Energy policy in the UK looks like a jam factory hit by a meteorite: a multicoloured pool of gloop studded with broken glass. Consider these two press releases, issued by the British Department of Energy and Climate Change last week.
On Tuesday last week: The government’s new energy bill will help the UK to “move away from high carbon technologies.” On Wednesday last week: Applications for new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea have “broken all previous records.” This is “tremendous news for industry and for the UK economy.”
The government knows that these positions are irreconcilable. Natural gas is mainly used for producing electricity. The draft energy bill, launched last week, says that if the government’s legal obligation to cut 80 percent of greenhouse gases by 2050 is to be met, electricity plants “need to be largely decarbonized by the 2030s.” (This is a subtle slippage from last December’s Carbon Plan, which said 2030). The only hope of reconciliation lies in the universal deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS): technology that removes the carbon dioxide emanating from power stations and buries it. However, the government has made it clear that it does not believe this is going to happen.
HIGH LIMITS
The new bill sets a limit for the amount of carbon dioxide that power stations can produce. This is 450g of carbon dioxide for every kilowatt-hour of electricity. Compare it with the 50g that the Committee on Climate Change says should be the average produced by power stations in this country by the end of the 2020s, if the government is to meet its 2050 target.
Modern gas power stations produce less than 400g/kWh, so the new limit would not touch them. Worse, the level will be fixed — by primary legislation — until 2045 for power stations built today: In 33 years, gas plants will still be allowed to produce more carbon dioxide than they do at the moment. If the government believed that widespread CCS was a realistic prospect, it would ratchet down the emissions from gas plants, forcing them to use the technology. However, CCS of this kind has not yet been proven at scale, and is now beset with major problems. The government’s plans for cutting our contribution to global warming rely on vaporware.
As British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey said in March: “I want a decarbonized grid in the long term, but we can’t take our foot off the gas for some time yet.”
In this bill, we see the rupture of the cross-party consensus on climate change, and the abandonment of the carbon budgets required to meet the 2050 target.
However, at least the government’s emissions limit will prevent new coal plants being built without CCS. Won’t it? New coal plants produce about 800g/kWh, so they appear to be excluded by the 450g limit. This would be consistent with the promise in the coalition agreement: The rules “will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient carbon capture and storage to meet the emissions performance standard.” However, this promise has just been reclassified as biomass, and used to ignite British Prime Minister David Cameron’s pants.
LOOPHOLE
The draft bill explains that any new coal plant that “forms part of” the capture and storage program will be exempted from the emissions standard. What it does not say is that a single gram of carbon dioxide needs to be captured from the plant in question. The bill makes this explicit. It defines a power station in the capture and storage program as one in which CCS “is or is to be ... used in commercial electricity generation.” To qualify under the bill, a coal plant would need only to plan on fitting, one day not very soon, some CCS capacity, the quantity of which is not specified. As well as the coalition agreement, this rips up the commitments in both last year’s white paper and the national policy statement.
So a putative green technology is being used as a means of absolving new coal plants from the need to reduce greenhouse gases. Through a series of subtle prestidigitations, both coal and gas plants have been exempted from any targets for cutting carbon emissions: And with that, the 2008 Climate Change Act goes up in smoke.
Throughout this inferno of a bill there is not a single new commitment to energy efficiency. It relies only on the government’s green deal. However, this will reduce the number of installations of cavity wall insulation from the 800,000 envisaged this year under the last government’s program to 100,000. The government’s own figures show that almost the same number would have been insulated with no program at all. In his first speech as minister, Davey insisted that energy efficiency “has to be right at the heart of what we do.” However, in his new bill, it is not even on the periphery. Its absence ensures a guaranteed market for the unabated gas and coal plants the government intends to approve.
Promises, targets, legal obligations, the act that was supposed to guarantee our carbon cuts: All are to be vaporized in the power station furnaces. This is a government of the old and the dirty, committed to the technologies of a previous century, without a wisp of concern for the future.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS