Labour should back the Lib Dems on 2030 targets for clean power

September 14, 2012 12:08 pm

The Financial Times reports that a coalition row over energy policy has “burst back into the open” as Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Davey, announced yesterday that he would “defy the chancellor” and set a target for how much carbon dioxide electricity plants should emit by 2030. Labour should isolate the Chancellor and support the Lib Dems.

Including a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030 in the draft energy bill has become the main demand of environmental groups. But it is also supported by businesses, the select committee and the government’s own advisors. Last year, the EEF manufacturing group said government “should establish a 2030 carbon reduction target for energy supply … [with] the ambition of decarbonising the energy supply in the UK … and [providing] the certainty businesses need to invest in low carbon generation technologies and fuels.”

The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, which is chaired by Conservative MP, Tim Yeo, published a scathing pre-legislative scrutiny report on the energy bill in July. Along with a series of criticisms and recommendations, it called for the Government to set a “2030 carbon intensity target for the electricity sector” since this would “deliver the most cost effective route to meeting our 2050 climate change targets”.

And, just yesterday, in his first day in the job as Chairman of the advisory Committee on Climate Change, Conservative peer Lord Deben, better known as John Gummer, wrote a letter to Ed Davey endorsing a target on the grounds that it would help bring forward the necessary investments “at least cost to the consumers.” DECC’s own analysis shows that wholesale gas prices will increase by 55 per cent from 2010 to 2020 showing the absurdity of reliance on a ‘dash for gas’.

Renewables and nuclear are also likely to increase energy bills but by nothing like as much. Providing incentives so that Britain can get ahead of the curve on clean energy will do wonders for our economy. The CBI have shown that the UK’s green businesses grew in real terms by 2.3 per cent in 2010/11 contributing a third of overall growth. Worldwide, the sector has increased by a magnitude of six since 2004. And the clock is ticking. The International Energy Agency has found that every delayed $1 of low carbon investment in the energy sector before 2020 will cost an additional $4.30 after that time.

Having failed to make any mention of a 2030 target in a lengthy op ed explaining his position on Wednesday, Ed Davey yesterday clarified his position and said , “We are currently considering a 2030 electricity decarbonisation target”. This puts him on a collision course with the Chancellor who wrote to Davey in July calling for “agreement that we will not set any further decarbonisation or deployment targets beyond those we already have, for example 2030 targets for electricity emissions or renewable deployment.”

At Lib Dem conference in 10 days time, Chief Secretary Danny Alexander will propose a motion calling for the coalition to establish “a target range of 50–100g of CO2 per kwh for the decarbonisation of power sector by 2030 in addition to existing carbon emission reductions.” Labour should back him.

Not only is the policy in the interest of both businesses and consumers, it makes good political sense as it could precipitate a major defeat for George Osborne. With the precedent for coalition collective responsibility undermined by the row over boundary changes, Lib Dem MPs would find it hard to oppose an amendment to the Energy Bill calling for an explicit 2030 target.

Ed Davey’s team have hinted today that his preferred approach is for the target to be including in a statutory instrument if and when the energy bill passes. But this approach could result in the target getting bogged down by the Treasury. It would be far better for Labour’s energy team to smoke out the Lib Dems and propose an amendment on the face of the bill for an explicit 2030 target.

Will Straw is Associate Director for Globalisation and Climate Change at IPPR

  • http://twitter.com/redrenie24 Renie Anjeh

    Will Straw is right. I hope he goes for Parliament. It would be good to see a father and son team on the Labour benches.

  • Martinay

    Will is right – if Davey’s targets match (or exceed) those of the European Commission and allow for the bar to be raised in the event of new evidence-based recommendations coming forward.

  • https://mikestallard.virtualgallery.com/ Mike Stallard

    Are you mad?
    Renewables simply do not work when the wind is not blowing. Nuclear Energy is not Labour party policy. Coal is totally forbidden. Fracking is totally forbidden. Oil comes from the Arab world which is rather Muslim at the moment and Gas comes from the Russia of President Putin.
    By 2020, the target will actually mean that people just sit unemployed in the cold waiting for the lights to come back on.
    Happy Christmas everyone!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/FGQIBLTXGYWYWUQWWPHYJCHXNI Bob Smith

      “Renewables simply do not work when the wind is not blowing”.

      You maybe need to consider:

      1) The variety of renewable energy sources the UK already uses, see eg. this graph from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_renewables_generated.PNG

      2) We do have, and indeed use, plenty of ways of storing energy once made. It isn’t automatically problem if you have a production system that sometimes makes more and sometimes less.

      3) (related to 2) The argument made by pretty much everyone with half a brain when advocating more renewables, is that we have a varied energy mix. You seem to have in mind someone arguing that we should run the UK solely on wind power. That’s very different from arguing for the following kind of mix:
      Nuclear (see below re Labour’s position) stations providing the underlying always-on component; they’re suited to this as they have long starting-up and shutting-down times
      Wind and water based power providing, to be honest, as much as can be made economical. Yes their output is less controllable (particularly wind). However, you don’t need them to always be on. You just need to know on average how much power they’ll make (and obviously decisions to build them are based on this for considerations of when it’s economical).
      Lastly, thermal plants (biomass and fossil fuels) providing the top-up. They’re pretty easy to switch on and off, so you need enough capacity that you can meet demand for a certain time when wind and hydro production are at their lowest, and when these are at their highest most of this capacity won’t be needed.
      The funny thing about seeing a mix like this as some crazy Green idea is that in form it’s exactly what we have at the moment. It’s just that now, the second section is only about 6% and so we have lots of thermal plants running pretty continuously. Putting in money to make our energy cleaner just means in practice enlarging wind and water production so thermal plants become more of a top-up rather than the bulk, and getting as much thermal production coming from biomass as possible.

      Lastly, “Nuclear Energy is not Labour party policy”:

      Although there’s plenty of disagreement on this, for official policy you might want to have a look in the 2010 manifesto (see page 8:3 for example) or for a more recent line: http://www.labour.org.uk/nuclear-power-has-a-vital-role-to-play,2012-02-17

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    I don’t quibble with the intention but I wonder if politicians understand the implications of a 50-100g/kwh target and the huge efforts that will be required to achieve this.

    Huge renewables growth is a given.

    We haven’t built a nuclear power station in nearly 20 years, to have even a hope of meeting this target we’re going to need to be completing one unit, pretty much every year for the the next 18 years.

    Carbon capture is still in the small scale, demonstration stage, we’ll need it mature and fitted to a significant proportion of the fossil power station fleet. A good proportion of existing stations are unlikely to be suitable so we’re probably also talking about  new super-critical coal fired stations and/or CCGTs along the coast/centred on CCS clusters etc.

    The build programme required to hit these targets is huge and yet as of today we don’t even have an effective system in place to finance these schemes.

  • Brumanuensis

    But the blunt truth is that Osborne is clearly unconvinced of the need for immediate action and the Treasury’s writ is law within government, meaning that none of these promises will be realised by the target date.

Latest

  • News More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    More evidence of that slick Downing Street media operation…

    Ed Miliband is addressing Google’s Bug Tent tomorrow, and is expected to attack them over tax avoidance. So the slick Downing Street operation presumably want to get out ahead of that, right? Not quite. Here’s a selection of the headlines from today’s papers: ‘Stop moralising about tax avoidance, PM told’ – Guardian p.23 ‘Tougher tax rules would cost jobs, minister warns’ – Financial Times p.3 ‘Cameron avoids showdown over Google tax row’ – Times p.15 ‘No taxing questions as PM [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Where are the women over 50 on our TV screens?

    Most people like to think that we live in a society that is fair and equal but for some it is still not equal at all. When it comes to TV presenters, women disappear when they reach over the age of 50. As part of the work of the Older Women’s Commission, I wrote to the six main UK broadcasters asking them how many older women they employ on screen and behind the camera. The figures provided by broadcasters show [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →