Why there isn’t time for Green Capitalism

One of Green conservatism’s important themes, it seems to me, is a desire to reconcile individual interests with common interests. In the economy, this dilemma comes powerfully to the fore as businesses strive to reconcile the common interest of social and environmental sustainability with the individual interest of staying profitable and competitive.

The idea of “Green Capitalism” suggests that this dilemma is an illusion. Businesses no longer have to choose. They can do both.

A pioneer of this thinking is business strategy guru Michael Porter. “Static thinking,” he explains, “causes companies to fight environmental standards that actually could enhance their competitiveness. Most distillers of coal tar in the United States, for example, opposed 1991 regulations requiring substantial reductions in benzene emissions. At the time, the only solution was to cover the tar storage tanks with costly gas blankets. But the regulation spurred Aristech Chemical Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to develop a way to remove benzene from tar in the first processing step, thereby eliminating the need for gas blankets. Instead of suffering a cost increase, Aristech saved itself $3.3 million.”

In this configuration tighter regulations are not businesses’ foe but its friend. Pollution equals inefficiency, so going green means less waste, less cost, higher profits and improved competitiveness. Rather than fight new regulations, businesses are re-framing sustainability though a lens of risk and opportunity.

“Fair enough,” one might say. But how long is all this going to take? A close reading of Porter reveals that his approach turns out to be far too slow. Governments, he cautions, should “develop regulations in sync with other countries or slightly ahead of them. It is important to minimize possible competitive disadvantages relative to foreign companies that are not yet subject to the same standard.” 

Increased regulations, then, can proceed but only at a glacially slow pace. The problem is that climate change and other global problems, moving at a much faster pace, will likely still outstrip them. And it’s here that Green Capitalism runs aground. The dilemma between going green and staying competitive – between individual and common interests - hasn’t gone away because of the factor of time – time we don’t have.

How, then, could governments introduce tough regulations that meet the fast pace of climate change and other global problems, without harming any business’s competitiveness? While business can innovate itself out of some costs, the competitive disadvantages created by a faster pace of regulation could only be avoided if there is a level playing field for all businesses globally: an unprecedented level of international cooperation is required.

Enhanced global cooperation would be far from easy. What seems clear, however, is that there are serious flaws in present approaches which aim for agreements on single issues, like carbon emissions. But take almost any single issue and you find it has winners and losers. The biggest emitters of carbon – China and the USA – have the highest costs to bear and the most to lose. Little wonder they too often fail to cooperate!

That’s why a multi-issue approach could prove far more effective. Imagine, for example, that alongside a negotiation on carbon emissions, governments also negotiated a global currency transactions tax. The billions of dollars raised on the tax could be apportioned so that the losers on the climate part of the agreement were compensated. In that way decisive action could, in principle at least, be made to be in every nation’s immediate interests. Global implementation would also mean that objections to the tax, such as those voiced by former Prime Minister David Cameron, would be eliminated.

But there’s still something missing: how can we, citizens, drive our politicians and governments towards such deeper cooperation?

One approach enjoying increasing support internationally and from across the political spectrum is the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) initiative. I was responsible for starting Simpol in the UK but it’s already spreading to other countries. It invites citizens to use their votes in a new and powerful way to support the kind of global cooperation we’ve been describing. At the UK general election in 2015, it succeeded in gaining the support of over 600 candidates from all the main parties, including some Conservatives. Thirty of them are now MPs, making Simpol a powerful voice for global solutions in Parliament.

Such an approach, like Green conservatism, reconciles individual and common interests. It’s surely where our future lies.

John Bunzl is founder of Simpol

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

Is there too much localism for recycling?

Recycling is well-known in the public consciousness as an environmentally-minded activity. Yet, despite high levels of awareness, there is some evidence of the recycling industry in England stagnating in recent years.

Figures released this week revealed that the amount of rubbish rejected for recycling by councils has actually increased in the past four years. From 184,000 tonnes in 2011-12, this figure has increased to 338,000 tonnes in 2014-15, an increase of around 84%. If households incorrectly sort their waste, it is possible for a batch of recycling to be contaminated. Resorting waste can be very expensive, and so often councils just send any contaminated waste to landfill.

This blog will briefly examine the recent trends in recycling in England, the benefits of recycling, and the Government’s current policies in this area.

Trends in recycling 

Recycling rates have increased in England in recent years, although progress has been slower than elsewhere in the UK. In 2010, 41% of household waste was recycled. This increased to 45% in 2014. Over the same time period in Wales, recycling increased from 44% to 55%.

The FT reported this month that prices for recycled goods had fallen significantly and were causing recycling businesses to leave the market. For instance, a tonne of recycled plastic has fallen from £400 two years ago to just £300 now. As a result of lower oil prices, new plastic is now much cheaper. Recycled goods are in competition with virgin goods. With many commentators arguing that low oil prices are the new normal, this does not bode well for the medium-term economic prospects of the recycling industry.

Why recycle?

Recycling can have important benefits for both the environment and the economy. First, by preventing waste from being sent to landfill, it reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions from waste currently constitute around 4% of the UK’s warming emissions. In landfill, methane is released by the decomposition of biodegradable waste in the absence of oxygen. Landfill emissions have fallen by 79% since 1990. This has been in part a result of biodegradable waste being diverted from landfill by recycling.

Second, recycling also provides an economic opportunity for businesses through encouraging greater resource efficiency. Recycling is a key component of a ‘circular economy’. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) estimates that 210,300 jobs could be created by the circular economy in the UK by 2030. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates that the circular economy could benefit EU businesses by between $340 and $630 billion per year by reducing the amount of raw materials they require.

Current policies

The UK is subject to the EU’s binding target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020. Recycling is a devolved issue, so there are separate policies in each part of the UK to ensure the target is met. Some believe that England’s stagnating progress makes it unlikely the target will be met.

One of the main policy drivers for incentivising recycling is the landfill tax. Introduced in 1996 by the then Conservative Environment Secretary, the Rt Hon John Gummer MP, this was Britain’s first environmental tax. It is now levied at £84.40 per tonne of rubbish that is disposed in landfill. This creates an important economic incentive for businesses to recycle.

Although central government sets local authorities recycling targets, the local arrangements for collecting recycling are left to individual councils. The Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 mandated that councils collect at least two kinds of recyclable waste from 2010, but gave them freedom to structure the scheme how they wanted.

But this localist approach has not been without problems. For instance, it has led to a proliferation of different recycling systems, with each part of the country having its own types of bins and collection methods. This in turn can confuse households, and lead to greater contamination of recycled waste. At a Bright Blue fringe event at last year's Conservative Party Conference, the then Recycling Minister, Rory Stewart MP, expressed concern about this, and has urged local authorities to work together to harmonise recycling processes across the country.

The current set of recycling policies has enjoyed some success. But it’s clear that now more radical action is required if recycling rates are to increase sufficiently such that the legally binding household waste target and greenhouse gas emissions reduction target are to be met.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue 

Creating a buzz about pesticides

Earlier this week, the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology provided the latest twist in the ongoing debate about the impact of pesticides on bees. Their study concluded that half of the decline in the bee populations they observed over 18 years could be attributable to the use of a controversial type of pesticide, neonicotinoids (neonics).

Campaigning organisations like 38 degrees and Friends of the Earth have mobilised significant public support for an outright ban on neonicotinoids. In 2013, a YouGov poll found that 71% of the population would support an outright ban on neonicotinoids.

Given the importance of bees for sustaining our natural environment and our domestic farming industry, the concern is well-placed. The stakes are high for the agriculture sector, as 30% of crops globally depend on natural pollinators such as bees, which are worth an estimated $360 billion to the industry.

The decline of bees

There is a widespread perception that bees are in decline. There has been an observable loss of wild bumblebee species, with two out of 26 species from 80 years ago no longer present in the UK and a further six now found in much smaller areas of the country. Similarly, since the Second World War, the number of honeybee colonies has fallen from 400,000 to around 130,000 in 2013.

However, thankfully, there does seem to have been a very recent recovery in bee numbers: between 2008 and 2012, government figures show an increase in the number of honeybee colonies.

The decline in honeybees has been observed around the world, and is often referred to as ‘Colony Collapse Disorder’. A range of causes have been adduced for this: the Varroa mite, poor nutrition, urbanisation, agricultural intensification, habitat degradation, and climate change.

But some have attributed part of the loss of bees to the use of certain pesticides and, in particular, neonics. First used in the 1990s, neonics are coated on to the seed of crops, such as oilseed rape. The pesticide is then absorbed and transported throughout the plant. This prevents pests, like flea beetle larvae, from destroying the crop.

There is now a significant body of academic evidence showing harmful effects of neonicotinoids on bees. A 2015 study found that the bumblebees’ pollinating services are reduced by exposure to neonics. Another 2015 study, which carried out a large field trial of honeybees that came into contact with neonics, found a correlation between honeybee colony losses and the use of neonics. A 2016 study observed a decline in brood production in colonies exposed to neonics. 

Government response

The regulation of pesticides is currently an EU competency. Depending on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, the responsibility for pesticides may be returned to the UK government. In 2013, the EU imposed a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids, on the grounds that they posed a threat to bees. An EU review on whether to lift the ban on neonicotinoids will be concluded by January 2017.

The UK Government is opposed to the EU ban of neonics. It has published two literature reviews, one from 2012 and the other from 2013, assessing the link between pesticides and the decline in the bee population. They found no unequivocal evidence of ‘sub-lethal’ effects on pollinators. They criticised some of the studies as failing to accurately recreate real-life conditions in the field with laboratory experiments.

In 2013, the UK Government was forced to implement the ban on the use of neonics. But, while they have no choice but to enforce the EU regulation, UK ministers have the powers to grant emergency authorisation for the use of neonics in limited circumstances. They did so in 2015 for around 5% of the UK’s oilseed rape crop, following the advice of their scientific advisory body, UK Expert Committee on Pesticides.

The Government, nevertheless, has shown concern about the bee population, with the publication of a ‘National Pollinator Strategy’ in 2014. The strategy does acknowledge potential adverse effects of unregulated pesticides on pollinators. But its response is only to keep the scientific evidence on pesticides under review. The majority of the proposals involve government working in partnership with farmers, landowners, and beekeepers to improve land management and husbandry practices on a voluntary basis.

Conclusion

There is growing evidence of a causal link between neonicotinoids and bee decline. This week’s study by the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology further strengthens the case. But whether the harm is yet sufficient to merit a ban, or whether the trade-off is acceptable in order to improve crop yields, is a matter of judgement. It is also hard to assess whether it is primarily neonics driving the decline in bee numbers.

Oilseed rape cannot be grown without some kind of pest control mechanism. A vital issue that policymakers must consider is whether the risks of neonicotinoids outweigh the risks of the alternative pesticides. For this reason, the best hope of a solution lies in further research and development of alternative, more sustainable pesticides.

Sam Hall is researcher at Bright Blue

UK research in electricity grids has put us in a great position – but can we capitalise?

The way we generate, transport and increasingly store electricity has become a hot topic – whether discussing Tesla’s introduction of the Powerwall home battery installation, or the introduction of electric vehicles, or, of course, Hinkley Point C nuclear power station.  A consensus has built around ‘smart grids’ which can react to power outages faster, accommodate renewable resources and allow consumers to self-generate electricity. Meanwhile, overseas, there are thousands of kilometres of conventional grid either still to be built or which have a reliability that you or I would not accept.

We must make good on our investment in innovation

So where does the UK stand? The European Commission published a study in 2014 of the amounts invested by individual European countries into smart grid demonstration projects.

The UK topped the leader board. We had awarded €462 million of funds to smart grid demonstration projects - this is an enviable position. Most of those projects are intended to assist the UK energy sector as it transitions to low carbon. But we have a huge opportunity for that money to pay for itself twice over – by converting that knowledge into exports, and thereby jobs and tax revenue.

Recent weeks give us a lot of confidence that the words ‘industrial strategy’ are making a comeback. Other countries have worn their industrial strategies in the energy sector proudly.

In the area of smart grids, UK companies have won the global Grid Edge awards, appeared on the Sunday Times Tech Track 100 list, won the CBI Growing Business awards and the Queen’s Award for Enterprise. Meanwhile in ‘conventional grid’, Lucy Electric’s subsidiary in India is the largest manufacturer in the country of certain types of switchgear. But we also create jobs and wealth when multinationals situate product lines in the UK. For example, Siemens have based their Global Cites Centre of Competence in the UK and GE’s control room software is designed in the UK.

India and sub-Saharan Africa represent a huge opportunity for the UK

I believe that the development of the grid in India and sub-Saharan Africa represent a massive export opportunity. We have a host of natural advantages: we share a common language; there is a legacy of British design standards meaning that the networks look like ours; we have an outstanding health and safety culture, which is exportable expertise; and there are Indian and African engineers working in UK industry and studying in UK universities, who are natural ambassadors for our technology. None of these is an outright winner, but the combination of these can really tip the balance.

Most importantly, however, there is a political consensus. Initiatives such as the announcement by Rt Hon David Cameron MP and Prime Minister Narenda ModI to develop three cities in India under a five-year partnership, and the Prosperity Fund introduced as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review set us explicitly on a path to help countries like India and sub-Saharan Africa as they develop.

To give you one key statistic: 1.3 billion people globally are without electricity. Many more suffer from unreliable supplies, even in urban centres. But of those 1.3 billion, 905 million live in sub-Saharan Africa and India. A lot of infrastructure will be financed and built over the coming years – the only question remains, whose technology will it be?

What help is required?

We need to build an overall strategy which reinterprets the UK’s strengths in the context of India and sub-Saharan Africa. In the UK, we worry about narrow capacity margins between our generation fleet and our maximum demand; in India, the rate of construction means that the generation fleet may at times outstrip the available consumers. In the UK, we worry about the cost of construction of ‘conventional grid’; in India and sub-Saharan Africa, the challenge will be the lack of skills, and potentially trying to carry out large construction with poor transport links. It is vital that we understand that this is not about selling the same product cheaper – it’s about using our core technologies and innovations to tackle different market needs.

Ultimately we need to build confidence. This requires a combined effort from industry and government, recognising that for the mid-sized companies with real growth potential to take on investments in these regions can be a substantial bet. Government needs to continue to be bold – decisions and partnerships are being formed at country-to-country or country-to-multinational level. In order to allow our smaller companies to participate, we need government to be present.

Conclusion

We have developed world-leading skills in the UK in electricity grids and there is a huge export opportunity to India and sub-Saharan Africa. But this needs attention – otherwise there is a risk that it falls down the policy cracks between overseas development initiatives, UK decarbonisation initiatives, and the commitment to double clean-tech investment. It is not yet clear that the cross-government Prosperity Fund will ensure this doesn’t happen.

Martin Wilcox was formerly Head of Future Networks at UK Power Networks, the electricity distributor for 8 million customers across London, the South East and East Anglia. He is about to take up a consulting position in the energy sector. 

You can read a fully referenced version of this article, including proposals for policy. You can also join the debate on LinkedIn.

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

Should we dash for shale gas?

One of Theresa May’s first energy announcements has been to redouble efforts to kick-start the UK’s fracking industry. Last weekend, government sources briefed the media that residents living near fracking sites would receive a cash payment to compensate them for disruption. That was followed by the Treasury releasing a consultation on a ‘Shale Wealth Fund’ earlier this week. It contains proposals to give local communities up to 10% of the total tax revenue from shale gas developments, with a proportion of the fund paid directly to individual households. A version of this policy was set out in the Conservative Party’s 2015 manifesto.

Bright Blue has been sceptical in the past about the environmental and economic case for fracking. This blog will examine the evidence on whether the UK needs to produce shale gas, and whether it would have a negative impact on our environment.

Do we need gas?

Gas currently provides heating to 90% of UK households, with little prospect of an alternative heating technology achieving significant market penetration any time soon. Even on the National Grid’s optimistic ‘Gone Green’ scenario, gas will still provide the majority of UK households with heating in 2040. However, improvements in energy efficiency and increased deployment of renewable heating technologies will slowly reduce gas demand in this sector.

The Government has committed to phasing out coal-fired power stations in favour of additional gas and offshore wind generation. The effects of this can already be seen, with gas generating 37.8% of the UK’s electricity in the first quarter of 2016, up from 24.7% in the same quarter in 2015. Moreover, with a growing share of renewables on the grid, gas is needed to provide some flexible generating capacity to ensure the lights stay on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

But the maturing of new smart technologies, such as storage, demand-side response, and interconnection, will in time reduce the need for gas to balance power supply and demand. Moreover, as we found in our last report, too much gas in the power mix will cause carbon targets to be missed. The use of gas in electricity production therefore is unlikely to continue at its current high levels.

Do we need to produce our own gas?

Around 55% of the total supply of natural gas in the UK is imported. With declining levels of production in the North Sea, this figure is expected to increase in future years, with National Grid predicting an increase of as much as 38% by 2030. Most of the imports come from Norway or, in the form of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Qatar.

There is some evidence that fracking would create jobs in the UK, particularly in areas with relatively low levels of economic activity. Ernst and Young have claimed that at its peak a UK fracking industry could generate around £3.3 billion of spending and support some 64,500 jobs, of which 6,100 would be direct.

However, given demand for natural gas will decrease in the long-term, the UK risks locking itself into an industry with a limited lifespan. Energy companies that are being encouraged to invest in fracking could instead be incentivised to invest in innovative clean energy. The UK has a great opportunity to lead globally in these new low-carbon technologies.

What would be the environmental impact of fracking?

Earlier this year, the Committee on Climate Change released a report examining whether developing fracking in the UK would be compatible with meeting the government’s legally binding carbon budgets. They specify three conditions for compatibility. First, methane leakages from the wells must be prevented, as methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas. Methane emissions can be controlled with new technology and proper monitoring. Second, gas consumption must not increase overall. So fracked shale gas must replace imported gas, not nuclear or renewables, in the power mix. Third, additional greenhouse gas emissions from the production process must be offset through deeper emissions reductions elsewhere.

Overall then, the climate impact of fracking can be mitigated, although fracking is not going to play a role in emissions reduction. These findings broadly matched those of DECC’s then Chief Scientific Advisor David Mackay from 2013.

A number of concerns have also been raised about the non-climate environmental impacts of fracking, for instance concerning water pollution and earthquakes. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering published a report in 2012 that found these environmental risks could be managed with robust regulation, particularly of the integrity of the fracking well.

Conclusion

There is a case for allowing short-term shale gas extraction in the UK, provided that it displaces coal and imported LNG. Stringent environmental regulations are essential to limit methane leakage, and tighter planning controls could reduce the impact on the natural environment.

But the long-term energy needs of the UK will not be served by fracking. The Government should proceed with caution, and should not exaggerate the benefits. With the new Government’s emphasis on industrial strategy, fracking is not the best long-term bet for Britain’s energy and economic future.

Decarbonisation, decentralisation, digitisation: the changing energy landscape

The energy landscape in the UK is currently undergoing a major transformation, presenting both opportunities and challenges for organisations working on the frontline of clean energy.  Add to that the fact that the erstwhile Department for Energy and Climate Change has now been subsumed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – whither climate change? – and we could be on the verge of a brave new world, one that hopefully encourages closer links between energy and cleantech innovation, and the chance to develop a thoughtful strategy for the future of low-carbon energy in this country.

Decarbonisation

This year’s crop of Ashden Award winners is well placed to respond to the ever-shifting sands.  The joint winners of our Sustainable Communities Award – Low Carbon Hub and Repowering London – have already proved themselves resilient in the face of an onslaught of policy changes over the past 18 months.  

Low Carbon Hub has launched its own manifesto, setting out why community energy is a fundamentally important part of the UK’s national energy transition.  Their ambition is for the whole of Oxfordshire to be powered by an interconnected series of smart micro-grids centred around multiple small-scale, community-controlled renewable energy schemes.  

As well as supporting communities to install and manage solar panels on housing blocks and communal buildings in Brixton and Hackney, Repowering London have recently joined forces with Transport for London.  They now have permission to create 50 energy gardens across London’s Overground stations.  The organisation has also been appointed as a community energy provider by Lambeth Council and is working with them to bring solar energy to Electric Avenue and the Brixton Market area. 

Social businesses like Low Carbon Hub and Repowering London are decentralising ownership of energy resources and reinvesting surpluses in community-benefit activities, like fuel poverty alleviation and energy efficiency projects. They have a critical role to play in ensuring that the UK’s energy transition does not recreate ‘business as usual’.   

Decentralisation

Making the UK’s big cities more energy efficient, and sourcing more of their heat and power from decentralised energy sources, will not only reduce carbon emissions, but will also help to create energy stability, when we are having to rely increasingly on fuel imports and our existing energy infrastructure is ageing.

As part of his London mayoral manifesto, Sadiq Khan pledged to learn from existing initiatives in Nottingham and Copenhagen among others, where municipal owned, not-for-profit energy companies are offering citizens greater control over managing their own energy needs.

With this in mind, he announced the launch of Energy for Londoners – a not-for-profit clean and green energy company - to support communities that want to set up their own clean energy generation schemes. It will assist the roll out of projects like the Bunhill Energy Centre in Islington that takes waste heat from the tube to warm over 1000 homes in the capital.  At present, London only accounts for around 2.5% of solar installations nationwide and is in dire need of a dedicated solar strategy - which has been promised for next year - if the capital is to have any chance of becoming a zero carbon city by 2050.  At Ashden, we are currently working with the Greater London Authority to look at how London can become more energy smart, drawing on the experience and expertise of some of our Award winners.

Digitisation

In the last budget, the Treasury accepted the recommendations of a report by the National Infrastructure Commission on how to support the development of a “smart power” system that could save consumers up to £8 billion a year.

The changing patterns in both the demand and supply of electricity are putting the power grid under ever increasing stress. This makes it more challenging to allow for peaks and troughs in demand, manage intermittent and dispersed forms of generation, and ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the system to keep the lights on. As more and more coal generation drops away, the need to innovate is becoming more urgent.

Smart energy companies, like 2016 Ashden Award winners Tempus Energy and Open Energi, are transforming the way businesses buy and use electricity through flexible demand technology.  They work with commercial customers to identify electrical equipment, which does not need to run continuously or does not need to run at a particular time, and then install their technology to turn that equipment on or off, and therefore their electricity demand up or down, in response to wholesale prices, network charges and conditions on the national grid.  This is an approach which, as it is scaled up, will reduce the need to keep inefficient and polluting reserve power stations running, and means fewer new power stations may need to be built in the future to keep the lights on. 

UK coal plants are due to be phased out by 2025. But, although the National Grid has plans in place to preserve security of supply and is supportive of the kind of ‘disruption’ being shown by Tempus and Open Energi, we are still lacking robust, stable policies from government in order to both speed up the transition to cleaner energy.  Given the lack of national leadership, it’s to be hoped that devolved governance to ‘metro mayors’ in Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool and other cities in 2017 will give greater space to business innovation and transformative change when it comes to embracing low carbon energy.     

Mike Snowden is a UK Programme Officer at Ashden, a charity that champions and supports leaders in sustainable energy to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon world

Photo by Andy Aitchison/Ashden: The National Grid control room at the their headquarters in Wokingham

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

Turbulence ahead: the environmental impacts of aviation

Aviation undoubtedly poses a number of threats to our environment. These are, most notably, air pollution, noise pollution, and climate change. And yet the number of flights continues to increase along with passenger demand, as the government considers expanding further the UK’s aviation capacity.

Some of these problems can be mitigated through policy, and progress can be seen already. But others are harder to resolve. This blog will examine the environmental impacts of aviation, the effectiveness of government action so far, and options for further mitigation. 

Environmental impact 

First, aviation produces harmful air pollution that damages public health, including nitrogen dioxide, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter. A 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) revealed that ozone and particulate matter from aircraft contributed to 16,000 premature deaths annually around the world, with an estimated cost of $21 billion a year. A 2012 paper, also from MIT, found that emissions from UK airports were responsible for 110 early deaths each year.

Second, aviation generates high levels of noise pollution. As well as impairing the quality of life of local residents, noise can also cause health impacts. In a 2015 report, researchers from Queen Mary University found aviation noise had a serious impact on cardiovascular health, psychological well-being, and children’s cognition and learning.

Finally, aviation is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to climate change, making up 5.9% of the UK’s total emissions. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) noted in their recent report that between 2009 and 2014 aviation emissions have been broadly flat. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), a UN body, estimates that globally aviation accounts for around 2% of all greenhouse gas emissions, a small but significant portion.

Effectiveness of government action so far

The government’s air quality plan, published in December 2015, focuses mostly on reducing air pollution from road transportation. However, it notes that nitrogen dioxide emissions from aircraft will gradually decrease as the ICAO tightens the regulations that cap emissions during landing, taxi, and take-off. There is also huge potential for innovation in manufacturing to continue developing more efficient engines that emit fewer toxicants into the air.

Changes to the design of aircraft are also able to mitigate noise. From 2017, new ICAO-enforced regulations will require large civil aircraft engines to be at least seven decibels quieter than current designs, with similar regulations for smaller aircrafts to follow in 2020.

Carbon emissions from aviation have been reduced by greater engine efficiency. The ICAO state that engines have become 70% more efficient since the 1970s. Sustainable alternative fuels, such as biofuels (purpose-grown crops) or hydrogen, have also been developed, and have now powered 2,500 commercial flights, according to ICAO figures.

In the UK, the CCC’s analysis suggests that the most cost-effective route to fulfilling the UK’s obligations under the Climate Change Act requires a contribution from aviation. They say that aviation emissions should be no higher in 2050 than they were in 2005. The projected improvements in fuel efficiency will allow for a 60% increase in passenger demand between 2005 and 2050.  

Options for further mitigation 

Better planning could help to mitigate the impacts of noise and air pollution, by ensuring new airports and runways are not built next to densely populated areas. Construction of new high speed rail links will reduce some of the demand for shorter, internal flights.

Further development of alternative fuels is also possible. ‘Solar Impulse’, a plane powered entirely by solar panels fixed to the aircraft, recently completed a circumnavigation of the world. But solar technology is not currently capable of powering a large, commercial plane.

In a 2009 report, Policy Exchange argued that bio-jet fuels had significant potential to replace standard kerosene jet fuel. They are an advanced biofuel that does not compete with food production and that offers greater life-cycle carbon savings than the first generation biofuels used in road transportation. Moreover, the volume of feedstocks required to meet all EU demand for jet fuel in 2050 is feasible, needing an area of land just slightly larger than Wales.

Ultimately, reducing CO2 emissions from aviation will be dependent on securing an international agreement. Without broad buy-in from the countries with big aviation sectors, there will just be ‘carbon leakage’, whereby emissions are not cut but displaced to countries with less stringent regulations. 

The ICAO is expected to agree in Autumn 2016 on a ‘market-based measure’ to cap net emissions at 2020 levels. A market-based measure allows industry to pick from a range of options for reducing emissions. These include levies, offsetting schemes, and emissions trading. However, reports from the talks this week suggest that such an agreement may only be voluntary initially, with an option for a compulsory limit five years later.  

Since 2012, the UK’s international aviation emissions have been included within the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), which allows carbon emitters, such as airlines, to buy and sell permits for their emissions. As with many environmental regulations, the UK’s future involvement in this scheme is now in question. However, it is worth noting that all EEA countries are currently participants in the EU ETS. 

Conclusion 

There is strong evidence of aviation’s importance to the UK economy, as it contributed £18 billion of annual economic activity and directly employed 220,000 people in 2013. Reducing demand for air travel, therefore, is likely to carry a significant economic penalty. For this reason, it is essential that a long-term, international solution to the environmental harms of aviation is found, and quickly commercialised. 

Smart meters: powering the new economy

As a nation we are becoming more and more reliant on electricity to power our lives.

Whether this is through the expanding range of gadgets in our homes or the predicted rise of electric cars – our energy demands are set to rise. 

This week we published a piece of research conducted by the Centre for Economics and Business Research on Powering Future Cities, which details the rise in demand that UK cities will face over the next twenty years.  

Keeping up with these new demands will be a big challenge, but also presents some important opportunities. 

Smart meters and smart technology could help us as a nation meet these demands, ensuring the long term security of our energy infrastructure and helping us better-integrate renewables into our energy mix.

Policy makers are already thinking about new ways to manage Britain's energy demand. From the National Infrastructure Commission’s vision of Smart Power to the development of smaller-scale energy generation in local areas, the advent of a smart meter in every home is creating newly integrated energy communities, using new energy data as a platform for innovation.

Smart meters are here 

By 2020, every home and microbusiness in Britain will have been offered a smart meter by their energy supplier, at no additional cost. By establishing a digital connection between the home and the energy supplier, these new meters are bringing an end to estimated bills and showing us in pounds and pence what we’re spending on gas and electricity. They’re replacing traditional energy meters ticking away under the stairs in a language of kilowatt hours that few understand - one of the things holding us back from behaving as fully empowered consumers in this market.

Change is coming, and the national rollout is well underway, with over 3.5 million smart meters already installed. 

Our Smart energy outlook, an independent piece of research into the experiences of over 10,000 people conducted by Populus twice each year, has found that 80% of smart meter users are taking steps to use less energy, and 76% are more conscious about the energy they use. Nearly four in five smart meter users say they would recommend one to others.

The benefits of smart meters are even wider than the way they’re transforming individual experiences. Smart meters are digitising Britain’s last analogue industry, and will deliver both energy savings and system efficiencies of £6billion to the economy while saving 32.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.  

The smart energy grid

For the first time, we will have data on our energy use. Our energy networks will use this data, aggregated to postcode level, to better understand peaks in energy demand, and to identify power cuts more easily. 

Better data on how we’re using energy is essential as more of our energy starts to come from renewables – which by their nature are intermittent, generating when the wind blows or the sun shines. 

More sophisticated ‘time of use’ pricing will then empower households to play an active role in managing demand, via tariffs which offer cheaper energy when demand is lower or supply from intermittent renewable sources more plentiful.

Other countries are embracing this. In Texas, for example, to use up the surplus of wind energy at night time, a new tariff was introduced offering free energy to customers at night.

Smart grids mean a cheaper and more reliable energy supply. In its report, Smart Power, the National Infrastructure Commission said that moving to a smart grid could save consumers £8bn per year. 

Driving forward the low carbon economy

Operating a smart grid will allow Britain to fully benefit from low carbon technology like electric vehicles.

The electrification of transport will be a big driver of energy demand in coming years, but also essential in helping to tackle air pollution in cities. 

But the take up of electric vehicles will needs to go hand in hand with the development of a smarter energy grid. Cars will need to charge ‘smartly’ to avoid unmanageable pressure on the grid at peak times such as the end of the working day.

Electric cars are just one part of the broader smart home. Smart appliances like washing machines, freezers and dishwashers may also in the future make decisions about when to use energy – communicating the smart meter and drawing energy when it is cheapest.

Cities like Groningen in the Netherlands are already trialling this sort of approach with great success. Households are empowered to choose the sources of energy they use, including buying it from their neighbours who may have solar panels, and also selling excess energy back to the grid or to other residents.

Digital opportunities 

The opportunities of smart energy data goes far beyond the energy sector. Smart technology is opening up potential for innovators in every possible field to use new data to develop new services.

The UK's digital economy is the largest and fastest growing in the G20 and already makes up over 10% of our GDP. In the future, we are likely to see a whole host of innovative new services which use energy data. These could include the next generation of price comparison and switching websites using your smart meter to automatically switch consumers onto the best tariff – even hour by hour.

Smart meters could connect to fitness monitors and sleep trackers, turning the thermostat down to a lower temperature when you go to bed.

Data could be used at a local level by a fuel poverty charity to identify households who are regularly self-disconnecting from their energy supply. 

And it’s not just in energy that this data can provide insight and innovation.

Getting a better understanding of people’s energy behaviours could be applied in areas like health – allowing carers, agencies or relatives to keep an eye on those they care for. Changing patterns of energy use can help identify if an elderly relative hasn’t switched their kettle on in the morning as they usually do – prompting a carer to check in on them.   

Smart technology and smart meters will be transformational, and are unlocking exciting new areas for economic growth in the low carbon economy. 

Claire Maugham is Director of Policy and Communications at Smart Energy GB

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

The ozone layer: how to solve a global environmental challenge

Last month, researchers published a study showing that the hole in the ozone layer had started to close. It found that the size of the ozone layer hole is now 4 million square kilometres smaller than in 2000. Moreover, their analysis showed that this can be directly attributed to the reduction in chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere.

With this news, the danger from one of the greatest environmental challenges of the 1980s and 1990s seems to be receding. This blog will briefly examine the environmental problem, the political solution that was devised to address it, and the policy lessons for tackling other global environmental challenges.

The problem  

The ozone layer protects the Earth’s surface from harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. In 1985, scientists discovered conclusive evidence of a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. It was also found that this phenomenon was being caused by manmade ozone-destroying chemicals, such as CFCs, which were found in aerosols and refrigerators.   

Depletion of the ozone layer has been shown to lead to adverse health and environmental outcomes. It increases incidence of skin cancer and cataracts, as well as a harming plant growth and the production of phytoplankton, which is vital to marine ecosystems.

The solution

The international response to this scientific consensus was rapid and decisive. In 1985, the Vienna Convention was agreed, which established a framework for international cooperation on research and monitoring. This led to the signing of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which was championed by green conservatives Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Now hailed as the most successful international environmental agreement ever signed, it imposed legally binding controls on the production and consumption of ozone-depleting materials. It has now been ratified by every country in the world, making it the only international environmental treaty to enjoy such a status. 

The seminal agreement has already had a major impact on human health. Research by Cambridge University in 2012 found that the Montreal Protocol had prevented 2 million cases of skin cancer per year around the world, which represents 14% fewer skin cancer cases per year.

The environmental benefits are already being felt. Chipperfield et al. published a study in 2013 showing that, without the Montreal Protocol, the ozone hole over the Antarctic would have been 40% bigger and a new ozone hole over the Arctic would have formed. 

CFCs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, and so scientists do not expect the hole to close up completely until 2050 at the earliest. Moreover, some of the chemicals, such as fluorinated gases (F-gases), devised to replace ozone depleting substances, are potent greenhouse gases. However, last month’s research shows positive signs that not only has the depletion been halted, but the environmental damage is starting to be reversed.

Policy lessons

Caution is required before seeking to apply the policy lessons of the Montreal Protocol to other global environmental issues like climate change. The reliance of the global economy on carbon-intensive fossil fuels is much greater than it was on ozone depleting substances. The scale of the clean energy transition, and the disruption it will cause, is therefore of a different order of magnitude to the phasing out of CFCs.

However, one important lesson that can be applied is that international agreements on the environment require broad political consensus, forged by strong leadership. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were both free-market conservatives. Yet they led the international community in imposing these environmental regulations on businesses. Unlike with ozone depleting substances, there has been a consistent failure to align the negotiating interests and priorities of the major carbon polluting nations, which has limited the effectiveness of international climate agreements to date.

As Bright Blue has argued previously, concern for the environment should not be confined to either the political left or right. Widespread political cooperation on tackling these challenges is vital if international agreements are to have a real impact. The success of the Montreal Protocol is testament to the power of evidence-led, political consensus on environmental threats.

Powering ahead: the case for a new green industrial strategy

If a week is a long time in politics, as Labour’s Harold Wilson famously said, this last month has felt like an eternity. It is scarcely more than a month since the UK took its most important collective decision in post-war history and voted to leave the European Union. Twenty days later, Theresa May became the UK’s second female Prime Minister.

Given the complexity of leaving the European Union, Mrs May’s time in No. 10 may be dominated almost completely by Brexit, yet all other policy issues – health, education, security, the environment and much more besides – are still there to be addressed.

From a trade union perspective, it has been a welcome surprise to see the new Prime Minister address a number of issues that have long been of great interest to us. These include corporate governance and the importance – or otherwise – of British companies remaining British. Particularly important has been Theresa May’s early commitment to an industrial strategy, even reorganising a government department to take that forward.

Yet some have expressed concern that climate change, a central part of the government’s agenda under both the last Labour administration and the Coalition, has been downgraded. Early action to dispel that fear would be welcome.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) believes that on this issue, we could kill two birds with one stone. Our new publication, ‘Powering Ahead’, puts the case for a sustainable industrial strategy. By sustainable, we mean it must take account of social, economic and environmental concerns. It is natural that industries are born, grow and ultimately die as technology moves on, but the upheaval involved cannot always be left to the whims of the market. In recent decades, deindustrialisation has caused serious disturbances, to put it mildly, in the lives of families and communities. That is why trade unions call for a just or fair transition as we move to more green jobs and away from more polluting ones.

Based on new research from Germany and Denmark, ‘Powering Ahead’ calls for a target of 50 per cent of UK energy coming from renewable sources by 2050. The market, by itself, will not deliver this objective. In Germany and Denmark, two countries that have made great strides towards environmental technology, the enabling role of government has been harnessed in a mission to break into those industries.

The UK government needs to step up to this challenge, with its potential for significant economic and industrial rewards. The economist Lord Stern has predicted a future annual global market of $500bn in environmental goods and services, so investment in these sectors today could reap very real economic benefits tomorrow.

We also believe that government should steer new green tech jobs towards the UK’s former industrial heartlands, which lost their livelihoods with the demise of heavy industry and too often have not seen new opportunities moving in to take the place of jobs lost. The referendum campaign showed that too many people do not believe globalisation has worked for them.

‘Powering Ahead’ explores a range of policy options the government could adopt. It calls for funds to support companies and universities, working together, to tackle the problem of storing renewable energy. It also calls for the development of a proper strategy, based on the building of a political consensus and using a social partnership approach. As readers might expect, the TUC looks enviously at the role of Danish and German trade unionists, utilising their countries’ models of social partnership to influence company decisions from an employee perspective. Politicians of the centre-right, such as Angela Merkel in Germany, seem most comfortable with this approach. Germany’s continued success as the strongest economy in Europe bears witness to its value. Collaboration must also be international; for example the report argues for cross-country effort to develop Carbon Capture and Storage technology, if this is too expensive for the UK government to fund by itself.

What is undoubtedly true is that pollution and environmental degradation know no borders and affect all of us, young and old, rich and poor, supporters of all political parties and of none. We all have an interest in the future of the planet and none of us have a monopoly of wisdom in how to safeguard it.

Outside of the EU, the TUC believes that challenge has become even harder. It was Lord Deben, described by Friends of the Earth as “the best Environment Secretary we’ve ever had”, who said he first became interested in environmental issues in the 1990s when the UK was described as the “dirty man of Europe” due to its poor recycling rates. Brexit may mean Brexit, but there is no mandate to return to those dark days and the Conservative Government needs to demonstrate how the UK’s environmental standards will be maintained and enhanced outside of the EU. The Green Conservatism project of Bright Blue has an important role to play on this issue and the TUC stands ready to support its work. 

Tim Page is senior policy officer at the TUC

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