Climate change: show me the money

There’s growing activity at an individual level to take action on climate change, from campaigns such as 10:10, BeThatChange, 350 and many
others. There’s a groundswell of belief that if we don’t force action, governments will do too little, too late.

This is laudable, and a vital part of changing the framework in which
politicians operate but it doesn’t answer the fundamental question – who or what is going to pay for the changes we need. Individual action sends a message, and purchasing power can change corporate behaviour to an extent, but in order to achieve a change in direction, a change from a high carbon to a low carbon economy, billions of pounds will need to be funneled in the right direction and very soon.

The question is where the money is going to come from. Globally, the
imploding banking sector was rescued and many are understandably angry that funds for financial services (which created its own problems)
were found, while governments throw an ineffectual few million at climate change and expect to get some good publicity.

We’re talking a requirement of billions of pounds a year just in adaptation in the developing world. We’re talking a transformation from a fossil fuel economy to a low carbon economy and worse, a transformation in the teeth of entrenched opposition. The consistent resistance of the status quo is hard to overcome.

Politicians are loathe to introduce new taxes. The French are set to
introduce a carbon tax but even that is less than half of what was recommended to effect significant change. Carbon trading is attacked as too complicated, too open to abuse and as a means for the west to transfer its emissions to the developing world. The giants of the
hydrocarbon economy are adamant that increasing their cost base through either approach is going to be economically destructive – which is probably will be to them. The reality is that action is required, at a personal, corporate and country level.

Funds have to be found from somewhere and emissions tax or trading with regard to corporate activity is going to have a far greater effect on economic patterns than the actions of individuals. Somewhere, somehow, something’s going to have to give.

Posted via email from Conquering Carbon

Oil and gas industry want protection from carbon trading – excuse me?

One of the biggest complaints about carbon trading is that it’s complex and difficult to manage, that a tax would be more effective, and a fairer approach to managing emissions. The benefit to emissions trading is the associated cap on emissions, as by definition such a system demands an overall drop in emissions. This argument looks set to run and run but the industry body Oil and Gas UK has just set a new level for effrontery – arguing that the oil and gas industry should be exempt from the next phase of the European Union’s emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) because it’s effectively a tax on the industry. Clearly not a fan of emissions trading or taxation!

The argument goes that because green fuels can’t power oil platforms or drilling equipment, for practical purposes inclusion in the EU ETS is a tax. Somehow you can’t help but feel they’re missing the point – the whole idea behind the imposition of an emissions trading scheme was to encourage an economy wide transition to a low carbon basis. Oil and Gas UK might be right about the EU ETS making things difficult for the oil and gas industry – but surely that was the point?

We need to find alternatives to fossil fuel consumption, especially if supplies of fossil fuel are set to dwindle. Oil and Gas UK is arguing that energy security requires protection of the oil and gas industry. In the short term, this may be a valid point. In the medium to long term, energy security can only be assured by the development of alternatives to fossil fuel sources. If Peak Oil is truly on its way (and some argue it’s a point that we’ve already reached), then it’s imperative that we address energy issues in such a way that we become independent of imports of any form of fuel. That means an increase in distributed generation, improved transmission systems, and the use of every sensible resource available to generate power.

Many arguments regarding the use of renewable power, or fossil fuel power, seem to swirl around the idea that there is one perfect solution. The reality is that there are a number of technologies available today that should be in wider use, and many more in development. It’s not a question of offshore wind providing the solution, or the need for nuclear power or CCS, or even the need for protecting the oil and gas industry. We need to start taking a holistic approach to our energy environment and starting using the resources we have where appropriate – that means that we use a combination of different power sources from geothermal, to wind, to waste – and that we start looking at energy management as a key way to cut emissions.

Unfortunately, that leaves out the option of protecting the oil and gas industry with funds needed to help develop those alternatives.

Posted via email from Conquering Carbon