tip off
15

UK to cut emissions by 50% by 2025

The United Kingdom is set to become a world leader on clean energy and climate policy, after announcing an ambitious plan to halve carbon emissions by 2025. After weeks of heated parliamentary debate, the 50% cut to emissions will be based on 1990 levels, with the final amount to be averaged out over 2023-27.

Back in 1990 total greenhouse gas emissions for the UK were 778.3 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, compared to 582.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010. But last year actually saw an increase in carbon emissions in the UK, with total greenhouse gas emissions up 2.8% from 2009 levels.

In May UK PM David Cameron declared that his coalition government would be “the greenest government ever” and this promise to cut emissions is the most ambitious climate plan of the developed nations.

Greg Barker UK Environment Minister spoke to ABC Radio’s Fran Kelly on Breakfast this morning, explaining the reasoning behind the new climate policy: ”That’s not out of just a commitment to the green agenda for it’s own sake but a very real and pragmatic recognition that that way lies economic prosperity and long-term growth. Our supplies of oil and gas are rapidly diminishing from the North Sea and we want to wean our economy off expensive, imported foreign fossil fuels and tap into the huge growth market of renewable, clean technology and make our economy much more energy efficient and really carve out a market leadership position in these fast-growing sectors.”

This is a contrast to how the Australian government and opposition frame much of the debate around protecting current investments, rather than building new markets and new technology, writes Giles Parkinson at Climate Spectator.

“It’s technically and economically more challenging, in terms of direct costs, for the UK to do this than Australia,” Matthew Wright, executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions, told Crikey. Wright noted that Australia has the geographic resources for renewable energy — wide open spaces, some of the windiest locations in the world, geographical diversity — that the UK doesn’t have.

But how does a country cut 50% of its emissions, while claiming it won’t affect economic growth?

As Barker explained this morning, it’s through a variety of different programs aimed at cutting emissions and investments in clean energy — and also largely thanks to the previous government, who already helped the country cut 25% of its 1990 carbon emissions before Cameron gained power. An emissions trading scheme was started in the UK back in 2002, although Barker says business hasn’t embraced the plan as much was previously hoped.

The Cameron government has agreed to a carbon floor price — setting the minimum price for carbon — although details of exactly what it will be has not been announced yet. A green bank is being established to invest in off-shore wind projects. A renewable heat program is being developed, as is a home improvement program to help make houses more energy efficient. The government will invest in the world’s large carbon capture and storage program.

All these smaller programs by the UK government are expected to add up to a cut in emissions, and these smaller programs are crucial, says Wright: “They know that without the complimentary measures you don’t get the outcome you intended.”

Barker explained that while government can make policies, the it’s business that needs to be on-board cutting emissions and focusing on a cleaner economy, telling the ABC: “We do recognise that ultimately it’s going to be business, the private sector, who will deliver this transformation and the government has to got to work in partnership with business, with investors to create the right framework for growth.”

Why can the UK set strong targets when Australia struggles to pass a carbon tax?

It’s mainly thanks to bipartisan agreement on the issue. As a contrast, Australia agreed to a 5% cut in emissions by 2020, which currently it is not even on target to hit.

However, despite the political issues, Australia has a variety of advantages for renewable energies, one big one being that the UK is moving to renewable energy after weaning itself largely off coal energy back in the late 80s-early 90s and moved towards natural gas. Now it’s having to spend and invest in new energy infrastructure again, while Australia would be able to bypass the gas step.

The UK has kept a “get out of jail free” card for itself, with an option in 2014 to review the plan if other European nations are not also working towards cutting emissions.

There’s a fairly low chance of that happening, says Wright, with most countries moving to renewables and no countries moving away from them. Germany has set itself a goal of being 100% powered by renewable energy by 2050. Spain is has increased investment in renewable energy from 500 million euros per year up to 2.5 billion euros this year, even in the midst of difficult economic times. France, a country dependent on nuclear technology, is abiding by its 20% renewable energy target. Even China is increasing its large investment in solar and wind energy and taking a moratorium on its nuclear energy investment after the Japan earthquake and debate over the Fukushima plant.

Plus, the more countries that get on board with renewable energy, the cheaper it becomes.

15

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    Mark Duffett
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Funny how Amber Jamieson missed this highly germane story:

    climatespectator.com.au/news/uk-nuclear-power-gets-green-light – “Britain has identified eight sites around England and Wales as possible building sites for new nuclear plants, with the first expected to be built by EDF at Hinkley Point on the coast of southwest England by 2018.”

    You can be sure the UK are relying on nuclear to do much of the heavy lifting required to get anywhere near their targets.

    And never mind German “100% renewable by 2050″ targets, here’s the reality: “…only now comes the hard bit. Power companies have warned of higher prices because of the (nuclear) shutdown; Germany has imported electricity to meet peaks in demand; analysts have warned that coal-fired power stations will be boosted – and nuclear ones in the nearby Czech Republic and France….Wind is not an easy, cheap and swift alternative…could lead to massive problems in the grid, even power outages…” (from bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13257804)

  • 2
    John Bennetts
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    I agree entirely with Mark Duffet.

    There is no cause for jubilation at the British announcement. Nothing even close to the promised reductions will be achieved by the foreshadowed measures.

    Amber has not provided anything even close to a roadmap towards the british goal. So, Amber, please continue researching.

    How much new electricity, where from, and at what cost?
    How much conversion from gas to something else? My guess is: None at all.
    How much reduction in petrol and diesel usage will there be between now and 2050? How? What cost?

    Without real details, it’s all spin and of no more use than Tony Speedo’s do-nothing optimism, which is another way of saying that he really, truly hopes that the climate change issue will just go away. It will do nothing of the sort.

    By 2050, this debate will have real teeth. The Low Countries and Venice will quite likely be under water and Germany, Italy and France will have a lot of new residents with Dutch, Danish and Belgian citizenship. I expect that it will be very ugly, indeed.

    Once again, the world is heading in a direction where its armies could be forced to act because its politicians failed to do so. Once again, the environment, personal freedoms and the “economic commons” will be trashed because lessons have not been learned in time.

  • 3
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    “the country cut 25% of its 1990 carbon emissions before Cameron gained power”

    Britain’s CO2 (and other) emissions have been falling for decades. Deindustrialisation. Thatcher.

    Given that the UK is verging on bankruptcy, sharp increases in power costs (etc) if these (vague) plans are implemented will speed up deindustrialisation. Emissions will indeed fall. They’ll be exported to China and the rest.

    Britain abandoned the $100 billion Severn tidal barrage power station- not proven, environmentally ruinous and horribly expensive. Carbon capture and storage is also unproven. Wind is a bad joke, as even Amber Jamieson should realise by now: Monbiot has been converted to nuclear by Fukushima (true) and nuclear salesman Ziggy Binbangski wants to do the same here. Climate hysteria is driving us into the radiant arms of Mother Nuclear.

    meanwhile, the Amazon is being stripped for biofuels and burgers…

    The climate cult is the worst enemy of the real environment.

  • 4
    michael r james
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Mark Duffett and John Bennetts:
    I will bet you anything there will not be a single new nuclear power plant by 2018. Heck, I could almost bet there will not even be a decision about a new nuke plant by then. That is 79 months away, about 6.6 years.

    The last one took 18 years. They can huff and puff about changing planning laws etc but after Fukushima (quite regardless of validity, let’s not get bogged down in pointless discussion here) but it ain’t gonna happen.

    And I’ll agree that the Brits appear to be promising a lot more than they could deliver. But perhaps that is no bad thing.

  • 5
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of climate warriors. They can’t comprehend the collateral effects of the “carbon” onsession. Here’s a brazillion reasons why:

    “The fact that “much of the destruction has been in Mato Grosso state, the centre of soya farming in Brazil” does not necesarily mean that soya is the main cause of this increase in deforestation. Bio-fuels (ethanol) from sugar cane are big business in Brazil, and so is eucalyptus planting, which is thriving thanks to the issuance of “carbon offsets” or “carbon credits” which are bought by CO2-emitting industries in the developed countries. Eucalyptus planting, by the way, has far-reaching consequences: it is a very successful “invading species” which has the property of changing local eco-systems into dryer, poorer environments.”

  • 6
    Frank Campbell
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    What’s the diff. between a climate planker and a balcony planker?

    The latter harm only themselves.

  • 7
    Mark Duffett
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    Point taken, @MRJ, but by the same token I’ll bet you just as much that the UK will not hit the stated target without new nuclear. I’ve been saying for quite some time now that business-as-usual in political and regulatory processes ain’t gonna cut it, no matter what technology is being rolled out.

  • 8
    Rohan
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Giles Parkinson also notably omits mention of nuclear in the linked Climate Spectator article.

    Gotta say I’m disappointed that none of this blog’s resident clowns have yet attempted to paint pretty pictures with Turnbull’s “If in fact climate change is proved to be not real…” statement.

  • 9
    Mark Duffett
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    Giles Parkinson also notably omits mention of nuclear in the linked Climate Spectator article.

    No surprise there, though to give GP his due, at least Climate Spectator ran the story on the interim report downplaying the implications of Fukushima for the UK. They have been known to omit good nuclear news stories in the past, but generally CS is pretty even-handed in this regard (i.e. straight reporting, as opposed to op-ed) these days.

  • 10
    kd
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    Frankly bold stupidity is what’s required. Turnbull is the only one of the mainstream pollys who actually realise that the problem is sufficiently urgent that a good attempt at political suicide is the only real, ethical option.

    And FWIW, I’ve never voted for a conservative political party in my life. If Turnbull becomes leader of the libs, I might just consider voting for them.

  • 11
    Phil M
    Posted May 19, 2011 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Turnbull, the only one with backbone in his entire party. Pity about his stance on the NBN though.

    But yeah, has his head screwed on right with his views on climate change. Must be uncomfortable being surrounded by deniers. Sad that it is mainly the conservatives of Australia, USA & Canada that are against AGW & a carbon tax. Such is the power of the fossil fuel funding.

    Their conservative allies overseas without huge FF deposits don’t have to take part in the ruse & con their voting base. They can get on with their core conservative values of preserving & supporting business, not just one type of business.

  • 12
    Fran Barlow
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    Like Mark Duffet & John Bennets I too support a rigorus and objective evaluation of the contribution nuclear power can make to quality, affordable low footprint energy solutions. It seems to me utterly improbable in practice that any suite of options for humanity as a whole can not only replace fossil HC but nuclear as well while meeting the energy load necessary to underpin human need and avoding serious disruption to ecosystem services provided by the biosphere. That doesn’t necessarily entail nuclear power in every jurisdiction, but it would at least presuppose a massive ramping up of this source in the medium term.

    That said, I do find the commentary from Barber useful, for it shows up how far ahead of us the UK is in discussing this matter. When LNP fangirl Fran Kelly tried pitching Abbott’s carbon tax slogan at him he corrected her with a teacherly wave of the hand “the floor price” and explained why it was needed. Kelly backed away and didn’t try it again. If only our current lot would do that!

    50% of 1990 by 2025 is an ambitious goal but it does subvert the campaign against action by the Murdochracy and its coterie of fellow travellers putting to the torch one of its favourite strawmen — that Australia should not lead on this matter. Current policy in Australia creates no prospect of us of leading in mitigation. At best, as things stand we can make a late entry into the race and figure in the “also rans”. That is shameful.

    Wouldn’t it be great if this country really could lead the world in promoting positive public policy in several areas? Wouldn’t it be great if when intelligent and well-informed people elsewhere spoke of Australia, they had in mind the reason we brought to mitigation policy, the care we showed to our local ecology, the suppport we offered to the developing world in protecting theirs, the humanity with which we dealth with at those displaced by repression or civil conflict or poor governance in other parts of the world, our support for human rights, good governance and global equity, our opposition to occupation of countries by foreign armies and so on and so forth?

    I wouldn’t care if we never participated in another Olympic Games or World Cup, never won another sporting contest, never got another Grand Prix event, never got to be on the Security Council, and if from every orifice of the Murdoch Press, vituperation rained down upon us as harbingers of socialism. I’d smile easily when someone said so you’re from Australia, eh?.

    Greg Barber didn’t manage that for the UK, but he has them well in front of us on at least one score.

  • 13
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    @Mark and John

    Apologies for the delay in commenting, hadn’t seen your requests here. I think it’s an interesting point to examine further, and I certainly will down the track. This story was more focused on the policy that had just passed, which didn’t have clear detail and information on EXACTLY how it will work and it’ll be interesting to see how it goes along. Perhaps it is spin, perhaps they will rely on nuclear, regardless I think it’s an interesting tactic that the UK government are using for political and economic value, when usually green issues aren’t seen as compatible with those goals. Cheers.

  • 14
    galeg
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Talk is cheap, implementation is expensive and probably impossible to achieve, especially as the UK is already in financial trouble. Their only hope would be to dramatically increase output from their nuke generation plants. According to friends, people in the UK are already screaming about cost increases, and to do as stated, and thereby dramatically increase costs further, would I suspect, lead to these plans quietly being swept under the carpet.

  • 15
    24b281fe847688b4b718a4c377af5e3f
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    I think the point being missed here is Britains concerns for future energy security.
    Yes, emmisions targets are the stated goal, but I think it’s more of a fringe benefit for a country that wants to reduce it’s dependancy on imported power.
    Here in lies the difference between Australia and most of Europe. We are blessed/cursed with mountains of cheap energy. There’s no national security imperative to switch over.

    The tide is turning not on the basis of climate change concerns. It’s the dwindling supplies of cheap fossil fuel that are ultimately driving clean renewable energy.
    Where does this leave Australia? Ultimately, with an energy export that nobody wants and an economy penalised by the rest of the world for not playing by the new rules.

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Leading Company

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...