Grounds for taxation?

The British have long had a love affair with coffee. In our homes, at work, and on our highstreets, we collectively drink approximately 55 million cups of it a day. Yet, the nation’s caffeine compulsion is manifesting itself as a mounting environmental problem, largely through the way in which most coffee cups are difficult, if not impossible, to recycle.

In light of this fact, the Environmental Audit Committee has recently recommended that the Government should introduce a minimum charge of 25 pence on disposable cups, to be paid for by the consumer on top of the price of their beverage. The ‘latte levy’ has been touted as a good way of tackling the problem of disposable coffee cup waste – much in the same way as England has seen a dramatic fall in the use of plastic carrier bags since the introduction of a five pence charge in most shops in 2015. The question is, will it work?

Any rational economist will say that, for most goods at least, as the price of something goes up, the demand for it goes down. A consequence of this is that people will probably look for substitutes – as was observed with the rise in ‘Bags for Life’ after the first plastic bag charges were introduced in the UK. The logic goes, therefore, that by explicitly taxing people for the cup into which their coffee is eventually poured, they will invest in reusable cups to avoid the new charge.

All froth?

There could be two reasons which prevent the latte levy from being as successful as the plastic bag charge in terms of cutting down on waste. First, at the essence of an on the go coffee is convenience. One buys a coffee, drinks it, and disposes of the cup accordingly. Indeed, the majority of disposable coffee cups are consumed whilst people are ‘on the move’. The alternative of carrying around a reusable cup, both before and after one wants a coffee, seems somewhat conflicting with that notion of convenience. 

Admittedly, sales of reusable coffee cups have increased since the Government first hinted at the introduction of a charge on disposable cups – and not least because the Environment Secretary, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, has given one to each of his colleagues in cabinet. Whether or not they get used, however, is another question.  

Interestingly, one scheme in Germany recognises the fact that not everyone remembers, or perhaps wants, to carry reusable cup around at all times. Instead, a network of over 100 businesses have agreed to a system whereby scheme members receive their beverage in a reusable cup, which can then be returned to a participating shop once empty. The shops then wash the cups, ready for their next use. The cost of the scheme is a negligible €1 per member, and is regarded as being very successful.

Second, where the plastic bag charge works, and the proposed latte levy may not, is that using a cup – disposable or otherwise – is an intrinsic part of grabbing a quick coffee. In other words, the need for the cup is unavoidable. The same is not necessarily true of plastic bags when out shopping; one can buy multiple items and get away without needing a bag. Indeed, ‘beating the system’ and dodging the small levy is something much more readily available to the would-be plastic bag buyer than the coffee cup consumer.

Extra measures

Therefore, one could conclude that whilst the latte levy may bring down some of the current levels of waste seen around disposable coffee cups, more thought might be needed to get a handle on the problem. On this point, two areas of concern need to be looked at.

First, there is the issue of recycling. Due to manufacturing methods, the vast majority of coffee cups are not recycled. In the whole of Britain, only three specialist recycling centres exist which can process coffee cups – which explains why less than 1% of the 2.5 billion coffee cups used per year in the UK get recycled. However, there are companies which have developed cups which are more easy to recycle, and major coffee chains are apparently in talks with them to adopt the more environmentally friendly packaging. It is overwhelmingly likely that making disposable cups more easily recyclable will be crucial in cracking down on the remaining instances of non-reusable coffee cup use. 

Second, recyclable or not, disposable coffee cups contribute greatly to total littering in the UK. This is a point which the Environmental Audit Committee raised itself in its report. The Environment Minister, Thérèse Coffey MP, made clear that the UK needs to improve its on-street ‘binfrastructure’, simply to give people the opportunity to dispose of their coffee cups more appropriately. At the moment, less than half of all councils provide on-the-go recycling bins, which doubtlessly explains why half a million coffee cups end up as litter on the ground every day in the UK.

Conclusion

The Government has an ambition to crack down on waste, and as part of that has disposable coffee cups firmly within its crosshairs. If it does adopt the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee to introduce a latte levy – a measure which Gove has described, incidentally, as “exciting” – it is imaginable that coffee cup waste will fall: due to reduced effective demand, and consumers switching to reusable cups.

Yet, to think that success seen with the plastic bag charge will similarly be realised as the result of a latte levy may be premature. More work on developing recyclable cups, and providing more bins for people to dispose of their cups in, may also be required if the Government is to confront Britain’s coffee cup conundrum.

Eamonn Ives is a researcher at Bright Blue

Blowing in the wind: are kites the next big step for renewable power?

To most people in Britain, kites are probably things of a childhood pastime – perhaps conjuring up memories of hours spent on less-than-tropical beaches. Yet, the very same principles which underpin kite flying are now being touted as a serious and exciting means to generate renewable electricity.

As with other forms of electricity generation, kites capture energy and use it to rotate a turbine. Each kite has a steel tether which is attached to a turbine, and as a kite harnesses wind energy, it ascends up into the sky. This in turn spins the turbine, which generates electricity. Kites often operate in tandem, with one rising and the other falling at the same time, which ensures energy generation is more constant. In addition, some kites will have rotor blades attached to them which generate electricity, too, in the same way that traditional windmills do.

A technology with the wind in its sails

Given that they both harness the wind as their source of power, kites are often compared to conventional wind turbines when assessing their potential to be a viable method of producing electricity. However, as beneficial for the environment as wind turbines are and have been for the UK, it would appear that kites could offer several potential advantages.

To start with, consider that the strength of the wind – and hence energy generation potential – steadily increases with altitude, with high-altitude winds having twice the velocity of ground-level winds. Moreover, not only do winds blow more forcefully at higher elevations, they do so more predictably, too. Combined, these two facts mean that kites can exploit a stronger and more reliable stream of energy to convert into electricity, relative to turbines on the ground or out at sea.

Another compelling argument in favour of kite generated energy is cost. We know that renewables like solar and wind turbines have, especially recently, seen their costs fall dramatically due to improved economies of scale and technological learning. Yet companies who are in the kite energy sector believe their blossoming technology has the potential to be even cheaper.

Kites use fewer materials in production, are cheaper to build and set up, are easier to maintain once running, and have the potential to last longer. If as a result of stronger and more predictable winds they produce more energy too, then they effectively become all the more inexpensive because of the crucial cost per megawatt hour of energy produced equation by which all generating technologies are judged. Indeed, one kite energy company believes it could install a 100 megawatt capacity wind farm and begin delivering electricity significantly less expensively than £44.50 per megawatt hour.

As with any new technology, however, kite energy generation must be able to transfer its promising potential on paper into the real world. Cost estimates such as the one cited above are certainly eye-catching, but need to be backed up by hard evidence gathered through doing. At the moment, regulatory uncertainty abounds, and investors would want to be sure that any money they put into the hitherto commercially untested technology is not too much of a gamble.

That kites use fewer materials relative to wind turbines also has important environmental consequences. Often made from carbon-fibre, kites do away with literally thousands of tonnes of infrastructure associated with conventional wind turbines – the massive blades and tower, plus the concrete foundations, for instance – thus meaning that they require fewer resources to fabricate, and hence contain less embodied energy. Indeed, the steel and concrete used to build wind farms are some of the most energy and water intensive production materials around – although it must be said that they and other renewables like solar are still much less carbon intensive, relative to conventional fossil fuelled power stations.

Another key selling point for kite generated energy is that kites can be deployed in a wider variety of locations, often where other forms of generation could not be. Conventional wind turbines are limited as to where they can be placed because they must be able to reliably tap into ground windspeeds of at least five meters per second. Consequently, this rules out much of the land across the world. However, higher altitude wind speeds are considerably more constant – regardless of the location 500 or so meters below, where the kites would be anchored. In addition, because of their nature, kites could operate in locations where it is unviable to erect conventional wind turbines because of complex terrain, for instance.

Interestingly, one location where kite energy wind farms could be constructed is on the offshore pilings on which current wind turbines – soon due to be decommissioned – stand. As modern wind turbines are now much larger, the existing pilings have effectively been rendered redundant, and thus replacement ones would have to be (relatively more energy and resource intensively) built, should newly proposed wind farm projects get the go ahead.

Possible turbulence?

Despite impressive credentials, kite energy is not without its drawbacks. From a safety perspective, some have expressed concern about what happens should a kite’s tether snap. Furthermore, others have pointed out the natural susceptibility to lighting strikes which kites will have, flying so high up in the sky. This could not only damage the kite itself, but more importantly knock out the small but vital computers in the kite which control it. 

Yet perhaps the greatest challenge with which kites could possibly be faced will be securing regulatory permissions to ascend to such high altitudes. It is not hard to imagine authorities expressing hesitation over agreeing to a series of kites being deployed anywhere close to residential areas, or airspace in the proximity of flightpaths, for instance.

The almost inevitable opposition from the small but vocal minority who already campaign against wind turbines on visual grounds could be a final stumbling block for kite generated electricity. Indeed, it is foreseeable that kites could engender even more opposition than conventional turbines – for whilst some claim that kites in full flight will be virtually invisible, even an ardent believer in renewable energy may not relish the idea of a network of cables extending hundreds, even thousands, of feet up into the sky.

Conclusion

Conventional wind turbines have undoubtedly helped the UK in reducing carbon emissions and decelerating climate change through the way in which they have provided a clean alternative to dirty, fossil fuelled power stations. In the years since their inception, the turbines have become more efficient, and the blades that power them ever bigger. Despite this, it is not unreasonable to look at the developing sector of kite technology and think that the future of renewable energy generation might lie a little higher above our heads than first imagined. 

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

Paying for itself: using reverse auctions for environmental improvement

Bright Blue’s recent report A greener, more pleasant land outlined a bold vision of a market-based approach to agricultural subsidies post-Brexit. As part of this, reverse auctions were proposed as one mechanism for delivering some of these subsidies.

EnTrade is an online reverse auctions platform used by Wessex Water, United Utilities and Natural England, and have been running reverse auctions for two years. We have run six auctions in eight catchments and have received bids for over 150 tonnes of nitrogen at a cost of over £300,000.

In these auctions, we invite farmers to bid to put in measures to reduce pollution from nutrients such as nitrogen. Excess nitrogen can disturb natural nutrient balances in rivers, leading excessive growth of algae or other organisms. Nitrates are also toxic to humans, so can cause problems at drinking water sources.

There are many methods to reduce nitrogen leaching, but for the auctions we have concentrated on two. These are:

• Planting cover crops on land over winter where it would otherwise be bare. Cover crops are green cover planted to take up excess nitrogen in the soil over winter when most leaching happens. These can then ploughed back in to the land so those nutrients are available for the next crop;
• Arable reversion – whereby land out is taken out of agricultural use altogether and applying little or no nitrogen fertilisers.

EnTrade started with these measures as they are relatively easy to implement, and they lend themselves to an auction process. We also know from the ten years of research in this area that they are also very effective at reducing nitrogen leaching.

To place a bid, farmers create an account on the EnTrade system, register their fields and details and then place a bid. The system works out the effectiveness of the bid based on the type of cover crop planted and when the farmer will plant it. The process is opposite to a standard auction, in that we accept the lowest bids from farmers to put in measures to reduce nitrogen.

Reverse auctions will reduce the price of ecosystem services where those wanting to supply the service are greater than the demand in a market for these services. This means that there is a careful balance between the amount of requirements placed on a market; too much and the price paid will be higher, not enough and people wanting to put in measures cannot.

Wessex Water ran its most recent auction through EnTrade in June this year, to grow cover crops over the 2017/18 period. Seventeen farmers bid 111 fields in to the auction, and achieved an overall average cost of £66 per hectare. This compares very favourably to the £112 paid through Natural England’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. In addition, by paying based on the effectiveness of the crop, we can target our spending, rather than paying a flat fee per hectare.

So, we have seen that running an auction will reduce the price. But more importantly, it can help find the market price for a measure, meaning it is a fair price for farmers as well. It takes out the negotiation element of price setting, and ensures we are getting the most amount of environmental benefit for our money.

We have found that farmers are very responsive to this way of funding measures. Because a farmer can set his terms for his bid – such as the type of cover crop used or the date planted – farmers invest in the process. And it is important that farmers do engage and do invest, as without this they will not bid in the first place.

Once they have bid, it is also important that we also make sure that contracts are simple and easy to understand, so what we expect of farmers is clear. As long as contacts are clear, we have found farmers will put in the measure required. Last winter we had over 90% success rate on cover crop growth.

As all the information they entered about their bid is on the system, we can check this using satellite data, and farmers upload a ground level photo of the crop. For now, we still follow up with site visits as the process is still new to all participants, and it is a good chance to discuss with the farmer about any concerns they have.

The online reverse auction approach has many benefits, but it is not a panacea for environmental improvement in agriculture. The most important step in the process is to get farmers engaged in the first place, and this is not something that we can solve through an online platform. This is the most difficult part to scale, but we are actively researching how best to do this.

We think online auctions can work for many environmental measures and outcomes. For example, other nutrient management methods could be auctioned through the platform. We could also auction measures for improving biodiversity, such as planting hedgerows or managing peatland. You could even run schemes for natural flood management through the system, and we are working on pilot schemes for all these measures.

Online reverse auctions can help create markets for multiple environmental benefits. We have shown they work in practice, and that they can help in making farmers more engaged in the process. We think they can play an important role in a post-Brexit approach to agricultural subsidies, and help us to create a greener and more pleasant land.

James Peacock is the Product Manager for Entrade, an online auction platform for improving the environment

The views expressed in the article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue

How agricultural drones are rising above environmental problems

There was a time when unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones as they are now more commonly known, were the preserve of military generals – with their first recorded use taking place in the First World War. Since then, they have become a more familiar part of everyday life, having found favour amongst photographers, and even catching the attention of multi-national delivery companies. One other industry in which their use is gathering pace is the agricultural sector, and it could spell good news for our natural environment.

Solving problems with flying colours

A worrying environmental problem – but one thankfully now receiving much more attention – is the deteriorating condition of the world’s soils. A report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation indicates that a third of all of the world’s land is moderately to highly degraded, owing to erosion, compaction, salinisation, acidification, and toxification from industry. In addition to this, there have been ominous accounts of there being only 60 or so harvests left if we continue to abuse soils in the way which we have historically done so.

One issue in particular with soil is compaction, which is often linked to heavy agricultural machinery such as tractors and quad bikes being used on farmland. Compacted, less porous soils not only make it more difficult for plants to take root, but they also struggle to retain water, which can increase susceptibility to flooding and increase fertiliser and pesticide run-off (leading to eutrophication and toxifying watercourses). Soil can also be a valuable carbon sink, which helps mitigate climate change, but the ability to sequester carbon diminishes when compacted. Though still in the early stages of development, drones, which can aerially sow seeds, for instance, have been proposed as a novel way to remove heavy equipment from farmland, therefore minimising the extent to which soil compaction occurs.

One area of agriculture in which drones are already quite established is administering pesticides to crops – indeed, the Japanese have been using drones to do so on their rice paddies since the 1980s. Drones are far less indiscriminate than conventional methods of spraying pesticides, which has environmental benefits. By virtue of being able to fly close to crops, drones can spray only the plants which farmers want to target, which lowers the amount of pesticide used.

Although civilian drones are perhaps most commonly known to be used by photographers and alike, shrewd farmers have also come to understand the advantages of combining photographic equipment and aerial units – a development which should benefit the natural environment. Specifically, farmers are using camera-equipped drones to monitor the health of crops and orchards, as they can more easily spot diseases from a higher vantage point than would be the case otherwise. The most advanced drones can also gather images of farms with different multispectral lights, such as infrared, which can further reveal hitherto unknown information to farmers about the health of their crops. By being able to better identify problems, such as fungal diseases, farmers can take evasive action more quickly – in some cases up to ten days more quickly – and remove stricken plants from their fields, therefore stopping pathogens in their tracks and preventing them from causing damage further afield.

A final way in which drone technology in agriculture can reduce the sector’s impact upon the natural environment is simply through how they can boost yields. Higher yields mean less land needs to be sacrificed to growing food, thus preserving more vital habitats for native wildlife. In addition to reducing pesticide and fertiliser use and bolstering biosecurity, drone monitoring of crops can boost yields by providing farmers with information on, for instance, how well parts of their farm are irrigated and soil nutrient compositions. Farmers can then respond to this information to make changes to their land, or better distribute the fertiliser they put onto it. One technology company which operates in the agri-drone market claims that yields on certain crops can increase so much as a result of using drones that the return on investment can exceed $15 per acre of land farmed. 

The sky’s the limit

Agriculture is a science, and as such it has been constantly innovating. Despite having been in existence for some time now, drone technology looks set to make inroads in the industry – and revolutionising it as it does. Indeed, Bank of America Merrill Lynch anticipates farming to be accountable for four-fifths of the commercial drone market in the future, generating tens of billions of pounds of economic activity in the process over the next decade.

Drone technology in the agricultural sector will almost certainly bring about vast productivity increases, with one estimate claiming that drone-planting systems can achieve an uptake rate of 75%, and reduce planting costs by 85%. As agricultural productivity has started to plateau in recent years and decades – total output from UK farms has changed fractionally since the 1980s – the farming community is beginning to look to new technologies like drones which could prove to be the next revolution in the industry.

But these robots in the skies could also be a blessing for the environment below. As the technology is finessed, we can call upon drones to be gentler on our precious soils, less intensive in our use of harmful pesticides, become better at spotting potentially devastating diseases, and lower the overall footprint of our farming operations.

And it would seem that the Government is on board, too. Only this year, both the Environment Secretary, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, and the Chair of the House of Commons Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs Select Committee, Neil Parish MP, have indicated their desire to see Britain become a world leader in agricultural drones and other labour-saving, environment-improving technology. Indeed, drones look increasingly likely to be a clever solution to some of the environmental challenges currently associated with the agricultural industry.

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

Connecting HGVs to the UK’s green energy journey: the future of gas is green and the future for HGVs is gas

For the past 200 years, gas has been a fuel that has offered the UK flexibility – be it for street lighting, industrial processes, power generation, or heat demand. During this time, the UK has built the world’s leading gas grid infrastructure, which today directly supplies the energy used to heat 85% of British homes. Faced with the challenge of climate change, the next stage in its evolution will be low-carbon or ‘green gas’.

Gas currently accounts nearly 50% of non-transport UK primary energy needs – primarily for power generation and heat. But it also offers an option to help decarbonise parts of the transport sector, particularly for vehicles like HGVs, where large powertrains are needed.

In addition to tackling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the Government has recently come under real public pressure to toughen up its plans to tackle illegal levels of airborne pollutants in our towns and cities, most notably nitrous oxides (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) which cause and exacerbate a raft of debilitating health conditions. Action on the twin challenge of CO2 and air quality must permeate every level of government, and every department of government.

There are approximately 39 million vehicles on the roads in the UK and HGVs, buses and coaches make up less than 2% of that total. In total, a staggering 324 billion vehicle miles were travelled in the UK last year, with HGVs, buses and coaches contributing 6% of that total. This relatively small number of vehicles emit 20% of the UK transport’s greenhouse gases. A recent report by Element Energy showed that just 18 months on from its opening, a compressed natural gas (CNG) filling station at Leyland in Lancashire is cutting CO2 emissions from the HGVs that use it by 84%, thanks to its exclusive usage of renewable biomethane. These are not marginal gains, they represent transformation potential for a sector that is notoriously difficult to decarbonise. Forward-thinking companies like Waitrose, who use Leyland, are at the forefront of this transformation.

But there’s a by-product too, what economists would call a positive externality. Those 2% of vehicles, travelling just 6% of the miles in the UK, also emit 43% of road side nitrogen oxides. Given that there were an estimated 40,000 early deaths last year as a result of poor air quality, then it should be a cause for concern. Low-carbon vehicle trials showed NO2 emissions down 74% when using gas not diesel; NOx down 41% whilst Iveco (who make diesel and gas trucks) reckon a EuroVI gas HGV produces 96% fewer particulate matter emissions compared to its diesel counterpart.

There has been some action in London around ultra clean air zones, but wholesale switching from diesel to gas HGVs, whilst economically rational (with 30% savings on a pence/mile basis) has been too slow. Yes, there is a need for another 150 or so, strategically located gas-filling stations to give fleet operators a real choice, but the Government could do more to signal their support for the switch. And sadly, Conservative MPs are lagging behind Labour in support for regulation to encourage the switch from diesel (52% versus 73% support according to a Dods survey on behalf of EUA).

It will also need joined-up government, too. The Department of Transport is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions from HGVs; Defra have responsibility for air quality; BEIS look after energy policy; the Department for Health pay the bill for NHS treatment for those affected by poor air quality. It’s easy to see the flaws in this structure. Let’s hope there is leadership on this to deliver.

Mike Foster is the Chief Executive of the Energy and Utilities Alliance, a not-for-profit trade association that provides a leading industry voice to help shape the future policy direction within the energy sector

The views expressed in the article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue

Compact living for a greener Britain?

Last week, the Rt Hon Phillip Hammond MP set out his Autumn Budget. As eye-catching promises such as scrapping Stamp Duty Land Tax for nearly all first-time homebuyers – something Bright Blue had been calling for – caught the headlines, other measures have seemingly slipped under the radar. One such ambition is to increase housing density in urban areas – which the Chancellor believes can be achieved through policies such as making it easier to convert retail land into housing, greater support for the use of compulsory purchase powers, and introducing minimum density requirements on new projects in city centres and around transport hubs.

In London, where the need for housing is perhaps most acute, Mayor Sadiq Khan has recently released a draft of ‘The London Plan’ – a strategy document for spatial development in the capital – in which numerous ideas for achieving higher-density housing, such as developing on brownfield sites and on surplus public sector land, were mooted.

A White Paper issued earlier this year by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, set out measures intended to rectify the problem of Britain’s low-density housing. It proposed policies such as making it easier for existing buildings to be extended upwards and allowing more flexibility in the planning application process. Density, it would appear, is something very much on the political agenda – and for good reason.

Land space is finite in a way many other resources are not, thus making it particularly important to utilise effectively. Almost 11% of Britain has already been built on, but within the nation’s towns and cities, such development has all too often been done inefficiently with regards to space. In London, for example, there are only 150 dwellings per hectare, and the average for England sees that number fall to just 42. In this respect, Britain ranks woefully against its international counterparts: New York manages to fit 480 homes into an equivalent area, and Hong Kong a staggering 775 dwellings. Whilst some of this discrepancy can be explained by consumer preference, it is doubtless that government regulations are a significant causal factor in Britain’s tendency for low-density development.

Denser living, better environment

Increasing the density of development in Britain would have obvious benefits for the natural world, most evidently in the way that simply less of it will have to be sacrificed to buildings. Consequently, more habitats and ecosystems can go undisturbed – allowing wildlife a precious chance to flourish. Limiting the extent to which development impinges upon habitats will be a welcome reprieve for Britain’s animal species, 56% of which have seen their numbers decline over recent decades.

But there are other environmental advantages associated with increasing population density. When towns and cities sprawl outwards, people living in them have to make invariably longer journeys, because whilst their jobs and livelihoods will remain centrally located, their homes will not. Longer journeys equal more time for vehicle exhausts to emit the dangerous pollutants which contribute to poor air quality and climate change. Moreover, when people are housed further away from where they need to be on a daily basis, more environmentally friendly forms of transportation – be that walking, cycling, or using public transport – may become less attractive. This would likely increase the amount of people using private vehicles, thereby exacerbating the problems of air pollution and climate change.

The benefits of more compact living are not solely environmental. Utilities and public services which have relatively high fixed costs, but relatively low marginal costs, are more economically viable to provide in areas of greater population density, because of the ability to exploit economies of scale (that is, when diminishing average costs are realised with the supply of one extra unit of good or service). One example of this could be a public transportation network, which, incidentally, would in turn have benefits for the environment if it acts as a disincentive to private vehicle travel, and frees up land space for nature by reducing the need for certain infrastructure such as purpose-built car parks.

It should be noted, however, that some environmental disadvantages exist with regards to density achieved primarily through high-rise developments. Studies suggest that taller buildings can be more energy intensive on a day to day basis, and often have greater amounts of ‘embodied energy’ within them because of the materials they must be made from – for instance, reinforced concrete and steel. Any impetus towards increasing density, therefore, should be done sensitively, with such concerns in mind.

Conclusion

This is not a hymn to transform Britain’s conurbations into canyons of concrete, devoid of individual character and any sense of harmony with the natural environment – indeed, there are plenty of examples of developments which have increased the nation’s housing stock without being obvious eye-sores. The changes which could be implemented to prevent urban encroachment need not be radical, either. Introducing ‘permitted development rights’, allowing for an extra story or two on a housing development, encouraging terracing by updating certain planning requirements, making it easier to build on brownfield land, and relaxing Green Belt restrictions would all be practicable options which conserve perhaps the most vital and precious resource of all – space.

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

Diamond in the rough: why Scotland has a key role to play in the UK's clean growth

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has a troubled history with the Conservative Party. Two failed competitions, two National Audit Office inquiries, and millions of pounds spent without a single operational large-scale project to show for it is hardly an endearing track record for any new Minister to inherit. But with the publication of the Clean Growth Strategy, Ministers across government have signalled renewed, albeit cautious, enthusiasm for CCS as part of new plans to decarbonise and grow the UK economy.

“It is very much a personal commitment and something I strongly believe is exceptionally important”, Claire Perry MP, Minister for Climate Change and Industry, told a Westminster Hall debate back in October 2017. “We want the prize of global leadership in this area: we want to be the people who break the deadlock, deploy CCS in the UK and capture the export opportunities”. Strong statements, considering the rocky history.

Newfound enthusiasm for CCS in the Conservative Party however doesn’t come without its caveats. “Costs must come down” has been the go-to line for Energy Ministers since the ill-fated CCS commercialisation programme was brought to an abrupt conclusion in November 2015. But as Offshore Wind Week has so aptly demonstrated, cost reduction for low-carbon technologies is as much within the gift of governments as it is of the private sector and research communities.

Consider how relative policy certainty and clear commitments to offshore wind, for example, have made the UK a global leader in the field; and then contrast that to the indecision and sporadic flip-flopping that has characterised political appetite for CCS in the UK. That’s the scale of the challenge facing Claire Perry, and overcoming it will require much more than £100 million worth of research and development and a CCUS (carbon capture, utilisation and storage) pilot.

The UK isn’t the only country grappling with the ‘how to do CCS’ question though. At the vanguard of international efforts on CCS is the International Energy Agency (IEA), who recently hosted a high-level roundtable with Ministers and CEOs from some of the world’s largest energy companies. The IEA’s Executive Director, Fatih Birol, described it as the “highest level of industry and government engagement that we have seen on CCUS”. (Unfortunately, the UK chose not to send a Minister.)

New IEA analysis published that day shows that global capital investment in large-scale CCUS projects has now surpassed $10 billion. A huge amount of money no doubt; but not when compared against investments in other low-carbon technologies, which came close to $850 billion during the last year alone.

“Without CCS, the challenge [of meeting global climate goals] will be infinitely greater”, said a joint statement from Birol and US Energy Secretary, Rick Perry, adding, “we know this is essentially a policy question”. Part of the problem with CCS policy (and politics) though is that perceptions of costs continue to dominate the discourse, often before any discussion around the benefits has even begun.

Robust policy development requires a proper understanding of the costs and benefits of different investments and different technological pathways. In the UK to date though, CCS policy has been based predominantly around cost and risk management. In its review of the second CCS Competition, the National Audit Office found that the responsible department (the Department for Energy and Climate Change, at the time) hadn’t even fully assessed the benefits of the programme.

That’s why a new study from Summit Power, a US project developer with a portfolio including both traditional and alternative forms of electricity generation, has started to turn heads.

In the aftermath of the November 2015 cancellation of the CCS commercialisation programme, Summit quietly began developing options for a new gas CCS project at the Grangemouth industrial site in Scotland. With an anchor power project helping to de-risk investments in CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, industrial emitters in the region would be able to access an affordable solution for reducing their CO2 emissions.

Working with a range of academics, consultants and other CCS organisations (including the Teesside Massive, sorry, Collective), Summit has turned the typical CCS cost debate on its head. Instead of focussing only on what CCS might cost, its first-of-a-kind analysis has also shown the economic benefits that it might bring.

Based on Committee on Climate Change (CCC) analysis and guidance from the HM Treasury Green Book, Summit found that CCS could deliver £169 billion in benefits to the UK economy between now and 2060, compared to total costs of £34 billion.

A significant portion of the benefits identified derive from avoiding CO2 emissions, but by working with the University of Strathclyde to assess ‘linked economies’, the analysis found that the project could deliver £5 billion worth of health/wellbeing benefits and a colossal £54 billion increase in domestic economic activity. Between now and 2060, the analysis estimated that more than 225,000 jobs could be created or retained as a result of investing in CCS.  

Aside from costs, the other main hurdle that CCS has struggled to overcome in the UK is the scale of commitment required. Summit’s approach, again, tackles this challenge head-on and illustrates how a UK CCS programme could be structured so that each individual phase would make sense in its own right.

Far from requiring government to commit to an endless roll-out of projects in order to justify initial investments in infrastructure, Summit’s analysis shows that a decision to invest in just two initial phases of CCS between now and 2025 could provide £8.1 billion in economic benefits to the UK in return for a total investment of £3.8 billion. What’s more, that initial investment then provides optionality for the future: invest further if more CCS is needed; don’t bother if it’s not. Nothing lost.

The coming weeks will see the first meeting of the new CCS Cost Challenge Task Force and the Ministerial CCUS Council. It’s not yet clear what impact Summit’s analysis will have on the direction of future CCS policy, but one would at least hope that it helps shift a conversation dominated by costs to one that also recognises the substantial benefit that CCS could bring to the UK. As David Cameron once said:

"This isn't a distant dream. CCS is truly within our grasp. And we in Britain have got what it takes to make that a reality. We've got an army of experts who have worked for decades in the energy sector. We've got a manufacturing and energy industry that wants to invest and get things going. What's more, we've got the depleted oil and gas fields in the North Sea in which to store the carbon.”

Theo Mitchell is Director of Enerfair Engagement, a policy and communications consultancy dedicated to industrial decarbonisation and the energy transition. Previously, he was Head of Office and Energy Policy advisor to Lord Ian Duncan in the European Parliament and Policy Manager at the Carbon Capture and Storage Association

The views expressed in the article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue

Reflections on Bright Blue's Green conservatism conference

On Wednesday 1st November, Bright Blue hosted its inaugural Green conservatism conference – a day-long event of panel discussions and keynote speeches, all feeding in to some of the most pressing debates currently taking place in the environmental sphere. Specifically, we endeavoured to examine four distinct areas of interest: agriculture, conservation, the role of markets in energy, and energy security.

The day began with a keynote speech from the Minister of State for Climate Change and Industry, Claire Perry MP. She struck an optimistic tone about the economic and industrial opportunities the UK has going forward as a cleaner and more environmentally sustainable nation – citing the Government’s work in pioneering the Contracts for Difference reverse auctions which have led to a blossoming, and ever cheaper low-carbon power sector, and unprecedented investment in renewables like solar and wind since 2010. Perhaps most interestingly of all, the Minister acknowledged that current policy does not allow onshore wind projects to bid for low-carbon contracts, and that this inconsistency is something the Government is actively seeking to address.

Agriculture and CAP reform

The first panel of the day sought to explore the current and future status of agriculture in Britain, particularly in the context of Brexit. A vigorous debate ensued, with the panel divided as to what the future status of rural payments to landowners and farmers ought to be in the coming years.

Arguments were advanced both for and against maintaining large-scale state support for the agricultural sector. Those backing a continuation of payments made their case for doing so largely on the basis of food security and food standards, as well as to remunerate farmers for the various aspects of environmental stewardship they provide.

On the other side of the argument, however, the contradictory nature of CAP payments vis-à-vis environmental sustainability was advanced, along with the economic inefficiency which some believe they have encouraged in Britain’s agricultural sector. Regarding the stewardship role of farmers, it was argued that this could still be retained, albeit through a more targeted system of commissioning public ecosystem services where they are demanded.

The future of conservation

There was consensus on our second panel about the need to be doing a good deal more conserving. Each panellist, however, contributed a unique perspective on just what, exactly, the focus of conservation ought to be. Suggestions ranged from raw materials to soil quality, and ancient woodland to native species of flora and fauna.

One point of contention among the speakers was over the use of targets within conservation policy. Arguing against targets, some vocalised how they can give conservation efforts ever narrower focuses, whereas it can be more effective to examine issues of this kind holistically. The risk that a plurality of targets can quickly become contradictory of each other was also raised.

Nonetheless, other panellists defended this approach, largely on the basis that targets can serve as a spur to much needed action – for example, as we have seen with the phase out of petrol and diesel cars, or recycling rates. Furthermore, it was argued that targets may also usher in better data collection which can be crucial to understanding what elements of conservation policy are going right, or, importantly, wrong.

The panel also touched upon question of rewilding. Again, all broadly agreed that a degree of rewilding could be agreeable, yet there was debate around how far it should go. Some favoured the reintroduction of species like the lynx and beaver, but others drew the line at restoring native habitats, such as rewetting peatlands and reforesting upland woodlands which have been lost to agriculture, for instance.

Strengthening the role of markets in energy

Among the third panel of the day (and the first on energy), there was a general recognition that markets can and should be strengthened to deliver better outcomes for consumers. Different panellists highlighted the role that different technologies could play in revolutionising how we consume energy, such as big data, blockchain, connectivity, interconnection, and also demand flexibility services. As these cost-effective technologies develop and expand in the market, there will be greater scope for reducing government intervention.

Whilst there was broad praise for the Contracts for Difference reverse auctions which the Government has been conducting to drive down the costs of low-carbon power subsidies, the panel was split on the efficacy of large-scale nuclear projects like Hinkley Point C backed by now seemingly exorbitant strike prices. Some saw them as a necessary price to pay to ensure a secure supply of low-carbon energy, others as overly expensive and incompatible with a more decentralised, flexible electricity grid.

Energy security in the UK and Europe

Much in the same way as some members of the first panel on agriculture questioned the need for food security, so too was there scepticism on our fourth panel about the idea that the UK should be worried about energy security. Indeed, the panellists drew an important, under-appreciated distinction between self-sufficiency, which means that all energy is produced and generated domestically, and security, which means that energy supplies are secure through having diverse and reliable sources.

The panel was quite clear that we should not overstate the importance of Russian energy imports in the context of UK and European energy security, citing the maxim that “Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia”. There was also significant optimism that improvements in renewables like wind energy will make domestic production easier, while new technologies such as electric vehicles and advancements in batteries will also help to bolster our storage capacity.

If there was one outstanding note of caution raised by the panel, it was that as our energy networks become increasingly interconnected and convergent, the potential danger of a successful cyber-attack on the system escalates. This, more so than conventional energy security fears, seemed to be where the panel thought resilience in our energy sector would be most needed.

Conclusion

The final two speeches were delivered by two former Environment Secretaries from the Major Government. While divided on the question of the UK’s membership of the EU, they are united on the imperative of protecting our environment.

First, the Rt Hon Lord Deben, Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, spoke of how business needs to assume a greater responsibility for tackling climate change, especially now that the science so clearly supports anthropogenic climate change. He stressed the idea of doing more to internalise hitherto externalised costs of pollution associated with consumption – in basic accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Furthermore, he highlighted how much more energy efficient everyday living has become as a result of EU regulations.

Second was the former Leader of the Conservative Party, the Rt Hon Lord Howard. Speaking with reference to his role as Secretary of State for the Environment during the Rio Summit of 1992, Lord Howard raised how, contrary to popular assumption, rising living standards and decarbonisation need not be antithetical – citing evidence that the UK has witnessed both the greatest decline in carbon emissions and greatest rise in per capita economic growth of all G7 countries over the past 25 years. He argued that Brexit would allow the UK to become even more environmentally friendly than it currently is.

In summary, the Green conservatism conference successfully brought together a range of policymakers, experts, and practitioners, particularly on the centre-right, with the shared ambition to realise a greener, more sustainable world, yet with different perspectives on how to achieve that desire. The debates which took place were testimony to the long-standing, but underacknowledged conservative commitment to environmental stewardship and conservation.    

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

Pedal power: why cycling should be at the centre of Government thinking

The Government is being taken to court yet again over its air quality plans. Environmental lawyers Client Earth have previously defeated both of the Government’s previous attempts at an air quality strategy. This third version has been reduced in scope to an ‘Air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide’, pending a fuller air quality strategy next year. Yet it too has been roundly criticised by transport planners, health professionals, environmentalists, and local authorities alike.

Everyone now agrees that previous governments’ support for diesel vehicles was a terrible mistake. We traded off marginal reductions in greenhouse gas emissions against increases in lethal pollutants. But action on pollution also needs to be linked to other issues too. A 2009 Cabinet Office report, on the costs of transport in English urban areas, found that the economic costs of air quality, congestion, road casualties and physical inactivity were all of a similar magnitude: around £10 billion annually.

Based on this evidence, surely it makes sense to invest in policies that tackle all of these costs by addressing their common cause: too much motor traffic. Transport planners since the 1960s have acted as if congestion was their number one challenge, with the other issues being secondary. Now we risk taking a similarly myopic view of air pollution, missing the bigger picture. Demonising diesels is now commonplace, with electric vehicles being seen as an environmental saviour. They are undoubtedly beneficial both for air quality and the climate – yet relying purely on electric vehicles would still leave us with congested and dangerous streets.

Investing in cycling and walking is, by contrast, a hugely cost-effective solution to all of these problems. Enabling people of all ages and abilities – young and old alike – to get around safely on foot or by bike would not only civilise our streets but would also halt the rise of obesity, type-two diabetes and other inactivity-related conditions, with all their human and economic costs.

But don’t cycle facilities cause congestion and pollution? After all, that’s what the papers keep saying!

Well, that might be true if you put your blinkers on and look only at the immediate impacts on motor vehicle journey times specifically along a street where new protected cycle lanes have just been built. But the opposite is true if you look at the wider road network, and consider the efficient movement of people (rather than motor vehicles), particularly in the longer term. A typical lane of a typical road can carry 2,000 cars per hour, or 14,000 bicycles. Reallocating motor vehicle space as space for cycling enables a lot more people to get from A to B efficiently, and reduces the amount of congestion and pollution they create throughout the rest of their journey. This benefit can be expected to easily outweigh the additional congestion faced by those who continue driving along the road which now has less motor vehicle capacity. London’s cycle superhighways are already carrying a lot more people than they could possibly have done under their previous configuration.

Moreover, this benefit is set to grow. People and businesses will continue adapting to changes in travel times, switching to the most efficient means of getting around. But the really big benefits come from creating an increasingly comprehensive cycle network. So far we only have a few disconnected lanes here and there. It will increase massively as our towns and cities start developing comprehensive cycle networks – as is the norm in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands.

So, what does the Government need to do to maximise the air quality and other benefits of cycling?

For one, it should require local authorities to draw up a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) as part of every Clean Air Zone. The Government’s recommended approach to planning comprehensive walking and cycling networks is a huge leap forward from our current tendency to provide disconnected cycle facilities where there happens to be a bit of spare space and a bit of spare cash. Yet at present, English local authorities are under no obligation to follow this guidance (unlike their Welsh counterparts), nor is there any financial support or incentives for those who do so. Changing this has to be part of the Government’s wider air pollution strategy.

It also needs to shift the balance of funding from inter-urban road schemes to healthy, efficient and sustainable local transport solutions. The conventional argument for road-building is that it supposedly benefits the economy. Yet this claim has been repeatedly questioned by leading transport academics. And it ignores the adverse economic impacts of a car-dominated transport system on the economies of our urban areas – as quantified in the Cabinet Office report mentioned earlier. Local authorities, combined authorities and ‘metro-mayors’ of all political persuasions are eager to invest in high-quality walking and cycling provision, recognising how this could improve the health of their streets, their residents and the local economy. A shift in funding would enable them to do so, yielding huge benefits.

Alongside this, the Government should coordinate a national framework for urban road user charging schemes, to cover both congestion and pollution impacts. The main reason why the Government keeps losing legal battles over air quality is because of its reluctance to support road user charging, despite having identified it as the most effective measure for tackling air pollution in the “shortest possible time” (as required by law). Instead, the Government has left councils not only to make the political justification for road user charging, but also to work out the charging processes and technologies. It claims that air pollution is a local problem. Yet surely a problem in over 200 locations needs to be seen as a national problem! In the name of efficiency, it needs to provide a national lead on tackling air pollution and congestion. There are huge economic, environmental, health and quality of life benefits to be gained from doing so.

The third is to back this up with financial incentives not only for people to trade in old diesel cars, but also for motor vehicle manufacturers to stop selling them. A scrappage scheme could be funded by a short-term increase in vehicle excise duty for the dirtiest motor vehicles.

Over time though, the financial signals need to shift towards reducing the use (rather than merely the ownership) of motor vehicles – starting in the most congested and polluted areas, but progressively tackling their energy and climate impacts too. Simply electrifying the vehicle fleet, without reducing our use of motor vehicles, would increase our energy demand, which would need to be met from renewables if reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are to be maximised. It could also massively reduce Treasury revenues – by between £9 billion and £23 billion, according to one estimate. There has to be a clear and transparent link between charging that deters the use of dirty and inefficient transport, and investment in efficient, healthy and clean alternatives such as walking and cycling.

Roger Geffen is the Policy Director at Cycling UK

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily shared by Bright Blue

Gove not bottling it over plastic pollution

The Environment Secretary, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, may have opened his speech at the recent Conservative Party Conference with a characteristically light-hearted joke about recycling, but the main thrust of the speech was an examination of some of the most serious environmental problems with which Britain is currently faced. One of the key messages which stood out was a clear commitment to reducing the nation’s plastic pollution, with Gove announcing a call for evidence for a new bottle deposit scheme in England.

Other government policies to tackle plastic

The Government has already made good headway on tackling the vast quantities of plastic which end up strewn across the country, and circulating in our surrounding seas. In October 2015, English supermarket shoppers saw the introduction of the plastic bag charge, which has resulted in a drop in their use of over 9 billion units – equivalent to an 83% fall.

Earlier this year Gove followed up an announcement made by his predecessor, the Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP, by publishing draft legislation which seeks to ban synthetic microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products. And in April, an England-wide ‘Litter strategy’ was created, part of which focuses on how to better ensure plastics are appropriately disposed of – through measures such as better recycling education in schools, and appraising how changes to bin collections may alter recycling rates.

The bottle deposit scheme

The emphasis on plastic bottles is not without good reason. Indeed, figures suggest that one third of all plastic deposited into our seas is beverage litter. For comparison, plastic bags and microbeads each constitute only one percent of total plastic marine debris. What’s more is that solving plastic bottle pollution also appears far more achievable relative to other pressing environmental issues.

A bottle deposit scheme works by incentivising people to recycle used bottles, rather than simply throwing them away once they are empty. A small levy – perhaps 10 to 30 pence – is charged on each bottle purchased, which is then refunded upon return of that bottle. The bottles are then crushed and sent off to be turned into brand new plastic products.

While England actually has rather robust recycling infrastructure within the household domain, the gap in facilities tends to occur outside of the home. Coupled with an ‘on the go’ culture – particularly with regards to food and drink – some individuals find it challenging to appropriately dispose of litter. Indeed, learning how to address this fact forms one line of enquiry of the consultation which the Government recently opened out to the public.

Internationally, only a handful of countries have bottle deposit schemes, but those which do tend to enjoy elevated levels of recycling. In Germany, for example, their polyethylene terephthalate bottle deposit scheme boasts a 98.5% recycling rate – which dwarfs the UK’s current performance, where only 57% of plastic bottles are eventually recycled. Over the border in Scotland, the First Minister, the Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP, recently confirmed to the Scottish Parliament her intention to do more to support recycling and the circular economy, in part through the introduction of a bottle deposit scheme.

The environmental impact

The consequences of plastic pollution can be devastating for the natural environment. For wildlife, there is the clear danger that they will ingest plastic believing it to be food, as well as becoming entangled within it. Globally, over a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals – such as dolphins, whales and seals – die from plastic pollution each year. Indeed, speaking at the recent Our Oceans Conference, Prince Charles spoke of his “mounting despair” with respect to plastic pollution and the impact which it is having on marine environments.

But for humans, too, plastic in our seas can also pose health risks. Of particular danger for human populations are microplastics, which can find their way into our oceans through accidental spills of ‘nurdles’ (the raw plastic pellets which are shipped around the world for manufacture), microbeads, and as the result of the breakdown of macroplastics – e.g. bags and bottles. Where plastic is most hazardous to humans is when it enters into the food chain. One study, for instance, found that the average European who eats seafood will ingest over 11,000 pieces of microplastic a year.

Recycling plastic bottles not only helps the environment through reducing pollution, but also in the way that doing so saves on energy and resources in production, as well as conserving landfill space. It takes 75% less energy to make a bottle from recycled plastic rather than ‘virgin’ material, for instance, and diverting a tonne of plastic away from landfill can save 7.4 cubic yards of space. Reuse of plastic helps create a more resource-efficient economy too, with significant potential cost savings for business.

Other positive consequences of bottle deposit schemes which have been touted include the potential for diminished costs for councils – as there will be less litter and household recycling to collect – and an improved, tidier, more beautiful public realm. In purely fiscal terms, one report calculates that savings to local authorities in England alone could be anywhere between £35 million to £56 million per annum.

Conclusion

At a time when the focus of the political world is fixed largely on the issues of Brexit, under Gove’s leadership Defra has been quietly and consistently churning out practical policies which in time will lead to demonstrable improvements in our nation’s natural environment. The precise configuration of a bottle deposit scheme will undoubtedly be vital to whether it succeeds at tackling plastic pollution. However, the evidence from other countries suggests it could certainly be a step in the right direction to a less polluted world.

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue