By Will Straw / @wdjstraw
The Guardian today reports that the Government will use the Pre-Budget Report to outline a policy of"protecting activities and priorities," not budgets, in the effort to halve deficits over four years. It is a welcome change from Gordon Brown's "no cuts" mantra that formed his strategy for the first part of this year and creates a useful dividing line with the Tories who are committed to protecting the £119 billion health budget and the £6 billion international development budget.
But it is critical that the Government also uses the PBR to focus on efforts to reduce Britain's reliance on carbon. A triple whammy of political circumstances make this essential. First, as unemployment approaches 2.5 million there is a desperate need for the creation of new jobs, particularly in the hard hit construction and manufacturing sectors.
The focus of last December's stimulus was the VAT tax cut, which cost £12 billion compared to just £1 billion for carbon reducing measures. In the US, by contrast, billion was spent on clean energy programmes effectively tripling the Department of Energy's budget. It is estimated that these policies will create or save around 500,000 American jobs.
There are, of course, concerns about where the money for these initiatives would come from but there is plenty of low hanging fruit. For example, the Government is yet to adopt no-brainer schemes such as levying VAT on domestic flights. As well as raising revenue and incentivising the use of trains, the policy would be highly progressive.
Greenpeace reports that, "low-skilled people and people on benefits, despite making up a quarter of the population, only took 6% of those [210 million domestic and international] flights whilst the top quarter of the population took almost half of all flights." Assuming an average one-way domestic journey costs £50, VAT on domestic flights would provide £210 milion for green jobs: not a huge sum but, on the logic of the US stimulus, enough to create or save a few thousand jobs.
Second, Britain will have more bargaining chips when the world’s major emitters meet in December in Copenhagen if proactive domestic efforts can be highlighted. Ed Miliband's work in this area has been impressive and his harnessing of the campaigning community, with innovation's such as Ed's Pledge, is reminiscent of the successful Make Poverty History campaign of 2005.
But the Treasury must break precedent and ensure that Miliband is at the table when taxation decisions are made. The Government could take a leaf out of the Liberal Democrats book and consider a fundamental switch from taxes based on income to taxes on polluter behaviour. Their package adopted two years ago includes commitments to a more steeply graduated vehicle excise duty for new vehicles based on carbon emissions, the indexation of fuel duty to inflation except in periods of oil price spikes, and - perhaps most radically - the restructuring of the climate change levy as a tax on carbon across the economy.
Third, with an election approaching it is high time that David Cameron, who has not made a speech on the environment in 15 months, gave those nice Arctic Huskies some meat to accompany the bones of his environmental policy. And while the Tories campaign literature often claims that the electorate can "vote blue, go green," there has been little to suggest that this is the case.
Two examples. During the industrial action on the Vestas plant, Cameron did not make a single statement. While it may be unfair to challenge his environmental credentials, the local MP on the Isle of Wight, Andrew Turner, had campaigned against the construction of wind farms on the island. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said that, "One of the reasons Britain's green industrial revolution is yet to take off is the lack of domestic demand for wind turbines, and a key reason for that has been the attitude of many Conservative councils."
Ditlev Engel, chief executive of Vestas, described Britain as "probably one of the most difficult places in the world to get permission". Meanwhile, many in the right wing press are encouraging a climate of denial about global warming or seeking to scare people about the lifestyle impact of adopting renewables.
It is hard to underestimate the challenge posed by climate change. Labour, in Government, has already taken important steps such as the legally binding carbon budgets. But it has done so, like much of its progressive agenda, without fanfair. The strategy is wrong. Labour must put its climate agenda front and centre of its conversation with the British public and make this the first truly green election.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
We only have so much remaining empty land - is it going to be conserved? is it going to be used to house an ever increasing population? or to build windmills on?
The governments real motivation for wind power is unclear - just looks like a 'me too' reaction to other countries changes.
If the aim is 'green' then they don't have to be build on shore - or even in UK waters.
If the aim is 'UK jobs' - we have already missed that boat (see earlier discussions of vestas).
If the aim is to p*ss off people who are fortunate enough to benefit from and who like the countryside (i.e. not the unemployed, council estate dwellers) and to sustain labours class polarisation and hate campaign, then I guess it does work.
Someone *independent* and *open minded* needs to look at energy (and other issues) with a clean slate - labour have too much baggage, and the tories have had to react to this so giving them some baggage.
Once the conservatives win the next election the baggage can be swept away and sanity can return - bring it on.
now that is a quaint idea. do you suggest the chinese approach...ever thought that we are being forced to realise that we are beiing taught a lesson....a lesson that ultimately we are a pragmatic race, if nothing else.
I'd also replace pylons, bury the cables (don't believe a word the Grid says about the costs of burial) and connect up strings of turbines instead.
Even turbines with relatively low load factors are self funding.
The key is the sort of Energy Pooling financial technology I described at the All Energy Show recently. I also had a major article in "Power Engineering International" this month on the subject.
The point about renewables and energy savings is that it's free. If you can sell to investors for value now, Units that will cost you nothing to redeem in the future (and many billions of dollars are invested in energy "Exchange Traded Funds" etc) then these projects not only cost nothing, but may produce an energy dividend for the community either in production or savings,
and incentivizing the use of foreign airlines and Paris and Schipol for international transfer passengers.
They should stop sending many millions of pounds to Brussels each year to fund the totally pointless jouney made by members of the EU Parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg creating 20,000 tonnes of carbon emmissions every year.
Just for the hell of it, just for the pure novelty of it the Party could practise what it preaches.
Maybe it's time to go back to fearing the advent of a new Ice Age. Or a Millennium Bug. Or something... anything!
Once a wind farm is built, the jobs created are minimal, but when you build a factory, or a school, or a hospital, there are thousands of jobs created for the lifetime of the facility. As Labour supporters our priority must always be jobs.
Remember though, those who back this scheme for onshore wind farms, the first person to die at the hands of one of these things, I'll be there to remind you. In the meantime enjoy the limelight of your so-called green future and knuckle down, the blackouts will come sooner rather than later due to your negligence of a secure energy policy.
What seems remarkable to me is that no one has put together the lack of jobs and the looming energy crisis. Government continues to bang on about these wonderful green jobs, but what the devil are they? They are not the future, they are temporary jobs used to create inefficient systems which will rust away before they've paid for themselves and the jobs? The people who had them will be back on the dole queue.
I'm tempted to rant at Will about the IPC, the lack of a joined up plan with this whole green jobs thing and the fact that Ed's Pledge is nothing like Make Poverty History, but think for a moment who I'd be ranting at. Why the hell should he care about anything, his future is in politics following his father in a new Straw dynasty and I'm just another member of the voting public that he can ignore. Why bother when he will reply with such gems as "NIMBYism is no excuse for ruining our planet"? Another Straw who misunderstands democracy and the place politicians should play in government.
Feel free to correct me Will, but with the greatest respect I'll be tempted to treat you with the same contempt you show the other members of the LL.
"Those hills must have been very pleasant before they concreted them over to build that industrial facility".
Looks a bit like the set from Teletubbies.
Seriously though, I don't think any power generation facility is that labour intensive after building.
Given the stresses on the structure, I would imagine wind turbines have a rather higher maintenance requirement though. Still not a lot of man hours though. However, the power has to come from somewhere to support the hospitals, schools and the factories that produce the equipment they use.
The trick with renewables is getting the design jobs first. So far, so bad, on that score.
Basically there is loads the government could do without new taxes, progressive or otherwise, and seriously peeing people off by putting wind turbines in the most ineffectual places, purely to annoy floating voters.
I ask you, two wind farms proposed around Milton Keynes. How far from the coast and high winds do you want them to be?
At least at the coast you'll be generally guaranteed On/Off shore breezes even when the general weather in the rest of the country is dead calm.
The lack of joined up fact based scientific thinking on this subject is frightening. New Green taxes are dead until the government shows it can think carbon and cost neutral.
1) Start with building regs. And I mean something more substantial than the law of ever decreasing returns on ever thicker loft insulation.
- Insulation requirements for all interior hot water pipes, so the heat is delivered to the point of use not in some cavity under the stairs to keep the spiders and mice warm.
- Require the pitches of roofs on new houses to meet a minimum solar capture requirement based on pitch and direction of roof face. Should PV solar panels actually become cost effective/efficient then you'll also then have the optimum surfaces to install them on ready made.
- State minimum/maximum levels of air exchange for a building. It's measurable, and a way to make sure that houses are built without excess drafts, regardless of the technology used.
- Ban the import of radiator covers. Covering a radiator stops the radiating of heat, and you're left with just convection, which instantly reduces the efficiency of the heating system. If somebody wants to make their own, fine. It's their money their burning. It's different from providing a furnishing fashion item to be purchased on a whim.
2) Site renewable power generation where it delivers the biggest bang for buck, not where it is deemed to be embarrassing for the opposition, because they'll have reasonable grounds for rejecting permission in those cases.
3) Single large wind turbines should be allowed inland, providing the energy generated is offered for first use in the community in which it is sited. But planning should not be forced through. People will join together to finance them if they really provide a measureable benefit. If they later want to build additional ones, that's another matter.
4) Legislate to allow the installation and use of domestic Hydrolizers, and include a relevant safety framework for their use and the hydrogen storage. (They generate Hydrogen from water using electricity and will therefore offer the potential for generating the fuel for fuel cell powered vehicles and also potentially replacing domestic gas. (Too expensive to be practical now, but you're looking to the future.)
5) Revise BETTA to stop penalising the transmission of energy from renewable energy rich regions in the north.
I could go on. But the point of all the above, is no added taxes, and no added costs to government.
Problem is none of it is glamourous enough for Ed to mouth off about on a video from Africa.
When the government kills off eco-towns I'll believe they really care about the substance of environmental protection, not just care about the froth of projecting a 'green' image because it seems of interest to certain key swing voter groups.
To get the climate change deniers to buy in to change, it must not be coercive, and offer them benefits they can understand. Not provide them with an endless stream of new taxes to whinge about.
The other message is more subtle. I do not have a link at hand, but you can look them up, but basically, energy usage has gone up over the last few decades, even though building regs have made houses better insulated. It appears that when people get a newly insulated house they think "I'm not losing heat, let's be toasty" so they turn the temperature up. In a cold draughty house people tend to think "I'm losing most of the heat, heat that I am paying for" and they turn the temperature down. It is very difficult to get the right combination: insulated houses, and make people turn the temperature down. There are other issues too: lots more electrical consumer items and, of course, we are moving towards becoming a country where A/C is seen as normal.
#3 Good idea. A wind turbine is an industrial development, the energy may be "green" but the turbine most definitely isn't. Let the locals decide.
I was walking on the South Downs a while back and came across a tower. I was told that it was testing wind strength with the hope that the site will be used for a turbine for Glyndebourne so the festival can generate less carbon. My response: cancel the music festival and you'll save even more carbon, because don't forget that there are thousands of people driving long distances to get there. The locals I talked to are against that turbine.
You've got a good point about the construction techniques. Large Steel framed single/two storey office buildings are a particularly counter intuitive concept, except they can be built quickly.
Other people with different construction styles seem to do this much better. I've stayed in a wooden Swedish house near the arctic circle during winter testing and it was just amazing how the heat stayed inside. And yes, you're right, the heating was set to very toasty. But hell, it was lower than -30 outside when the sun was shining.
But again it's not something that needs tax rises and increased government expenditure to fix. The first building regs were to make sure the Great Fire of London wasn't repeated and, for the time, was quite radical in disallowing the previously time honoured construction materials and methods.
As for consumption, yep, you're right, and PCs as well. I'm one of those people who turns the temperature down when I notice a draft of home. (I think I plugged all the gaps this summer though, but I'm tight with my own cash, so 'toasty' might still be avoidable.)
Probably same reasons why you're not in government either.
You have to kiss goodbye to your own integrity on the way in through the entrance as things stand currently. The ones remembered with affection dropped out very early in the last twelve years. Rather telling that.
I have a great deal of respect for those backbenchers who've always put principle before office and put the constituents first.
What I'd really like to see though is an update on Ralph's attempts to get selected as a candidate. It would be reassuring to think common sense and integrity have a place in today's Labour Party when it came to selecting PPCs.
He's clearly been very busy.
It is a shame that so many politicians lose sight so early on, but then they are following the leader in a lot of respects. Not the leader you understand, but members of the cabinet who continuely set a poor example for those who are new to the role of Member of Parliament.
The greater shame is the simple fact that the majority accept what we have and even throughout all that has happened the only cry has been for electoral reform. As has been said many times, you don't get a new pool because someone has been found urinating in it, but then that is the only solution politics can come up with. Hopefully Ralph will be a part to change that over the coming months.
"Mr Smith said: “It is just bizarre that Scotland, which should be Europe’s green powerhouse, is being held back by the pricing regime operated from London by an organisation that clearly does not have the promotion of renewables as an objective."
The article continues:
"Mr Smith has the backing of the renewables sector, and has identified the charging regime as one of the biggest hindrances to the development of the renewables sector in Scotland, which some estimate could create 30,000 jobs north of the border.
A spokesperson for trade body Scottish Renewables said: “Hopefully this inquiry will deconstruct the basis for the current unfair transmission costs developers in the north of Scotland face.”"
Over to you Will - it appears the problem holding back green development is at your end with the OFGEN quango.... :-)
Does taxing flights reduce carbon emissions or just raise revenue and why the extra terminal/runway at Heathrow?
Why tax cars more, why not put money into R&D for fuel cell cars with zero emmissions?
Some years ago the DTI introduced the current trading agreements for electricity supply which directly penalise generation being sited away from consumption areas. i.e. government input to rig the market against coal generation in the north to supply southern consumers.
This was before the advent of the governments love affair with green issues and green power generation.
The optimum sources for wind power generation are the north west coastal areas of Scotland, but the market is now rigged by government against utilising this natural resource.
Like wise the nature of the coastline of western Scottish areas with plentiful natural narrow tidal channels make it an ideal area to extract the power of the tides. Maybe Norway is the only country better placed for low cost tidal power generation.
In the south we're pretty much limited to the Bristol channel and Isle of Wight/Southampton water areas. Both rather busy with shipping. So impractical.
Again the government sponsored trading agreements within the electricity industry impose higher relative costs on using Scottish tidal power.
Wasn't deliberate, but needs seriously looking at.
While Thomas suggests the cost of transmitting electricity is just old DTI thinking the current status quo ensures that the investment in renewables does not go to Scotland at an estimated cost of some 30,000 jobs. I would also suggest it is also why MacAvity wants to build 12 new nuclear plants in England and Wales.
Scottish building regs, I suggest, are more environmentally friendly given the Scottish predilection for building timber framed housing but there is still room for improvement.
A smart move would be for SEPA and EPA to change their highly restrictive attitude towards micro hydro plants which could easily provide power for isolated houses in rural areas. Currently licensing costs and the whole costs of the 'environmental assessment' palaver makes what is a cheap and proven technology unaffordable.
As a result I'd not build a thing in Scotland. I wonder if that's the real reason?
"Some years ago the DTI introduced the current trading agreements for electricity supply which directly penalise generation being sited away from consumption areas. i.e. government input to rig the market against coal generation in the north to supply southern consumers"
So absolutely nothing to do with the transmission losses through the National Grid - which can be 30%..?
I'm not sure your 30 per cent for transmission losses is accurate.
In 2007, 378,000 GW hours of electricity were available, 350,000 GW hours were consumed and transmission losses were 28,000 GW hours (rounded) : 7.4 per cent loss in transmission.
Source : Annual Abstract of Statistics, 2009, Table 22.8
Yep, there are transmission losses, but the system set up in NETA and, later BETTA, actually makes negative charges to transmit power from say the Downs to London, so the power from the North West incurs recovering generating costs, transmission losses, and the unit charge. Whereas closer to say London, they pay the generator to transmit the power on top of his charges and lower losses.
A level playing field would be nice. Then you can argue about transmission losses. These losses are critical if the generator is paying for the fuel. It's not so clear when they aren't.
It's always seemed to me that the interface between the sea and the atmosphere is a pretty chaotic and hostile environment, and that generators operating in a flow, rather than at a boundary layer are intuitively more sustainable.
That interface is tough on the equipment too.
I would agree that salt water and air are a bad mix, and the two should be kept apart if possible.
I think the nature of the western Scottish and Norwegian coasts allows for the application of tidal generation using the flows through narrow channels into and out of relatively large areas of water. If that's a tidal lagoon, I'm with you on that one.
The sort of conventional turbine technology they plan to use has been in use at Rance for over 40 years, so longevity is not an issue.
In addition the technology still hasn't been fully "fleshed out" to provide a definitve solution. It is still very much in competition for resourcing with wave, wind, solar and geothermal etc. Plus the cost per unit is not competitive without investment to get the industry going properly. Politicians are not noted for long term thinking.
Higher taxes, more taxes and impose planning consent for wind farms.
As we still live in a democracy may I point out a few facts of life:
1. people don't like higher taxes.
2. we are in a recession
3. people do not like being told what to do.
4. Compulsary planning permission will be very unpopular.
I am sorry but this is basically climate change dictatorship.
So far Labour's Green Taxes have been used for anything but Green issues. And a third Heathrow runway blows any notion that they are green. I assume as you are going to tax aircraft fuel you will not support a Heathrow third runway?
Never mind, it will not be needed as flying will suddenly become much more expensive.
Fortunately, even the Labour Party can recognise dud policies when it sees them and I doubt if they will adopt such a short sighted authoritarian measures. If they do they will sink into oblivion until they drop them.
Frankly such a set of proposals are both crass and self defeating. You need to gain consent and approval instead you are going for punitive taxation and imposition. may I suggest a serious think about the approach you adopt as this one will fail : as it deserves to.
Note I have not said one word on whether I believe these measures are right or wrong. It's the authoritarian "we know best" approach that is totally unacceptable and unworkable.
Sorry you see it that way. Of course politicians require consent for their policies. The point of my post was to set out that there is a strategic imperative for putting climate change measures at the heart of the Pre-Budget Report. Almost everyone on this chain has focused on the last point about challenging the Tories on their "Vote Blue, Go Green" policy (which suggests that someone at least sees green as a vote winner) rather than on my points about Copenhagen and job creation.
Most of the policy suggestions I made were just that - no-one likes taxes but a recent Times poll suggested that 60% felt that they were an important part of the mix to bring down the deficit. The question is therefore whether we increase income tax, consumption tax, or pollution taxes. I feel strongly about VAT on domestic fuels (why should there be an exception?) but others would certainly require more debate - that's what a Finance Bill and then a general election is for. There's also been an interesting discussion on this chain from Tory Troll and Peter Thomson on renewables. I never said that wind turbines were the cats pajamas, rather I used them as an example of Tory double think on the issue.
All the best,
Will
Martin - Not that I'd expect you to know but I've been back in the UK for four months now.
Tory troll - As Spain and Germany have shown, Government investment in the renewables sector helps create the demand-side as well as the supply-side bringing down costs over time. And given domestic unemployment and the net outflow of migrants this year, Government spending would likely result in that holy grail of "British jobs for British workers."
B Bendle - Yes. As Bill says, the new planning body will do exactly. NIMBYism is no excuse for ruining our planet.
Mark - a policy that taxes wealthier people or those with higher incomes is progressive by the definition I'm used to. VAT on domestic flights would do exactly that. And despite your moaning the use of trains continues to rise.
David, Simon - Green policies can be a vote winner if they are presented in the right way and politicians are honest about the dire circumstances that the world and especially our children's generation faces. Why else would Cameron be promoting "Vote Blue, Go Green." But we have to make sure that the policies are progressive and actually achieve relevant objectives. Besides, in this article I was talking about domestic flights which are primarily the preserve of busineses.
Peter - I agree on parliamentary and electoral reform but a manifesto can do more than one thing and the PBR would be the wrong time for announcements on the constitiution.
Charlie - I agree that there is much to learn from the Greens on environment policy. But given our electoral system, it is unlikely that they will have much (if any) parliamentary representation to show for its foresight. That's why we must ensure that every party adopts green policies.
Given Scotland's role in flattening out national grid peak demand, both base load from the two nuclear plants as well as surge demand (coal / hydro)- neither of which wind is any good at - we need a bit more joined up thinking than build 12 new nuclear plants in England and Wales and stick wind turbines all over the shop. Two barrage schemes on the Severn and Solway alone have the potential to generate 7Mw each except for a short period at the top and bottom of the tides. Then there is the current investigation between Norway and Scotland on the use of deep sea turbines in the Pentland Firth, let alone the opportunities to use the deep sea turbine technology around the UK coast where there are tidal flows of sufficient volume. There was also the disastrous withdrawal of funding from the BP carbon capture project at Peterhead by Darling because he and Macavity got in a huff over Wee Eck and the SNP's success in May 2007.
That's the problem with 'green solutions' they have to be owned by everyone or they will not work. Making them yet another politicised stomping ground for the two main parties you can't separate with a fag paper is not the way to go. Green Solutions are too important to be left to politicians and their vested interests!
Think about it. An electric kettle is about 1.5KW so 7MW is just 4700 kettles. A town of 4600 houses is not very large, so your barrage generated electricity will be soaked up by that small town during the half time of a televised footie match. A typical shower is 10KW, so 7MW is about 700 showers - so three or 4 streets will use 7MW in showers before people go to work.
Drax power station generates 4000MW, your barrages generate less than 0.2% of that. Basically 7MW is nothing.
Just like government spending - other peoples priorities maybe quite, quite different to what you expect...
Who wants to supply me with power as cheaply as possible? (not just cheaper than the competition, but as cheap as technically possible)...
'Green issues' and the increased costs they entail are right down there with the smoking ban and mass immigration as something foisted on an unwilling public.
One of the main reasons for current food shortage and higher pricing is Green policies. Transferring over land from food production to rape seed etc. for bio-diesel.
"incentivising the use of trains", roughly translates to tax cars more and continue to eradicate parking. I bet you don't live in the country (rural) because public transport is not an option. I also bet you don't use trains much, because if you did, then you'd know that during rush hour (when you need to use them to get to work) they're ram-jammed and the last thing needed is more sardines trying to squeeze on to the same trains.
If you really want to be green, instead of taxing flights, cut the number of flights, don't expand airports. Stop concreting over the country and instead of taxing vehicles, start spending money on R&D to get fuel cell cars (that give zero pollution) in to use much quicker.
But it isn't really about green policies, it's about revenue raising, your/Labour's points are always about taxing things, never about a solution. Here's a thought I'll leave you with, why is it we're told that speed cameras are all about safety and not stealth tax, do we give 3 points and a £60 fine and a chance to some to take a course instead of the points? If we were really concerned about safety, we'd drop the fine and double to 6 points for the minimum penalty. I guarantee you two things, one we'd have all the really dangerous lunatics banned within a month and everybody else would be driving around like a pensioner. But we'd lose that revenue stream/profit centre and that's what it's all about, nothing to do with safety. Green policies are exactly the same.
So stop coming up with new schemes to take more of MY money and start coming up with schemes to tackle the problem.
Labour has never been and never will be agreen party, look at the heathrow expansion and a thousand pointless and futile PR-inspired drivel-fests like 10/10. If you want green then Vote Green.
Green spending may generate american jobs, but what good is that to us?
We missed the boat on turbine technology, so all the design/build will be done elsewhere, free movement of labour in the EU will probably mean temporary teams of immigrants will actually do the construction (a'la the Total Refinery project).
The only benefit the british taxpayer will get is very expensive and unreliable electricity from a foreign owned energy company.
Taxpayer Funded Wind Power? No Thanks!
I have to say I don't like the idea very much - it's like, we'll devolve power to the people so long as they do what we want.
Who gives a fig for 'green politics' when the UK is bankrupt in real terms and borrowing money it can not afford against income from tax payers which is rapidly decreasing?
Oh, and Billy, it's fanfare.
I am making a fortune out of the promises of politicians regarding renewable energy. I can't lose!
If the public cynically decide that the Earth has changed a bit over the last 4 billion years and probably isn't finished doing it just yet (much to New Labour's disgust) and "Global Warming" is just another excuse for the State to start taking new taxes, do I care? Not a jot. I SAVE money.
If the public decide that the world is going to end next week unless we pour trillions into Political projects to stop the planet doing what it has been doing since it began, I'll retire even richer, hide the lot offshore and laugh like a drain!!
Vestas Shares since 2005
REpower Wind Turbines
Bring it on!
It would be nothing of the sort on the basis of any definition that I am aware of, and I doubt if the people on benefits would agree with you. And as for 'insentivising' the use of trains [ I presume you mean encouraging?] why not try to come up with a way to make rail travel genuinely more convenient and affordable as opposed to merely increasing the cost of an alternative. Heaven forfend, some rotters might be incentivised to get the car out and scupper your green credentials.