The Renewable Energy Centre

Feb 07 2013

Carbon Permits – what are they really worth?

Power Station Carbon EmissionsDespite all the fresh annoucements about the Green Deal and the new Energy Bill, the UK is still struggling to meet its EU targets both for CO2 emissions and renewable energy generation.

This week there has been a lot of bad press over the carbon price – which has fallen to record lows, possibly highlighting that the trading of carbon permits is failing. Companies across Europe which emit CO2 can purchase permits if they exceed their required output levels but can also sell them if they have surplus. The buying and selling rate moves with demand but this week bidders didn’t even meet the reserve price of 5Euros per tonne.

This in itself is a worrying trend however my view of this paper trading of carbon is simply a money making exercise rather than one of controlling or reducing carbon emissions. In my humble view there should simply be a reduction cap which increases year on year (much the same as the renewable energy roadmap) so that companies invest in reducing their carbon emissions, rather than simply paying to increase them! Surely the money is better spent changing the wheels of industry which have lead us here but also to physically change the carbon dioxide levels.

Any kind of dramatic change takes time but the world has shifted in one century through an industrial revolution to create a world which relies heavily on the burning of fossil fuel. Much of the world’s economy is based around fuel and to initiate change in such a profitable sector will take time. However at the manufacturing or industrial end of the scale, ie where the output occurs, step changes could be made in relatively short periods of time to dramatically reduce CO2 output.

It may be a simplistic and shortsighted viewpoint  but is it possible that a paper trail which never ends and simply trades one way and the other in order to compensate for excessive emissions is the really the right way forward?

Industry is not just at fault, aviation, transportation and each individual homeowner holds much of the remaining responsibility. Although taxes are increasing in the aviation and transport sectors, there is currently no legislation or incentive for the majority of people to change the way they live, work and heat their homes. How would the carbon permit system work for the homeowner I wonder, would it even work at all?

Answers on 100% recycled postcard please!

Comments off | Category: Political Opinion | Tags:  , ,

Feb 01 2013

Flooding Insurance – Puppets and Puppet Masters

Jigsaw House 2012 was the second wettest year on record after 2000 according to the Met office, and they say that in the future rainfall will be much worse and more frequent.

Inconvenient and costly as a flooded home may be, if you cannot insure it, you cannot sell it. Buyers will not be able to purchase it because they will be unable to mortgage without insurance cover. Ironic really as many of the major insurance companies are owned by banking groups who are the major sources of mortgage finance.

The spectre of hundreds of thousands of unsaleable homes and angry homeowners frightens politicians because these homeowners are likely to become an army of disgruntled voters who will vote them out as soon as they can.

Insurers know this and after the 2000 floods elicited promises from the government to invest in a new programme of flood defences, by threatening to withdraw insurance from 10% of UK homes. In return they promised to continue to provide flood risk cover for all but the most extreme cases.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) was negotiating from a position of considerable strength. The scenario of 10% of UK properties having their property insurance withdrawn and thus impossible to sell, would have resulted in a housing market crash that would have had devastating consequences for the Government of the day. John Prescott was quoted as saying that the floods in 2000 were a wake up call but we doubt whether he could sleep at all with the spectre of an imminent property market collapse in the background.

In their review of 2005 the ABI called for more investment in flood defences whilst in the same document, admitting that flood and storm claims were at their lowest level for 20 years.

I predict that the government response to the 2012 deluge will be threefold:

  • Planning changes to further restrict flood plain development.
  • Announcement of more investment in flood defences. In character with most initiatives by the current coalition, it will probably be marketed as a Community Flood Defence Programme so the responsibilities and costs can be laden on hard-pressed local authorities and/or Council tax payers.
  • A parachute scheme to provide funding for insurers (as if they need it!). Probably in the form of a government grant once a threshold of flooded properties has been reached. My guess is that it will be called a Severe Flood Compensation Rebate or something similar. In effect a bribe to the insurers to keep doing what they do badly at present.

So, when your home insurance sky-rockets, your Council Tax increases and the housing market stagnates or collapses even further, you can be comforted by the idea that you are helping the profits of the banking groups and their executives’ bonuses once more. I will leave it to the reader to guess who is the puppet master and who is the puppet!

Comments off | Category: Political Opinion | Tags:  ,

Dec 11 2012

Welcome to our new blog

Welcome to the new  Renewable Centre blog. Here we hope to post up to date and interesting articles for you to read and respond to.


The Renewable Energy Centre Team!

Comments off | Category: Renewable Energy | Tags:


Read about the renewable energy industry and view comments and opinions about climate change in the UK and globally.

Latest Posts