Month: May 2017

Trump’s Climate Challenge: Between Energy Superpower And Green Shackles

Trump’s Climate Challenge: Between Energy Superpower And Green Shackles

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Presentation by Dr Benny Peiser, Climate Change Forum — Hong Kong, 27 May 2017

During his election campaign, Donald Trump pledged to roll back President Obama’s climate and energy policies. He promised to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement and stop all US payments to UN global warming programmes. Trump declared that he would develop America’s mammoth oil, gas and coal reserves to the full and make global energy dominance the strategic, economic and foreign policy goal of the United States. The US is sitting on hundreds of years of oil, gas and coal which has the potential to turn North America into the 21st century’s energy superpower. The shale revolution is having huge economic and geopolitical implications while America’s major competitors are trying to shackle the US into a low-carbon future that would essentially rob it of its assets. The Paris agreement vows to cap global warming to “well below” two degrees Celsius (compared to late 19th-century levels) which, campaigners claim, would require the US to massively cut CO2 emissions from conventional energy production. It would also mean most of America’s gas, oil and coal reserves would have to stay in the ground, thus relinquishing hundreds of trillions in economic gains while the US would be forced to surrender the prospect of becoming the world’s leading energy superpower. Yet despite Trump’s unequivocal pledge, his administration is deeply divided on whether to fulfil his promise to withdraw from the Paris agreement and to pursue his America First Energy plan. In this talk, I will discuss the political and economic challenges the US administration faces regarding the Paris climate agreement. I will also address the international and geopolitical implications of Trump’s climate policy decisions.

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

May 21, 2017 at 09:12PM

Oxfam’s Climate Warriors Declare War on Poor People

Oxfam’s Climate Warriors Declare War on Poor People

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Oxfam have written a report which claims coal power will create more poverty. In my opinion this claim is a disgusting direct attack on the coal fired industrialisation, jobs and opportunities currently lifting a growing number of people out of chronic poverty in Asia and Africa.

More coal equals more poverty: Transforming our world through renewable energy

executive summary

Tackling poverty and inequality means bringing an end to the fossil fuel era, beginning with no new coal and supporting renewable energy for all.

More coal will drive more people into poverty through the devastating consequences of climate change and the direct toll of coal mining and burning on local communities, including loss of land, pollution, and health impacts.

With the vast majority of energy-poor households in developing countries living beyond the reach of the electricity grid, coal is categorically unsuited to addressing the challenges of energy poverty. Renewables are the clear answer to bringing electricity to those who currently live without it, and are already bringing transformative benefits for communities around the world.

Recognition of coal’s immense toll on vulnerable communities and why more coal will entrench poverty has been largely absent from the battle over climate and energy policy in Australia.

Also missing from the debate has been an acknowledgement of coal’s inability to meet the energy needs of the world’s
poor, and an understanding of the scale and pace of action necessary from Australia to meet our obligations under the Paris Agreement and help limit warming to 1.5°C — a matter of survival for many vulnerable countries.

As an international development agency working in more than 90 countries, Oxfam has observed directly the impacts of coal and climate change on communities worldwide, as well as how renewable energy is changing lives, raising incomes, improving health and education, and powering inclusive development.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2qay91l

The point Oxfam miss is only poor people are vulnerable. Coal makes poor people rich, by allowing their nations to industrialise. The rise of China, the industrial revolution in Europe, the rise of coal fired industry in America – the evidence that coal powered industrialisation leads to wealth is indisputable.

Rich people are not vulnerable to climate change. Rich people can afford tornado proof houses, and decent sea walls. When their crops fail, they can buy more food from elsewhere.

It is not possible to run a modern industrial society off non-hydro renewables. You can start industrialisation using hydro-power, but as industrial demand rises, you rapidly hit a point when water resources are stretched – society has to choose between industrial and agricultural users. This is currently happening in parts of Africa. The only way to solve this problem without hurting your economy is to build cheap power plants. King coal is still the cheapest non-hydro power source. As formerly poor countries like rapidly industrialising Tanzania have discovered, coal is the proven route to escaping long term poverty.

Over 60% of Africans without Power – Will Build Coal Power Plants
AUGUST 12, 2014

President Obama wants to control the use of coal abroad for electricity generation, but he is meeting with opposition. From developed countries such as Japan and Germany to developing countries such as China and India, coal is being used for electricity generation at an increasing rate. Even Africa, with over 60 percent of its population without power, has told the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit last week that it will use coal to provide its residents with power, just as the developed world used the fuel for industrialization. As Tanzanian Minister of Power Sospeter Muhongo said, “We in Africa, we should not be in the discussion of whether we should use coal or not. In my country of Tanzania, we are going to use our natural resources because we have reserves which go beyond 5 billion tons.”[i]  His country currently uses so little coal that at present rates, its supplies would last 50,000 years.

Tanzania is a good example of an industrializing nation in Africa that is attempting to move its population forward, and provide the benefits that electrification brings. Currently, only 24 percent of the population is connected to the grid (and only 7 percent of rural residents), and in order to develop clean water systems, pumping capacity is needed.[ii]   The government’s goal is to lift per capita income from its current $640 per annum to at least $3000. Electrical access is key to this goal.

Read more: http://ift.tt/1HJqvfC

Another proof that coal is the solution to poverty, is the energy mix used for Aluminium smelting.

Aluminium is utterly essential for our modern life – it is used in everything from kitchen tinfoil, corrosion resistant window frames, the bodywork of lightweight cars, aircraft bodies, its a long list.

But Aluminium smelting is incredibly energy intensive. Aluminium is smelted by running a gigantic electric current through molten ore – there is no other known industrial means of smelting Aluminium. Aluminium smelters are always looking for a way to reduce their energy costs, because their razor thin profits utterly depend on having cheaper power than their competitors. Aluminium smelters have no ideological commitment to a particular source of energy. If wind power or solar power provided a cheaper alternative, they would not let some misplaced loyalty to fossil fuels stand in the way of a bigger annual bonus.

As you can see from the graph at the top of the page, Aluminium smelters choose hydro first, coal second. Renewables don’t even feature on the list.

Oxfam’s attack against coal in my opinion amounts to a campaign of economic sabotage against the industrial development, against the alleviation of the long term poverty of the poorest people of the world.

For shame, Oxfam.

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

May 21, 2017 at 08:30PM

South Australia’s Wind Power Debacle Destroying Jobs: Unemployment Rockets (Again)

South Australia’s Wind Power Debacle Destroying Jobs: Unemployment Rockets (Again)

via STOP THESE THINGS
http://ift.tt/2kE7k62

*** The principles of economics are not hard, nor are they a mystery. Jobs require viable businesses, viable businesses require cheap and reliable electricity. Deprive businesses of cheap and reliable power and those businesses will very soon cease to exist. Those truisms, however, continue to fall on deaf ears in Australia’s so-called ‘wind power capital’, … Continue reading South Australia’s Wind Power Debacle Destroying Jobs: Unemployment Rockets (Again)

via STOP THESE THINGS http://ift.tt/2kE7k62

May 21, 2017 at 07:30PM

HOW THE UK ENERGY REGULATOR WAS RENDERED TOOTHLESS

HOW THE UK ENERGY REGULATOR WAS RENDERED TOOTHLESS

via climate science
http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie

John Constable: How Ed Miliband Neutered UK Energy RegulatorGWPF Energy Comment, 16 May 2017

Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor
 
There is likely to be increasing pressure to reform the gas and electricity regulator, Ofgem, which is widely held to have failed in the protection of consumers. This accusation is to a large degree both misguided and unjust. Ofgem is constrained by its Statutory Duties, which were revised by Ed Milliband in 2010 to put climate policy costs beyond criticism. It is this, as much as institutional lassitude, that accounts for it being so ineffective a consumer champion.

In the wake of concern about rising electricity retail prices to domestic households, the Conservative Party has suggested a price cap on Standard Variable Tariffs. It is fair to say that this policy has not been well received by commentators and economists, who with very good reason believe it likely to be counterproductive. Whether the voting public will be persuaded that a price cap is in their long-term interest remains to be seen, but it could well prove popular. – With a maladroit sense of timing that is typical of the hapless energy industry my own electricity and gas supplier has just sent me a letter explaining that due to price rises next year’s annual dual fuel bill is likely to be about 8% higher.

Doubtless many other households are receiving similar news, and perhaps thinking positively about Mrs May’s offer to stamp on rip-off tariffs.

One, more sophisticated, reaction to this sort of news is to blame the regulator, Ofgem. If the government needs to wade in to protect consumers, surely the regulator must have failed in its job. This is an understandable conclusion, but to a very significant degree it is unjust to Ofgem, which is itself tightly regulated by the legal definition of its Statutory Duties and powers. These are defined in the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989, the Utilities Act 2000, the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002, the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and, crucially, in amendments to these acts. Perhaps the most important of these amendments occurred in the Energy Act of 2010, which originated under Ed Miliband when he was Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Though a small change, it drew the regulator’s teeth.

The Utilities Act 2000 had described the overarching principal objective for energy regulation as the protection of the interests of existing and future consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting competition (for further details see this DECC analysis). This was a lucid and unconstricting brief. A determined regulator could range far and free in the pursuit of consumer welfare.

The Energy Act of 2010 amended this principal objective by defining “interests” thus in two separate paragraphs (16 (3) 1A and 17 (3) 1A referring to gas and electricity:

Those interests of existing and future consumers are their interests taken as a whole, including—
(a) their interests in the reduction of gas-supply/electricity supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases; and

(b) their interests in the security of the supply of gas/electricity to them.

This change was of enormous importance, since an increasingly large part of the charges on the consumer were (and still are) the result of policy. In effect, the revision to Ofgem’s principal purpose made them unable to comment on the imposition of cost increases resulting from measures to mitigate climate change.

Since these coercive cost increases are invisible to the market and cannot be reduced by competition, there was no means other than the regulator, or the slow and uncertain cycles of electoral democracy, to expose them to criticism.

This is no trivial matter. Policies now account for about 17% of the price to domestic households, in other words about £26/MWh of a total price to household consumers of £154/MWh (see the Committee on Climate Change Energy Prices and Bills). Median annual domestic electricity consumption in the UK is approximately 3.5 MWhs per household, so this amounted to about £91 per household per year, or roughly £2.4 billion a year, assuming 26 million households, a sum that greatly exceeds the £1.5 billion a year rip-off that prompted Mrs May to suggest a price cap.

According to the government’s estimates, in the now discontinued Estimated Impacts, we can see that this problem is set to grow dramatically. In 2020 the domestic price impact will have in all probability doubled, to £52/MWh, or about £180 a year on the electricity bill, a nationwide cost of about £5 billion per year.
Constrained by its remit, as set out by Ed Milibands Energy Act of 2010, Ofgem is powerless to comment on these enormous impositions. In essence, by being compelled to have regard to the interests of future consumers in the light of climate change the regulator has been absorbed by government and, like the Committee on Climate Change, made a mere cog wheel in the policy delivery mechanism. Consequently, and with the sole exception of the National Audit Office, there is no statutory body that has any interest in holding the government to account on climate policy costs, and none that is exclusively focused on the energy sector.

Restoring Ofgem’s Statutory Duties to their earlier free-ranging state could yield enormous benefits for the consumer. Such a reform should also be supported by electricity retailers, who, for all their faults, are carrying the can for climate policy related price increases over which they have no control. By contrast, a ‘reform’ of Ofgem that further weakened an already crippled body would be a disaster for all concerned. 

via climate science http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie

May 21, 2017 at 06:30PM