Bishop Hill EU for turning?
Mar 14, 2013 Climate: Parliament EU The Wall Street Journal is reporting the existence of a draft EU document that may turn out to be significant:
European policy makers must factor in the impact of the region’s deep financial crisis and stumbling economies as they design climate and energy policies, according to a draft European Union document seen by The Wall Street Journal.
The document signals that the 27-nation bloc may be reining in its ambition to lead the world in tackling climate change.
The paper, whose final version is expected to be published March 27, aims to start a debate ahead of the drafting of the EU climate and energy policy for the decade between 2020 and 2030, of which a first version should be ready by the end of this year.
Who knows what kind of a mess we could be in by 2020, but at least this report suggests the EU has now noticed that there is a problem.
Reader Comments (78)
Zut alors. If the Greens are losing out to reality here then they are really losing.
They'll find a way around it, if "Carbon" can't be demonised, where is all that tax revenue going to come from, to pay for those subsidies?
I think that the only thing that will eventually put a stop to the nonsense is a major financial crisis complete with hyperinflation and all the trimmings. So far as I can see, with government borrowing versus time resembling a hockey stick more than anything else, the tipping point will come when interest rates eventually rise to 1970's levels.
Serious power cuts accompanied by a series of harsh winters will help matters along but financial collapse will be the dominant cause of it ending.
Martin A: If I've understood the Green mentality correctly, only with financial collapse will the full dream be realised.
Martin: It's a good scare-nario to spell out, because some sensible policy maker might read it beforehand.
ssat: Sure, for a very tiny percentage. Sometimes such tiny dystopian minorities do gain massive power, like the Bolsheviks in Russia from 1917, and do massive damage. I'm not saying we should rule it out. But my hunch is (not least due to the actions of Mr FOIA in November 2009) that the worst possibilities are now past. How all futile green legislation and trougher vested interests pass away is harder to predict.
it will be colder by 2020. You have seven years to build what's needed to not freeze to death. Start with salvaging those wind and solar things, sell them to the Massachusetts (they've just approved an offshore wind "farm"), start the fracking drilling, build as many of the gas and nuke power plants that you can and pray.
The FT and others have reported similarly, each claiming 'according to a draft seen by [them]'.
The FT's account was more similar to the WSJ's, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7956d68e-8b33-11e2-b1a4-00144feabdc0.html and claimed that the document suggested the EC "look at whether it needs to
keep setting the legally binding targets...". But AlertNet, for instance gives the opposite impression: "EU Commission wants carbon cuts, more renewables in 2030 goals" - http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/eu-commission-wants-carbon-cuts-more-renewables-in-2030-goals
There's not much sign of the EU turning on energy policies... Not on the looming 2030 targets, much less the 2020 targets. There's not much sign that the EU is even capable of turning.
But until the policy document is published, we'll be none the wiser. My bets are on the document merely nodding at the problems caused by energy policy, and them only being used as an argument to expand, rather than scrap intervention.
Who knows what kind of a mess we could be in by 2020,
Something like this possibly, (which seems to have have stopped New Labour Project in its slimy tracks):
Fast forward to 5:30pm, 12 March 2020:
Coal is providing 0 MW (a)
Nuclear is providing 5,000 MW
CCGT is providing 15,000 MW (b)
Wind is providing 0 MW (c)
Biomass is providing 7,000 MW (d)
Hydro is providing 500 MW
Interconnectors are providing 3,000 MW
Total generation available = 30,500 MW (demand would be 52,000 MW.)
(a)
no coal left in service as a result of EU IED regulations, running hours allowance (17,500) exhausted, coal tax. No new-build under construction because of CCA 2008 which is unlikely to have been repealed because of pressure from vested interests - you know who I mean?
(b)
many CCGTs closed down because of EU IED regulations, insufficient running hours available because of wind penetration. No new build under construction because there is no business case for investors to risk their money.
(c)
wind is permanently constrained by National Grid to keep frequency at about 50 hertz to permit good quality supplies to essential demand such as hospitals and lucky peasants quaking in their homes as they await the rolling power cut to strike. All industrial demand is disconnected during the day and overnight rolling power deliveries subject to availability of generation. (update: a tiny change to this paragraph - Brownedoff)
(d)
this is provided by 5 or so ancient previously coal-fired power stations which have been converted from coal to wood-pellets in the face of strong opposition from environmental groups.
We would not be in this mess if politicians had a gram of scientific knowledge and ignored minority activist groups like WWF or Greenpeace neither of which are scientific. They both make money by scaring the ignorant gullible.
If common sense had prevailed then no extortionate subsidies would have been needed so no tax requirement and cheaper power.
Adam Gallon above has got to the heart of it. 'Growth' is more of a chimera than ever it was, so getting remotely near balancing budgets relies on dodges like carbon taxes, which can be passed off as not taxes at all (just negligible increases in your utility bills) or as a necessary whip-round to 'save the planet + grandkiddies'. And as the steam runs out of the carbon taxing wheeze, watch out for the cheer-leading to ramp up for Tobin taxes instead (or as well). For Europe's political elite to grasp that running a polity by bribing the voters with 'benefits' of one sort or another is not sustainable any more and things need to be done differently than they were in the past, is too hard. They are still on the look out for monies they can appropriate, to 'give' to people and so get elected again, rather than accept that that course is soon going to lead them as a class to a searching interview with M. Guillotine..
Yes, it will be a great comfort, when the rolling blackouts arrive, to know that the EU is on the case.
Does the EU officially change it's mind on anything? I thought they just decide to stop policing rules they don't like. Ten years down the line they find the Brits still following the policy "Vat? You're still doing zat? That's like sooo 1993."
The Green Economy will be the salvation of Europe! If sceptics warn of power cuts alarmists will claim they can prevent them by pushing for more renewables and subsidies. Whatever the problem the solution always turns out to be making energy more expensive and intermittent...
That, the EU is only talking about a mooted change of green policy direction -all too bloody late - is another stark and blindingly obvious reason why Britain needs to leave this "Empire of the damned" and if anyone tells you - that, the EU is good for Britain - they are either riding the EU-gravy train, or belong in the nuthouse.
The time for ending the green agenda was yesterday
Athelstan, I too was thinking about the impact on the EU of the UK leaving. We're much closer to that now than we were twelve months ago. Even the threat of it will cause change. Too late, sure, by any rational standards but also too early for the worst of the power seekers. Competition from China and the other BRIC countries is another vital factor in the mix. Interesting times. Did someone in the Orient say a playful curse over us?
"Did someone in the Orient say a playful curse over us?"
Interesting thought Richard, although I think our political class cursed us, having said that, it maybe is too easy to blame other people - the whole system needs to change and only one force can facilitate the change necessary - which is down to you and me both - Richard.
I am not sure what the average age of our MPs is but presumably most of them hope that they will still be in parliament in 2020. The same goes for most Euro MPs. Eurocrats have safe jobs and therefore apart from those coming up to retirement they will still be trying to save the Euro or harmonise the curvature of bananas in 7 years time.
How will they cope with the fury of the public if we are experiencing frequent power cuts as a result of their almost criminally insane policies?
Athelstan: challenge accepted :)
The EU Commission recently solicited ideas for 'reforming' (trans: nailing to the perch) it's wretched Carbon Emissions scheme, in which carbon emission indulgencies have declined to parity with Kleenex tissues.
The received submissions from ~200 lobby groups, ranging from cement makers (who produce large emissions) through Green lobbyists (pro-'reform') to Deep Greens ("kill the scheme as it's not fundamentalist enough - anyone emitting CO2 should be shot, not charged for the privilege").
I doubt that one submission was requested - or received - from an energy end-user group, representing the hundred of millions of people who have to pay the bills while hoping the lights stay on. Lobbyists rule in the EU, including lobbyists paid by the EU to lobby it. Democracy, like everything Greek, is viewed with extreme suspicion in the EU nowadays.
@cui bono
"Democracy, like everything Greek, is viewed with extreme suspicion in the EU nowadays."
That's about the size of it.
@Richard Drake,
Then, let battle commence:-)
Do you have your Mandia-style superhero costumes ready?
Mine's being dry-cleaned as we speak.
steveta_uk
Oh ye of little faith and - "from little acorns do mighty oak trees grow".
The EU's response to everything is scarily predictable...
'A problem with Europe..? MORE EUROPE..!!'
Here is a bump to Anne Glover's lecture as highlighted by the Bish:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/2/27/steps-videos.html
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Glover_%28biologist%29
**************************
European Commission
Glover's role as Chief Scientific Adviser includes provision of independent expert advice on any aspect of science, technology and innovation as requested by the President of the European Commission. She also acts as an ambassador for European science, both promoting and communicating the benefits and values of science in Europe. [8]
In a series of interviews since being appointed as the European Commission's Chief Scientific Adviser, Glover has emphasised the need for science policy to be firmly based on evidence. She has also spoken of the need to improve science communication in order to win the confidence of the public and has championed gender equality in European science.
****************************
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/chief-scientific-adviser/
FWIW my impression of her talk was that she has probably never been presented with, nor examined, detailed sceptical arguments on climate science and the associated policy measures.
Athelstan and Richard Drake
Four of us from BH had a go trying to change things this week by engaging with New Left Project but they eventually decided that they had better things to do with their time than talk to people with alternative opinions.
Clearly, in our case, dialogue was useless with those who are fixed in their way of thinking.
Do you have any thoughts about alternative techniques in the event that dialogue fails in your upcoming project to change things?
It wil not matter to Ed Davey and our current government.if the EU does relax on low carbon economies. They will go on the same path to energy chaos, supported by the Royal Society, and others in the scientific establishment. Too many reputations are at stake. Too many scientifically illiterate MPs inhabit the front benches.
Peter Stroud: For every Ed Davey there's a George Osborne and an Owen Paterson. And behind them a Lord Lawson. Such people understand enough of the science - the more important factor being that they're not economically illiterate. We're in a much better place than we were even a year ago. Not that it's good enough. But this gives me hope for the fight.
Brownedoff: Fair question. I don't have any easy answers but I think at once of this from yesterday:
Only a few people get that kind of world-changing opportunity. But each of us has to be ready. And the love of God for all, even his enemies, is equal. That makes not knowing more than bearable.
@Brownedoff,
It's the political landscape which needs to be effected with change and here are a few ideas.
It is well past the time when the EU needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
The strain on EU finances is immense. You have countries like Spain and Greece with over 25% unemployment (over 50% youth unemployment) where the average citizen cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Here in Spain, my electrity bill details that the cost of supply is about 48%, and the cost of taxes and subsidies is 52% of the bill. The average citizen in these countries must be paying needlessly some €1,000 annually in green taxes and subsidies.
The strain is not confined to the Club Med, Germany has rocketing energy costs which is making their industry uncompetitive. At long last, Germany is beginning to realise this and appreciates that unless something is done about it, it will stall their economic growth. If the economic power house of the EU loses its competitive, the entire EU edifice will inevitably crumble since there is no one else who could bail out the weaker nations.
Accordingly, both rich and poor are concerned about high energy costs. The problem is that 2020/2030 is too late. Immediate action is required now (and that is why Germany is building 23 new coal generators). Money needs to be put in the pockets of the Club Med citizens just to enable them to meet ends. A drastic cut in the subsidies and green taxes levied would enable this.
Something has to give, if not the amount of rioting on the streets will increase. The beauty is that the EU could go along way towards solving it's financial woes and counteracting austerity if only it were to act immediately, and pass a new law withdrawing all green subsidies with no compensation being given to the companies presently benefitting from those subsidies, and dispensing with green taxes save other than on fuel duty. Personally, I would like to see fuel duty substantially reigned back, or preferrably abolished all together, but that is too large a source of revenue for Governments to get without.
Richard Verney: Thank you. The current state of the finances, and the imbalances between Club Med and Germany, must also be considered for something even close to a full picture. Rioting in the streets has begun and so has curbing of democracy, with the farce of Mr Monti in Italy just one example. But that mini-fascist departure didn't last long. We don't know how any aspect is going to end, let alone the totality. But in Westminster the three-party thee-line whip over never ever mentioning leaving has now ended, with the logjam broken for me by Michael Gove in the Mail on Sunday in October. Interesting times, as we've said already.
Mar 14, 2013 at 2:12 PM | Athelstan.
Ah yes, the Swiss.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere that every household in Switzerland has weapons and ammunition provided by the authorities and they are trained in the use of those weapons.
No wonder the Swiss authorities embrace the referendum.
I think I am safe in predicting that the UK will never become another Switzerland.
I recall that some decent, upstanding UK citizens tried to draw to the the attention of the numpties the fact that they were unhappy with the legislation to ban fox hunting and they were battered over the head with batons wielded by body-armoured, helmeted members of the "Police Service". Some referendum.
The "political landscape" is hell bent on covering the "real landscape" with windmills and as 647 of the current "flock" of 650 MPs are in full agreement with that policy I think you are in for a shock. (joke: "tilting at windmills").
EU for turning?
No, smoke and mirrors, just enough to make the opponents think they are getting somewhere and then the more of the same in the final result.
Mar 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM | Richard Drake
Thank you for mentioning that there are no easy answers (or even difficult ones), to the question.
I am sorry, but the remainder of your message sailed over the top of my head. No offence intended.
Mar 14, 2013 at 2:16 PM | richard verney
There is also the small matter that the taxpayers in Spain (I am one of them) will at some point in time have to pay off the Euro 28 billion debt that has been built up by the government trying to protect consumers from the true cost of renewables.
See here
Browndoff. I am with you regarding the hunting with dogs (they didn't even know that a dog is a male hound and both dogs and bitches are included in the pack.) I was there and saw the police violence.
Regarding your earlier comment, I agree that having the support of the few senior politicians is encouraging, but they need to get organised. Unfortunately, we will get no sense whatsoever until the LibDems are out of government. With Labour still in opposition.
Brownedoff: It's not that hard. Many of the things we try, to change such 'big picture' problems, seem to go awry. But we can be thankful that people like Steve McIntyre labour patiently on and that, arising from that, one person, Mr. FOIA, finds themselves presented in October-November 2009 not just with a gigantic opportunity but a very risky set of choices within that. And, to my mind, chooses extraordinarily well. We don't all get to play parts as significant as Steve and FOIA. You don't have to buy anything I said downstream from that point. But be assured it was kindly meant.
You wrote
quote
European policy makers must factor in the impact of the region’s deep financial crisis and stumbling economies as they design climate and energy policies, according to a draft European Union document seen by The Wall Street Journal.
unquote
Everyone is being too uncynical. The Germans have just noticed that they're not going to be able to implement CCS for their new lignite power stations. That means they will be forced to close them soon unless the rules change.
Inconvenient rules only apply in the Eu to others... UK, Italy, Spain, Ireland. Not Germany, because, well, they're Germany and the Eu is designed to make germany top dog, along with the poodle that is France. Maybe they'll fudge it, combine their two outputs and point to the fact that they've got low CO2 emissions when judged together.
Why do you think we've had to close Drax and they are still building dirty coal power stations? They knew they could change the rules.
JF
As TinyCO2 says,
"Does the EU officially change it's mind on anything? I thought they just decide to stop policing rules they don't like."
I have often heard, and thought, similar things articulated thus: Significant parts and peoples of continental Europe take the attitude that laws (especially ones derived from the EU) are not something that should be either obeyed or enforced unquestioningly, or even frequently. Rather, these laws should be regarded merely as advice, contingent on your needs, wants and circumstances.
I think this line of thought can explain to UK citizens much of what seems incomprehensible in the EU.
I remember saying when the Euro was formed that it was a stupid idea because one of the few ways a government has of reigning in its national spending was to devalue its currency. That way everyone could feel like they were being paid as much, or more, but they were in fact taking a pay cut. Imports and foreign holidays got more expensive and home grown stuff looked better value. Exports become cheaper and other people buy. By tying countries of vastly different economies together under the Euro and to some extent the EU they prevented countries finding their own level.
They’ve tried to create a single EU country by the back door and are suffering greatly from the experience. Consider London. It generates much of the wealth for the country and is forced to distribute some of the wealth to the other areas because it’s part of the country it sits in. Despite grumbling, this happens. Fortunately many London workers also aspire to live outside the capital so that even more of the money feeds its way to the rest of us. The best thing that the government can do for the rest of the country is to move stuff out of the capital and make them need us. In Europe the transition of wealth from the money makers is not guaranteed. They do some things to redistribute wealth but everyone resents it hugely. Loaning those countries in trouble money is not the answer to their problems because it just postpones the time when they will have to live like a poorer country.
A poor country can’t afford to have the same luxuries as a rich country and by that I don’t mean fast cars. They need less rules and regulations. Less middle management. Less welfare state and less concern over CO2. In other words, more risk and fewer safety nets.
Tony Blaire and I suppose David Cameron, want us to have a mainly service industries in our national portfolio. They like banking because it’s clean and it brings in loads of cash. Unfortunately, as Iceland found out, it can vanish almost overnight. Without gold or assets, banks can’t withstand a crisis. Germany has fared better than us during this recession because they have more industry. It’s like having a wider spread in your stocks and shares. Unfortunately, nearly all our investments are in banking which is why the government tiptoes around the bankers. It’s a terrible time for the North Sea to run dry.
The question the MPs need to ask themselves – can our main remaining asset continue to flourish in a green but unreliable power network? If people riot, will London still be the preferred city of the super wealthy? If we lost banking, how many windmills could we afford? Germany has already made it’s mind up and the answer is not blowin’ in the wind.
Julian Flood,
I don't believe the EU was “designed” to make Germany top-dog. Rather I can believe the view that post WW II the ruling French-elite persuaded Germany that Germany and France would be top-dogs together, to the exclusion of others who could be bought-off, bullied, or ignored. It was to be a German horse ridden by a French jockey.
The EU has cost Germany a lot of money. I think a lot of the green-wash in Germany is a result of the post-war political constitution during the cold war, certainly not born of any desire for undue foreign influence or adventurism. If Germany is powerful today, it is because they concentrated on becoming wealthy again via industry and technical excellence.
The UN will often do what the wealthy and powerful nations want and cannot order the US around, quite the reverse. The EU and Germany are the same, but the UN or EU did not create the US or Germany as we see them today. When the Germans collectively started to realise that wind and solar may seriously damage their economy, then practical sensible approaches rapidly replaced an ill-conceived anti-carbon frenzy. We should be grateful in the UK.
Of course the EU is not going to bring out a concerted attempt at nuclear phase-out while the French, peace-be-upon-them, generate 3/4 of their electricity from nuclear and maintain a nuclear arsenal.
Mar 14, 2013 at 4:32 PM | Julian Flood
EU regulations only cover SOx, NOx and particulates, there is no mention of CO2.
New-build lignite burners in Germany are constructed with all the equipment necessary to meet the new regulations which kick-in on 1 January 2016.
Any old lignite burners will be able to carry on operating if it is economical (or if there is enough space) to up-grade or to retro-fit the appropriate equipment.
These rules will never change and in any case, it is quite easy, particularly in the case of new-build, to comply with the regulations.
Drax has not been closed. They are embarking on a new project, fully funded, to convert 3 x 660 MW units to burn wood-chips instead of coal. Presumably, if this is financially successful, the conversion of the other 3 x 660 MW will follow.
Eggborough (4 x 500MW), Ironbridge ( 2 x 500MW) and Rugeley (2 x 500 MW) are in hot pursuit.
Many more ancient coal-fired power stations are weighing up what to do.
The German power station operators/builders have not changed the rules - they are just obeying the rules.
The UK is alone in, effectively, banning the construction of new-build coal-fired power stations - as Ed Miliband crowed in 2008, "no new coal without CCS".
"The paper, whose final version is expected to be published March 27,...."
Just before Easter - a good time to bury (good) news!
Mar 14, 2013 at 12:12 PM | Richard Drake
Athelstan: challenge accepted :)
Mar 14, 2013 at 3:39 PM | Richard Drake
We don't all get to play parts as significant as Steve and FOIA.
---------------------------------------
So, having joined Atheistan on the "mission" at 12:12 PM, it looks as if by 3:39PM you have dropped out.
By the way, whilst I am sure your remarks were kindly meant, it was not a question of "buying anything", it was more that I did not have a clue as to what you were talking about. Again, no offence intended.
"...Everyone is being too uncynical. The Germans have just noticed that they're not going to be able to implement CCS for their new lignite power stations. That means they will be forced to close them soon unless the rules change...."
Mar 14, 2013 at 4:32 PM | Julian Flood
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The CO2 cap is on a comparison with 1990s emissions (I think that is the date).
I recall reading that Germany and the UK took a very different approach to the declaration of their 1990 CO2 emissions. The UK declared their 1990 CO2 emissions lower than they actually were, whilst Germany declared their 1990 emIssions higher than they actually were. The effect of this is that the UK faces far more difficulty in meeting its 1990 emission levels, whereas Germany has a much wider latitude.
Due to the over declaration of the level of 1990 CO2 emissions, Germany does not have any immediate problem with the use of coal powered generation (even without fitting CCS). The Germans knew how to play the game. The UK wanted to be seen as the leaders towards a clean utopia. What else could one have expected of labour.
Of course, there is no way that Germany is going to commit industrial suicide. One way or another, they will do whhat is necessary to keep the lights on and their industry with adequate and secure energy.
If cynicism is a pre-requisite...... the answer to too little energy is either more power stations or fewer people reliant on them. All this talk of failing economies, uprisings, discontent etc, which scenario do YOU think they are planning for?
So what happens when the EU goes, at least in its current form.
Its looking more likely due to the political instabilities of the Southern periphery.
What then for the UK, what then for the EU combustion directive and the Climate change act?
Would the UK carry on these policies?
During the ensuing financial meltdown?
A theoretical situation of course.
Remember the Lisbon Strategey?
`The Lisbon Strategy intended to deal with the low productivity and stagnation of economic growth in the EU, through the formulation of various policy initiatives to be taken by all EU member states. The broader objectives set out by the Lisbon strategy were to be attained by 2010.
It was adopted for a ten-year period in 2000 in Lisbon, Portugal by the European Council. It broadly aimed to make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world.`
And what did they achieve? They made Europe the least competitive and most stagnated economy in the world, thanks to, among other reasons, a lot of red-green superstition-based cult-science.
So don´t get your hopes too high based on this new EU document. Paper is patient and the bureaucrats' talk is cheap. They have no incentive whatsoever to change course. Their trough is filled well. Very well.
The future of Europe will be decided bij the people of Europe. And I fear that the Nobel Peace Prize will be recalled soon after that decision is made. Europe, imho, is on the brink of a disaster of unmatched proportions. We ain't seen nothing yet.
c777,
The EU is looking a bit shaky, with the problems caused by the Euro, but it's a long way from collapsing on present indications. I doubt the problems can be solved because they involve a permanent redistribution from the North to the South. There's unrest in the Southern countries and a growing reluctance to cough up in Germany.
As for the UK, an enormous amount has been invested in 'being green' by all the major political parties. They really believe they are taking a moral lead in the EU and the world. Most of them seem to believe this is a sensible direction to go and in engineering and practical terms, they haven't a clue. They haven't done this completely on orders from Brussels. Admitting it had been a mistake, huge damage done to no purpose and hundreds of billions wasted, well, it's hard to see it happening because of a sudden attack of rationality. There are plenty of examples of ruinous projects persisted with, because governments found it easier than cancelling them.
I have to agree with Martin A's pessimistic view towards the top of the thread. I can't see it ending without major upheaval and a lot of people being hurt.