Historic climate change deal with legal powers agreed

[JohnB]

Cabinet ministers have agreed a far-reaching, legally binding "green deal" that will commit the UK to two decades of drastic cuts in carbon emissions. The package will require sweeping changes to domestic life, transport and business and will place Britain at the forefront of the global battle against climate change.

The deal was hammered out after tense arguments between ministers who had disagreed over whether the ambitious plans to switch to more green energy were affordable. The row had pitted the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, who strongly backed the plans, against the chancellor, George Osborne, and the business secretary, Vince Cable, who were concerned about the cost and potential impact on the economy.

However, after the intervention of David Cameron, Huhne is now expected to tell parliament that agreement has been struck to back the plans in full up to 2027. He will tell MPs that the government will accept the recommendations of the independent committee on climate change for a new carbon budget. The deal puts the UK ahead of any other state in terms of the legal commitments it is making in the battle to curb greenhouse gases.

But it looks like a BAU type of deal, so it will be interesting to see if it's possible:

The committee's report says the new carbon deal will require that heat pumps will have had to be installed in 2.6m homes by 2025. It also says that by the same date 31% of new cars, and 14% of those on the road overall, will be electric. Experts say a total of £16bn of investment will be needed every year to meet the commitment. Some of this money will be raised through increases in electricity prices.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... hris-huhne

[emordnilap]

Anything is better than nothing but why do people deliberately ignore the simplest solutions?

[An Inspector Calls]

Has this been announced yet?

I suspect we'll get something along these lines,, and it will run in the short time. But expect the energy riots shortly.

I noted this sentence:

The committee's report says the new carbon deal will require that heat pumps will have had to be installed in 2.6m homes by 2025.

So do I get my nose in the green trough with the RHI?

[energy-village]

UK To Lead World In Cutting Carbon Emissions

The Government will sign up to the "ambitious" target of a 50% cut in carbon emissions by 2025, the Energy Secretary has confirmed

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-lead-world- ... 03654.html

2025? Impossible - it won't happen.

Unless there's a major crash coming . . .

[Pepperman]

It's a 38% reduction from where we were in 2009, still very ambitious. Not impossible though. But unless we follow through with real action now it's rapidly going to slip out of our grasp.

[PS_RalphW]

I think this level of CO2 reduction by the UK is more or less a given. We will not be in the market to import fossil fuels.

The only question is how much renewable supply we will have built in that time frame.

[emordnilap]

Because oil = industrial food, some of that pollution will be 'outsourced', that is, not a reduction at all.

[An Inspector Calls]

There is a get-out clause, reported in various newspapers:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-1 ... world.html

Huhne said the ‘‘ambitious but achievable’’ targets will be reviewed in 2014 to make sure they are in line with those of fellow EU members.

RalphW

think this level of CO2 reduction by the UK is more or less a given. We will not be in the market to import fossil fuels.

Why ever not?

[energy-village]

Britain and long-term planning don't go together. I can't believe that Britain will ever do more than smoke and mirrors in this area. It'll be BAU right up to a major crash/disaster.

“There is a risk that moving too far ahead of the pack could leave energy- and carbon-intensive industry in the U.K. at a disadvantage," said Richard Gledhill, global head of climate change at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. ‘‘Making the targets conditional on comparable efforts by other EU member states will address some of industry’s concerns."

Possibly that will be the get out clause, or off-setting - or something we don't yet know about.

[biffvernon]

DECC press statement: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/n ... 11_41.aspx

Ministerial statement:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/n ... b_oms.aspx

CCC report:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/fourth-carbon-budget

[PS_RalphW]

RalphW

think this level of CO2 reduction by the UK is more or less a given. We will not be in the market to import fossil fuels.

Why ever not?

Because the UK fiscal policy is to keep interest rates low, and keeping domestic inflation low by cutting spending and raising unemployment and limiting bank lending. However, at the same time quietly printing money to devalue Stirling resulting in ever rising import costs, particularly fossil fuels. UK Oil will be more or less history, we will not have much coal, and I very much doubt we will be producing as much gas as we are now.

We are heading into steady economic decline with debts being written off by inflation. We are all (except the banking classes) getting poorer, and we will not be able to afford to spend so much on energy, directly or indirectly.

Apart from the banking classes, it is not a bad policy given the future global energy supply, but I don't expect you to agree with that.

So, our options are renewables, nuclear, or freeze in the dark.

However, I don't think we will be able to build nuclear or run it safely in the timescales open to us.

[clv101]

2025? Impossible - it won't happen.

We're already ~half way to the -50% cut.

I posted this in another thread, but it fits better in here.

I drew this chart a couple of months ago:



From 2009, the 2020 target seems reasonable, this -50% by 2025 is in line with hitting -80% by 2050.

[emordnilap]

Because oil = industrial food, some of that pollution will be 'outsourced', that is, not a reduction at all.

Monbiot agrees with me here.

we greatly underestimate the pollution caused by manufacturing

[emordnilap]

and it's here.

ii) Most of the emissions are likely to simply be 'outsourced', rather than actually reduced. The Government are still yet to do anything to include responsibility for the emissions caused by the manufacture of goods abroad for consumption here, and they also “intend to keep (their) carbon trading options open to maintain maximum flexibility and minimise costs in the medium term". In other words, if they can't reduce emissions in the UK they will pay someone else to, via offset credits in the flawed international carbon trading markets. This is, again, ignoring the CCC's recommendations.

The people who signed up to Kyoto really knew what they were doing, didn't they?

[kenneal - lagger]

So they're going down the heat pump route, are they? This will still leave the UK vulnerable to energy imports to power the heat pumps. The heat pumps will still require electricity generation at the coldest times of the year, which will be frosty winter nights with no sun and no wind.

The insulation route might cost more initially but has no running costs and can produce a significantly lower overall energy requirement. Heat pumps could still be used but would only be required to produce Domestic Hot Water and the small amount required for the peak heat load if some other way could not be found to provide that small load.

Out sourcing manufacturing implies that they are working on a scenario of world trade continuing as now. Highly unlikely, in my opinion. Rising fuel costs will ensure that there is considerable inflation in the price of imported products and this won't do the balance of payments much good either. UK default looms for our creditors.