Category Archives: Uncategorized

Buried in today’s Budget was the Energy Markets Assessment. What is significant about the EMA is that it marks a further implicit shift in UK climate policy away from carbon trading.

The Government has consistently said that the carbon market lies at the heart of its climate policies (for example here and here). But it has also become clear that the EU ETS is failing to create price signals that are credible and long-term enough to guide investment in the power sector. This is why Ed Miliband banned conventional coal-fired new build last year. The EMA acknowledges that the carbon market won’t drive investment Continue reading →

The French Government’s  plans for introducing a carbon tax have been dropped, in the wake of regional electoral defeats for Sarkozy and claims that it would harm competitiveness. If carbon trading is hard, carbon taxes appear to be no easier, politically.

We live in austere times in which talk of cuts is common. But there’s a difference between making cuts and cutting off your nose. EU finance ministers appear to be arguing for the latter by opposing the Commission’s long-standing plan to spend 3 per cent of European GDP on research and development.

Admittedly, Europe’s record of achievement in this area is not good. The 3 per cent target was set as part of the Lisbon strategy in 2000, and yet most EU countries’ expenditure on R&D has not changed much. In 2000, EU R&D spending was 1.8 per cent of GDP, by 2008 it was 1.9 per cent of GDP. Japan and South Korea – noted for their record on innovation – spend more than 3 per cent of GDP on R&D and China and India are catching the EU fast (all the data is drawn from the EU’s own Lisbon evaluation, which I have linked to earlier in this paragraph).

Continue reading →

Posted by Matthew Lockwood

Ryan from Australia has pulled us up on the last post, saying it is mistitled: “You have listed a number of interesting and promising developments, but in the end you have said very little about innovation itself. How does innovation actually work?” Our titles are supposed to be witty rather than literal, but in the spirit of following through, this post goes into some of the thinking about the innovation process, and also why we need innovation policy for mitigating climate change.

Tackling climate change needs technology policy because just correcting the Continue reading →

Posted by Matthew Lockwood

A key issue at the heart of our last two controversial posts was the potential for innovation in low carbon technologies to delink energy growth (and therefore economc growth) from carbon emissions.  One comment accused us of having a “blind faith in infinite innovation”. I wouldn’t quite put it that way, but we do believe that innovation offers the only viable path to mitigation, mainly by making clean energy cheap.

A couple of examples that have come my way in the last couple of days serve  to illustrate the point. Continue reading →

Posted by Matthew Lockwood

In the second of two posts, Political Climate takes a critical look at an example of the new anti-growth literature, Growth Isn’t Possible: Why we need a new economic direction by Andrew Simms and Victoria Johnson at the New Economics Foundation. 

Growth isn’t possible (GiP) does raise profoundly serious issues about the limits to economic growth and the need for urgent decarbonisation of energy systems. But part 1 argued that NEF’s approach is seriously weakened by the fudging of energy consumption and carbon emissions in the report, its thin understanding economic growth and its dismissal of innovation.

A third weakness about GiP is Continue reading →

Posted by Matthew Lockwood

Environmentalists have always had a problem with economic growth. In the crisis ridden 1970s, the narrative was about the Limits to Growth set by natural resources. In 1980, ecologist Paul Ehrlich made (and lost) a bet with economist Julian Simon that supplies of a number of different metals used in industry would run out and their prices would skyrocket.

There are now similar strands of thought in the peak oil movement. However, this time round the green critique of growth looks a bit more compelling, partly because of the step change in pressure on biodiversity, but of course most of all because of climate change. We all know that carbon emissions are at one level driven by economic growth. Human development is currently abutting a range of biological limits not least the atmosphere’s carbon carrying capacity, which is seriously overstretched. So maybe this time the environmentalists really are right.

Certainly the New Economics Foundation thinks so. Continue reading →

As if responding to yesterday’s post here on Political Climate, chief negotiator Su Wei (pictured) has confirmed that China will not accept emissions caps in the foreseeable future. He restated China’s commitment to its pre-Copenhagen pledge to reduce emissions intensity.

It really doesn’t matter whether you support or are critical of China’s position. You may think China can do more and should at least sign up to a global halving of emissions by 2050. China has weighed up its options, looked at the liabilities, costs and pitfalls of being bound into emissions targets – because that’s how emissions reduction is judged – and has decided for now to stay out of the game. Continue reading →

There will not be a global climate deal this year, there may, however be US climate legislation. A bet on the first rather than on the second of these statements would be more likely to trouble the cashier at William Hill. However, neither is going to have the bookmakers quaking in their boots.

In a meeting of EU foreign ministers, Connie Hedegaard has acknowledged the difficulties of getting a binding agreement before the South African climate summit in December 2011. Judging by the pugnacious determination of many to stick to the Bali negotiating modus operandi – see Martin Khor’s article in the Malaysian Star as an example – even this would seem optimistic. Khor advises developing world negotiators and is keen to see the Accord killed in favour of the UN twin track negotiations. Continue reading →