United Kingdom & Europe – March 16

Click on the headline (link) for the full text.

Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage

Energy efficiency – the Cinderella at the climate policy ball – can steal the show
Matthew Lockwood, Guardian
Ask any climate change expert what the cheapest and easiest way to cut carbon emissions is and the chances are they will say energy efficiency in homes and businesses. Indeed, they will tell you that saving energy has “negative costs” meaning you can actually make money by cutting carbon. But despite the vast amounts of money there for the taking, most of us just don’t bother.

There are obvious and understandable reasons. People have other priorities; they can’t be bothered to find out about the products; they don’t want the hassle of taking boxes out of the loft in order to lag it; they don’t trust the company trying to sell them cavity wall insulation. Above all, energy efficiency is seen as boring, the Cinderella at the climate policy ball compared with the excitement of offshore wind or the high political drama of new coal-fired power stations.

So what can be done? There is a growing recognition by government, the Conservatives and the major energy suppliers that more effort has to go into engaging people on saving energy, and various experiments are now under way.
(13 March 2009)

Lovelock labels Europe’s carbon trading scheme a ‘scam’
Adam Vaughan, Guardian
Gaia scientist joins former minister Michael Meacher in saying ‘disastrous’ scheme has profited industry but not helped to reduce emissions
—
Europe’s carbon trading scheme has proved to be “disastrous” and a “scam” in which companies have profited with no effect on emissions, a leading politician and a scientist said yesterday.

The environmentalist James Lovelock — who developed the Gaia theory of the planet as a “living organism” — and the former environment minister, Michael Meacher, said that market approaches to green issues, such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), were destined to be distorted by business pressures. Lovelock described similar market mechanisms that attempt to put a price on “services” provided by the natural world as akin to “slavery”.

“In principle [carbon trading] is not a bad idea but in operation it’s been disastrous. Business has frankly made billions out of artificial reductions of what is called hot air with absolutely no environmental benefit at all,” said Meacher…
(10 March 2009)

Carbon trade wrong, says Lord Browne
Tim Webb and Terry Macalister, The Observer
Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP and one of the earliest proponents of carbon trading to tackle climate change, has conceded his enthusiasm was misplaced.

Speaking to the Observer at the government’s low carbon industrial strategy summit last week, he said: “My view has shifted over time. Pinning all your hopes on the European Union ETS [emissions trading scheme] and carbon trading is wrong.”

… But the scheme has been dogged by controversy. In the first phase, starting in 2005, companies were given too many credits, allowing them to bank billions of pounds of credits without having to clean up their act. Now, the price of carbon is so low that it provides little incentive for companies to cut their emissions.
(8 March 2009)