Carbon Tax News

In this post, I told you how the Chinese are kicking up about the EU's new ruling that all flights in Europe would be subject to a carbon tax (The ETS).

Well the Chinese and 22 other disgruntled nations (including the US and Russia) met in Moscow on the 23rd February to discuss possible joint action. There are fears that all this could deteriorate into a full-blown trade war, all over a couple of extra dollars/pounds per passenger! The participants keep whining on about how the EU were wrong to go it alone when a global agreement was being negotiated. The EU say they've lost patience with that, seeing as it's been going on for 14 years now, but they're perfectly ready to drop their scheme in favour of a worldwide one...

The EU is holding firm, for now.

The ETS is getting the steel industry angry as well but for other reasons. The EU has finally realised that the economic downturn has undermined it's carbon trading scheme: The idea behind the scheme is that companies are given emission credits which allow them to emit to a certain level or cap. After which they have to buy further credits. On the other hand, if they don't use all their credits, they can sell them. That's the basis of the scheme, if you stay within limits, you pay nothing (or can even make money). If you go over, you pay. The idea is that companies will try to reduce their emissions to avoid these extra costs. That is, if the credits cost enough.

Unfortunately, that cost is set by the market i.e They're traded. Thanks to the recession, many companies are meeting their emissions caps with ease so the market is awash with them, forcing the price down. So there's less incentive to cut emissions.

Anyway, the EU have decided to remove, or 'set-aside' more than a billion of these credits, so forcing the price back up. Guess what? The big emitters, like the steel industry don't like this. Well tough. Start cleaning up your industry. More here.

Of course, not all environmentalists agree that carbon taxes, or cap-and-trade as the americans call them, are a good thing. Here's a very interesting animation about the downside of these schemes from those clever Story of Stuff people.

Diary Of A Noobie Prius Owner (Part 3)

Part 2 here.

Well, it's been nearly a year since I bought a used Toyota Prius  T-Spirit (2007), so I thought I'd sum up my thoughts so far.

I'm still loving the car. It's a real pleasure to drive.

Fuel consumption has varied from 45.29 mpg (16 km/l) for a fully loaded car with a pod on top driving across half of France, to 62.6 mpg (22 km/l) for a lot of driving in the country (For some reason the car particularly likes rolling country lanes - I guess it's the reasonable speeds, not much stopping, and a a number of hills to charge up the battery). Mostly it's averaged out at 54 mpg with the difference between hot and very cold temperatures being about 7 mpg.

When we took it to France for our holiday, we didn't want for luggage space. Although the boot looks a bit on the small size when first see it, the shape, and the 'secret lower level' mean you don't miss out. And the concealed side pods are very handy for flasks and bottles etc.

There has been one problem though....

Every now and then, the buttons on the front of the audio unit will stop working. You can't change the volume, channels, CDs or even switch it off....but you can still do all this from the steering wheel. Weird. It seems to be heat related i.e. It only happens on warm/hot days.

This appears to be a common problem for the Mk 2 Prius and the general advise from web forums is to get the audio unit replaced under warranty. A temporary fix I've developed is to firmly press the plastic fascia immediately below the CD eject buttons with a thumb and forefinger (spread about 4" [10cm] apart). Oh well.

Climate Change: Leave It To The Experts

Science is playing an increasingly bigger role in our lives.

Whether it's about increasing crop yields to feed our growing world population; making our computers/devices faster, smaller, more powerful; Improving the fuel efficiency of our vehicles; or developing cures for diseases, we have become dependant on science.

Yet much of science has moved beyond our understanding, with no hope for us to catch up.

That's just something we've all got to get used to. I don't have to understand how my netbook works to use it, and if it breaks down, I take it to an expert to repair it.

Same goes if I get ill, I go to a doctor.

We rely on these experts to tell us what's going on and how to put it right. We may not like what they tell us but we'd be fools not to take their advise. That doctor's got years of specialised education and experience to call upon to make a diagnosis.

So, why do we question what climate scientists have to say? They've got years of specialised education and experience themselves. 

• They know that the climate is getiing warmer by measuring the temperature on land, out to sea, and from Space. 
• They know CO2 levels are rising by sampling the atmosphere, 
• They know CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' i.e. Let's sunlight through but absorbs heats going back the other way (Discovered by John Tyndal in 1861). Without it, this planet would be in a permenant ice age.

They also tell us that, because of the increased CO2 levels, more heat is being held in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing temperatures. And the reason for the increasing CO2? Because we humans are creating CO2 faster than the planet can absorb it.

Could they be wrong? Well, individual scientists are as fallible as the rest of us. However, we have here literally thousands of scientists from a range of disciplines (physicists, chemists, climatologists, glaciologists, and biologists to name a few) from all over the World, who give the same message: The planet is warming, Humans are the cause, and we need to deal with the problem very soon.

How could all of those experts be so wrong, whilst a bunch of right-wing politicians, bloggers, and newspapers have it right!

It's like your doctor's telling you to cut down on the booze because your liver can't cope. You don't like what he's saying, because you like drinking, but you don't want to risk your life either.

Do you take his advise, or that of your drinking buddies, or the bar owner, or the brewery? The last 3 have all got a vested interest in keeping things the way they are, regardless of the cost to you.

In the end, the answer's obvious: You take the expert's advise and end up healthier, richer, and with a future.

The same can be said for that drink problem too.

Energy Companies Beware

In earlier posts of talked about the way the UK energy companies tend 'take' their customers for as much as they can get away with.

I've also shown how they put prices up as quickly as possible (in response to "rising wholesale prices" they say) but they never come down as fast. As one politician put it quite recently "They put prices up like a rocket, and bring them down like a feather".

But now, it seems, the game may be up. Yesterday (10th February), a hundred leading figures, including economists, politicians (with cross part support), charities, civil society leaders, religious leaders and celebs, have sent an open letter to the Independent newspaper urging the government to tax the profits of the 'Big Six' energy companies (who supply the vast majority of homes) to curb their behaviour.

They want a windfall tax on their massive profits, and the revenue to be used to make homes more energy efficient, particularly those living in fuel poverty (who spend around 15% of their income on fuel). They also want a cap on price rises to stop them simply clawing back the loss.

The Big Six, between them, made £3.5 billion profit in just the first 6 months of the current financial year, and managed to increase their profits by 733% in just 3 months! Meanwhile prices are so high that poorer families literally have to make the choice between 'heating or eating'. That's obscene.

When gas and electric supplies were privatised a few decades ago, we were told it would bring prices down through competition. What's actually happened since then is the opposite. The Big Six have effectively colluded to push up prices by more than inflation year after year after year. Now we're in the situation where even 'middle-classes' are feeling the pain. It must be desperate for those on low incomes, especially in the middle of the current recession.

It's time for the government to act.

More here.

End the Big Six Price Fix campaign.

China Rejects EU's Aviation Carbon Tax

As from the beginning of this year, the European Union (EU) requires that all airlines flying in and out of European airports should join it's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Countries like the U.S., Canada, and China had serious objections when it was first announced, with U.S. airlines challenging it in court (and failing), and even the Whitehouse getting involved.

But why were they objecting? What it actually amounts to is a very small charge per passenger (e.g. $3 on a $300+ Atlantic crossing). It just gets swamped by all the other charges (like taxes and levies for extra baggage).

Now China has upped the stakes by banning it's own airlines from joining the scheme or raising prices on it's flights, effectively telling them to ignore the change.

This means that the EU will be forced to fine the airlines and, if they refuse to pay the fines, stop them flying into Europe. China might do the same to EU airlines in response.

Looks like this one could get nasty. And all over a tiny charge! What on earth is really going on here?

Well, the USA and Canada don't like carbon taxes on principle, and they probably fear that the ETS will grow into a worldwide scheme by the back-door.

But the Chinese? Who knows? Maybe it's a commercial judgement: An extra charge too far that might be imitated by other regions. Maybe they've got a deal going with the Americans ("Break this scheme for us and we'll give you [insert favour here] in return".

Whatever, I can't remember the last time I heard about the Chinese backing down over anything. And the EU won't want to dump this cornerstone policy.

This will be an interesting one to watch. 

Background here. China's objections here.

Carbon War Room: Business Tackles Climate Change

In my view, the only way we're going to stop climate change is with business leading the way.

The scientists have pointed out the problem, the environmentalists have raised it's profile, the politicians may (or may not) provide the incentives, but it's private businesses who have got to come up with the practical solutions. And if they can't see a profit in it, they won't bother.

So it's encouraging to see a website like Carbon War Room. Run by business people, for business people, aimed at working out ways to beat climate change whilst making a profit. One of it's founders, Richard Branson of Virgin, puts it like this:

"Over 50% of the climate change challenge can be addressed today – and profitably – by existing technologies, under existing policy. This is an opportunity marked as a crisis – arguably the largest wealth creation opportunity of our lifetime. Carbon War Room works on breaking down market barriers for capital to flow to entrepreneurial solutions to climate change, by employing a sector-based approach focusing on the solutions that make economic sense right now. "

The website is fascinating, with plenty of information on climate change, and the barriers that need to be broken down. They also have 3 major global projects underway:

• Operation Shipping Efficiency: Working to bring down emissions from shipping by showing how efficiencies can made using existing technology, leading to reduced costs.

• Operation Green Capital: Aims to make new buildings and existing housing stock more energy efficient.

• Renewable Fuels and Aviation: To get biofuels scaled up to protect us from oil price shocks and dramatically cut CO2 emissions.

Companies are lining up to take advantage of the business opportunities that will inevitably come up when the World finally commits to tackling climate change. It's an exciting prospect. I just wish we'd get on with it.

If Not For The Children, Then Do It For The Economy

Love it or loathe it, economics is an integral part of our lives.

Most of us expect our politicians and financial institutes to just get the big stuff right while the rest of us handle our day-to-day budgets.

Unfortunately, governments and banks don't always get it right, leaving you and I to feel the pain.

The current global financial woes are a direct result of banks getting greedy and taking too many risks whilst goverments just let them do it.

That's the laissez-faire system for you. When it goes right, everyone benefits. When it goes wrong, it's the ordinary people who suffer. I guess that's the price we pay for a system that works most of the time.

However, I think we have a right to expect our politicians to anticipate potential problems for the economy and ensure they don't happen.

One such problem is 'peak oil'. Without getting too technical, it's a point in time when the maximum rate of worldwide oil production is reached, after which it plateaus for a period before falling.

If and when peak oil happens, we can expect an inexorable rise in oil prices as demand outstrips supply. This, in turn, would cause serious problems for most nations' economies as they are heavily dependent on cheap, plentiful oil for transport, farming, and industry. In fact, it would probably make the current global recession look small by comparison.

Well, according to two scientists, we have already hit peak oil! They say that, up to 2005, production increased in response to price rises but, since then, production seems to have hit a ceiling regardless of price. As a result, prices swing wildly with small changes in demand.

They say that new oil fields are not coming on line fast enough to replace those that are closing down and this seems unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

So, given the danger to our economies, shouldn't governments be working on weaning us off our dependence on oil?

Afterall, this isn't the first time they've been warned of the dangers of peak oil. There have even been calls from industry to do something (For example).

Surely it would be irresponsible of governments to ignore what is now a clear and present danger?