So, what will we be discussing today, here in Dublin?
There will be two working groups, one focused on the theme resolution, the other looking at a gamut of short(ish) resolutions on everything from tax policy to the preservation of birds. For now though, I’ll stick to the theme resolution.
The resolution, “Energy Transition: a liberal perspective”, opens with a tour de horizon of the current energy scenario, taking in existing targets (reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 20%, increasing the share of renewables in the EU’s energy mix to 20%, and achieving the 20% energy efficiency target, all by 2020), and including references to security of supply, the risks of pollution and the importance of protecting jobs and economic growth.
The conclusion of the drafters is that a liberal energy policy should “prioritise market-based instruments” for the promotion of low-carbon energy sources in order to ensure that energy transition takes place in the most cost-efficient way and promote the liberalisation of energy markets to allow open access to infrastructure and unbundling of production and supply from transmission. So far, so economically liberal. But how?
Reform of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is called for, with aim of approving its efficiency and sending out clearer market signals, whilst an EU-wide carbon tax is suggested for sectors not covered by the Scheme. Revenues from European Emissions Trading System auctions should go towards the promotion of Carbon Capture and Storage to ensure that fossil fuels can be used – at least during a transition period – while keeping carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere in the future.
An energy supergrid, transporting solar energy from North Africa or the Middle East is called for, whilst phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels and encouraging sustainable biomass production. More ambitious energy savings in the building sector are demanded, in particular regarding commercial buildings, as well as the setting of ambitious levels and targets for efficient energy use.
The resolution goes on to encourage private investment in energy infrastructure so as facilitate, among other things, cross-border electricity interconnections and trade in electricity between EU countries in order to help European countries meet demand at peak times, and seeks greater European coordination to remove regulatory barriers and to promote a convergence of standards in order to allow for such cross-border (as well as intra-regional and inter-regional) electricity transmission. It also calls for research into why in some parts of Europe excess cross-border transmission capacity is not fully used.
To read the entire document, click on the image below…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
One Comment
Much good stuff in the ‘Energy Trasition’ document except that it’s remarkably deficient on nuclear. One way or another I can’t see any realistic alternative that offers both affordability and security of supply. A few particular points are worth making.
1. The PWRs that constitute the vast bulk of the world’s reactor fleet are a poor technology, even in their latest variant. Think Ford Model ‘T’ still being sold many decades after it first appeared. Newer designs offer dramatically lower waste production, lower costs and intrinsic safety. Unfortunately governments are bad customers, especially when it comes to ensuring that suppliers are in the right design ball-park. Think the MOD on steroids!
2. It’s wrong to think that there isn’t a permanent solution to nuclear waste. How to store it safely has been known in principle for years in general terms. What is lacking is the political will to bite the bullet and turn ‘in principle’ into a fully engineered reality.
3. The key thing to get right is regulation – unfortunately this is an area where our national default settings are all wrong yet there seems to be little public debate. I covered this briefly in a recent post which was written before the latest shocking report on waste at Sellafield (for which senior heads should roll).
http://liberaleye.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/nuclear-power-renaissance-or-nightmare/