Drax Power Plant (Image by: thewritingzone)

Article by Guest Contributor: David Holyoake

Article provided by ClientEarth and reprinted with permission.

Despite their pledge to be the ‘greenest government ever’, close analysis of the UK government’s proposed design of CO2 emissions performance standards for fossil fuel generation (‘EPS’ – limits on the amount of pollutants released into the air) risks being an unlawful backward-step.

ClientEarth argues that swift introduction of EPS is necessary for proper environmental regulation of the power sector. The UK Government’s advisors on carbon budgets and climate change (the Committee on Climate Change) has advised that to meet legally binding reduction targets the UK’s power sector needs to be almost completely decarbonised by 2030. Coal power cannot continue as it is past the early 2020s at absolute latest. Unabated gas also has a limited time frame.

The current UK government is indeed adhering to its election promise to introduce EPS for power generation, so what’s the problem? As always, the devil is in the detail. The model they propose is actually a retreat from the previous government’s plans for fossil fuel.

A key feature of the last government’s plan was that within five years of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) being proven, any new coal-fired installations that received building consent on the condition of operating CCS at partial capacity, would have to completely retrofit CCS – that is, implement capture and storage of 100 per cent of their emissions. Their plan also committed to produce future contingency plans to phase out non-CCS coal power generation if CCS was not proven on time.

The current government has backtracked on this plan. Its recent proposals for EPS design, fossil fuel powered plants consented in the near future would not be required to undertake any further retrofit  for the duration of their economic life – almost certainly taking us beyond the timescales recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

This sends a clear legal signal to industry that plants that receive consent won’t be subject to additional regulation on timescales announced in the last government’s plan for coal.

ClientEarth has made a submission to the UK government warning that its attempts to make exemptions a part of EPS design will be unlawful unless it undertakes a new strategic environmental assessment – to which the previous government’s coal plan was subjected.

Such an assessment would reveal preferable EPS design and make it difficult for the government to backtrack on CCS retrofit timelines. This could include gradually tightening limits for pollutants consistent with, or exceeding, the timelines and requirements adopted by the last government.

Ensuring the proper implementation of the EU’s strategic environmental assessment Directive, which is repeatedly misapplied by governments in assessment of the climate impacts of their plans and programmes, is crucial.

We don’t want to frustrate the swift introduction of EPS in this case. Our submission (a response to the Electricity Market Reform consultation) shows that the government can avoid a new strategic environmental assessment for the plans for new coal, or risk potential legal challenge, by pursuing better EPS design.

We look forward to their response.

David Holyoake is legal advisor on climate and energy for ClientEarth, an organisation of activist lawyers committed to securing a healthy planet.

See the article in its original form.

Building a wind turbine (image by: Bill Ward)

Financial assistance and green collar apprenticeships are two of the pillars of regional policy in New South Wales (NSW) aimed at encouraging the education and training people will need to succeed in the emerging green economy.

In my previous post on skills shortages, I noted that we do not have time to wait for favourable policies that will facilitate the transition and so should encourage grass roots initiatives focussed on training workers in different sectors. At the same time, we must not ignore the progressive policies that are being developed and implemented more quickly in some parts of the world, the exceptions that will bolster the grass-roots initiatives. The regional policies in NSW are a case in point.

The need for change in training and education varies greatly across countries, sectors and occupations. For example, training for many jobs in sectors such as energy, construction and manufacturing will be fundamentally transformed while environmental components will be integrated into the existing education for more generic or cross-sector jobs in consulting, risk management or IT. Some adjustments will be made in response to new technologies or government regulations while others will be made to meet demand in new markets.

Researchers at the International Labour Organisation and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training found that skills shortages exist for a number of reasons including a critical lack of scientists and engineers in both developing and developed countries, national education systems that cannot meet demand for green skills, underestimated growth for example in low carbon technologies and the low status of certain occupations in many countries.

The NSW Department of Education and Training has a ‘Green Skills and Energy Efficiency Strategy’ that provides subsidies for ‘accredited training that improves the environmental impacts of NSW business operations, products and services’. Businesses in sectors such as energy, construction, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality and health can access the subsidised training.

Owners and managers, as well as workers and job seekers, can take a range of courses, for example in the design, installation and running of energy efficient technology, the delivery and marketing of environmentally-friendly goods and services, or the assessment of energy, water and resources use and savings. The formal training component for NSW apprenticeships and traineeships is free and individuals can receive additional assistance with travel and accommodation, or help for those who lost their jobs in the economic downturn.

Case studies bring to life the benefits of filling skills gaps in a variety of business activities from organic macadamia farming to resource-efficient printing to environmentally-friendly real estate development. They also highlight the need for staff engagement on all levels from owners to managers to workers.

This is the second in a series of posts that will explore different aspects of the challenge we face in providing the education and training for jobs in the low-carbon green economy. If the subject is of interest to you, don’t forget to check back over the next few weeks for further installments.

American energy (image by: KB35)

As oil prices continue to spike with the unrest in the Middle East, consumer anger has inevitably increased along with it – and so has the political rhetoric.

Though it was intended to create calm, Obama’s speech outlining his “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” on Wednesday at Georgetown University added more anger, from both environmental and business leaders alike. Environmental groups are upset that Obama supports nuclear energy, even after the Japan nuclear disaster, as well as offshore drilling, oil from Canada’s tar sands, and gas from domestic shale reserves. They are also upset that he did not address Republican attempts to “rein in” greenhouse gas rules by the Environmental Protection Agency. Business leaders, on the other hand, accuse Obama of cutting domestic production short and increasing costs.

Despite the heated debate, however, much of what Obama said in his announcement of his national goal to cut oil imports by one-third by 2025 was an affirmation of earlier statements, such as his ongoing support for renewable energy sources and investments in clean energy technology. More ominously, it also included a reference to the now discarded cap-and-trade bill.

While Obama’s support for nuclear energy and for offshore and domestic drilling are also not new, they highlight the tradeoffs between nuclear safety and low emissions, and between drilling safety and domestic energy security. These tradeoffs point to the political difficulties Obama might have in achieving his plan. With the devastating impacts from the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster, as well as those from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, uppermost in the public’s mind, Americans are currently more likely to support nuclear safety over low emissions, and drilling safety over domestic energy security. Yet in his speech, Obama nodded toward these concerns with a mention of his request for a safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as of his implementation of strict new deepwater drilling regulations since the BP accident.

Obama’s commitment to the Canadian oil sands – seen by some as reliable, compared to Middle Eastern sources of oil – is also not new. Liz Barratt-Brown at the Natural Resources Defense Council pointed out that in this speech, he never agreed to increase oil sands production, despite Canadian media reports suggesting otherwise. Rather, he stated that imports from various countries would be a necessary part of the mix until alternative energies are fully in place.

Perhaps the reaffirmation of existing policies or platforms, rather than the introduction of new ones, is a good thing for the “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” Luke Tonachel of the NRDC argues that better cars, increased efficiency and alternative fuels can meet Obama’s goal of cutting one-third of imports by 2025 without new drilling, and the New York Times explains how tools such as biofuels and more fuel-efficient cars were used effectively to advance energy security 30 years ago – and can be used again.

In his announcement, Obama ackowledged that ongoing attempts to secure America’s energy future have been made by U.S. presidents since the first oil crisis in the 1970s, yet have so far remained unsuccessful. It remains to be seen, however, whether the policy trade-offs, political differences and opposition can be addressed well-enough to implement it this time around – with the stakes that much higher.

(Image by: Wayne National Forest)

Electricians, plumbers, technicians and engineers – these are the people who will make it happen, who will make the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energies. The list of professions encompasses all sectors when we consider the wider transition to a global green economy. But what policies are in place to ensure workers possess the right knowledge and the expertise for green economy jobs?

Two of the key issues under discussion at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancún and analysed in the Climatico debriefing on the conference are capacity building and technology transfer. Bound up in these issues is the challenge of providing the education and training necessary to foster the skilled workforce that will help combat climate change.

Over the past few years, numerous studies, articles and reports have highlighted the need to develop skills across all sectors to make the transition to a global green economy. Some have focused specifically on the skills required for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Whether looking at the international, national or industry levels, there is widespread agreement that skills shortages exist across the board, in both developing and developed countries. Conferences, workshops and other events have been organised to discuss gaps and share ideas for solutions. However, the activity in this area seems to be largely on the higher plains of theoretical analysis and policy discussion. What measures are being taken to fill skills gaps in practice?

Take the example of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report ‘Towards a Green Economy, Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication’ released at the end of February. The authors of the synthesis report, lead by Pavan Sukhdev, recognise the expertise deficit throughout the global economy. One example they give is of the shortage of labour in Germany’s renewable energy industry, be it among engineers, maintenance staff or site managers. They then emphasise the need for international, public, private and civil society organisations to provide technical and financial assistance to developing countries for national capacity building and training activities. Without this support, the transition to a global green economy will be far from fair and equitable.

Another example is the recent conference held in Edinburgh, the 14^th conference on The Latest Technologies in Renewable Energy – Heating and Cooling Applications, organised by the European Energy Centre (EEC), TERRE Policy Centre and UNEP, and attended by academic and industry experts. Keynote speaker Rajendra Shende said ‘there is not enough time to wait for new policy as a driver for taking action against climate change’. Rather, local grass roots initiatives are the way to go.

The organisers of the conference are not waiting, but providing practical solutions to the skills shortages. The ECC, supported by UNEP, the European Commission and academic partners, specialises in training technicians and managers in different aspects of renewable energy technologies. If only, as Mr Shende wondered, governments would support initiatives like this in the renewable energy industry on the same scale as the bailouts they gave to commercial banks.

Thanet Wind Farm off the coast of Kent (Image: Reuters)

Article by Guest Contributor: Heidi Strebel

When it comes to renewable energies, competition is the order of the day. Countries are vying to host the world’s biggest wind farm, largest solar power plant, or leading geothermal complex. However, we cannot be distracted by visions of great turbine armies striking out across the oceans or of noble mirror legions conquering the deserts, fighting the front-line battle for us in the war against climate change. We must not lose sight of the interaction between different forces within renewable energy markets that are far more subtle and complex than the often simplistic ‘mine is bigger than yours’ contest in power plant size.

Recently both California and South Africa claimed the highest podium in the race for the largest solar power plant, while the UK vaunted its lead in wind energy with the opening of the Thanet wind farm off Kent at the end of September. Competition in renewables between nations, regions and peoples can trigger the innovation and initiative needed to develop new technologies and encourage market expansion. However the rival fanfare around the ‘largest plant’ can obfuscate a far more complicated set of circumstances. To begin to understand the situation in any one renewable energy market, we must put the self-congratulatory winner into the wider context of national energy supply and climate policies.

Take the Thanet offshore wind farm. With 100 turbines spread over an area of 35 sq kilometres, it is expected to have a total capacity of 300 MW, enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes. It has been hailed as the ‘world’s largest offshore wind farm’. However focusing solely on the power capacity of a new plant without reference to overall national energy supply can be misleading. As The Guardian’s Terry Macalister pointed out, with just 3% of power from renewable sources, the UK is ranked 25 out of 27 in the European Union league table, so even with the Thanet wind farm the country has a long way to go before meeting the target of 15% by 2020.

Experience in other countries, for example with wind energy in Denmark or with solar energy in Germany, has shown that government support is essential to the successful expansion of renewable energy markets. At the opening ceremony of the Thanet project, UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne criticised the previous government’s weak commitment to renewable energies and acknowledged the need for more public funding to ensure the transition to a low carbon energy supply. Unfortunately there is a very tangible risk that the current coalition government will perform barely better than its predecessor, at least in the near future.

As Nyla Sarwar observed here on Climatico, with the announcement of the UK Government’s budget review in mid-October the prospects of moving towards a low carbon economy in the UK have been hugely compromised. The changes in climate policy that emerged from the review create uncertainty where certainty and strong incentives are needed to encourage investment.

British firms benefited from only 20% of the £900 million investment in the Thanet wind farm, and only around 10% of investment in the even larger London Array farm scheduled to open in 2011. In January 2010 the UK Government, the previous one, granted licenses for several more major offshore wind projects, but as Macalister reports, wind turbine makers Siemens and GE are waiting for final confirmation of the projects before moving to open factories in the country.

If the coalition government wants to honour its commitment to ‘support the creation of new green jobs and technologies’ then perhaps it should expend less of its energy on predictable censure of political rivals and more on implementing policies that attract businesses and investors to the different renewable energy markets in the UK. The country can benefit from new jobs and rise in the ranks of EU and world league tables, giving full meaning to the title of ‘leader’ in the renewables race.

The UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, led the announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review last week, introducing what’s expected to be one of the most challenging economic periods in the history of the UK. Whilst spending cuts were inevitable from any Government, Ed Milliband, Leader of the Opposition, claims that the Coalition’s Government’s ‘slash and burn’ approach will hit those on the lowest incomes hardest, and risk the prospect of a double-dip recession in the UK.

With significant cuts announced across the board, the prospects for proactively transitioning towards a low carbon economy seem lost in the ashes, along with the Coalition’s claims to be the “greenest Government ever”. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was the hardest hit Government department, an will be expected to reduce resource spending by 29% (including funding for biodiversity protection and climate change adaptation) and capital spending by 34%. Rises in public transport fees are also expected, but the Department of Transport has deferred these until next year. On the other hand, the Department for International Development (DfID) will see a 50% increase by 2015, making the UK the first major nation to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid, as recommended by the UN – a controversial move in light of the major cuts in jobs and services across the UK.

The Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) suffered a number of changes, including:

1. Most controversial, was the Government’s U-turn on the Carbon Reduction Commitment energy efficiency scheme (CRC). The CRC requires small and medium emitters to buy permits to cover their energy emissions, with proceeds handed back to those who cut the most carbon, and penalising those who cut the least. However, the Comprehensive Spending Review shocked participants by announcing that all revenue raised from the emissions trading scheme (£1bn/year), which began earlier this year, will be used to support the public finances, instead of being recycled back to participants.

Steve Radley, director of policy at manufacturer’s group EEF, said: “If the private sector is going to play a greater role in increasing investment and growth it needs clarity. By changing the rules six months after the game has started and landing business with an unsignalled £1bn tax rise, the government has sent an unwelcome signal.”

Business and investment communities have been rallying Government for clarity on carbon policy, and this last minute ‘change of the rules’ is not expected to instill any confidence in the UK renewables market. Many participants also felt that the Government’s decision has punished the preparedness of hundreds of participants, which had already signed up to a number of initiatives, including the Carbon Trust Standard certification and others. Whilst the reputational advantages of performing well in the CRC are still expected to incentivise emissions reduction, the decoupling of the financial gain from recycled revenues has completely altered the investment equation. The pay back period and economics of existing investments will no-doubt be delayed, or even eliminated.

Climate Minister Greg Barker, said the decision had not been taken lightly, but was as a result of the “catastrophic” deficit inherited from the Labour government.

The Government now expects to raise around £3.5B (US$5.5B) over the next four fiscal years from the scheme in a move that means the CRC will effectively act as a carbon tax mechanism. Participants must reevaluate their financial budgets, to collectively raise to £1m each year to meet the Treasury’s estimation of £1bn/year (an implied price of £15/tonne of carbon).

Whilst these changes will simplify the incredibly complex scheme, designed to cut carbon, it has left participants, including the NHS and other businesses facing additional budget cuts, reeling with the potential implications. Whilst it is good news for the environment, it calls into question the equity of taxing small to medium GHG emitters, as the largest emitters, such as power stations, evade their carbon costs through the weak carbon price signals set by the EU ETS. The cap in the EU ETS remains ineffectually low as a result of the recession, and participants frequently make large windfall profits from the sell their share of surplus emissions allowances on the carbon market, over-allocated to them by the European Commission. Furthermore, weak political commitment for emissions reduction in the EU ensures that the carbon price remains low.

2. Osbourne announced a meagre £1bn for the proposed Green Investment Bank, which is expected to offer funding for investment in low carbon projects and industry development. Ongoing debate suggest that the bank will need a minimum of between £2-6bn to yield the investment power appropriate for the development of new energy infrastructure, to support the achievement of the UK’s CO2 targets.

Chris Huhne, Climate Secretary, has suggested that further funds may come in the form of the potential sale of the Government’s one-third stake in Urenco, the company, which makes enriched uranium for nuclear power. The previous Government’s attempt to sell its stake in Urenco as blocked by shareholders, raising questions over how long fundraising from the sale of assets could potentially take.

The final design of the ‘bank is still unclear, and there is much speculation about whether it will be a ‘real’ bank – independent and able to raise bonds etc – or simply a Government funding pot.

3. The Government’s commitment to the programme for the commercialisation of Carbon Capture & Storage has been reduced from the construction of four demonstration plants, to just a single one. However, the announcements confirmed that there is “up to” £1bn of public funds on the table for the first. DECC will have a challenge on its hands in restoring confidence as uncertainty around the policy environment and economics of the CCS projects has led to the withdrawal of all but one of the companies bidding for the Government funds, with E.ON pulling out last week.

Building and running four till 2015 would have cost about £10bn but the government still has the power – voted in with cross-party agreement – to charge a levy on consumer power bills to pay for the CCS demonstration. Watch this space.

4. DECC’s central budget is cut by 20%, though capital expenditure will increase by 28% by 2014-15 – most likely on nuclear decommissioning, carbon capture and storage and the renewable heat incentive for green home heating.

The state of the deficit has delivered a huge blow to the economics of the UK’s ambitions to transition to a low carbon economy. The introduction of a ‘carbon tax’ in the guise of the CRC, will mark a challenging time for the economy, as they struggle to internalise the carbon costs of their operations. The fact that revenues raised will not even feed into the Green Investment Bank signifies a significant lost opportunity, threatening risks to the economic sustainability of the UK economy.

In August, the French government launched a major renewable energy investment programme.  The new programme is dubbed <<démonstrateurs énergies renouvelables et chimie verte,>> which translates directly to “renewable energy and green chemistry demonstration.”  The renewable energy investment programme will provide €1.35bn of financial support to the sector over the coming four years.

Officials have said that the funds will be targeted at emerging technologies for clean energy that are riddled by high development costs (e.g. solar and geothermal).  To this point, France has generally targeted established low-carbon technologies, like nuclear and wind.

The French Environment and Energy Management Agency is now seeking applications for funding from private companies and research institutes seeking to conduct demonstration projects.  Additionally, there is a push to obtain about €2bn from the private sector in matching funds for the programme.

Should this style of funding for demonstration projects be successful, there are plans for other similar programmes.  The French Environment and Energy Management Agency would like to prepare programmes to invest €1bn in green transport and €250m for smart grid demonstrations.

The Grenelle Plan on Environment may have laid the groundwork for ever increasing funding for environmentally friendly research and infrastructure development through the French government.  In addition, in late August, France approved a plan to provide about €10bn for offshore wind farm development.

Though France has not announced definite plans or goals for the upcoming Conference of Parties 16, but national policy indicates a renewed commitment to renewed energy.

Image by: Jill Motts

Plans for the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere just rose from the dead.

At a cost of NZ$2 billion, Project Hayes was put forward by Meridian Energy, the country’s first carbon neutral energy company, a state-owned enterprise that provides renewable electricity in New Zealand. The proposal involved 176 turbines, each 160 metres high, erected across some 92 square kilometres of the Lammermoor Ranges in Central Otago, a stark and sparsely populated landscape.

By 2007, Meridian had secured consents from the Central Otago and Otago Regional Councils. After an appeal by opponents, however, the Environment Court refused consent in November 2009, stating that Meridian had failed to demonstrate the proposal was economically preferable to other possible schemes and sites. This decision was appealed in turn by Meridian Energy and, in August this year, the High Court upheld Meridian’s appeal, requesting that the Environment Court reconsider its decision. The new hearing is scheduled for 15^th November 2010. This date may change, however, after Save Central, an opposition umbrella group, filed notice to the Court of Appeal last week.

Opposition to wind farms is often chalked up to the NIMBY attitude (Not In My Back Yard). An analysis of submissions to Project Hayes, however, revealed that 60 per cent of local submissions were actually in favour of the proposal, while only 30 per cent of non-local submissions supported Project Hayes. The link between proximity and opposition, a central assumption of the NIMBY concept, is far from clear. What matters more, the research suggests, is the general context of the Project Hayes proposal, including the project’s size, the local impacts of construction, the cumulative effect of neighbouring projects, and public perceptions of the developer.

Crucially, the study found that one of the two most common reasons for opposing the proposal was ‘landscape context’. (The other was changes to farm boundaries, a clearer instance of NIMBYism.) Certainly, the iconic status of the region cannot be understated. One of the most high profile opponents of Project Hayes is local resident and artist Graeme Sydney whose finely rendered paintings are a celebration of the hardy landscape, appealing to popular ideals of a rugged and beautiful high country. As demonstrated by the recent backlash against mining proposals, New Zealanders are passionately protective of certain vistas, even when it defies economic ‘sense’.

What makes the issue so thorny is that, at its heart, it is a clash of identical values. The moral argument for Project Hayes is an appeal to the same environmental values that motivates the opposition. We want to reduce our greenhouse emissions because we want to protect the environment, so it seems deeply perverse to spoil our natural treasures in order to save the very same. A similar conflict gnaws at nuclear power, an ‘unenvironmental’ solution to an environmental problem. Morality loathes inconsistency, even if the real world rarely allows anything but.

This tug-of-war between environmental values creates opportunities for critics of green policy. Prominent climate change sceptics were recruited as witnesses in the Environment Court appeal, a worrying conflation of two distinct issues. After all, one can disagree with Project Hayes specifically while still supporting emissions reductions policies generally. If these two issues are merged, however, the debate over the merits of a single wind farm is subsumed into the more troubled debate over the existence of global warming, which paralyses any clear analysis of energy policy. In the same vein, one strident critic of climate change policy described Project Hayes as ‘environmental vandalism’, turning the proposal for clean energy against its own green aspirations.

Meridian Energy may have to tread carefully, more carefully than it has so far. While the Environment Court’s decision will have a significant impact on future wind farm proposals, so will the reputation that Meridian gains in the meantime. If perceptions of developers play a role in a community’s attitude toward wind farm proposals, then Meridian’s intractable attitude may handicap future projects. Nor has their image been helped by media reports that Meridian paid NZ$175,000 to the Department of Conservation in 2007 to drop its objections to Project Hayes.

A survey of landowners in the region found that 78 per cent would support a wind farm of less than five turbines, while 54 per cent would support a wind farm of more than fifty. Perhaps support dwindles further at 176 turbines, yet this research nevertheless suggests there is ample room to move. If Meridian continues going after its ‘big game’, however, it may end up with nothing or a bullish reputation, neither of which will help the advent of clean energy.

The UK Government has claimed to become the ‘Greenest Ever Government’ since the previous Labour and Conservative leadership.

Following the announcement of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill during the Queen’s Speech on 25 May 2010, David Cameron (Prime Minister) promised the country that he would lead the UK to become a low carbon economy through enhanced energy efficiency and low-carbon energy production, both of which remains to be seen.

The previous labour government had committed a total of £405 million towards promoting a green economy, of which the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) was a large arm of this delivery.  The SDC has made £70m savings every year through implementing a number of Green Initiatives.  The SDC also claims that additional savings of £350m per year through improvements in energy, water, waste, recycling and transport will also be met, regardless of funding, over the next five years.

However, recent announcements of funding cuts have led to the SDC to be axed.  The Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Caroline Spelman has led the cuts, whilst at the same time calling for the Government to ‘step up’ its green ambitions and drive further energy savings.  This contradictory view was not shared by the Chair of the SDC, who is simply disappointed at the announcement.

Many more cuts are on the way.  The budget led by George Osborne on 22 June had created a sense of hope and expectation that concrete energy policies were on the way, but these hopes were simply not met.  Instead, Osborne made slight references to climate change policies, but the lack of detail on policies, financial plans and commitments were heavily noted.

The government’s commitment to renewables has also come under question, with the Micropower Council saying that it is stalling on the introduction of the Renewable Heat incentive (RHI), which would pay householders for generating low carbon heat.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) issued a report yesterday suggesting that a commitment of £10 billion is needed, for investments in pre-construction off-shore wind farm technology if the UK is to meet its renewables electricity target of 30% by 2020. Capital funding for projects is critical to ensure that the UK invests in renewable projects.  The budget announcement was Osborne’s golden opportunity to make the Energy savings the government has promised to deliver.

To add to the frustration, the delay of implementing existing energy policies are being felt in most areas of the UK, particularly in terms of cost and uncertainty for business.

The six month delays to the October introduction date for the Part L changes, which are designed to make homes 25% more energy efficient, are causing losses in both carbon and heating bill savings.  It has emerged that the programme is still subject to approval by the government.

Perhaps more pressing are the delays to the most radical policy which involves defining a replacement for the electricity component of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) by adding a ‘top up carbon tax’ on power generators. This would be a way to establish a carbon ‘floor price’ which is needed to support carbon trading in the EU ETS scheme, which is a major part of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill commitment.

MP Caroline Lucas has published a statement today arguing that ‘now is the time to invest’, but lack of government financial commitment and delays to current programmes is painting a gloomy outlook at the moment.  Is the UK really committed to becoming the ‘greenest ever government’ as promised at the start of the Coalition?

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have simultaneously launched a call for the European Union (EU) to commit to a larger reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. In recent months, the EU has weathered economic troubles. But the current plan for increased energy cuts is being billed as a bid to help economic recovery and to shore up energy security.

Currently, the agreed EU target is to reduce energy use by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. In scientific terms, the current 20% reduction target is not likely to restrict global temperature rise to the 2°C – the key climate danger threshold identified by the IPCC.

The main line of argument being repeated across the three major EU powers is that Europe’s current focus on recovery from recession must not distract from the type of economy that is appropriate in the medium and long-term. Thus, Jean-Louis Borloo, France’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary, states that “without a path to a sustainable low-carbon future, we will face continued uncertainty and significant costs from energy price volatility and a destabilizing climate.” His counterparts, in the UK and Germany respectively, Chris Huhne and Norbert Roettegen, agree. “We’re determined to make the economic case for the EU to cut its emissions by 30% by 2020 as quickly as possible,” Huhne said.

The current argument is that the recession itself has cut emissions in the EU’s traded sector by 11% from pre-crisis levels. Thus, the current carbon price is too low to stimulate significant investment in “green jobs” and “green technology.” Thus, Borloo, Huhne and Roettegen contest that if the EU sticks to 20% reduction targets, Europe is likely to lose the race to compete in the low-carbon world to countries such as China or the USA—which, following from the Copenhagen COP, they are looking to create attractive environments for low-carbon investments.

Though, reduced emissions during the recession has brought projected annual costs in 2020 of meeting the existing 20% target down a projected third from €70bn ($89bn, £59bn) to €48bn. A move up to 30% is now estimated to cost only €11bn more than the original cost of achieving a 20% reduction. To put this into perspective, according to the International Energy Agency, every year of delayed investment on low-carbon energy sources costs €300bn to €400bn at the global level into the future.

But it remains to be seen what the tangible motivation will be for increasing thresholds on carbon reductions to 30%. In the past, feed-in tariffs have been successful; but with a declared reduction target, perhaps even written into law formally, there will be issue with anxiety related to the current recession. Also, competition is key to motivate changes and the USA Congress just dropped the proposed comprehensive climate change package.

The Environment Ministers in the UK, Germany, and France have addressed general public in their call for increased reduction targets. In recent months there has been a surge in popular press discussion of extreme temperatures. The first six months of 2010 brought a string of warmest-ever global temperatures. Connecting these extreme weather months to long-term climate change patterns remains difficult, according to experts. “When we are looking at the scale of a season or a few months, we can’t talk about trends related to climate change,” Herve Le Treut, head of France’s Laboratory of Dynamical Meteorology. But, for the general public these extreme temperatures reflect the concept of climate change.

Between the extreme temperatures recently and potential business-case outlines, 30% reduction targets seem to have some potential. But only time and changing circumstances will tell…