and inspiration (email here). Finally, in case you were wondering, our star letter writer is not standing in front of his letter to The New Scientist!

  • A blunt warning from the International Energy Agency but we can do something….

    The IEA has just published Net Zero by 2050: A roadmap for the global energy sector. The report states that:

    The world needs a “radical” shift towards renewables to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and secure the 1.5C goal.

    It argues for a total transformation of the energy systems that underpin our economies, with no new oil or gas sites to be developed beyond this year. Current emissions reduction pledges are inadequate, and indeed despite past pledges emissions have risen by 60% since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992! (This really makes me shudder as 1992 was the year I became a mother).

    “Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development in our pathway, and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required.”

    Responses have been mixed as you can imagine. The Energy Monitor article, Net zero: keeping fossil fuels in the ground is the only corporate strategy possible discusses what fossil fuel companies should be doing and gives good examples of how some European companies have transformed themselves.

    Happily by the end of May 21st G7 members had decided to heed the IEA demands on financing coal production in the main….

    “We commit to promoting the increased international flow of public and private capital toward Paris Agreement-aligned investments and away from high-carbon power generation to support the clean energy transition in developing countries. In this context, we will phase out new direct government support for carbon-intensive international fossil fuel energy, except in limited circumstances at the discretion of each country, in a manner that is consistent with an ambitious, clearly defined pathway towards climate neutrality in order to keep 1.5C within reach, in line with the long-term objectives of the Paris Agreement and best available science.

    “Consistent with this overall approach and recognising that continued global investment in unabated coal generation is incompatible with keeping 1.5C within reach, we stress that international investments in unabated coal must stop now and commit to take concrete steps towards an absolute end to new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal power generation by the end of 2021, including through Official Development Assistance, export finance, investment, and financial and trade promotion support.”

    All the more reason to keep pushing for CFD to facilitate the move away from fossil fuels!

    I am sure you will have noticed the explosion of coverage on the climate crisis over the last year, even in sections of the press which have hitherto been in denial! Often, of course, you will find that if a carbon price is mentioned it is presumed to be an assault on our way of life – cheese, meat and holidays in the sun! I do wonder if fear of the ‘red tops’ is one of the reasons why the Government stated in The Future of Carbon Pricing Report (2020) that..

    While we recognise the merits of a Carbon Fee and Dividend policy, we do
    not propose to adopt it at this time.

    Articles or letters claiming that climate change policies are bound to be punitive offer a great opportunity to respond with the case for CF&D (or use the more appropriate term Climate Income), pointing out that CI is not like the green levy or even fuel duties because the fee is returned as a dividend to offset the rising cost of fossil fuels until they are basically priced out of the market, thus making the promises made at the G7 and to be made at COP26 more likely to be achievable!

    The IEA report emphasises the need for this to start now!

  • Launch of a new tool to track progress in reaching net zero.

    Launch of a new tool to track progress in reaching net zero.

    The 10 Point Plan and subsequent emission reduction targets were far from lacking in ambition. Many commentators, however, are saying that words are easier than actions and, for example, agriculture and hydrogen use strategy remain unpublished 6 months after the 10 Point Plan and 6 months before COP26.

    I have just watched a presentation by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change on the launch of an online tracker which enables anyone to see what progress the government is making against the objectives stated in the Committee on Climate Change’s 6th Carbon Budget. 

    It looks like a very useful tool to use when preparing to write to/lobby your MP or Council to make the case that Climate Income would go a long way in smoothing the path to Net Zero.

    It was also encouraging to see the APPCC panel’s concern with the delays in policy formulation and implementation – although it was pointed out that MPs no longer have to spend their time trying to reason with climate change deniers in the House! I particularly appreciated the comment by the Chair, broadcaster Tom Heap, of how many trees could have been planted (and then stewarded) as part of a Covid exercise/mental health policy! I might add, as a range anxious EV car user, how many more EV chargers could have been installed over the last year!

    On the 18th May Policy Connect sent further information with useful links:

    The Dashboard is objective, multi-level, constructive and transparent. The Dashboard uses around 100 independent policy recommendations from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) to define good-practice in climate policy. Providing an in-depth analysis of each individual policy recommendation and aggregating this to provide an overall progress score for each sector, the Dashboard gives a multi-level perspective on policy development. The Dashboard provides constructive criticism and recommendations to the Government on how best to improve climate policy and, by publishing all workings and methodology, is a transparent assessment of progress.

    Government policy is most highly ranked in the power sector, which receives a 6/10 progress score, while the Government receives a score of 2/10, or critically insufficient, for its development of climate policy in the waste sector. The Dashboard will be updated as the Government releases new policies and the CCC provides new recommendations, and will continue to track Government progress in introducing policy to get the UK on track to meet its climate targets.

    All speakers agreed that the Dashboard was an excellent tool that would help parliamentarians, campaigners and the wider public support and scrutinise the Government in developing climate policy. Tom Heap summarised the Dashboard as “easy to use and available to all, providing excellent analysis on UK climate policy.”

    In the following discussion with MPs, a range of topics were discussed, including areas where the Government has been successful in introducing climate policy, areas where further action is essential and the need for cross-Governmental and cross-societal engagement in climate policy development and implementation. There was also specific discussion around the Hydrogen Strategy, the role of trees and nature-based solutions in meeting our climate targets, and decarbonising the buildings and transport sectors.…..see our write-up on the Policy Connect website. Take a look at the Climate Policy Dashboard, and to learn more about the APPCCG and their work in the run-up to COP26.