My name is Chris Lenon. I have a business background. I began thinking about climate change from a business perspective as a senior corporate tax adviser in 2000. I have considerable experience dealing with the OECD, the EC, and governments around the world. This has given me a unique global perspective, combined with an understanding … Read more Why read this blog?
I decided I had to write about how the challenges we face in reducing emissions. I believe we do need to remove carbon, but we need realistic plans and timescales to do this, sharing the burden across society fairly and keeping our economies competitive within a world where not all countries are reducing their emissions … Read more About
I took this photo this afternoon at Cotswold International Airport which is near Cirencester. Yes it does exist and as you will see 747s can land there. The reason for the photo today, is that it is roughly 12 months since Covid 19 started to take hold of our attention. Would any of us have thought it would have led to the grounding and taking out of service of 747s? I doubt it.
What Covid has shown us, is that coping with change, let alone planning for it, is difficult. That our politicians are not very good with change. That lots of people are not very good at change because its not business as usual.
The journey to a net zero carbon global economy involves a vast amount of change for all of us, individuals, businesses and political systems from the local council to national governments and beyond. What coping with Covid should teach us, is that lots of people are not skilled in dealing with change. That some deny what is going on. It is highly probable that changing to net zero will produce many of the same issues as covid. If anyone tells you this will be easy, they haven’t thought about it or they have a vested interest they are protecting or they are dissembling.
Don’t underestimate the change that a net zero carbon economy requires.
This is the headline from a Guardian article. The article is an interesting spin on Gurria’s 15 years at the head of the OECD. I worked with him in BIAC from 2006 to 2012, he’s a nice person in my experience. But OECD hasn’t really taken the lead in pushing this agenda forward, perhaps constrained by the attitude of its biggest member, the US under both Obama and Trump.
I wrote a blog questioning why the OECD wasn’t working on the taxation of aviation and the tax subsidies which it enjoys. “Why is the OECD not reviewing the taxation of aviation?” I’d asked insiders why the work wasn’t being done and they pointed to a lack of funding and “more important” projects.
The OECD is perfectly positioned to work on this subject. The zero rating of airline tickets and the exemption from fuel duty for airline fuel clearly sit within the OECD expertise. The issue of passenger duty also would fit. It is an obviously international issue in both tax and carbon.
So, if the OECD wants to “Put a big fat price on carbon”, why doesn’t it do this work on the taxing of a form of emissions which is often discretionary? On removing this carbon subsidy?
Instead that quote looks like a piece of greenwash. Do we want to put a big, fat price on all carbon? On domestic heating for instance? Or does the OECD lean towards taxation because it is part of their mandate, whereas regulation, which may be more suitable for some emissions, is more of a national competence.
“The Welsh Government has also accepted the revised advice of the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) that this goal is credible, feasible and – crucially – affordable.
Environment and energy minister Lesley Griffiths made it clear the administration would push to achieve zero-carbon sooner than 2050.
Latest analysis from the committee reveals that the most significant potential to accelerate emissions reductions in Wales is based on evidence suggesting greater abatement is possible in the industry and power sectors. This reflects the presence of a small number of high-emitting point sources in Wales, such as the Port Talbot steelworks.
However, the committee has also highlighted that the path to net-zero will be partly or fully driven by societal or behavioural changes.
“This means government, communities and businesses working together to change how we travel, shop, heat our homes, and switching to lower-carbon diets. In all cases, large reductions in the amount of energy and natural resources we use is necessary to achieve the targets,” said the government.
Improved energy and resource efficiency would be critical, stressed the committee. “By the early 2030s, all new cars and vans and all boiler replacements in homes and other buildings must be low-carbon – we expect largely electric.
“By 2040, all new heavy goods vehicles should be low-carbon. The South Wales industrial cluster (as well as other industrial sites in Wales) must either switch away from fossil fuels to low-carbon alternatives and/or install carbon capture and storage (CCS) at scale from the mid-2030s.”
Significant land use change will be involved, argued the committee. “A transformation is needed in Wales’s land while supporting Welsh farmers.”
By 2030, this should involve planting a cumulative 43,000 hectares of mixed woodland to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow, increasing to a total of 180,000 hectares by 2050.
Another 56,000 hectares of agricultural land should shift to bioenergy production (including short rotation forestry) by 2050.
The committee’s report stressed that peatlands must be restored widely and managed sustainably. Low-carbon farming practices must be adopted widely while raising farm productivity.
Ministers have promised to set out how the government intends to deliver the country’s new net-zero ambition in its next All Wales Plan. This will be published in advance of the United Nations climate summit, COP26, which is being held in Glasgow later this year.
The themes in this analysis, echo those in “Zero Carbon Our Choice”, particularly “The committee assessment highlighted an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products, reductions in waste, slower growth in flights and reductions in demand for travel.
Improved energy and resource efficiency would be critical, stressed the committee. “By the early 2030s, all new cars and vans and all boiler replacements in homes and other buildings must be low-carbon – we expect largely electric.”
I hope that we can now begin an informed debate about how to achieve these goals which are demanding.
One of the larger contributors to UK emissions is domestic power use for heating, hot water, etc taking 15% of UK emissions. The main fuel source for heating in the UK is gas with 63% of the total. The primary option for zero carbon emission heating (based on used zero carbon electricity) is an air source heat pump. Hydrogen may be an option in due course, but it will require a significant investment in renewable power as currently over 90% of hydrogen is produced using carbon sources.
So, Air Source heat pumps or Ground Source heat pumps are the main option for carbon free residential heating and hot water (if they use non carbon electricity). This is simple technology, outdoor ambient heat is transferred to a coolant using a heat exchanger coil, this coolant is compressed and the temperature increased, this heated coolant transfers heat to the hot water store through a heat exchanger coil. A “standard” domestic air source heat pump can extract useful heat down to about −15 °C (5 °F).
I had an air source heat pump installed earlier this year. The main difference from conventional central heating is that it operates at a lower background temperature throughout 24 hours a day. Its sophistication is that based on sensors outdoors that will adjust the temperature of the water in the system.
The controls of the Unit .
My calculations are that it is competitive with gas and four times as efficient as an electric boiler. The investment cost is higher than a gas boiler, but the maintenance costs lower. The costs are further reduced if electricity generated from residential solar is used.
The issue for the UK is that a conventional plumber’s training is not sufficient for installing and maintaining air source heat pumps. As a result, there may be logistical issues in installing the over 20 million systems that would be needed in the UK. Only 207,000 systems had been installed in the UK by 2018 so the rate of installation would have to increase dramatically. There are UK producers of air source heat pumps, but most pumps fitted in the UK are imported.
My experience of the air source heat pump is favourable. It is known technology capable of mass rollout. The take up to date is disappointing despite the Renewable Heat Incentive support. While new homes will have to fit non carbon heating from from 2025, the question is will consumers switch to this heating? Zero carbon is our choice as consumers – will we make that choice?
I don’t usually write about tax here, but the tax status of the UK Chancellor has changed that.
After the Brexit referendum, Teresa May in a speech said:
“Today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass on the street … but if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what citizenship means.”
So how should we view the issues around the tax status of the Chancellor and his wife which have emerged. And yes, normally the tax affairs of a politicians spouse shouldn’t interest us, but the specifics of this situation are important.
If reports are correct the wife of the Chancellor, Akshata Murthy, has filed her tax returns as a non domicile for UK tax purposes as she is allowed to. As the government website makes clear “UK residents who have their permanent home (‘domicile’) outside the UK may not have to pay UK tax on foreign income.”
The point is “permanent home” with the implication that this is where you will return after your stay in the UK (questions of citizenship are irrelevant, it is where you regard your permanent home to be). So how can one spouse in a marriage have a permanent home outside the UK and the other not, unless of course they are going to either split up or both return to the permanent home outside the UK?
The problem here is that Mr Sunak is the Chancellor and was seen as potential Prime Minister. But can he hold these posts if his spouse doesn’t regard the UK as her permanent home and doesn’t pay tax on her considerable non UK income?
Then it is reported Mr Sunak still holds a US green card. To quote Homeland Security
“A Green Card holder is a permanent resident that has been granted authorization to live and work in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) grants a person a permanent resident card, commonly called a “Green Card.”
So, Mr Sunak can live and work in the US on a permanent basis (he is a permanent resident of the USA) and his spouse has her permanent home in India.
Lets go back to Teresa May,
“Today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass on the street … but if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what citizenship means.”
Given their status for tax purposes are the Sunaks, in fact, “citizens of the world” or as May goes on to say, “citizens of nowhere”? And more importantly should the Chancellor of the Exchequer have this status given his role in tax policy and the economic future of the UK?
Again, to quote May, does he understand what citizenship means, or is he one of those people in power who “behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass on the street”?
I was going to write about the conflict in the Ukraine and the implications, a couple of weeks ago, but as the situation has developed more themes have developed.
The situation in Ukraine is a terrible indictment of our international structures and I’m afraid to say the UN, which has again proved itself incapable of action, given the veto powers of major states. But, aside from its veto, Russia’s power in Ukraine is a combination of the implications of challenging Russia and the dependence of Europe on Russian oil and gas. In my talks on net zero I discuss how many of the recent wars and conflicts have been about carbon (just think back over the last 50 years), Ukraine is not a war about carbon but is one which is being paid for by Russia from carbon income, income which European consumers and businesses have paid, and continues to pay, to Russia.
The shock of what has happened has started to show how much which we have assumed in our world order to be reliable is actually either fragile or needs reconsideration. The impact on German policy has been dramatic in the field of defence, but in achieving net zero, Germany is still hamstrung by its no nuclear power policy. Back in 2000, 29.7% of German power generation came from nuclear, in 2022 it will be nil. Germany is not alone, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and Austria source no power from nuclear (they are fine buying nuclear power generated by their neighbours). So, the road to net zero will be paved by buying gas, and some of that gas will be bought from Russia. A non-nuclear policy for some of these countries funds Russia because they rely on gas. And now we see what that funding leads to. Those who continue to oppose nuclear and lament the fate of Ukraine, need to look at the consequences of their decisions to oppose nuclear power.
Blackrock, has identified that the ramifications of Russia’s war and the positions taken by other countries may presage the end of globalisation. It is perhaps early to call this, but certainly we may have seen the high water mark of globalisation. As I wrote in Net Zero Our Choice, net zero and a dependence on electricity generated by non carbon sources leads to a regional not global market for power. Transmission losses limit the distance over which electricity can effectively be transported.
It may also lead to a more local approach to supply chains (and Blackrock identifies this) from a security perspective but also because transporting goods across the world rather than locally has a power cost and will for some time have a carbon cost (think shipping). But such a change will increase costs as goods are produced in higher cost countries and regions to supply markets in those countries. Will our consumerist binge be constrained by price?
The other theme about consumers relates to power and oil costs. The constriction of supply has led to price increases, dramatic increases. The response has been twofold, what do we do about the cost of living and what do we do about energy security? This is understandable as a reaction, and while politics is about short term and long term issues, politicians tend to prioritise short term issues. But what is happening is politicians calling for measures which are addressing these price and security issues by relegating the importance of the net zero trajectory.
The UK is considering encouraging more gas production from the North Sea for energy security reasons. Given my writing above, this makes sense if the perspective is strategic in regard to Russia (better produce it ourselves, than pay Russia for it), but it doesn’t if that action slows down action leading to reducing carbon emissions – burning UK gas instead of Russian gas doesn’t reduce emissions. Is there a danger that as these security issues are addressed, we become comfortable with using gas – that won’t help achieve net zero.
It is also understandable for governments to subsidise power costs to consumers from a political perspective, but if that subsidy is for carbon sources it won’t help achieve net zero. What that requires is investment quickly in nuclear and renewables by all European countries.
The draft text by the European Commision on Taxonomy covering gas and nuclear activities (1 Jan 2022) baffled me when I saw it. I thought I would wait for other comments to check I hadn’t missed anything.
Well the other comments have generally been trenchant in their criticism. I hadn’t missed the point.
The paper recognises some parts of Europe are still heavily based on high carbon emitting coal. One might ask, in 2022, why the EC hasn’t done more to reduce coal in the power mix in the EU, when some countries have?
This then leads to the statement that there is a role for natural gas and nuclear in the path to net zero.
Well nuclear is zero carbon, but gas!!! Gas power plants have a life of 30 to 40 years so promoting gas investment until 2035, will mean that gas has a major role until 2065 to 2075 in the EU. How does this reconcile with net zero by 2050? The simple answer is it doesn’t.
I pondered how this decision came about, was it great lobbying by the gas industry? Was it the result of a very good lunch at Scheltema? But then the coincidence with the end of nuclear power in Germany this month made it clear.
Germany had lobbied to remove nuclear as a net zero fuel source, presumably based on national interest. Given the stranglehold which the greens have on power in Germany, there won’t be any nuclear there for the foreseeable future. (All this with France – down wind of Germany – dominated by nuclear power!)
Without nuclear in its power mix, Germany can only reduce emissions from coal by switching to gas and or renewables. Clearly it has decided to transition to net zero over a longer period than to 2050 (now 28 years away) through gas as well as renewables.
So next time you read the glossy aspirations of the EC about net zero,remember how little has been achieved in removing coal in many EU countries, how gas will continue to be a major source and benefit from NEW investment.
Will the EU reach its net zero targets by 2050 given this road map? Of course not.
So,the taxonomy on gas is a consultation. There is a chance to remove gas. If it isn’t removed, it will say a lot about the reality of the EU achieving net zero by 2050….or not.
I now drive a Nissan Leaf and very happy I am with it too. Its range is fine (Over 200 miles) and the cost per mile is about half of petrol for a 1.2 car.
I’ve also been doing some work on the problems of pollution and congestion in London with a small group.
Electric vehicles (like hydrogen vehicles) reduce pollution – they don’t remove particulate pollution as they still produce particulates from both the brakes and tyre wear. But they do remove carbon pollution.
What they don’t do is affect congestion. If everyone switches to electric vehicles the air will be cleaner but if they make the same journeys congestion will not change. So, I think we need to rethink some of the measures which apply in our cities. As an electric car owner I am exempt from the London Congestion charge (annual registration of £10 – so almost exempt). So the congestion charge is actually, at present, a pollution charge, but its “object” is to reduce congestion – confused? The exemption for non carbon vehicles stops in 2025 when it does become a congestion charge.
So, while electric vehicles help reduce pollution, they have no effect per se on congestion and local authorities will need to work on measures to reduce congestion. They can use pollution as a pricing point to discourage congestion/ encourage a switch to electric/hydrogen vehicles.
Net zero will make our towns and cities more pleasant in terms of air quality, but it won’t reduce congestion.
I’ve given 10 talks over 2021 on the issues which reaching net zero will provide. The range of responses has been fascinating as has the level of understanding ranging from excellent to a real ignorance. After one of the meetings there was an exchange led by some who were in complete denial about man made climate change, here is a quote:
“It is clear that Mr B is convinced that human beings have the power to have a significant effect on the immense forces of nature which cause, and have always caused, climate change. He will not be convinced otherwise and I do not intend to try.
I am however concerned that “climate-change” has become highly politicised. It has become a multi-billion dollar industry which channels vast amounts of public money into universities and other research institutions and media outlets and commercial enterprises which support and promulgate and benefit from its views. By contrast there is little or no funding for those who do not agree with them. In particular, for many years the BBC has failed in its duty to examine both sides of this very important case. We have now reached the point that the climate change industry worldwide has become a quasi religion which will not tolerate dissent and which demands obedience from governments and people alike.”
These views still exist although they are often under the surface.
What is equally interesting is that people who recognise climate change and the need to do something about it, but are not prepared to change their lifestyle. After a lengthy discussion about fossil fuel heating (gas central heating) someone said “but Chris you’re not going to take my gas central heating away from it, I love it”.
Many of us are aware of climate change denial, but probably the more significant issue is personal change denial, a refusal to see the change in lifestyle which net zero inevitably involves. Unless individuals are prepared to change, net zero will not be achieved.
Please get in touch if you would like me to give a talk or host a discussion of issues either in person or using zoom, etc. I have spoken to amenity groups, universities and church groups so far. Happy to talk to commercial organisations.
In my previous blog I discussed the effect of government greenwash in relation to their carbon position and budget. Comments to the IPCC to tone down parts of its 2021 report are understandably mainly reported in the countries themselves and it is often difficult to see the bigger picture, so in my next three blogs I’m going to focus on coal, meat and oil and what governments around the world have said to water down the report.
The primary comments on coal which have been leaked relate to Australia and Japan.
To quote ABC News Australia
“Documents suggest Australia also asked to be removed from a list of big coal-consuming countries. The draft report said “major coal-consuming countries are still far from phasing out coal”. “China, the US, Australia and South Africa continue to extract and use substantial amounts of coal,” it said. The official in Canberra noted Australia’s consumption was “an order of magnitude lower” than the other countries listed.
Analysis from analytics firm Ember ranks Australia as the world’s 10th biggest coal-fired power generator. Australia remains one of the world’s biggest biggest coal producers and exporters.”
To state the obvious, Australia has a population of 25.7m people (2020), South Africa 59.3m, USA 333.5m and China 1,446.6m. Given the relative population size it would be surprising if Australia had the same level of consumption as larger countries. But as the chart above showing consumption per head 2019 shows Australia is top dog in terms of coal consumed per head.
I would suggest it is difficult to argue that Australia’s consumption is “an order of magnitude lower” than other countries. Instead, I think most people would say Australia is the largest per capita coal consumer and a major producer and needs to address these issues, not prevaricate and obfuscate.
To quote Unearthed
“Japan, which is hugely reliant on fossil fuels in its energy and transport systems, rejects a key finding in the report’s summary for policymakers detailing how coal and gas fired power stations will, on average, need to be shut down within 9 and 12 years respectively to keep warming below 1.5°C and 16 and 17 years to keep warming below 2°C. A director in Japan’s ministry of foreign affairs claims this paragraph is misleading and suggests deleting it “because the required retirements of fossil fuel power plants due to carbon budget depend on the emissions from other sectors as well as their capacity factor and the opportunities of CCS.””
“Japan also rejects analysis that “the overall potential for CCS and CCU to contribute to mitigation in the electricity sector is now considered lower than was previously thought due to the increased uptake of renewables in preference to fossil fuel”. The official argues that “it would be better to remove this sentence to be more policy neutral.””
I have written in “Zero Carbon our Choice” that fully scaled CCS (needed for power generation by fossil fuel to be net zero) has not been achieved to date. This doesn’t mean, of course, that it won’t be achieved. However, significant work on this has been in progress for 15 years and the usual time lag for scaled up, commercial new technology is 40 to 50 years according to an Imperial College London study (quoted in Zero Carbon Our Choice). To use the “opportunities of CCS” to keep coal power generation operational is bizarre – a Mr Micawber approach of “something may turn up”. At the very least how long does Japan propose we go on hoping for full scale CCS to allow fossil fuels to be used for power generation and still achieve net zero by 2050.
So consider, if I buy a green piece of Japanese technology – made in Japan with fossil fuel power – how green is that technology I’m buying in lifecycle terms?
Of course, this lobbying by countries is to protect economies which are carbon dependent from the effects of decarbonisation. To solve a global issue, carbon dependent economies are going to have to make serious adjustments and start reducing their use of carbon to power and fuel their economies and exports, and they will need to be honest with their populations what these changes entail.
This sort of economic protectionism, the denial of the contribution to global emissions by these countries while other countries decarbonise is exactly what will lead to the call for border tax adjustments, otherwise carbon dependent economies will gain an economic and trade advantage in not decarbonising. Countries cannot expect to have a free ride in not reducing emissions without consequences (and GAAP permits tariffs for environmental protection).
First, an apology, I haven’t posted recently as I’ve been immersed in my divorce which appears to be resolved after a long period of negotiation. So I’m back.
COP 26 is shining a fascinating light on how serious players (be they governments, corporates or individuals) are about achieving net zero by 2050. This should not surprise anyone. The scale of change for many players to move to a net zero economic model is significant, well actually enormous, so attempting to slow the process, soften the impact and confuse the issue is to be expected.
The number of attempts by governments to influence the latest report by the IPCC, is a perfect example. These attempts are about national self interest of those economies where carbon plays a significant part in their economic success. So Coal, Gas and Oil producer nations will experience a drop in economic activity, a change in their balance of payments, a resulting weakening of their currencies and a fall in taxation receipts when net zero starts to really bite, unless they change.
In my book, Zero Carbon our Choice, I devoted a chapter to the losers from net zero and the impact on geo politics including increasing instability in some regions as carbon becomes less of a source of wealth, unless these countries are able to reinvent their economies for a post carbon world. Africa is an interesting example, while affected by the changes of climate, many African nations are also significant carbon producers of coal, oil and gas, so their response to net zero will be equivocal.
The level of greenwash has scaled new heights. Perhaps best illustrated by Saudi Arabia promising net zero by 2060 but continuing to produce and sell petroleum products. But this greenwash isn’t just about producer nations, but about consumer nations as well. So in the run up to COP26, the EU has prepared its position to encourage other recalcitrant states to promise more, while at the same time moving forward on Nordstream 2 which will transport large quantities of gas to land in Germany and thence be distributed around Europe. This pipeline is a long term project, pipelines have expected lives ranging from 50 to 70 years, so this new pipeline will be functional in 2090.
The Nordstream2 website sets out the rationale:
“By 2035, the EU will need to import about 120 bcm more gas per year
The production outlooks of major gas producers such as Netherlands and UK, as well as Norway, are falling. At the same time, demand for gas is expected to continue, owing to its lower carbon qualities. This means that the EU will need to import more gas. Nord Stream 2 will have the capacity to meet about one third of the EU’s import requirement.”
“The new pipeline could play an important role in the EU’s climate strategy by making competitive supplies of natural gas available to replace high-carbon coal in the energy mix, in addition to providing back-up for intermittent wind and solar power. If the EU is serious about reaching climate goals, then the share of gas in the energy mix needs to increase to eliminate coal burning.”
Japan is investing in new coal powered power stations.
There are many more examples of government greenwash , but the question this poses is that if governments are economical with the truth about their net zero commitments, if they seek to move the debate and the carbon commitments to help their national economic interest, why should they expect either corporates or individuals to act in a different way?
My real concern is that we will see many promises coming from COP 26 which on proper examination will not achieve net zero by 2050. Beware greenwash, there is a lot of it about, whether by governments, corporates or individuals.
Despite Orson Welles diatribe about Switzerland in the Third Man, the country is an important and successful economy. So, the recent June 2021 referendum result from Switzerland should be a wake-up call for the Green lobby around the world about zero carbon.
Voters voted against measures to reduce the country’s carbon emissions by 51% to 49%. The measures include a tax of airline tickets and a car fuel levy. Opposition was strongest in poorer, rural areas.
My concern is that the referendum result is an example of the failure of the Green lobby to convince citizens of the measures needed to achieve carbon targets, of a complacency and laziness that people will accept measures whatever the cost. Unless this issue is addressed, then we will see further resistance to measures to reduce carbon which affect ordinary people and voters.
It is not as though recent events do not provide examples where citizens have not accepted policies imposed on them. The gilet jaune protests, Brexit and Trump all illustrate that elites should not ignore the ordinary citizen. This appears to have been significant in Switzerland. Being told something is good for you or is necessary is not enough. No matter how many times Sir David Attenborough tells us what we need to do, when the actions start to affect our lifestyles and standard of living, then people will question the remedies proposed, particularly the poorer members of society.
Instead, politicians and green experts need to be honest about the scope of change needed to achieve net zero. They need to be honest about what it will cost an ordinary family and the changes in their lifestyle and standard of living it will engender. They have to get out of the green bubble where the change to net zero is achieved effortlessly. It won’t be. Changing domestic heating, only allowing electric cars and pricing airline flights will all affect the poorest 50% the most. Reconciling reducing carbon and the cost on the poorer is a crucial challenge.
Offsetting is promoted for those hard to decarbonise activities as a green solution to meet net zero carbon. Apple has announced a $200 billion forest fund and other corporates are using the same method.
This seems a great idea and as net zero needs finance, using corporate funds makes sense – or does it?
The issue that isn’t talked about is that offsetting isn’t a limitless way to escape from decarbonising. Offsetting requires land and as Mark Twain said, they’ve stopped making it. So offsetting will compete with other land use, agriculture, housing, etc and there isn’t an infinite amount of land for offsetting given these competing demands.
First mover advantage is therefore sensible as Apple is demonstrating. But which emission sources should be prioritised for offsetting? Should offsetting, in land use terms, in effect, be licensed by governments? If it isn’t regulated, will some activities that we really need lose out?
Should the disposable business model be prioritised ( for example, upgrade your mobile phone every two years, don’t maintain the software for old models to nudge consumers to buy new phones or with new model i phones introduce a new charger and ensure the old charger won’t work) or should other sectors be prioritised?
On the basis that net zero goes hand in hand with the circular economy, shouldn’t governments be thinking about which sectors should have priority over others for access to offsetting in strategic terms (cement, steel etc).
This is not to criticise those businesses which are investing in offsetting, but to question whether we should allow the market to decide which businesses have access to offsetting, which is what is happening de facto at present.
I gave the attached presentation to students and staff at the University of Gloucestershire in March. I have given other presentations to amenity societies tailored to their interests.
What has been interesting is that people are unaware of how much their personal lifestyles will need to change to achieve zero carbon. As my subsequent post will show this is an indictment of politicians and advocates of carbon reduction who have failed to explain the consequences for ordinary people.
There is a real danger of a backlash against proposals a la yellow vests in France.
COP 26 needs to be honest with citizens about the changes as they affect them.