A ‘whole house’ approach to improving our homes

When we think of buildings and homes what springs to mind?  A physical construction, a shelter with a roof, windows and doors where people live or work? Is a home the same as a building or is a home a more emotional thing – a building yes, but one with which we have a connection. Does it make us think of comfort, warmth, security, family, a stable foundation?

Perhaps it’s a reflection of my 30 years' working in the energy industry and my involvement in fuel poverty and similar challenges, but when I think of a home I think of heat leaking out of the roof, doors and windows like water from a dripping tap. I think of comfort, warmth and energy security and how they could be improved. I think not just of family but of how the health of those families could be improved. I think of how a home provides a foundation not just for existing families but for our environment and future generations and why the opportunity must not be missed to make our homes cheaper to heat, healthier and more sustainable.  

Homes (and buildings) are the foundation of our modern society. They are where we work, where we learn, and the refuge we retire to at the end of the day but they are more than that, they are of paramount importance as we strive to reduce energy bills, increase industrial competitiveness and protect the environment for future generations.

Heat and energy efficiency are inextricably linked and it is therefore only by taking a whole house holistic approach that we will make our buildings healthier, cheaper and more sustainable. We need to ‘wrap’ our buildings (by improving the energy efficiency performance of the building fabric) then heat them sustainably and efficiently. In doing so we improve our health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stimulate industry and increase prosperity for us all. 

There is no single solution to the challenge of heating the UK’s homes. We must take an objective ‘whole house approach’ that recognises that energy efficiency and heat are integral and interconnected parts of the energy challenge and also its solution. Increasing the energy efficiency of the building fabric helps to maximise the gain from efficient and low carbon heating solutions; to address one without the other leads to sub-optimal results for homeowners, investors and Government.  

Our homes are not just important to individuals or families, they are important to the economy and the environment more widely. Domestic energy efficiency is of huge importance: the UK's 28 million homes account for 30% of energy use and 12% of carbon emissions. Within the UK 2.38 million households are living in fuel poverty. Energy efficiency and low carbon heating are also important for job creation, growth and skills development.  

The installation of low carbon heating and energy efficiency measures often uses local labour and the investment has the potential to boost employment and economic growth. There is also potential for longer-term benefits resulting from the lowering of energy bills which enable higher disposable income for domestic consumers and a reduction in running costs for business, the benefits of which can be spent elsewhere in the economy. The geographic spread of demand means that the supply chains and manufacturers that support the energy efficiency industry are likely to be located outside wealthy areas and provide sustainable jobs across the UK.  

Achieving mass market engagement in energy efficiency will stimulate opportunities not only for the technology manufacturers and suppliers, but also for the many small- to medium-sized businesses providing and installing heating systems, insulation and glazing. These are the very entrepreneurs, self-starters and employers that are key to the growth of the UK economy.  

In its 2016 report ‘Better homes: incentivising home energy improvements’, Bright Blue highlighted that the sector of the UK low-carbon economy which creates the highest number of jobs is energy efficiency, employing 155,000 people in 2014 and that increased take-up of home energy improvements would increase employment and economic activity in the UK. It is estimated that the economic impact of raising all homes to a band C on the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) would be the creation of 108,000 net jobs per annum between 2020 and 2030, and an increase in relative GDP of 0.6% by 2030.
 
So at a time when the Government is focussed on national productivity and developing an industrial strategy, it is vital that the role that energy efficiency and sustainable technologies can play in the success of that strategy is recognised. The development of the industrial strategy offers an opportunity to provide a framework for a long-term, stable policy landscape which encourages the deployment of low-carbon, efficient technologies in our homes and buildings. The Sustainable Energy Association is therefore calling on the Government to recognise the importance of energy efficiency within the strategy by setting a clear target to bring all domestic buildings up to EPC band C by 2030.

This would help make our homes healthier, cheaper and more sustainable, and perhaps then we can all think of comfort, warmth, security, family, and a stable foundation, when we think of our ‘home’. 

Lesley Rudd is Acting Chief Executive of the Sustainable Energy Association (SEA). The SEA is a campaign organisation supported by business and public interests from a cross section of the energy in buildings sector.  If anyone would like to support the SEA campaign to bring domestic buildings up to EPC band C please contact the author. 

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

The UK’s charging network is in need of expansion and reform

Sales of electric vehicles have been increasing rapidly over the last five years, from around 3,500 units sold in 2012 to 70,000 this year. No longer a futuristic novelty, there are now roughly 500,000 electric and hybrid cars on Europe’s roads.

The UK Government is keen to support the development of the private electric vehicle (EV) sector. In most circumstances, buyers of new electric cars can take advantage of a government grant of up to £4,500 put towards the cost of their vehicle, as well as funds for a charging unit at home, and an exemption from road tax and the congestion charge. The 2016 Autumn Statement also outlined the creation of a £390 million investment fund to support the development and operation of both low emission and autonomous vehicles.

While consumer uptake has been reasonably strong, the UK’s network of charging points has been lagging behind. There are around 11,000 charging points in the UK, with proportionally more in London and a good distribution of charging facilities dotted across the motorway network.

The usual criticisms leveled at charging points are fourfold: there aren’t enough of them, they don’t always work, they’re complicated to operate and they’re too expensive.

Charging stations are often owned and operated by different firms, and each require different memberships, with different apps and login details, as well as having an array of attachments for the various vehicles. Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee also found that certain charging stations were costing as much as £7.50 for a 30-minute rapid charge, putting the cost of some trips into the same bracket as a modern diesel.

Depending on your energy supplier, charging an electric vehicle can cost as little as £3 from your domestic power supply, which is where 90% of charges are currently taking place. As most all-electric cars remain more expensive than comparable vehicles in their respective categories, the prospect of ultra-low running costs is a major draw for consumers.

Quentin Wilson, the motoring journalist and a campaigner for FairFuelUK, told the Times last week: ‘‘No one should be paying over the odds to charge an electric vehicle, otherwise the push towards green cars will fall at the first hurdle.’

The Times also reported that the Department for Transport is planning to crackdown on the cost of rapid charges, potentially setting common pricing structures and making power points easier to access. A spokesperson for the DfT said that while the upfront costs of using these facilities remained a “commercial matter” - “we do not want prohibitive pricing to be a barrier to uptake and will continue to monitor developments.”

The scarcity of rapid charging points is leading to a new behavioural issue in car parks across the country. “We do get charge rage if someone ICEs your bay”, Dale Vince, founder of Ecocentricity told The Telegraph a few weeks ago. “And people don’t like it if someone parks a Tesla to charge for two hours. When your car has finished charging, our message is: move it.” ‘ICE’ in this context refers to parking a car with an Internal Combustion Engine into a charging bay, which happens more often than you might think.

The need to expand the availability of these units was recognised back in November, when Philip Hammond announced that £80 million of the Government’s £390 million fund for the EV sector would be used to support the installation of charging points. According to Erik Fairbairn, chief executive of Pod Point, each charging unit costs between £2,000 and £20,000 to install.

But while charge rage is becoming more prevalent, “range anxiety” is now less of a problem, as car makers continue to improve the battery capacity of their cars. The new £25,000 Renault Zoe R90 Z.E.40 Signature offers a maximum range of up to 250 miles in optimal driving conditions, or around 185 miles in real-world conditions as experienced by WhatCar. At the top end of the spectrum, the £92,000 Tesla Model S P100D has a range of 380 miles.

Although the charging system today has a reputation for being a bit fiddly, the convenience of being able to plug in by the road-side, in your house, or via a lamppost as some have proposed, means they could be far more widely available than petrol stations.

Back in September, the Environmental Audit Committee warned that unless charging facilities are improved, the Government would fall far short of its aim to see 9% of cars and vans classified as ultra-low emissions vehicles by 2020.

It may now require action from the Government and local authorities to bring about the changes needed for electric cars to be considered a mainstream alternative to their fossil-fuelled cousins.

Ashley Coates is a member of Bright Blue and freelance journalist. The views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

Heating up the energy efficiency market

Winter is the time of year when outdoor temperatures plunge and thermostats in homes get turned up. But the image of cosy homes, protecting people from the cold, is too rarely a reality in the UK. We have some of the most draughty and inefficient housing stock in Europe. The most recent government statistics show that 31% of homes with cavity walls have no wall insulation; 33% of homes with lofts have no loft insulation; and 92% of homes with solid walls have no wall insulation.

Yet, since the ending of public funding for the Green Deal and the scaling back of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), there has been a policy vacuum for incentivising non-fuel poor households to invest in energy efficiency measures. The withdrawal of a supportive policy framework is starting to have an economic impact. Figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) last month revealed that the number of people employed in the energy efficiency sector had fallen from 155,000 in 2014 to 143,000 in 2015.

In the past month, however, there have been some positive signs that the energy efficiency policy log-jam could be about to end.

EU 2030 energy strategy

In the EU’s 2030 energy strategy, published late last year, the EU Commission proposes a binding target of a 30% reduction in energy use relative to a business-as-usual scenario. They endorse the concept of ‘efficiency first’, which prioritises cheap efficiency upgrades over building expensive, new generation capacity. Jan Rosenow, a senior associate at the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP), has described this principle in an essay for our Green conservatism project.

The strategy includes a set of policies to drive ‘eco-design’ (amending product regulations so that they are more energy efficient), retrofit of existing buildings with insulation, better energy performance labelling, and access to finance for energy efficiency measures. But, following the UK’s vote to leave the EU, it is unclear whether these measures will be transposed into UK law prior to our formal departure in 2019. While it seems likely that the UK will be able to miss this target with impunity if it wishes, it may begin implementing the EU legislation before Brexit is completed or choose voluntarily to continue with the target.

Bonfield review

After many months of delay, the government-commissioned Bonfield review was published last month. When Amber Rudd, the then Energy Secretary, announced the end of the Green Deal in 2015, she appointed Dr Peter Bonfield, CEO of the BRE group, to lead an industry review of consumer protection and standards in the energy efficiency industry. This followed reports that some Green Deal installations had been poor quality, undermining consumer trust in the industry. Our recent report on the Green Deal, Better homes, cited evidence that around 11% of Green Deal assessors and 14% of Green Deal installers were suspended from the scheme because of poor workmanship.

The Bonfield review makes a number of recommendations: a new information hub to explain the different measures to consumers and help them navigate the complexities of the supply chain, which was something we called for in our Better homes report; a new ‘quality mark’ so that companies installing energy efficiency and renewable measures conform to a framework of robust standards; and a new ‘data warehouse’ so that information about how individual properties consume energy can be better utilised by installers.

Emissions Reduction Plan

Detailed work is now underway on the government’s Emissions Reduction Plan, which is expected to be published in the first few months of 2017. This will set out the policies to enable the UK to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. The fifth carbon budget was passed into law in July 2016, and requires a 57% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2028-2032, from a 1990 baseline.

A recent report by the Association for the Conservation of Energy has assessed whether the current energy efficiency policies will be sufficient to achieve the emission reduction pathway recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) as being the most cost-effective. They find that there is a 12% gap between the reductions that current policies will deliver and the cost-effective CCC scenario.

The authors call for new policies in the forthcoming Emissions Reduction Plan to close this gap: in particular, they propose new regulation to ensure homes that are sold meet minimum energy performance standards, which we called for in our Better homes report last year. In a recent speech, Baroness Neville Rolfe, the former Energy Minister, hinted that the Government was considering such a policy: “We should ask whether we can do more to encourage home owners to improve their properties when they buy or when they move.”

Conclusion

Energy bills are likely to start rising again soon, as a result of higher wholesale costs. The Government’s response to this must not be to scale back energy efficiency programmes, as happened in 2014, but to scale up ambition. Energy efficiency measures will cut bills in the long-term, giving people permanently warmer and more comfortable homes for less money each month.

Following the EU 2030 energy strategy and the Bonfield Review, Ministers should use the opportunity of their forthcoming Emissions Reduction Plan to drive a major uptake of domestic energy efficiency measures. The prize is warm, comfortable homes that actually keep people warm in winter.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue

Message to energy ministers - let industry lead the way on energy efficiency

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of Greg Clark, Nick Hurd or Baroness Neville-Rolfe. It’s not an easy brief, in fact it’s tough, really tough. An area filled with failed policy, over-reliance on subsidy, barriers and a broad number of policy interventions which are being flung at ministers each and every week. And we still have increasing numbers of people in the UK slipping from low incomes into fuel poverty with the coldest, “leakiest” homes in western Europe.  

The signal from Treasury officials is that there’s no money in the pot, it is the end of subsidy as we know it. Best not forget to mention the fragmented voices, myriads of stakeholders all eager to push their solution as the solution to climate change, energy reduction, energy security, decarbonisation and de-risking the energy supply in this uncertain world.

Confidence in the sector is low – internally and externally. You can experience the lethargy every day from all stakeholders whether they be industry or government. This is a 'just about managing' (JAM) industry, an industry which desperately needs to be able to restore its strength, confidence and stability and to be matched by a bold and brave government and policy framework.

To ministers it cannot be clearer that this area needs government support and even intervention, a big no-no with this new Government. This industry has been decimated by bad or failed policy – policy that was not well thought-through or was just too short-term. The Green Deal burnt many fingers. We urgently need Greg Clark, Nick Hurd and Baroness Neville-Rolfe to reframe, reset and reassure this market to bring certainty in what is an uncertain time.

What would I want to see were I Energy Minister? There are a raft of solutions out there. As a minister I would feel bombarded by them, almost drowning in the sea of ideas. “But how does a solution fit together and deliver?”, I might say, wishing to see industry bringing an achievable long-term vision package to my ministerial desk that clearly outlined and addressed fuel poverty, decarbonisation, energy security, demand reduction and the health and wellbeing of consumers – and more widely addressing how we improve our housing stock, housing stock that is the coldest in western Europe. An energy minister needs to have the right information, the framework to convince Treasury.  As Baroness Neville-Rolfe knows from her background in retail, industry itself is best placed to do this.

Furthermore, for too long we, as the industry, have been in denial on the reality of politics. For many years we had an easier ride with other political parties in government. This Government has policy objectives that are tightly honed on value for money and leveraging private finance and it has repeatedly communicated its desire to reduce subsidy particularly in the longer term. Conservatives have a ‘less is more’ approach to regulation with a ‘one in and three out’ policy but are also in dire need of some positive policy and an economic hit as they negotiate Brexit.

For industry, this context needs to be central to any thinking. Let’s put ourselves in the Government’s shoes. Let’s ensure we understand the political agenda and the political language: i.e. what the Government needs to do, what it wants to do and the restrictions they face in addressing the enormity of this brief.

Industry is now coming together with the forming of the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group (EEIG) and putting together the pieces of the jigsaw for government – a successful, high value for money infrastructure programme for energy efficiency.  The reframing of this issue as an energy efficiency infrastructure programme would enable government to move away from short-term interventions, to set out an ultimate vision to get all homes up to a high standard of energy efficiency and to have an infrastructure delivery model for getting us there.

The concept is simple to understand - energy efficiency is infrastructure and it delivers economic returns comparable to other major infrastructure programmes. This approach will deliver for government, consumers and industry. With economic and social benefits which will boost the economy and bring jobs and savings for consumers, we can strengthen the UK’s energy security and stamp out fuel poverty, and finally realise decarbonisation to help the UK meet its challenging climate targets.

With cross-party support, Scotland is leading the way and has already committed to making energy efficiency an infrastructure priority supported by capital funding. My message to the minister is to take up this opportunity and do better, be bold, go further. Let’s not look at this as a social subsidy but instead as a savvy public capital investment and great value for money. Let’s, at the very least, get UK homes to Band C by 2030 to meet carbon budgets.

The EEIG will start 2017 by reframing the issue: we have commissioned a shared “20-year vision for a building energy efficiency infrastructure programme” with Frontier Economics to support energy ministers to create a long-term energy efficiency infrastructure programme for Britain.  The vision will be shared across Government, with Parliamentarians and central and local government policymakers.

As an energy minister I would want to make each and every UK citizen the king (or queen) of his own, “warm” and “efficient” castle again. We must not forget the consumer is king. Let us also help the ministers deliver. As the International Energy Agency’s most recent energy efficiency market report stressed: “The greatest efficiency gains have been led by policy, and the greatest untapped potentials lie where policy is absent or inadequate.” It continues: “Harnessing the potential of energy efficiency is key to transitioning to a sustainable and secure energy system that generates prosperity for our world.” Let’s get harnessing and working with ministers to deliver the future of energy efficiency.

Sarah Kostense-Winterton is executive director of MIMA and provides the secretariat to the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group

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

Wind keeps powering on

Wind power reached a significant milestone last week. For the first time ever, onshore and offshore wind together generated 10 GW of electricity in the UK, three times the power expected from Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, and around 23% of the country’s demand at the time. Of course this was a particularly windy day: the usual figure is just over 9% of the mix. But it demonstrates that the grid can successfully integrate large amounts of wind power.

Offshore wind continues to grow in strength

Last week also saw Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, travel up to Hull to open the new Siemens factory. Siemens has invested £310 million in a new plant that will manufacture the blades for offshore wind turbines. Almost 800 new jobs have been created, with the majority filled by local Hull residents. This kind of investment in the domestic supply chain for renewables is what the forthcoming industrial strategy will seek to encourage.

The offshore wind sector is set to continue its expansion: last month, the Government released further details of the next two auctions for new offshore wind in the early 2020s. Although the Government has set ambitious cost-reduction targets, projects commissioned in other European countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, have had impressively low prices. So there is every reason to be confident the UK industry can meet the challenge.

Onshore wind faces turbulence

The situation for onshore wind is much less optimistic. The Conservative Party manifesto for the 2015 general election contained a pledge “to halt the spread of subsidised onshore wind farms”, by ending “any new public subsidy for them” and ensuring “local people have the final say on windfarm applications”. These commitments were swiftly met following the election through the Energy Act 2016 and revised planning guidance to local authorities.

Yet this technology has potential to contribute to meeting the UK’s energy needs. Earlier this month, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published updated cost estimates for the different generation technologies. For projects commissioning in 2020, onshore wind is forecast to be the cheapest way to make electricity. Their models predict that, including the carbon price, onshore wind projects will generate electricity for £63 per MWh, while highly efficient combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) – the next cheapest technology – will produce power for £66 per MWh.

Currently, long-term contracts (Contracts for Difference), which guarantee a fixed revenue stream for developers of new energy infrastructure, are only being awarded to nuclear and offshore wind. Onshore wind, despite being much cheaper, is not eligible to bid. Consumers’ energy bills are starting to rise again, largely due to rising wholesale costs from a weaker pound. But the annual cost of supporting renewables, which is added to consumer bills, is forecast to increase significantly in this parliament, from £5.2 billion this year to £8.4 billion by 2020/21. Excluding onshore wind will cause the subsidy bill to increase more than is necessary, as contracts for new capacity will instead be awarded to more expensive technologies.

The future for onshore wind

Given the political discourse around them, it is surprising that polling shows broad public support for onshore wind farms, even in rural areas. ComRes data from October 2016 shows 73% of the British public support onshore wind. In rural areas, where people are more likely to directly experience turbines, they enjoy 65% approval. Further research is required into what Conservatives in particular think about onshore wind, and whether they object more to the subsidy element or their own potential proximity to turbines. Bright Blue will shortly be publishing new polling, conducted by Populus, to try to answers these questions.

Some have proposed ‘community energy’ schemes to overcome local opposition to new developments. These involve local residents either receiving some payment from the developers in return for their consent, or taking a stake in the project themselves. Renewables company Good Energy has proposed building a new onshore wind farm in Cornwall, which would be co-financed by local residents. This would be the first onshore wind farm constructed without government subsidy. They hope the community financing for the project will demonstrate to the planning committee that it enjoys local support.

Technological innovations could also improve onshore wind’s prospects. For instance, Shell, EON, and Schlumberger have recently invested in a new high-altitude kite technology that generates electricity from the wind. The firm developing this idea is based in Essex. The technology is expected to have much lower capital costs by dispensing with the expensive towers and blades used by conventional wind farms. Two kites pull in opposite directions to create a rotating motion while tethered to a turbine on the ground to produce electricity.

Conclusion

There is a strong case that onshore wind should no longer receive subsidy: it is a mature technology that has had an opportunity to become cost-competitive. However, as we argued in Green and responsible conservatism, it is important to distinguish between a subsidy and a long-term contract. A project is only subsidised when the total lifetime payments it receives under the long-term contract exceed those received by other conventional generators.

No new, capital-intensive energy infrastructure can be built in the UK without a long-term, government-backed contract. Even new gas plants will only be built if they can secure a 15-year contract through the Capacity Market mechanism, which is the Government’s policy for guaranteeing security of supply. Allowing onshore wind to compete for fixed contracts against other technologies could help keep down consumer bills. And this could be done without subsidy and without removing control over planning decisions from local communities.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue

Efficiency First: a new paradigm for a sustainable energy system

The UK’s energy policy is at crossroads. Ambitious carbon targets, an aging energy infrastructure, rising fuel poverty and a legacy of fossil fuel investment warrant bold political decisions to ensure the UK transitions to a sustainable low-carbon energy system. Because of the long-term nature of investment in energy infrastructure, decisions made over the next five to ten years will shape the trajectory along which the energy system will evolve. Getting those choices right is key for ensuring a sustainable, affordable and secure energy future - the principle of Efficiency First delivers on all three.

Efficiency First is a principle applied to policy-making, planning and investment in the energy sector. Put simply, it prioritises investments in customer-side efficiency resources (including end-use energy efficiency and demand response) whenever they would cost less, or deliver more value, than investing in energy infrastructure, fuels, and supply alone.

At a first look, this is purely a common-sense policy – surely public policy should promote end-use efficiency whenever saving energy or shifting its use in time costs less or delivers greater value than conventional supply-side options. Doesn’t this happen automatically? Unfortunately, no. On the demand side, investments in efficient solutions are impeded by numerous market barriers to individual action; and on the supply side, industry traditions, business models and regulatory practices have always favoured, and continue to favour, fossil fuel based energy infrastructure and sales over lower sales and energy saving technologies. As a result, not a single pound of the £256 billion investment pipeline for energy infrastructure is allocated to energy efficiency.

Efficiency First can radically change our thinking about supply and demand-side infrastructure. It means developing the discipline to systematically test policy proposals and investment decisions asking the question whether or not the same outcome could be achieved more cheaply through demand-side measures generating more societal value. It does not simply mean to spend more money on or to always prioritise energy efficiency. But it requires considering efficiency explicitly before investments are locked into new costly supply-side infrastructure.

Here is a concrete example of what this means: In the early 1990s, MANWEB, the electricity supplier and distributor for the North Wales (now part of Scottish Power), was facing the prospect of having to build a new substation for the town of Holyhead at a cost of £850,000. Electricity demand in Holyhead was increasing by 2% per year. After a Member of MANWEB’s board suggested that investment could be deferred through demand reduction, MANWEB launched the Holyhead Powersave Project with the aim of reducing peak demand on the island. The Holyhead Powersave Project cost £500,000. This resulted in avoided investment cost of £350,000, as with the implementation of the programme, there was no need to build the substation due to the reduction in peak demand by 10%.

This example illustrates why Efficiency First is so important. Meeting the demand for energy services more efficiently and more flexibly on the demand side will avoid more costly investments in energy infrastructure and fuel, and is essential to the cost-effective and timely decarbonisation of the economy. Moreover, investment in demand-side alternatives will benefit not only the energy system, but can carry many additional benefits, such as improved air quality, improved health, and increased energy security. It is easy to see the reasons to avoid the wasteful consumption of fossil fuels, with their unwelcome emissions and energy security costs – but it is also important to maximize the efficient use of renewable, non-emitting resources as we seek to rapidly and cost-effectively decarbonise the UK economy. Wasting high-value renewable resources on inefficient end-use consumption is both economically costly and a drag on the pace of decarbonisation. Customer-based efficiency and demand response resources are an essential foundation to achieving all of the other key objectives of the UK’s energy policy – the oft-cited “trilemma” of security, sustainability and affordability.

The principle of Efficiency First has gained traction at EU level since the launch of the Energy Union Communication in February 2015 and also in some European countries such as Germany where it has become an energy policy principle and is now the underlying principle of Germany’s Green Book on Energy Efficiency. The UK should follow and adopt the Efficiency First principle - this is consistent with reaching the 2050 climate goals most economically. Adopting a “hard look” policy to examine and invest in Efficiency First is the first and most important step the Government can take to unlock the huge reservoir of low-cost, low-carbon savings that now sits untapped in every part of the United Kingdom.

Jan Rosenow is a senior associate for the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP)

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

Drowning in plastic waste

We have now had over a year of the plastic bag charge. Since October 2015, shoppers in England have had to pay 5p for plastic bags at retailers with over 250 employees. Many people can now be seen juggling grocery items on their way home from the shops in a desperate attempt to avoid the levy. But have these super-human feats of contortion been worth the effort? Have they together had an impact on the environment?

We now have the data to answer this question, and the answer is a firm yes. The Marine Conservation Society has already reported a 40% drop between 2015 and 2016 in the number of plastic bags they collected from UK beaches. Official figures suggest a total of six billion single-use plastic bags were avoided in the first six months of the charge. Ministers also announced the charge had already raised £29 million for good causes, with many chains opting to support environmental charities.

The harm of plastic pollution

Plastic bags are, however, just a subset of plastic pollution, which is a major environmental challenge, particularly in marine ecosystems. Bigger pieces of plastic can entrap fish, causing injuries, suffocation, or strangulation. Smaller plastics can be ingested. This harms the creature themselves. Scientists have found evidence of plastic making fish larvae less active, more likely to be eaten by predators, and less likely to thrive. This also has implications further down the food chain: For instance, by eating six oysters you are likely to ingest around 50 microplastic particles.

The scale of the problem is immense: Eight billion tons of plastic waste ends up in the oceans every year. A Greenpeace report for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found evidence of 267 different marine species affected by plastic pollution. Another study has estimated that around half of marine mammals has either been entangled by or ingested plastic. There is growing evidence that plastic pollution affects freshwater rivers too. Researchers found 8,490 pieces of plastic in the River Thames during a three-month-long observation.

The process of plastic manufacturing contributes to climate change. The Committee on Climate Change reports that the industrial sector in general produces 32% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions (including both direct emissions and its share of electricity emissions). The plastics industry makes up 2% of this total. Plastics provide another market for oil, and so help to support global fossil fuel supply chains. Incineration of plastic waste releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Policies to cut down plastic pollution

In the spirit of Edmund Burke’s “little platoons”, litter-picking groups which collect plastic debris from beaches and coastline can ameliorate the problem. The Marine Conservation Society frequently runs such events. While the impact on the total mass of plastic in the ocean is minimal, the activity gives people a tangible connection to their local environment. This can also help raise awareness of plastic pollution, and in turn change behaviour to encourage people to use less disposable plastic.

Increased recycling rates could also help clean up plastic pollution. Single-use plastic bags have been dramatically reduced. But single-use plastic bottles, for instance, remain a major challenge: The average household recycles just 44% of the 480 plastic bottles it uses each year. Fiscal nudges like landfill taxes can encourage recycling, by ensuring businesses to pay for the effects of plastic waste. Improved and more frequent council recycling services could also cut down on such waste.  

Plastic pollution has become a major focus of circular economy studies, which seek to increase resource productivity. As well as harming the environment, single-use plastic is an inefficient use of resources. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has found that 95% of the economic value of plastic is lost after its first use. This is worth between $80 and $120 billion annually. They call for a rapid scaling up of the global supply chain for reused and recycled plastics, with improved infrastructure for collection, sorting and reprocessing to expand the current market.

Microbeads used in cosmetic products are another area where the Government has acted to cut plastic pollution. Next year, a consultation will be launched on how to ban these entirely. This could have a significant impact: A single shower can release up to 100,000 tiny particles of plastic into the sea, according to the Environmental Audit Committee. Up to 4.1% of all microplastics in the ocean are estimated to derive from microbeads in cosmetics. Some are calling for the ban to be extended to other products containing microbeads, such as washing detergents.

Many of these different levers may be needed if the tide is to be turned on plastic pollution. Scientists found earlier this year that since the Second World War we have manufactured enough plastic to cover the entire earth in cling film. The oceans are some of our most precious environments, which host most of our diverse species and flora. We cannot afford to keep damaging them.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue

A UK low-carbon industrial strategy with CCS

The 25th November 2016 may have passed many people by. However, for the CCS industry it marked the one-year anniversary of the UK’s decision to cancel the competition to build the first commercial-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in the UK.

It is hard to argue with the evidence regarding the importance of CCS – the IPCC has estimated that the costs of meeting global climate change targets without CCS could increase by 138%. Similarly, the Committee on Climate Change found that CCS could almost halve the cost of meeting the UK’s 2050 emissions reduction target.

When all the evidence points to CCS as being a crucial part of the cost-effective solution to climate change, why has an operational project so far eluded the UK? And how do we now move forward?

The answer to the first question is slightly complicated and explains the benefits of CCS as well as some of the challenges. CCS is a vital decarbonisation tool across a broad range of sectors; let’s take each of them in turn.

In a world with increasingly stringent climate change targets, industrial sectors such as steel, cement, chemicals and refining will be very dependent on CCS to achieve significant emissions reductions. This is because these sectors produce carbon dioxide as part of the process (for example to make steel in a blast furnace, you need to use coking coal and carbon dioxide is a by-product of this process). So CCS will be vital to ensuring a long-term, sustainable future for these industries.

To say CCS in the power sector has been on a bit of a rollercoaster ride would be an understatement. The UK’s low-carbon energy policy is focussed around the trilemma of affordability, energy security and sustainability. The options that the Government has pursued to meet this trilemma are focussed on renewables, nuclear and (at the moment) gas. The latter is particularly important because it provides vital flexibility in a system with intermittent renewables and inflexible nuclear, so gas is needed to balance the mix. However we must concede that over-reliance on gas will cause us to significantly miss our climate change targets and CCS is therefore vital to ensuring that gas can continue to provide a low-carbon source of flexible electricity.

CCS also has significant potential to decarbonise heat via hydrogen. There is increasing interest around the potential to use hydrogen for domestic and industrial heat and for transport. Steam methane reforming of natural gas with CCS is at present the best way to produce large-scale, low-cost, green hydrogen – the Leeds H21 report, published a few months ago, proposes to convert the Leeds gas grid into a hydrogen network using this method.

So the above applications show that CCS has cross-sectoral benefits. However this also presents a challenge for the UK as policies have historically tended to focus on specific sectors in isolation, missing the big picture.

So how do we now move forward? There are signs that the tide is turning – the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) seems to be a step in the right direction, bringing together energy, industry and climate change policies. Theresa May has put industrial strategy at the heart of the new Government and regional/place-based development at the core of this strategy.

This could actually be very positive for CCS. The cross-sectoral benefits of CCS are best realised by developing clusters or networks of carbon dioxide pipelines and storage sites in a specific region – such as Teesside, the Humber or Scotland. This infrastructure enables the cost-effective decarbonisation of both industry and power in any given region and can also link up to a hydrogen network, thereby decarbonising heat at the same time.

We are very fortunate in the UK that many of our industrial and power facilities are already closely located together – the development of CCS clusters would actually be a fairly simple task. However, time is not on our side. We are losing many of our key industries and the availability of CCS infrastructure has a significant role to play in ensuring a sustainable long-term future for these industries, as well as the jobs and contribution to economic output that they support.

The decision to decarbonise heat via hydrogen has to be taken in the early 2020s (otherwise other – more expensive – options will need to be pursued instead) and this means that there needs to be a clear pathway to developing CCS transport and storage infrastructure ahead of this decision being taken. The UK’s oil and gas industry is heading towards a cliff edge in the 2020s when many fields come to the end of their life. Repurposing oil and gas infrastructure for CCS would delay decommissioning and could even provide an additional revenue stream via enhanced oil recovery.

This is why the Government must urgently come forward with a new approach to CCS. Whilst the specific policies are not yet fully formed, we are arguably in a better place to make the right decision. Industrial strategy, regional development, infrastructure and economic growth – CCS is vital to achieving all of these. Let’s hope the UK makes the right decision very soon.

Judith Shapiro is Policy and Communications Manager at the Carbon Capture and Storage Association

The views expressed in this article are those of the article, and do not necessarily represent those of Bright Blue

The lights are going out on coal

November has been a very significant month for the coal industry. Perhaps the most high-profile news was the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, who promised during his campaign to end ‘the war on coal’ by repealing President Obama’s environmental regulations. Supporters at his rallies carried placards saying ‘Trump digs coal’. Trump’s victory caused shares in major coal producer Peabody to rocket by 45% in one day. His advocacy of coal encapsulated his appeal to disaffected working class voters in America’s de-industrialised ‘rust belt’ states.

Economics of coal

But this event, while significant, is an aberration from the general trend. Coal is now firmly in retreat around the world. Stopping burning coal to generate electricity as soon as possible is essential for avoiding catastrophic climate change. Per unit of electricity, coal emits more than twice as much carbon as natural gas. In 2013, coal alone contributed 42% of global greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion – easily more than any other fossil fuel.

Figures from the International Energy Agency (IEA) show coal consumption fell by 2.6% last year. Crucially, the two biggest coal users, China and the US, have both seen their demand for coal power fall in recent years. Much of this is happening because of changing energy economics. Take the example of the US. The shale gas revolution and technology cost reductions for renewables have successfully outcompeted coal. Michael Liebreich, a member of the advisory board of our Green conservatism project, recently wrote in the Guardian that these rival fuel sources were more responsible for coal’s demise than government regulation.

UK coal phase-out

But government intervention can certainly speed the process up. And in this area, November 2016 has contained a lot of good news. Exactly a year ago, in November 2015, the Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP made the UK the first country to commit to a date for phasing out coal from electricity generation, something which Bright Blue had been calling for. On the same day as Trump’s victory was confirmed, the UK Government recommitted to the coal phase-out by publishing its plans for consultation.

Ministers are proposing to introduce an ‘Emissions Performance Standard’ by 2025, which will mandate coal-fired power stations to close unless their emissions can be reduced to below those of a gas-fired power station. The UK’s remaining plants are on average 47 years old, and so would be in line for retirement soon in any case. In 2012, there were 17 remaining coal plants, with a capacity of 23GW. That’s now fallen to just 7, with 14 GW of capacity. Analysis has revealed that this year, for the first time, there have been periods when coal has been wholly absent from the UK’s energy mix, and entire days when solar generation has surpassed coal.

In our report earlier this year, Keeping the lights on, we found that phasing out coal would not harm the UK’s energy security. Moreover, encouraging more renewables, energy efficiency, energy storage, and DSR, alongside phasing out coal, would have benefits for consumer bills, energy security, and carbon intensity, relative to scenarios with more gas. We also called for the coal phase-out date to be brought forward to 2023. An earlier date would give investors in gas more certainty and help bring the new capacity online sooner.

Global coal phase-out

The UK’s announcement was not the only one this month. In fact, several other countries have decided to follow the British example on coal. France has announced it will close its remaining 3GW of coal-fired capacity by 2023. Canada is now set to phase out the rest of its coal fleet, which has a total capacity of 10GW, by 2030. Finally, the Finnish government has also committed to shutting its 2GW of electricity generation from coal by 2030.

Bright Blue has in the past called for the UK Government to assume a leadership role in advocating an international coal phase-out. It is highly symbolic that the UK has become the first country to use coal for electricity generation and the first industrialised country to commit to phasing it out altogether. Strengthened by this achievement, the UK could utilise its moral and political leadership to push for an ambitious global deal on phasing out coal.

As our associate fellow Ben Caldecott argued in Green and responsible conservatism, sectoral deals, such as on the use of coal, could be a more effective approach to tackling climate change than broad UN agreements. This would require developed countries to take the lead and phase out their coal fleets first. It would also require some international aid funding to support developing countries undergoing the transition to cleaner technologies. But the result for the environment could be significant.

November 2016 has been an excellent month for the global environmental campaign to end coal-powered electricity. But the scale of the challenge is still immense: in 2014, coal still generated 41% of the world’s electricity. The UK Government should build on this month’s progress and lead the international campaign for more countries to make the coal phase-out commitment.

Sam Hall is a researcher at the Bright Blue

An environment that works for everyone

The 2015 Conservative manifesto contained the very welcome statement that ‘we will build new infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive way’ and committed to produce a 25 year plan for nature.  Although the context may have changed significantly with the outcome of the EU referendum on June 23rd, both commitments will be coming into sharp focus over the coming months. Indeed, the two commitments are interrelated - far more so than the impression has been given.

Respecting the irreplaceable

The Autumn Statement traditionally sees a strong emphasis on improving infrastructure but there is the added context this year of the recent Natural England report into how HS2 was seeking to achieve its aim of no net loss of biodiversity. It argued that ancient woodland is irreplaceable and should be not be included in this calculation by HS2 lest it give the impression that ancient woodland is somehow tradeable. The report also went on to argue that a compensation ratio of 30 hectares of new woodland created for every one lost was an appropriate recognition of its importance – sending out a strong signal that loss needs to be avoided.  The response from the Department of Transport that the report was ‘a stimulus for debate’ rather than immediately accepting the conclusionsuggests that there is work to do in terms of securing cross-government buy-in to those manifesto commitments.

Ancient woodland (our richest land habitat, covering just 2% of the country) is a key building block for environmental enhancement but we are losing it at an alarming rate. We need an approach to the delivery of needed infrastructure and housebuilding that both recognises the importance of protecting our most valued habitats and seeks to improve people’s opportunities to access nature with all the many benefits such access brings.

Exiting the EU and the natural environment

Whilst we must ensure that the EU’s protective and regulatory frameworks that currently apply to UK wildlife and habitats are at least secured, we must also ensure that domestic protections which are clearly failing – such as those around ancient woodland where the National Planning Policy Framework is failing to halt loss to development are properly addressed and not simply parked. They are part of the same question about being the first generation to leave the environment in better shape than we found it.

Leaving the EU provides the opportunity to shape a new land use policy that addresses environmental security and forges far better interplay between environmental enhancement and productive farming than the CAP allowed – but it will require imagination.

A broader understanding of ‘infrastructure’

The Government’s 25 year plan for the environment needs to make clear that enhancement of the environment is a cross-government responsibility. It also needs a modern understanding of ‘infrastructure’ that will really equip us for future challenges, not just getting from A to B more swiftly. This means acting on the increasingly compelling evidence about our need for green infrastructure. Research carried out for the Woodland Trust by Europe Economics found that trees deliver £270 billion worth of benefits to society. It is becoming ever clearer that they are far more than an aesthetic prop or somewhere for wildlife to live. They are essential to combating air pollution, to flood management and to locking up carbon.

Turning around the present lamentably low planting rates - just 700 hectares in England last planting season, when the target is 5,000 hectares per year - will require reduced complexity around grant agreements for landowners, incentivising payment for ecosystem services and capturing the imagination of the wider public. In terms of the latter, a new national forest in the north of England is an idea which the Woodland Trust believes would offer a great deal in showcasing the importance of green infrastructure and bring a very visible environmental dimension to the Northern Powerhouse project.

In the present uncertain times, Burke’s declaration that we must leave to future generations ‘an habitation not a ruin’ was never more relevant. But there are grounds for optimism given how much there is to play for in terms of shaping a land use policy that meets our needs and using new development to enhance opportunities to access natural green space whilst protecting the best of what we have. In short, an environment that works for everyone.

Dr James Cooper is Head of Government Affairs at the Woodland Trust

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