In my last post, I looked at the most significant environmental decisions facing the Liberal Democrats here at home in 2012. In this follow up blog, I’ll look at what Nick Clegg and his team can do on the global stage to clean up our economies and help curb the emissions driving dangerous shifts in our climate. As Nick Clegg has said, “Because we are leading by example, we can make stronger demands of the international community.”
International leadership on climate change and the green economy
Chris Huhne wrote in his resignation letter to the Deputy Prime Minister, “Climate change is an area where working with our European partners can help us to achieve national goals which would be out of reach if we were isolated and alone.”
Huhne won plaudits from across the environmental movement when he played a key leadership role at the international UN climate talks last year in Durban, and the year before in Cancun. Working closely with his counterparts in Europe, he helped secure agreement between all the major economies for the establishment of a global climate deal by 2015. He also consistently championed greater European ambition in cutting carbon emissions.
Now Nick Clegg and other Lib Dem Cabinet Ministers must speak out to support Ed Davey in continuing this work to create a greener economy by securing a higher carbon target for the rest of Europe. This would boost our competitiveness in the global clean energy sector, cut gas dependency and help secure the global climate deal we need by 2015. In the year of the Rio+20 environmental conference, when leaders from around the world will meet to discuss how to build the greener global economy we all need, the UK and Europe must show the way by putting in place the right policies at home.
Prevent tar sands oil going into our cars
Oil derived from tar sands is amongst the most polluting fuel known to man. It’s three times more carbon polluting that conventional oil. European governments are currently debating a law that would effectively stop tar sands oil being put in cars in Europe. Following intense lobbying by the big oil companies, the UK is standing in the way. The Guardian revealed that Lib Dem Transport Minister Norman Baker has held secret meetings with the oil industry and now he’s planning to vote against the European plan. Nick Clegg must intervene to rescue the Lib Dems green credentials and ensure the UK doesn’t oppose this European plan that would make our economy cleaner.
Millions of people are counting on the Liberal Democrats this year to stick to their green promises and bolster efforts to fight climate change and prevent George Osborne’s reckless assault on environmental protection.
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST The state of our canals - and riverside pubs - today
Slow consulting
ALS, MND - is this another disease where biohacking has potential?
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Care homes under threat after Labour policy change
Three less conventional ways of looking at who supports Reform - The Week in Polls
Suzanne Fletcher
Greg Hyde
David Raw
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
10 Comments
Hi Joss,
I agree wholeheartedly with your praise for Chris Huhne; he did an excellent job in DECC and as you say played a significant global role.
I’m sure that Ed Davey will be able to carry on that work – Ed has a good environmental record so far.
But I’m very surprised about your comments about Norman Baker. I think he should be congratulated for his role in making sure the UK didn’t vote against the Commission’s proposals. And you think so too – at least, you are quoted in a press release as saying ‘Baker should be congratulated’ and there’s a Greenpeace blog post by jossg saying ‘Hats off to Norman Baker’.
Norman is a deeply committed environmentalist who has been campaigning on these issues for a long time. And as for the ‘secret meetings’ – he meets far more environmental groups than fuel lobbyists.
Norman has fought incredibly hard to make sure that all carbon emitting fuels, including tar sands, will be included in this Directive, and that it is a workable solution for the long-term. Climate change is the biggest issue facing us. We have to get it right. I’m afraid that casting one of the key campaigners as a pro-oil zealot is completely unhelpful to the cause.
Julian
As a point of detail, I wonder where the idea came from the oil tar sands creates three times more carbon pollution than other sources of oil?
There is an interesting article on the Canadian experience (http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada—World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1). The article says that, if combustion of the final products is included, the “Well to Wheels” measure, oil sands extraction, upgrade and use emits 10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude. While this is not good, it’s not as bad as 3 times.
The”well-to-tank” measure is three times, so I wonder why we choose that one?
@ Richard Dean
‘tank to wheels’ efficiency I guess is 50% or less on the average vehicle.
So then the overall well-to-wheels will therefore be even less efficient.
Of course hybrids will be better than average vehicles.
I did a little calculation – not sure how right it is though!
Suppose that, for a certain amount of normal fuel, 10 grams of carbon are created in getting the fuel from well to tank, and 100 grams of carbon are created when the fuel is used in the engine to move the vehicle. The total is 100 grams well-to-wheels. The first number (10) is the wheel-to-tank, so if the tar sands oil requires three times as much for this, then the numbers for the tar sands are 30 grams of carbon are created in getting the fuel from well to tank, and 100 grams of carbon are created when the fuel is used in the engine to move the vehicle. So nthe new total is 130 grams well-to-wheels, which is about 18% extra when compared to the normal fuel.
What this seems to imply is that focussing on the wheel-to-tank ratio of 3 may distort the picture a bit, and might lead to the wrong overall strategy being chosen. Obviously it would be helpful if this ratio could be reduced, but it would be much more helpful if a strategy could be developed to reduce the tank-to-wheels number – it is 100 grams in both cases and so is the major part of the problem.
Hi Julian – Thanks. Yes, this blog – including the tar sands section above – was written before the vote so it should be read alongside this post I wrote on the afternoon of the vote, in which I highlighted Norman’s role in shifting the UK’s position. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/tar-sands-victory-awe-people-power-20120223
Many thanks
Joss
Hi Richard, Here is an excellent post written by climate scientists about the CO2 impact of tar sands: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/keystone-xl-game-over/ and here is a scientists’ paper on the subject: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014005 Here is a letter from a number of world leading climate scientists to President Obama about tar sands: http://www.350.org/en/about/blogs/top-climate-scientists-warn-congress-over-keystone-xl I hope this is helpful. With best wishes, Joss
Thanks Joss, those are really interesting.
I work in the offshore oilfield services industry. I rather suspect that oil sands will be exploited whatever environmentalists think. If not now, then later, when the world’s store of hydrocarbons begins really running out, and prices skyrocket. If this is true, maybe the question is not whether to exploit, but how to exploit with least damage. Sometimes this might lead to unexpected choices. For example, if a pipeline does less long-term damage that transport by road freight or sea tanker, then maybe the pipeline should be allowed.
At a wider level, given that the oil and gas will run out someday – maybe a hundred years or less from now – and given that the populations of Africa, India, China and elsewhere will make ever increasing demands for energy, our strategy should surely be to develop solutions that can provide that energy with least environmental damage, or even with concurent environmental improvement. We lso need to reduce our dependency on oil from the Midle East and West Africa, so that the populations there can develop more freely,
Once we thought hydroelectric was good, now we know different. Wind energy also may have problems – damage to birds, people don’t line wind turbines on land, and of course wind speed reduction – not to mention nuclear, Oilseed crops? – compete with feed stocks. Behavioural changes? I don’t know.
Hi Richard – The nature of the climate crisis, not dwindling reserves, is the reason that the emerging economies must develop without such levels of reliance upon fossil fuels. Its going to be impossible to prevent more than two degrees of global warming if unconventional oil reserves – like the tar sands and the oil in the Arctic – are burned. Thats why you’re absolutely right that developing greener models of growth will be essential, to show developing countries its possible to be prosperous but also low carbon. Renewable energy, much smarter use of energy, and electrified road transport must be at the centre of this transition. If we, as one of the biggest economies in the world, can make it happen here – my view is that it would make low carbon development elsewhere, and the establishment of a global climate deal, much more likely. Cheers.
Ok, but I do not believe we have the right to dictate to emerging economies how they “must” develop.