Dec 2, 2018 at 8:51 AM | Mark Hodgson

Fuel poverty would be reduced by removing Green Taxes from everyone's bills.

Forcing the poorest of society to fund unreliable energy schemes that enrich the rich and don't generate power is not working very well for the UK. The French and German Economies are now reaching a Climate Science tipping point too, as EU Unity is crumbling.

"I think that should be celebrated.
Dec 2, 2018 at 1:02 AM | Phil Clarke"
Do you open a bottle of Champagne for every death? French Greens must be getting ready for a pre-Christmas Party, if they can survive COP 24 unscathed.

Ah, but this thread is about the Act and the actions of the Climate Change Committee. Naturally the CCC was consulted and had input into the Government Fuel Poverty Strategy. Indeed, like me, their opinion was more resources should have been allocated …

Current ambition and funding commitments are inadequate for meeting carbon budgets and further funding is likely to be needed to meet the proposed EPC targets. We have previously advised (2014 Progress report to Parliament) that the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is currently not ambitious enough to achieve carbon budgets. We have also recommended a longer-term funding commitment for the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI). Our new analysis suggests that achieving EPC C across all fuel poor homes in England by 2030 would incur capital costs of at least £1.2bn per annum (not taking into account any additional delivery costs). This exceeds the current ECO funding envelope of around £0.8bn for the whole of Great Britain (with an indicative share of this for England of less than £0.7bn), not all of which is currently aimed at fuel poor or low-income households.

https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CCC-FP-letter-final-revised5.pdf

Do you open a bottle of Champagne for every death?

Bye.

Do you open a bottle of Champagne for every death?

Bye.

Dec 2, 2018 at 11:51 AM | Phil Clarke

Does it require a minimum of ten deaths due to CCA Fuel Poverty before you celebrate with a bottle of Champagne?

I hope you complained about The Guardian giving Jim Hansen space to write this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

"Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them

The government is expected to give the go-ahead to the coal-burning Kingsnorth power plant. Here, one of the world's foremost climate experts launches an excoriating attack on Britain's long love affair with the most polluting fossil fuel of all"

James Hansen Sun 15 Feb 2009 00.01 GMT

"A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this - coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet."

Hansen was wrong. The CCA is the UK's biggest Peace Time Disaster. Climate Science has finished Merkel and tarnished Obama's legacy. Macron is viewing a new revolution in France.

Two comments:

1. golf charlie, I normally find you amusing, and regularly agree with you. Your incisive wit is a boon to this site. But I think you went too far with that comment about deaths and champagne. It's possible to disagree with Phil in a civil manner, surely?

2. Phil, thanks for acknowledging that you can't separate the CCC from the CCA and that this thread covers both, by necessary implication. Can I remind you that you did, earlier on the thread, seek to say the opposite? I take with a pinch of salt most things the CCC say, but I can't ignore them. Elsewhere in the CCC letter you link to is this:

"As you know, the Committee on Climate Change has a statutory obligation to consider the likely impacts of carbon budgets on fuel poverty." I infer from that a link between carbon budgets and fuel poverty, though no doubt you will disagree.

"We have previously said that carbon budgets have a broadly neutral impact on fuel poverty levels (i.e. higher electricity prices due to power sector decarbonisation will be offset by the savings from energy efficiency improvements)."

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? But at least they acknowledge the higher electricity prices due to power sector decarbonisation. And then to "broadly" offset those higher costs, other measures have to be taken at further cost (to taxpayer and energy-user). Not a ringing endorsement of the CCA, in my view.

"New funding sources will therefore be needed to both to meet carbon budgets and address fuel poverty (e.g. from infrastructure funding)."

Money, money, money. And who is paying? Oh that's right, the taxpayer:

"Passing the costs of reducing fuel poverty on to energy bill payers results in an increase in both the number of fuel poor and depth of fuel poverty (especially for those households already fuel poor and not receiving energy efficiency measures). [Interesting admission].

Reducing fuel poverty is a social issue and may therefore more naturally be paid through general taxation (as is the case with the additional fuel poverty programmes that operate in Scotland and Wales). There are no carbon budget considerations to argue against such a shift."

"Almost 600,000 fuel poor homes do not have gas mains heating. These are often the households with the deepest level of fuel poverty." So can we have more gas mains heating please?

Apparently not...:

https://www.theccc.org.uk/2018/09/10/cleaning-up-the-uks-heating-systems-new-insights-on-low-carbon-heat/

"Low-carbon heating is amongst the toughest challenges facing climate policy. Mike Hemsley, Senior Power Analyst at the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), summarises new insights on achieving near-zero emissions by 2050 from heating the UK’s buildings.

The ‘Beast from the East’ in March 2018 highlighted the challenge of heating UK homes during an extended cold period. Most of this heat was provided by natural gas through the UK’s natural gas networks, which – as a recent UKERC briefing notes – supplied an extra 120 GW of demand over a 3 hour period. This demand is equivalent to 15 million UK households turning their heating from zero to max over three hours, all at the same time.

How will we stay warm as the UK moves away from natural gas and towards low-carbon systems such as heat pumps or hydrogen? The CCC has continually identified the need to reduce emissions from the UK’s buildings – which made up 19% of the UK’s overall emissions in 2017 – in order to meet its decarbonisation targets. This means a combination of making existing and new properties more energy efficient, and finding a low-carbon heat source for 85% of UK households that currently use fossil-fuel based natural gas. These households currently emit around 2tCO2 per household per year – roughly equivalent to a return flight to Argentina – which represents around one tenth of the average UK household’s carbon footprint."

"The 2016 study by KPMG suggests that the cost of electrifying heat could be up to three times the cost of a gas-based pathway. "

Context. Hansen's 'deaths' were species extinctions.

Dec 2, 2018 at 2:28 PM | Mark Hodgson

The Green Blob have taken Champagne Socialism to new depths, especially when they celebrate the achievements of the CCA.

The Green Blob have consistently blamed deaths on Global Warming, wars on Global Warming, famines on Global Warming, migrants on Global Warming etc. The list is extensive.

Emotional blackmail has been a consistent trademark, and the Green Blob have never criticised James Hansen for referring to Death Trains. The Green Blob have thrived on holocaust terminology, but their own taxpayer funded genocide is ignored, for the good of the cause. The weak, poor and vulnerable are the most likely to die, whether in the UK or elsewhere.

Government Statistics on "excess deaths" are a polite euphemism. Government Policy has caused many of them.

gc, I don't disagree with your most recent point - but Phil Clarke is not James Hansen!

Phil can stand up for himself, though on this occasion, I don't think he should have to.

But please, keep us regaled with your acerbic wit.

tomo, I'm not defending it! That was a quote from the Climate Change Committee.

"Phil can stand up for himself, though on this occasion, I don't think he should have to."
Dec 2, 2018 at 7:53 PM | Mark Hodgson

I don't think "Phil" or anyone else from the Green Blob wants to discuss the number of deaths caused by the Climate Change Act in the UK, or other Climate Science derived Legislation within the EU. Then there is the rest of the World.

The CCA has just caused manufacturing to move to China, where power generation involves unrestricted burning of coal. Not only has the CCA failed the UK economically, and in terms of human life, it has caused an increase in the amount of coal burned.

It is difficult to know what there is to celebrate about the CCA. UK Politicians (all Parties) are quick to blame EU Legislation for redundancies, factory closures, price increase, tax hikes etc. Then they wonder why people voted for BREXIT.

Now Macron is wondering why nobody loves him anymore

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46417991
●What has President Macron said?

He has long maintained that his fuel policies are needed to combat global warming and has accused his political opponents of hijacking the movement in order to block his reform programme.

Earlier this week, Mr Macron tried to strike a conciliatory tone, saying he was open to ideas about how the fuel tax could be applied.●

Gwen, as (almost) ever, I agree with you, especially this:

"The CCA has just caused manufacturing to move to China, where power generation involves unrestricted burning of coal. Not only has the CCA failed the UK economically, and in terms of human life, it has caused an increase in the amount of coal burned."

But how do we PROVE it?

Mark,

Golf Charlie never provides evidence, much less proof.

HTH & TTFN

Since 1992, when governments agreed the UN Convention at the Rio Earth Summit, Britons have
become richer, on average, than citizens of any other G7 nation. At the same time, we have
reduced our average carbon footprint further than citizens of any other G7 nation.

In 2014 – the most recent year for which there are comprehensive figures across the G7 – British
per-capita greenhouse gas emissions were 33% down on figures for 1992. UK per-capita GDP,
meanwhile, has grown by more than in 130% in nominal terms, and by 45% in real terms.

There are several factors behind Britain’s success. The 1980s/90s “dash for gas” saw gas-fired
electricity generation gain ground at the expense of more polluting coal. Methane emissions from
landfill were controlled. Energy efficiency schemes such as CERT curbed demand, and thus
emissions. The structural shift towards a more service-based economy further reduced demand.
More recently, the rise of renewable energy has displaced carbon-intensive coal-fired generation.

Another aspect of the UK story is that it has “imported” emissions more than other G7 nations – in
other words, a greater proportion of emissions produced from goods and services consumed in
the UK are incurred abroad. However, this trend appears to have stopped with the financial crisis,
with research indicating the proportion of emissions associated with UK consumption “outsourced”
has not grown since 2010. In this period, per-capita UK emissions continued to fall faster
than in any G7 nation except Italy (which enjoyed far lower per-capita growth). Now, Britain’s
per-capita “imported” emissions are at almost exactly the same level as in the mid-1990s, despite
per-capita GDP having more than doubled in this period.

https://eciu.net/assets/Reports/ECIU_Conscious_Decoupling.pdf

https://eciu.net/assets/Reports/ECIU_Conscious_Decoupling.pdf
Dec 3, 2018 at 11:04 AM | Phil Clarke

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit is a paid lobby group.
https://eciu.net/about/who-we-are
"All of our funding comes from philanthropic foundations. We gratefully acknowledge support from the European Climate Foundation, the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, the Oak Foundation, the Climate Change Collaborationand, previously, the Tellus Mater Foundation. During 2018, we received £132,000 from ECF, £88,000 from Grantham, £116,000 from Oak, and £10,000 from the Climate Change Collaboration."

Hope that helps.

They use data from DEFRA and the ONS.

I note you do not dispute the figures, just attack the messenger.

Phil Clarke, their policies are devoid of intelligence. The CCA assumes the Magic Money Tree also produces unlimited biomass, and electricity for heat pumps etc. Anything can be "renewable" if somebody keeps paying for replacements.

https://eciu.net/briefings/net-zero/net-zero-heat

"Current action to decarbonise heating in the UK occurs via the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI), which provides payments to homes and businesses to shift to non-fossil fuel heat sources. Currently, this is almost entirely met by demand from biomass (wood) and waste. The RHI will close in 2021, after which point there will be no low carbon heat policies in place."

As a messenger, Richard Black is a propaganda expert:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/2/22/worst-fracking-paper-ever.html#comments

I am sure he will use propaganda to support the CCA on behalf of his paymasters, but that is not an honest endorsement.

Well, if the BBC is to be believed, official Government statistics cannot be trusted (surprise, surprise) because, funnily enough, they don't tell the whole story:

"Carbon emissions 'hidden' in imported goods revealed
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13187156

The extent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions "hidden" in imported goods is growing, according to two studies.

Official data do not include emissions from making imported goods but both sets of researchers say they should.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports 26% of global emissions come from producing goods for trade.

The Carbon Trust found such "embedded" CO2 could negate domestic carbon cuts planned in the UK up to 2025.

'Delusion'
Researchers want all nations to publish their data on embedded emissions.

Glen Peters of research group Cicero, lead authors of the PNAS report, told BBC News: "There is a degree of delusion about emissions cuts in developed nations. They are not really cuts at all if countries are simply buying in products they used to manufacture.

"We really need all countries to be developing and publishing the full extent of their emissions, whether they are produced domestically or outsourced through traded goods."

The issue of embedded (or outsourced) carbon emissions has been recognised for several years, and the methodology to track emissions pathways is developing.

Cicero produced a trade-linked global database for CO2 emissions covering 113 countries and 57 economic sectors from 1990 to 2008.

It found that emissions from producing exported goods increased from 4.3Gt (gigatonnes) of CO2 in 1990 (20% of global emissions) to 7.8Gt of CO2 in 2008 (26%).

Most developed countries increased their consumption-based emissions faster than their territorial emissions - particularly from goods such cars and clothes.

The Carbon Trust research confirms that the UK has increased emissions since 1990 rather than decreasing them, as politicians typically claim.

What may alarm ministers even more is a projection that the radical CO2 cuts planned by government into the 2020s may be offset by ever-increasing levels of CO2 in imports.

Dr Peters said: "Publishing this sort of data is the first step. The next step - what to do about it - is more difficult.

"It raises questions about consumption patterns, and whether countries should consider border taxes on imports from countries with no controls on CO2 emissions… though this is controversial and will be some way down the line."

A UK think tank, the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc), has been discovering how uncomfortable this issue is proving for rich nations.

A succession of Freedom of Information requests reveals a degree of frustration among some British civil servants that the UK insists on basing its emissions calculations solely on domestic emissions.

One piece of government correspondence reveals: "While technological efficiency has improved the CO2 impacts of our products since 1992, the rise in UK consumption has outstripped the improvements achieved.

"The government needs to be cautious about over-claiming on its achievements in decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation."

Ministers are well aware of the issue, but insist that the UK should stick to reporting domestic emissions, as these form the basis for international climate negotiations.

They also point out that emissions data from major exporters like China is notoriously opaque, and that the methodology for calculating outsourced emissions is unreliable. They say all this creates even greater pressure for the UK to persuade China to cut its own emissions.

Guy Shrubsole, from Pirc, told BBC News: "This is a cop-out. The figures aren't perfect but the problem has been recognised for several years and the calculations are getting better all the time. In the UK our emissions are up - not down.

"Of course China needs to be part of a global climate agreement. But for a government which wants to be the greenest ever and is committed to data transparency it's essential that the British government publishes the best data available right away - and then figures out what to do about it."

More of the same here:

http://www.emissions.leeds.ac.uk/files/Policy%20Brief%20-%20Consumption%20based%20emissions.pdf

Then there's this:

https://www.carbontrust.com/media/38075/ctc795-international-carbon-flows-global-flows.pdf

"The UK is a significant net importer of emissions embodied in trade, and this drives a large difference between production and consumption views of UK emissions “responsibility”. This section explores the dynamics of UK emissions flows in greater detail, identifying the major flows and international sources of emissions arising from consumption in the UK, and projecting the future importance of imported emissions in the overall UK GHG footprint."

"The UK‟s balance of emissions with other countries in the EU shows a small net import of emissions equivalent to
around 4% of UK production emissions: a similar magnitude of impact on UK emissions results from the small net
import of embodied emissions with other developed countries. By far the largest impact on the UK‟s consumption
of emissions is the large net imbalance of embodied emissions occurring with developing countries, and in
particular China. Embodied emissions imports from developing countries are the single largest source of embodied emissions imports to the UK, with one-third of this net imbalance coming from China alone. Of the net import of 213MtCO2 of embodied emissions into the UK in 2004, 33% are from Annex 1 countries with a defined emissions cap under the Kyoto Protocol, but only 13% of these emissions have arisen in EU ETS zone countries."

"Forty per cent of emissions arising from UK domestic consumption occur outside of the UK"

"Sixty per cent of emissions arising from consumption in the UK occur in the UK, with a further 12% arising in European (EU ETS) countries. Around 38% of embodied emissions occurring outside the UK as a result of consumption in the UK arise in the electricity sector; the global electricity sector is the single largest source of emissions from all regions with the exception of South America.

This reinforces the importance of global decarbonisation action in the electricity sector. While the UK is not a large importer of electricity as electricity per se, emissions from electricity generation in other countries are embodied in many of the goods and services consumed in the UK."

"Over half of the emissions embodied in UK consumption (excluding private energy consumption) arise overseas"

"A consumption perspective shows that the UK‟s consumption emissions are ~34% higher than the production
emissions, the difference being made up of carbon emissions originating outside of the UK, but which are
allocated to UK consumption. The importance of net imported emissions in driving this difference varies by sector,
with around 90% of carbon emissions associated with the manufacture of electronic equipment and around 80%
of clothes originating overseas."

"The significance of net imports to the UK has been increasing over time, with a steady rise in the UK‟s trade
imbalance of goods with other nations rising from only ~1-2 % in the late 1990s to ~8% in 2008 and projected to
rise to ~13% by 2025."

"The significance of imported embodied emissions in UK consumption emissions is expected to increase over time"

"In 1992, the UK imported an additional 7% emissions (net) embodied in trade; by 2004, this had grown to 34%.
Net UK imports of emissions are projected to continue to grow to 73 – 96% of production emissions by 2025, the
range depending on the carbon intensity of production in other countries, and the anticipated reduction in the
UK‟s production emissions from 2004 to 2025. This will result in the UK potentially importing as much carbon as it
produces at home by around 2025, making imported carbon a significant issue."

Oops!

Got any data that is less than a decade old? Those articles use figures from before the CCA was enacted.

See Figure 1 in the DEFRA stats from 2015.

The gloomy forecasts from the Carbon Trust did not come to pass, and even including 'imported' emissions the UK carbon footprint peaked in 2007.

See Figure 1 in the DEFRA stats from 2015.

The gloomy forecasts from the Carbon Trust did not come to pass, and even including 'imported' emissions the UK carbon footprint peaked in 2007.

Dec 3, 2018 at 8:12 PM | Phil Clarke

Page 2 of that report confirms the unreliability of the statistics involving imported goods. China's emissions are rising again.

Got any data with reliable sources?

Thanks for the link, Phil, but I think you just shot yourself in the foot. The graphs in that report seem to show declining GHG emissions within the UK since 2008, but NOT if you include GHG emissions embedded in imports. Indeed, the concluding paragraph is this:

"Figure 5 shows the relationship between three different measures of CO2 emissions relating to the UK. The carbon dioxide footprint on a consumption basis is notably biggest due to the impact of embedded emissions from imports. Whilst the carbon dioxide footprint has increased 1 per cent over the time period, emissions on a territorial basis have decreased 27 per cent whilst emissions on a production or residents basis have decreased 17 per cent. The larger reduction in territorial emissions may be due to the UK economy further moving from a manufacturing base to a service base with a greater dependence upon imports and their associated embedded emissions."

The same link says this:

"The carbon footprint (measured by GHG emissions) peaked in 2007 at 1,042 mt CO2 equivalent. In 2015 it was 19 per cent lower than the 2007 peak (847 mt CO2 equivalent). Figure 1 shows that the proportion of the total GHG footprint accounted for by the production of imports was higher in 2015 (at 50 per cent) than in 1997 (36 per cent). This is due to a higher level of embedded emissions in imports from China in 2015 compared to 1997. The proportion of the total GHG footprint generated directly by UK households has remained at around 17 per cent between 1997 and 2015."

Earlier in this thread, Phil suggested that the CCA should be judged from 2009, rather than from 2008, since it received Royal Assent in 2009, and I can't argue with that. If you look at the graph in Figure 1 " Greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK consumption 1997 to 2015"), which the above quote accompanies, you'll be hard-pressed to see any reduction at all in GHG emissions due to imports, and if anything the volume appears to have increased over that time-scale.

The piece also says this:

"The UK’s total carbon footprint includes Carbon dioxide emissions with the other greenhouse gases and this has increased by about 2 per cent between 2014 and 2015. These estimates are less robust than estimates for CO2 only, largely because of inherent uncertainties in their estimation. Therefore these statistics are currently classified as
experimental statistics."

Can we rely on ANY GHG statistics?