Climate change policies

[bluescreen]

The FT has been on the climate change case for ages. The cost of doing something is vastly outweighed by the cost of doing too little too late, let alone nothing at all, but their readers don't seem to have been listening. This long article (from 17 August) discusses the sluggish response by investors and the flawed models they use, greatly underestimating the risks and disruption of worsening climate conditions. When they wake up to the reality, the possible Minsky moment will be 'unpleasant, abrupt and wealth-destroying'.

Conclusion:

There are powerful arguments why financial institutions should pay closer attention to the physical risks of climate change. Doing so might reduce the chance of sudden shocks and reinforce the case for mitigation. Moreover, it would improve the allocation of resources, deter building in flood zones and incentivise spending on climate-resilient infrastructure.
Focusing on the physical effects of poorly mitigated climate change might seem defeatist. But time is fast running out to decarbonise the economy. Investors have begun to price in the decarbonisation challenge. They need to start counting the considerable costs of inaction, too.

Lex in depth: how investors are underpricing climate risks​

The costs of inaction on global warming are potentially vast and often not sufficiently factored in to asset values

Paywall busted: https://archive.ph/LpoHJ#selection-1595.0-1603.115

 

[stavros]

The cost of doing something is vastly outweighed by the cost of doing too little too late, let alone nothing at all

Which is exactly what Nick Stern said in his government-commiissioned report seventeen years ago!

 

[elbows]

I havent seen much G20 detail from the BBC so far, mostly I only noticed them mentioning the headline bit from the official summit statement:

The G20 members announced that they have reached a 100% consensus to "pursue and encourage efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally through existing targets and policies". The bloc accounts for more than 75% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

(from Russia hails unexpected G20 'milestone' as Ukraine fumes )

However the likes of the Times of India have a bit more detail in a dedicated article:

G20 leaders promise to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030, agree to work for global net zero by 2050 | India News - Times of India

India News: NEW DELHI: In a significant move on climate change issues at G20 summit, the leaders here on Saturday agreed to go for rapid, deep and sustained reduc.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Including:

As far as the Green Climate Fund is concerned, where the developed countries were supposed to bring USD 100 billions on table per year by 2020 to help developing countries implement their NDCs, the developed country contributors expect this goal to be met for the first time in 2023. The G20 leaders now call to set an ambitious, transparent and trackable New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) of climate finance in 2024, from a floor of USD 100 billion a year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries in fulfilling the objective of the Paris Agreement.

 

[Aquamarine]

A policy wonk from the Global Warming Policy Foundation has a new paper out today, that been getting some headlines. Its basically saying the IPCC's 2013 'Summary for Policymakers' contains 'a remarkable logical fallacy' known as the Prosecutor's Fallacy, with the assertion that 'at least 95% degree of certainty that more than half' of the recent warming observed since 1950 had been caused by man. Its not clear how significant this will be now ,10 years on. I'm sure it will help sell more outrage porn on Talk TV.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/09/Fenton-Bayes.pdf

 

[Signal 11]

A policy wonk from the Global Warming Policy Foundation has a new paper out today, that been getting some headlines.

Shocked to find it's an old white dude with far-right views and no domain knowledge. Also crying about being cancelled for his anti-vaccine activism.

 

[LDC]

Yeah, not a 'policy wonk' - a member of a climate change denial/minimising pro-free market organisation.

 

[Signal 11]

Hydrogen boiler push to continue despite verdict of UK watchdog

The government and sections of UK industry will continue to back the prospect of using hydrogen for home heating, despite a clear verdict against the technology from the UK’s infrastructure watchdog.

The National Infrastructure Commission advised this week, after an exhaustive investigation of the technology, that hydrogen was not suitable for heating homes. The report was unambiguous: “The Commission’s analysis demonstrates that there is no public policy case for hydrogen to be used to heat individual buildings. It should be ruled out as an option to enable an exclusive focus on switching to electrified heat.”

 

[stavros]

Waiting for a bus the other night, I spotted the lights in H&M all seemed to be on, despite the shop having closed some four hours previously:



I know the French have, or have had a law restricting retailers leaving the lights on all night, and maybe other countries have too. As far as I know it's never been proposed in the UK.

 

[lazythursday]

Waiting for a bus the other night, I spotted the lights in H&M all seemed to be on, despite the shop having closed some four hours previously:

View attachment 414434

I know the French have, or have had a law restricting retailers leaving the lights on all night, and maybe other countries have too. As far as I know it's never been proposed in the UK.

This is a bit of a red herring. Sure, any wasted energy is a bad thing - but most lighting these days is LED and as such pretty low energy. We have to focus attention on stuff that will actually make a difference.

 

[stavros]

This is a bit of a red herring. Sure, any wasted energy is a bad thing - but most lighting these days is LED and as such pretty low energy. We have to focus attention on stuff that will actually make a difference.

I think it's true that some things make greater differences than others. I also think the matter is pressing enough for everything to be considered.

 

[stavros]

Are we expecting anything substantial in either of the main parties' manifestos? Or those of potential king-makers?

 

[lazythursday]

Are we expecting anything substantial in either of the main parties' manifestos? Or those of potential king-makers?

I think it's highly likely the Labour manifesto will say all the right kinds of things, on energy anyway - but be lacking concrete commitments. I suspect home retrofit will be glaring by its absence and they will also steer clear of transport other than rail nationalisation / encouraging bus franchising. I think they will likely have some kind of shiny looking policy on nature - X new nature reserves or something - that isn't really what's actually needed, but will give them a green veneer.

The Tories will just be all about what they're not going to do - not going to get rid of your car / gas boiler / much loved congested roads etc etc

 

[stavros]

The retrofit thing seems like an open goal, even if it could be extremely badly done if contracted out to the wrong types.

 

[lazythursday]

The retrofit thing seems like an open goal, even if it could be extremely badly done if contracted out to the wrong types.

But it requires a huge amount of investment (some of which will pay for itself, over time) and therefore won't meet the stupid fiscal rules.

And to do it right, it needs quite a large infrastructure of advisers setting up, plus lots of investment in skills / training.

 

[stavros]

Three days in, and the most I've heard from either of the main parties is Labour's GB Energy idea.

 

[Protag]

It doesn't make sense for Yerp to decarbonise quicker than the United States, who won't agree to any concrete targets because China/Empire. Why should Yerp screw themselves?

 

[stavros]

What's Yerp? Is it slang for Europe?

 

[stavros]

Now they've got a big fuck-off majority is there any chance of Starmzy and Reeves dialling down the fiscal rulebook bumf and spending some money on rolling out some proper climate policy?

Will the Green party get at least 80% of the media coverage that Reform get?

 

[stavros]

I understand they've quickly lifted the onshore turbine ban, which has to be a good thing.

 

[stavros]

I'd like to see a proper public education campaign on cars idling. Idling already breaks the law, but I think few know that, and fewer still know why. It's a small element of even the transport footprint, let alone the whole country, yet it'd help engender that "every little helps" mentality we're going to need.

I've been noticing a lot of idling recently, I think due to people keeping their air con going. The promotion of the negatives of doing this - not just that it's illegal, but also that it fucks up the air the occupants of the car are breathing, and used up fuel - would seem like an easy win for a new government.

 

[stavros]

Was there anything in budget that was broadly positive regarding the climate? Sticking 50% onto bus fares whilst freezing fuel duty again obviously was the exact opposite.

 

[lazythursday]

Was there anything in budget that was broadly positive regarding the climate? Sticking 50% onto bus fares whilst freezing fuel duty again obviously was the exact opposite.

Actually there is some good news in the budget, particularly significant extra investment directed at the energy system. Much weaker when it comes to transport and home retrofit. This is a good analysis from Green Alliance: Did the 2024 budget deliver for the environment? » Green Alliance

 

[PTK]

Actually there is some good news in the budget, particularly significant extra investment directed at the energy system. Much weaker when it comes to transport and home retrofit. This is a good analysis from Green Alliance: Did the 2024 budget deliver for the environment? » Green Alliance

Will the implementation of these policies actually cause a significant reduction in the production of greenhouse gases in the UK?

 

[lazythursday]

Will the implementation of these policies actually cause a significant reduction in the production of greenhouse gases in the UK?

Yes. Labour's 'clean energy mission' or whatever it is called will significantly reduce emissions though it's unlikely that it is enough to get to where we should be by 2030. That will need a great deal more action on transport and homes.

There is other stuff in the budget which is more dubious such as the investment in carbon capture and storage which may well never work and is a distraction from the need to just get on with cutting emissions.

And there is other stuff which just makes things worse like expanding airports and freezing fuel duty.

 

[PTK]

Yes. Labour's 'clean energy mission' or whatever it is called will significantly reduce emissions though it's unlikely that it is enough to get to where we should be by 2030. That will need a great deal more action on transport and homes.

There is other stuff in the budget which is more dubious such as the investment in carbon capture and storage which may well never work and is a distraction from the need to just get on with cutting emissions.

And there is other stuff which just makes things worse like expanding airports and freezing fuel duty.

Are there any figures for that? Even "where we should be by 2030" is inadequate.

 

[lazythursday]

Are there any figures for that? Even "where we should be by 2030" is inadequate.

Apologies. I should have said 2035. There is a legal target to cut emissions to 78% of 1990 levels by 2035. UK enshrines new target in law to slash emissions by 78% by 2035

I'm not sure anyone has analysed the difference this budget will make. The Committee on Climate Change and academics etc do that type of thing regularly but I don't think for a single budget.

 

[PTK]

Apologies. I should have said 2035. There is a legal target to cut emissions to 78% of 1990 levels by 2035. UK enshrines new target in law to slash emissions by 78% by 2035

I'm not sure anyone has analysed the difference this budget will make. The Committee on Climate Change and academics etc do that type of thing regularly but I don't think for a single budget.

I am more than a little doubtful that "green hydrogen" is a good thing.

 

[lazythursday]

I am more than a little doubtful that "green hydrogen" is a good thing.

Was green hydrogen in the budget?

It's seems a good enough idea for some transport and industrial uses. Why do you think it a bad thing?

 

[PTK]

Was green hydrogen in the budget?

It's seems a good enough idea for some transport and industrial uses. Why do you think it a bad thing?

In the budget, the government pledged more money for green hydrogen.
I do not know much about green hydrogen, but I do know that is produced using elecrricity. The amount of energy produced by burning green hydrogen is less than the amount of energy consumed to produce it.

 

[lazythursday]

In the budget, the government pledged more money for green hydrogen.
I do not know much about green hydrogen, but I do know that is produced using elecrricity. The amount of energy produced by burning green hydrogen is less than the amount of energy consumed to produce it.

This is true and one of the main reasons why hydrogen for home heating is such a bad idea (and thankfully now seems unlikely to still be on the table).

But I think there are some transport and industrial processes that are difficult to electrify where burning hydrogen can be a solution.