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?

As the Coalition Government attempts to reform the UK’s finances, fatal spending cuts have continued to penetrate the environmental sector. Despite boasting plentiful resources in marine, offshore wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy, significant cuts announced by the Government this week risk the UK loosing out to countries with poorer natural resources, but an increased willingness to invest in renewable energy.

Plans to cut the energy R&D budget by £34m, announced last week, delivered a massive blow to the low carbon technologies sector, particularly for technologies including offshore wind, geothermal energy, wood fuels and building insulation. Ironically, the announcement came just days before the Government’s independent Committee on Climate Change publically stressed the continued need for public support to develop emerging renewable energy technologies – suggesting a minimum of £50m of public money each year.

Chris Goodall highlights that these cuts to the R&D budget represent a reduction of total public expenditure on low carbon technologies by almost 20%. He adds that “this figure is on top of the cancellation of the £80m loan to Sheffield Forgemasters that would have paid for much of the installation of a new press to make the huge parts necessary for new nuclear power stations.”

Goodall suggests that the Government’s plans will diminish Britain’s ability to compete in the global energy race. The cuts also bring the UK’s spending on emerging technologies to an internationally low 0.01% of GDP – 3 times less than the US and 9 times less than Japan (as a %age of GDP).

Furthermore, there is increased speculation about plans to axe the Government’s independent sustainability watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission. Whilst no official decision has been made, an announcement is expected to be made – ironically – on the day the agency plans to unveil its annual report detailing green improvements to government operations, which would deliver savings of tens of millions of pounds.

Whitehall has announced some significant spending cuts over the last few weeks, and the cuts to low carbon and renewable technologies are likey to have particularly riled environmental stakeholders. Prime Minister David Cameron is going to have a big task on his hand if he wants to prove to UK taxpayers that his Government will be the “greenest government ever.”

It’s been almost a month since the UK’s newly elected, and historic, Coalition Government was formed, introducing an interesting partnership between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties. With over 22 bills announced in last week’s Queen’s speech, the Coalition certainly has its work cut out over the next 18 months.

Without doubt, the biggest concern of this Government is the reduction of the national deficit, which stands at a colossal 12% of GDP. However, the newly elected PM, David Cameron, and his Liberal Democrat deputy, Nick Clegg, have pledged that the urgent need to develop a low-carbon economy will remain a key issue and focus amidst deficit reduction plans. To affirm his commitment, one of Cameron’s earliest announcements included a target to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within next 12 months. In the same vein, the PM has also committed to push the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020.

The Energy Security and Green Economy bill announced in the Queen’s speech last week is expected to deliver some of the pledges made in the Coalition Government’s manifesto (see below). The Bill will focus on maximising energy efficiencies and renewable energy generation through a range of innovative policy measures, including ‘green loans’ for buildings and businesses, designed to increase investment in green technologies and efficiency measures across the UK. Importantly the loans are associated with the building or business and not the individual, enabling owners to transfer payments to new owners if the property/businesses are sold.

However, this Green Deal is the only part of the government’s low-carbon agenda that is currently certain to make it into the final version of the Bill after DECC announced that a host of other legislative measures “may” be included in the legislation. The Department is still finalising proposals for legislation to regulate emissions from coal-fired power stations (with uncertainty around the baseline for performance), provide a framework to govern the rollout of smart grid technologies, lay the foundations for a green investment bank, reform energy markets to enhance security of supply and competition between operators and ensure North Sea infrastructure is open to companies operating in smaller oil and gas fields. Whilst the latter option remains controversial, the Government has made suggestions that it will seek to maximise opportunities for the continued extraction of fossil fuels and opencast mining, ironically exhausting carbon intensive energy resources to build the ‘foundations’ of a renewable and low carbon economy. This has dismayed some environmentalists, who remain skeptical about how this Coalition will set itself apart from the previous Labour Government.

However, the proposals put forward will have to contend with the £6.25bn of public spending cuts also announced last week by George Osborne. Whilst the Department for Energy & Climate Change (DECC) won’t suffer as much as some other Government departments, it is set to lose £85M from its budget, with DEFRA losing as much as £162M. In what he has described as the “fastest and most collegiate spending review in recent history” Osbourne plans to recover the remaining savings in £20.2M cuts to the department’s delivery bodies and a further £26m from other efficiencies, including £6M by targeting lower impact spend in the Regional Development Agencies. In addition, £34M will be cut from business support programmes including moving forward the closure of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP), which provides grants to households and businesses installing renewable energy technologies. A new feed in tariff incentive, launched in April 2010 is expected to replace the LCBP and provide incentives for microgeneration of renewable technologies, however with the launch of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) not expected until next year, there are concerns that some parts of the market are exposed to a lack of policy clarity or incentive.

Leonnie Greene of the Renewable Energy Association said producers of biomass systems, ground source heat pumps and other renewable heat technologies now urgently needed clarity on when the proposed Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme will be introduced.

Whilst many of these cuts are likely to deliver emissions reductions, the Government is faced with the risk of stifling long term green investments, which would inevitably deliver economy wide savings in the future.

Interestingly, two of the government’s most controversial environmental policies – its proposal to enforce a floor price for carbon and reform renewable energy incentives by extending the feed-in tariff – were noticeably absent from the list of measures to be included in the final bill. Whilst the Government has demonstrated some ‘fresh thinking’ on this agenda, there is a sense that there is much thinking still to be done. Inevitably the next 12 months will be critical, and comprehensive consultation, speedy implementation, and strong political direction will determine how well Cameron guides the UK through its worst debt crisis, and critical energy reforms to better position the nation in a future low carbon economy.

The Coalition Government’s vision for decarbonising the UK

1. The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters;
2. The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs;
3. We will instruct Ofgem to establish a security guarantee of energy supplies.
4. Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion;
5. The creation of a green investment bank to support low carbon projects to transform the economy. As part of the creation of a green investment bank, the Government intends to create green financial products to provide individuals with opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy.
6. The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills;
7. Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs;
8. Measures to encourage marine energy;
9. The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard;
10. The establishment of a high-speed rail network;
11. The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow and the refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted;
12. The replacement of the air passenger duty with a per-flight duty;
13. The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits;
14. Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence;
15. Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity;
16. Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles;
17. Continuation of the present government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within 12 months.
18. Intention to seek an increase in the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the climate change committee.

Ministerial Arrangements in the new Coalition Government

Chris Huhne MP has been appointed Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the new coalition government.

Charles Hendry MP and Gregory Barker MP have been appointed as Ministers of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Lord Marland has been appointed as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

As former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his family stepped down from service, the new Conservative leader, David Cameron has finally stepped in to Number 10 Downing Street. In the most exciting, yet controversial general election for decades, the UK has seen a Cameron and his next in command, Nick Clegg from the Liberal Democrats arrive yesterday to his new London office to discuss plans for the UK economy.

Despite signs of a stock market crisis as a result of the UK’s first hung parliament in 70 years, the value of the Sterling has risen slowly, and the FTSE 100 index has also risen modestly in yesterdays closing results. This is a positive sign that the financial markets are not too phased by the new coalition, and that we are not headed for a stock market crash.

However, not everyone shares this view. In an attempt to understand what does the coalition mean for future policy development, many UK voters and businesses believe that a coalition will slow down the decision making process. As stock markets opened for trade in the early hours of the election results morning (01:00), the general consensus of the traders was that a hung parliament would have a negative effect on trade and consequently devalue the pound. Slow decisions would also mean a loss of revenue for business, unable to make investment decisions due to lack of direction from the government. As a result, this may lead to the withdrawal of business from the UK market.

A major dispute already facing our new parliament in the first day of office is that of nuclear energy. Whilst the Tories are supportive of building nuclear power stations, the Liberal Democrats are against this. Simon Hughes, energy spokesperson for Liberal Democrats states that “A new generation of nuclear power stations will be a colossal mistake, regardless of where they are built. They are hugely expensive, dangerous and will take too long to build.”

Commitments to policy specific investments may prove hard to back, if agreement at the leadership level is not joined up. In the case of nuclear, the coalition has managed the conflicting views and issued the following statement on nuclear:

“We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.”

Furthermore, although both parties agree to reduce CO2 by a minimum of 34%, to meet the targets set by the Labour party in the Climate Change Act (2008), it is not clear on how both parties can deliver this target. For instance, the Tories have stated that they will not support specific ‘low-carbon’ technologies with the aim to let the market decide which technologies to adopt, yet the liberal democrats are more explicit about backing wind-power.

Like Labour, the new coalition agrees to back the 10:10 targets, to reduce co2 by 10% by 2010) and also agree to support the Green investment back which is designed to fund new, low carbon developments. This financing also extends to supporting the ‘greener’ homes agenda, to meet the zero carbon homes target (for new builds) by 2016, as well as the continuation of the feed-in tariff for microgenerators for future clean energy.

What remains unclear is the finance allocated to achieve these aspirations, which is the job of the today’s appointed Environment and Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne to agree with his new peers, treasury and members of the public. As new environmental discussions approach in day two of the new coalition, the agenda for environmental policy will become clearer.

South Africa’s Minister of Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, and former Minister of Environmental Affairs has emerged as one of the frontrunners to replace Yvo de Boer as chief of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC. In the follow up to de Boer’s resignation, candidates from Indonesia, India, Costa Rica and van Schalkwyk from South Africa, were promoted for the position by their respective national leaders. As the race draws to a close, van Schalkwyk and Costa Rica’s Christiana Figueres have emerged as the key candidates for the role.

 Despite the disappointments at Copenhagen, de Boer still leaves big shoes to fill, with regards to his unwavering energy, rigour and experience he applied to coercing paradoxical sovereign interests at key climate negotiations. His successor, van Schalkwyk as predicted, or Figueres, will have to ensure that the developed – developing country divides witnessed at Copenhagen do not exacerbate. Furthermore, the new Executive Secretary will have to illicit exceptional leadership and diplomatic skills if climate negotiations are to regain credibility and have any measure of success in carving out policy to abate and adapt to climate change.

A big feather in van Schalkwyk’s cap is the expectation of a formal legally binding treaty being ready by the time COP 17 occurs in December 2011 to be hosted by South Africa. Having developing country leadership of the UNFCCC and leadership from the country hosts is viewed as one of the best chances of securing a treaty and succession to the Kyoto Protocol.

van Schalkwyk has had a chequered political history under the apartheid regime, emerging as Minister of Environmental Affairs under appointment from South Africa’s former President Mbeki in 2004. This ministerial experience has given van Schalkwyk positive standing with high profile countries in the UN. In addition, South Africa has been praised for the emissions cuts it announced in the run up to Copenhagen, although the recent approval of a $3.75 billion from the World Bank for the Medupi power station has jeopardised these target’s and South Africa’s approach to climate change mitigation. van Schalkwyk may also face opposition in the form of Figueres’ importance in encapsulating gender issues in leading climate change action. UN general secretary Ban Ki-Moon has the ultimate authority to make the appointment, expected in the near future.

The French government is working towards implementation of a direct carbon tax by July 2010. France’s Constitutional Council struck down the first version of the carbon tax bill last 29 December. On 21 January 2010, the government proposed a number of amendments to the original legislation, which is aimed at encouraging French consumers to be more energy efficient and conscious of their energy decisions.

The first version of the bill was meant to take effect on 1 January; halting its inception has been greatly embarrassing to Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. The legislation was deemed unconstitutional due to a large number of sectoral exceptions. The new version of the bill will maintain the originally proposed 17 EUR per tonne of carbon dioxide with compensation for households. There has been a reduction in the number of exemptions. Though, certain “sensitive and energy-intensive sectors” will still receive special exemptions. Farming and fisheries will pay just one-quarter of the normal rate; road transport and shipping, will only pay 65 percent.

French Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, has begun a series of consultations with companies, trade unions, and environmental non-governmental organizations concerning the specifics of the legislation. “The goal is to develop a new draft, which will be sent to Parliament for approval by spring,” spokesman Luc Chatel told a press conference after the weekly cabinet meeting.

Under the new proposal, the tax level remains at 17 EUR per metric tonne of CO₂ at over 1,000 of the most polluting sites. The main innovation of the amended bill is the inclusion of previously excluded sectors, such as power stations, oil refineries, and cement works. These plants were exempted in the first version of the bill because they are scheduled to be subject to a European Union quota system to be implemented in 2013. EU regulation calls for emissions in those sectors to be reduced by 21% by 2020.

In late January, a poll released by ViaVoice showed 51 % of the French public thought the government should abandon the tax proposal. “The carbon tax should not be an umpteenth tax used for filling up the state coffers,” small business union CGPME said in a statement. The French government is addressing this concern. It continues to stress that for businesses of all sizes, combined with the reform of local business taxes, the carbon tax will merely serve to transfer taxation away from work and investment. Yet, the debate continues to focus on how to compensate low income households,; due to inefficiency, the tend to use relatively more fuel and many work at night before public transport is running.

“The best would be for it to be ready in 2010 but it’s true that all these details … are complicated,” Michel Rocard, a former Socialist prime minister, said in an appearance on Europe 1 radio. “I don’t know if we will be ready in 2010.”

Last July, Rocard headed a review report of the potential tax for the government. At that time, the burden of the tax was presented as being divided roughly equally between households and businesses. There is no clear indication of how this division will change under the most recent tax proposal.

After a first round of consultations, the French government has unveiled two options for introducing the tax system into industrial sectors already subject to the European emissions quota system.

The first option would levy the carbon tax on all industries, but the introduction would be at reduced rates for companies most exposed to international competition, as well as for those that are the largest consumers of energy. A series of quantitative criteria (yet to be fully unveiled) will be used in order determine the particular rate of tax.

Additionally, under this plan, companies would be entitled to receive a tax credit on investments aimed to reduce both energy consumption and emissions and to prevent industrial risks.

The second option for the tax would construct a bonus-penalty system. All industrial installations would be subject to the tax of of 17 EUR per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. Under this second plan, each business would receive a lump sum tax credit, dependant upon its efforts made to reduce emissions.

“This is the beginning of a wider process of reflection and consultation,” Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said after the report was presented.

While most politicians agree emissions must be cut to fight global warming, a key part of the debate is on how to compensate poorer households, workers in certain sectors and those who need to drive because they work at night or live in rural areas.

France aims for an 80% reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2050.

France would be the largest economy to apply a direct carbon tax, mirroring existent measures in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland.

Canada has slightly adjusted its mid-term climate mitigation targets to match US pledges. Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, recently announced that Canada has changed its mitigation goals in an effort to harmonize with the Obama administration.

Canada’s new emissions reduction target for 2020 is a cut of 17% on 2005 levels. Heading into the Copenhagen meeting this past December Canada’s mid-term target was a 20% reduction on 2006 levels by 2020. This adjustment comes as countries report their national targets to the UNFCCC as outlined in the Copenhagen Accord. The new Canadian commitment has been labeled by environmental groups as being slightly less stringent than the previous target, and well outside the range of targets proposed by the European Union (20% cuts from 1990 levels by 2020, with the possibility of going up to 30%).

On the face of things, Canada’s adjusted target is just another step towards an apparent harmonization between the Canadian and US positions on climate change, something that Minister Prentice has been calling for since taking over the portfolio.

However, differences clearly remain on policy direction and actions for addressing climate change. While Canada will now follow US pledges for 2020, it is not clear if Canada will adjust its long term targets to match those included in legislation before the US Senate.  A climate bill passed by the House proposed a sharp cut of 80% on 2005 emissions levels by 2050, a target that the Canadian government does not seem to be considering.

Additionally, as previously reported on Climatico here, there is a big difference in stimulus spending on green initiatives on either side of the 49th parallel. Reports by the Pembina Institute have suggested that the U.S. is vastly outspending Canada on a per capita basis on renewable energy infrastructure.

In a recent speech in Calgary to oil executives, Minister Prentice indicated that any Canadian action on climate change was contingent on American actions. Critics have argued that this matching of American policy may result in indefinite delays as climate legislation faces an uphill battle in the US Congress.  This position has also resulted in furthering internal political divisions within Canada, as Quebec Premier Jean Charest came out strongly against the federal government policy.

If Canada is to wait for certainty in the American position it could be some time before Canada implements a comprehensive program to reduce emissions, either through a cap-and-trade scheme or through regulation.

While the Obama administration is making moves towards regulating carbon emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency it is unclear how far along Canada’s plans are to similarly regulate industry north of the border.  A plan to regulate emissions from heavy industry in Canada was due to be released last year (a deadline already shifted numerous times) but will now likely be stalled indefinitely.

The past week has marked Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address, where the president traditionally outlines his agenda and priorities for the coming year, as well as reporting on the condition of the United States. As far as climate change is concerned, Obama seems to be continuing the approach we have seen him taking in the past months – while it is probably important to him, there are apparently many other issues that are more pressing and deserve a larger share of his attention.

In fact, he did not even mention climate change per se, other than referring to the (energy and) climate bill that was passed in the House over the summer, and even that, only as it relates to clean energy. Clean energy by the way – as far as Obama is concerned – is apparently nuclear (Obama’s proposed budget for 2011, to be sent to Congress on Monday, contains a tripling of government loan guarantees for nuclear power), offshore oil and gas, biofuels and clean coal. There was no mention of solar nor of wind, and the word ‘renewable’ was never used throughout the 71 minutes speech.

Once again, Obama skirts around the issue of climate change, referring only to clean energy, energy security and jobs. High speed rail is not a matter of moving away from dirty fuels used in planes and cars, but rather a way to create jobs. And it does not seem to take higher priority than building new highways. Apparently the Recovery Act should be enough to prevent “Europe or China [from] hav[ing] the fastest trains” (it’s not), as there was no mention of continuing investing in rail infrastructure beyond the one off investment in the Act.

Obama continues not to show strong leadership when it comes to climate change. He says he is grateful to the House for passing its bill last summer and that he is eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate, yet he does not mention what he would like to see in such a bill, he does not use this rare platform to move the discussion forward.

This was not the case in other issues – he used the SOTU to give quite a talking to to Republicans, especially in the Senate, for being continually obstructive and for focusing only on the next election rather than on governing the country. He made a gentle veto threat “if the [financial reform] bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform”. Why then didn’t Obama even mention what a good climate bill should contain in his opinion? Why is there no mention of cap-and-trade or some other mechanism to reduce carbon emissions? Pandering to wavering Democrats and potential Republican allies is all very well, but what about showing the way? What about using this opportunity to outline his plans and his vision, as he has done with financial reform or Afghanistan?

Already, in the aftermath of the SOTU, business leaders such as Tom Donahue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a well known antagonist to the House climate bill, and John Rice, a vice chairman of General Electric Co. pointed to the fact that America has a lot on its plate, and therefore a cap and trade bill is not likely to be passed in the coming year.

This is how momentum is brought to a halt…