Friday, 12 August 2022

The excess energy cost of poor insulation

 I suppose grants or other demand-side interventions fall into the "no handouts" policy box but realistically that's the only way that Britain's housing stock is going to be brought up to scratch in time (or rather late but better late than never). This reposted from Edie:


Fresh calls for policy intervention as UK’s least energy-efficient homes set to pay £1000 extra on gas bills

New analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) has found that houses performing poorly on energy efficiency could face energy bills almost £1,000 higher than what the Government is targeting as a minimum standard for energy efficient buildings, prompting fresh calls for policy intervention to combat the energy cost crisis.

The ECIU has found that homes rated band F on the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) system will likely have to pay gas bills that are £968 higher than those rated band C. The Government is notably aiming for the UK’s housing stock to reach a minimum on band C by 2035.

Currently, the average UK home is rated in band D and these homes will have to pay around £420 more for gas this winter compared to those in a higher band. The ECIU notes that wholesale gas costs have added £2,500 to energy bills during the current cost of living crisis, when electricity is also accounted for, the worst performing homes will need to pay almost £2,000 extra compared to band C homes.

The findings suggest that more policy intervention is required to bring more homes up to the EPC band C before 2035.

An ECO extension has been advocated by groups including the Sustainable Energy Association, Construction Leadership Council, National Insulation Association and EDF. However, to date, the Government has kicked the metaphorical can down the road on extending ECO. The current scheme ran out at the end of March 2022 and its next phase, due to run through to 2026, is yet to be finalised. The ECIU found that energy efficiency schemes such as ECO have contributed to savings of £1.2bn annually under the current cost of energy.

ECIU’s senior analyst Jess Ralston said: “These stark differences between highly insulated and poorly insulated homes show the real-world impacts insulation could have in time to dent exorbitant bills this winter. The most vulnerable, such as the elderly, tend to live in colder homes and these are the groups that are being placed at risk by inaction from the government on energy efficiency.

“The ECO insulation scheme has worked well and is knocking at least £600 a year off the bills of fuel-poor households, but government is non-committal on doing more. We have to consider security of supply too, but more UK gas won’t come online anytime soon, so insulation is our best bet to shield us from the whims of Putin and lower bills during this cost of living crisis and each year after.”

Calls for immediate action

New research published on Tuesday (9 August) by Cornwall Insight has warned that household energy bill costs could surpass £4,200 early next year, bringing in fresh concerns that the UK is failing to respond to the energy cost and supply crises.

Cornwall Insight’s estimates suggest that households would end up paying £355 a month for a dual-fuel bill, compared to £164 currently.

In response, the Association for Decentralised Energy (ADE) is calling for more Government action, notably on scaling energy efficiency solutions.

ADE’s energy efficiency policy manager Chris Friedler said: “With bills set to soar to more than £4,000 a year for the average household, the economics for household energy are changing incredibly quickly. Equally, the Climate Change Committee estimates two-thirds of homes would only need £1,000 to be permanently retrofitted to an acceptable standard.

“Given that the UK’s least efficient homes are likely to pay almost £2,000 more than acceptably insulated homes next year, the numbers for energy efficiency do not lie – it makes complete financial sense to upgrade homes right now. The Government must urgently provide a path for these households to protect themselves this winter and every winter to come.”

Energy companies have been in the headlines for posting sky-high profits, while UK homes are being told to prepare for annual energy bills of £4,000+ next year. With the transition away from gas needed to bring down costs and emissions, how are the biggest suppliers preparing? Click here to find out.



Thursday, 11 August 2022

Trushi on Net Zero

 

Ye Gods! Depressing is it not? Reposted from edie.


Truss v Sunak: Who is best placed to lead the country on climate and net-zero?

The first of many TV debates between Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak that will help determine the next Prime Minister of the UK spent very little time addressing climate and green policy, so edie has rounded up their approaches to climate and environmental legislation.

As the leadership bids have been whittled down to the final two it is becoming alarmingly clear that net-zero is plummeting down the priority agenda for the Conservative Party.

Despite the ongoing energy price crisis and the recent record-breaking temperatures, party members are more concerned about cutting taxes, an impending general election and increasing defence spending.

Indeed, a recent YouGov poll found that only 4% of surveyed Conservative members felt that net-zero should be one of their top priority areas. Out of 10 key policy areas, net-zero ranked last in terms of priorities.

It hasn’t helped that media appearances from Truss and Sunak, to date, have not focused on the climate.

As reported by Open Democracy, neither Truss or Sunak have yet to be quizzed on climate as part of media interviews, with the latter able to offer just two minutes of air time to green policies on the Andrew Marr show.

Truss and Sunak are the last two left standing in terms of naming the next Prime Minister and the next six weeks will see them go head to head across a variety of different platforms and debates. This week, the BBC hosted a live debate between the two, where they were quizzed on a wide range of topics, including the economy, the Russian war and distancing the nation from China.

Net-zero, and climate policies more broadly, were notably absent from last night’s discussion. Presenter Sophie Raworth did ask Truss and Sunak about sustainability, but framed it through the lens of what they personally do, rather than what policies they would introduce.

Sunak noted the advice offered to him by his daughters about reducing energy efficiency and recycling more, while Truss claimed to be a teenage eco-warrior when she was younger and that she was “an environmentalist before it was fashionable”.

Neither of the two candidates to become the next Prime Minister have shown a willingness to discuss actual policies related to the climate crisis, a trend which has not been helped by the media’s perceived lack of willingness to provide them with ample time and questions to do so.

While both Truss and Sunak have reiterated a top-line commitment to the net-zero emissions target set for 2050, both have relatively poor track records on climate and have also signalled that some green legislation may be relaxed if they become the next Prime Minister.

With little guarantee that either of the final two frontrunners will face questions on the climate crisis over the next six weeks, edie has rounded up their current and previous voting patterns on climate, as well as key green initiatives that they introduced (or in some cases vetoed) during their time in Cabinet.

Liz Truss

Current Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Liz Truss, has served in numerous cabinet roles, including International Trade Secretary and Environment Secretary. She has previously stood in the 2001 and 2005 general elections.

During her time as Environment Secretary, Truss introduced the controversial cuts to subsidies to solar farms, criticising them as a “blight” on the UK’s natural landscape. Truss also claimed that solar farms hindered food production. According to DeSmog, these policies were not “backed up by any evidence from her department”.

Truss has been criticised for overseas trips, most recently for failing to distance the UK from trade deals with Gulf states accused of human rights abuses. While chief secretary to the Treasury in 2018, Truss also met with lobby groups linked to climate change denial.

More recently, Truss has faced criticism from more than 200 NGOs over proposed reforms to international development plans. Truss is reported to have ordered changes in the way the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) spends aid funding, with less focus given to health, climate change and conflict prevention. NGOs criticised the plans, claiming it “will undermine the UK’s ability to play our part globally in tackling urgent challenges”.

Truss, has, however, commonly spoken for the need to act on the climate crisis, and at the Party Hustings on 17 July, said she’d attend COP27 and the 15th biodiversity COP in a bid to showcase Britain as a leader on the world stage.

The former Environment minister recently told the Conservative Environment Network (CEN) at that Hustings event that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has strengthened the case for the UK to introduce policies focused on energy security.

However, partly in response to the energy crisis, Truss has suggested that she would pause some green funding initiatives in order to increase North Sea gas extraction. During an interview with The Spectator, Truss said she may introduce a “temporary moratorium on the green energy levy to enable businesses and industry to thrive while looking at the best way of delivering net-zero”.

Truss has been back by notable Conservative advocates for climate action, including BEIS Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng and prominent climate MP Zac Goldsmith, who recently tweeted that most Conservative Party contenders were “people who, on the whole, couldn’t give a shit about climate and nature”.

Rishi Sunak

In tendering his resignation as Chancellor, Rishi Sunak stated: “I am aware this may be my last ministerial job”. Making it to the last two is commendable for an MP that has only been serving since 2015.

Despite a much briefer tenure than Truss, Sunak has been pushed into the green policy sphere (although some reports suggest he was reluctant to do so). Under Sunak, the Treasury completed its Net-Zero Review. His numerous Budget Statements have also included many a headline-grabbing inclusion on the net-zero transition, including the launch of the National Infrastructure Bank with climate as a core remit; the creation of a £1bn Net-Zero Innovation fundthe launch of sovereign green savings bonds and ‘pocket parks’ for neglected urban spaces.

At COP26, Sunak was greeted by climate protestors but went on to outline a vision of making the UK the ‘world’s first net-zero financial centre’ and to contribute to global efforts to “rewire the financial system for net-zero”. Measures taken to support this transition include the launch of a £16bn sovereign green bond package and the launch of a net-zero transition plan mandate for large, high-emitting businesses from 2023. But expert organisations have stated in 2022 that the approach taken by Sunak is not foolproof, with major issues remaining.

The UK’s COP26 Unit spent much of the two-week climate conference in Glasgow setting up the framework to ensure that developed nations contributed their “fair share” of $100bn in annual funding for developed nations to respond and adapt to the climate crisis. Research from the Overseas Development Institute found that, under Sunak, the UK gave $3.2bn towards this goal in 2020, a little over half of what was calculated as the nation’s fair share.

Under Sunak, the Treasury has also, reportedly, been the cause of much frustration for Johnson on the progress of some other green policies. It reportedly delayed the Heat and Buildings Strategy, then mismanaged the delivery of the Green Homes Grant in partnership with BEIS, for example.

Sunak has also been behind some decisions that have proven vastly unpopular across the UK’s green economy as Chancellor. Most recently, in announcing a windfall tax on fossil fuel giants (which was reluctantly introduced following lobbying from Labour) he also offered a 91% tax super deduction for these businesses’ investments in additional oil and gas extraction. Read edie’s rundown of that move here.

Reports also suggest that Sunak would move to ensure a ban on onshore windfarms – a decision that is popular amongst the party despite the public’s broad support for the technology. However, Sunak also wants to introduce a legal mandate and policy framework to ensure that Britain could tap into a “self-sufficient” energy network and supply by 2045. Offshore wind, which recently secured a new record-low strike price in the latest Government auctions, would likely be at the heart of this target.

Sunak also told the CEN Hustings that he would look to introduce new energy efficiency schemes for housing, largely focused on smart controls, low-carbon heating and insulation as cost-effective ways to respond to the energy crisis.

All in all, Sunak has made big promises on climate but has repeatedly been criticised for failing to deliver a joined-up approach. As a supporter of Johnson, Sunak would likely stick with the existing approach to climate-related target setting. While his background is in finance and tech, and he’s been criticised before for betting on high-tech options for the low-carbon transition, he has also stated a personal passion for nature restoration – particularly peatlands in Britain.

Regardless of who emerges as the next Prime Minister, their immediate focus will be on planning and campaigning for a likely General Election in the Autumn, at which point many voters may well turn towards Labour and its manifesto for a green industrial revolution to keep progress ticking towards net-zero.

Could do better


Repost from Edie


UK way off-track to deliver key nature, water and waste targets, Defra confirms

The UK Government has published its latest progress report on the 25-Year Environment Plan, revealing that progress has gone backwards in many areas including water consumption, litter in the North Sea and the abundance of ‘priority’ species.

The report is the fourth from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) since the Plan was first published under Theresa May’s Government in 2018. The overarching aim of the Plan is to improve the state of nature in the UK for the next generation, with the annual progress reports posting updates relating to 50 topics. Issued covered are air, water, waste, biodiversity and soil.

As noted by the UK’s post-Brexit environment watchdog in May, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the Government is a way off of delivering the Plan’s vision. The OEP used its first official report to warn that efforts to date have not been “purposeful or coherent”, leaving nature in the UK in “persistent decline”.

The new report from Defra does reveal a worrying level of backwards progress in many areas. It confirms that salmon stock status in principal rivers declined more than 55% between 2014 and 019, for example. Harbour seal numbers are also down, as are numbers for wild birds in woodland and on farmland. Overall, the relative abundance of key animal and plant species in England is down 17.2% against a 2013 baseline, and the distribution of these species has also fallen – by 9.3% since 2011.

While the Plan had set out measures to reduce water consumption, natural raw material consumption and litter in the North Sea, Defra’s report also reveals backsliding in these areas.

On water consumption, a 3.7% increase on a per-capita basis was recorded between the 2015-16 financial year and 2020-21 financial year. Regarding all raw materials consumed, excluding fossil fuels, Defra has tracked a 10.3% increase on a per-capita basis since 2012.

The report also reveals that, in 2014, 73.7% more items of litter were found per 100 metres of beach along the greater North Sea than in 2009. Fly-tipping was also found to have increased, and there was little or no change in recycling rates nor the amount of waste collectively produced by homes in England.

Defra is notably in the process of legislating for what it claims are stricter environmental targets in many of these areas through the Environment Bill. Many nature and climate organisations, as well as citizens’ groups and the OEP itself, are pushing for improvements to the targets before they are enshrined in law. In any case, the numbers reported by Defra this week show that the Department has a major to-do list for the coming years.

The new targets will be taken into account when Defra provides an update to the 25-Year Environment Plan. This is intended to be published next year.

Success stories

Despite some of the significant backwards progress revealed in the report, improvements were recorded against 29 indicators of the 50 listed.

The report does note that members of the public seem to be more engaged with nature. A 13.9% increase in visits to natural spaces by those in England was recorded between 2013 and 2018, and the uptick is likely to be steeper still thereafter, as people turned to local outdoor spaces amid the pandemic.

Other areas of improvement include better bathing water quality in England; reduced particulate matter from road transport and higher numbers of bats.

There has also been an 82.7% increase in the area size classed as protected in England since 2016, the report notes. This figure covers land-based and water-based habitats. Nature charities are continuing to campaign for better efforts to measure the quality of protected areas and ensure that this improves over time, rather than deteriorating.

Tuesday, 2 August 2022

Cumbria Coal Mine Revisited

 Another missive to my MP:


Dear Ms Richardson,

I make no apology for returning to the subject of the proposed Whitehaven coal mine. I understand that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is due to make a decision on whether the project should be approved on or about 17th August. May I urge you in the intervening period to do all you can to persuade the Secretary of State that to allow the project to go ahead would be, as I have stated before, rank stupidity. This summer we have been experiencing a foretaste of the damaging consequences of anthropogenic climate change. I believe it to be a dereliction of the duty ministers have to ensure the well-being of the nation's citizens to promote any activity that would add more CO2 to the atmosphere thereby exacerbating what is already becoming an existential crisis.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden