Is this Tory Government the greenest ever?

British Conservative politicians are spearheading efforts to phase out coal and go net-zero – and that’s just the start of their Green policy-making. What's going on?

This is an updated version of an article published on The Fifth Estate on 10 April. 

Claire Perry, Energy and Clean Growth Minister

Britain’s Energy and Clean Growth Minister, Claire Perry, has called for Parliament to draft new laws that will cut emissions to net-zero.

This follows her trip to New York last week when she attended the Bloomberg Future Energy Summit in New York last week where she set out the case for making coal history. “By phasing out traditional coal power, we are not only taking active steps to tackle climate change, we are also protecting the air we breathe by reducing harmful pollution. The Powering Past Coal Alliance sends a clear signal that the time for unabated coal fired electricity has well and truly passed,” Perry told her New York audience.

The Powering Past Coal Alliance was launched by Perry and her Canadian counterpart Catherine McKenna, the Minister for Climate Change, three days after the COP23 climate change conference last November. Its members number 27 countries plus a host of regions and businesses. Ireland, one of the most recent to join, has pledged to close its one remaining coal plant by 2025 at the latest.

Catherine McKenna, Canadian Minister for Climate Change

“The UK leads the world in tackling climate change – we have reduced emissions by more than 40 per cent since 1990,” Perry said.

She is not wrong. UK carbon emissions dropped 2.6 per cent in 2017 compared to the previous year, a 43 per cent reduction since 1990. Renewables powered more than coal and nuclear combined during the final quarter. Emissions are now at a level not seen since the end of the 19th century when the industrial revolution was in full swing.

Wales is fast switching away from coal to renewables (it once was the world’s biggest coal exporter) and in Scotland wind power supplied 173 per cent of Scotland’s entire electricity demand on March 1. Even on the worst day for wind during the first quarter of 2018, January 11, wind powered the equivalent of over 575,000 homes there.

Perry said she hopes Australia and more countries, businesses, and regions will soon join New Zealand, France and Italy and sign up to the Powering Past Coal Alliance.

“Australia has different choices to make, and it would be wrong of us to sit here in Britain and prescribe what Australia’s energy policy should be, what we’re trying to do is to help and to show that there is a way through this,” she said.

A statement on the Canadian government’s website states the reason for the Alliance:

"Coal is one of the most greenhouse-gas intensive means of generating electricity, and coal-fired power plants still account for almost 40 per cent of the world’s electricity today. This reality makes carbon pollution from coal electricity a leading contributor to climate change.

"As a result, phasing out traditional coal power is one of the most important steps that can be taken to tackle climate change and meet our Paris Agreement commitment to keeping global temperature from increasing by 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. An analysis shows that, to meet this commitment, a coal phase-out is needed by no later than by 2030, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in the European Union, and by no later than by 2050, in the rest of the world."

Drax power station

Drax Power Station in Yorkshire, Britain’s largest electricity generator, stands as a symbol of this change. It was once dubbed ‘the dirty old man of Europe’ for being the most polluting British power station and a focus of climate change campaigners' actions. The activists have won. No longer does it burn coal; three of its six generators burn wood, albeit controversially imported from the USA.

But although she is against coal and has today said the UK government will ask its climate watchdog to consider how the UK could meet 1.5C Paris target and become net zero, Perry has also said she supports the UK oil and gas industry. In January she told the Maximising Economic Recovery Forum held by the Oil and Gas Authority in Aberdeen: “We want to squeeze every last drop at the right economic price out of the North Sea basin. I think we’ve underestimated what we still have in terms of reserves,” for which she was criticised by Aberdeen’s own MP. Does she speak with a forked tongue? Time will tell.

It’s not just action on climate change

 

Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago warned the world about climate change 

Thirty years ago the Conservative’s patron saint, Margaret Thatcher, was one of the first politicians to warn the world about climate change. She went on to say that “no generation has a freehold on this Earth. All we have is a life tenancy – with a full repairing lease.”

Former Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s coalition government in 2010 promised to be “the greenest government ever”, although his efforts were undermined by his own Treasury and by political appointments to the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Yet this shows that conservation is, in Britain at least, naturally a core conservative ideal, even though, the Conservative Party being a broad church, it does contain a number of vociferous climate sceptics, such as former DEFRA Secretary of State Owen Paterson and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson.

Whilst the environmental credibility of the current Conservative leader Theresa May is debatable, the current DEFRA secretary, Michael Gove, has been praised by Greenpeace, WWF and, albeit cautiously, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas.

Michael Gove, Defra Secretary of State

Gove has seen an opportunity to rebrand himself as a progressive since his self-inflicted downfall due to a botched bid to lead his party after his team-up with Boris Johnson drove the pro-Brexit bus to victory and kicked out David Cameron from the post. Theresa May, in a surprise move, put him in charge of DEFRA, since when he has hardly seemed to be the same person as the Gove who was once in charge of the Education Department, overseeing a return to ‘traditional teaching values’ and alienating virtually every teacher in the country.

His promises (and most of them are still promises in the form of consultations) include banning ivory sales in an effort to reduce elephant poaching, banning all petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 (critics want it sooner), committing to safeguarding coral reefs, introducing a deposit scheme for all drinks containers across England, support for a total ban on insect-harming pesticides across Europe, and making farming subsidies dependent on farmers proving that they are genuinely improving biodiversity and soil quality.

The Brexit factor and Trump’s trade issues

Much of the UK’s environmental policy derives from its membership of the EU, which has raised standards arguably well beyond what they would have been otherwise.

Concern has been loudly heard that, post-Brexit, these protections will be weakened. The British public overwhelmingly backs retaining these food and environmental standards. In response, Gove has promised a consultation on a new, independent body to enforce environmental law, although the future extent of its powers is uncertain.

But Trump’s White House has stressed that any new trade deal it forges with the UK cannot include current EU food standards that block the import of American products such as chlorine-washed chickens, hormone-treated beef, and crops washed with various herbicide chemicals. Further environmental battles over trade deals clearly lie ahead.

The Climate Change Act

It remains a small miracle that the 2008 Climate Change Act, a product of the Labour government, has not been repealed by the Tories. It is a phenomenal piece of legislation that enshrines in law a long-term goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.

This impels the UK economy towards a more sustainable future and is the underlying reason for much of the above. Under it, every five years, the government of the day – of whatever hue – must adopt a legally-binding carbon budget that sets, 15 years ahead, limits on the economy’s total greenhouse gas emissions for the following five year period.

If that sounds ludicrous to some right-wingers, it is what businesses and investors want, because it gives them the time and confidence to plan ahead. It has been extremely successful.

If Australians seek allies in persuading Abbott to change his tune, they really need to look no further than Britain’s Tories and their business supporters.

David Thorpe’s two new books are Passive Solar Architecture Pocket Reference and Solar Energy Pocket Reference. He’s also the author of Energy Management in Building and Sustainable Home Refurbishment.

Government should set a 2030 decarbonisation target

George Osborne's Liberal Democrat deputy, Danny Alexander will call for a target and criticise his boss's attitude to low carbon tech at the Lib-Dem party conference.

The role of gas-fired generation and the setting of a 2030 decarbonisation target for the electricity market has become the focus of a bitter battle between Lib Dems and George Osborne.

Yesterday, Edward Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, responded to a letter from the Committee on Climate Change, signed by its new Chairman, Lord Deben, criticising the recent Government statement that gas would continue to play an important role in the energy mix beyond 2030, not restricted to providing backup to renewables".

The letter added that this position could be illegal under the Climate Change Act 2008, and “weakens the signal provided by carbon budgets to investors" in clean tech.

It also recommends the setting of a clear carbon emission objective for electricity market reform, of around 50g of CO2 per kilowatt-hour by 2030.

Earlier this year George Osborne ruled out such a measure, expressing concern that such a target would undermine investor confidence in the gas industry, which he wants to build up.

In short, the argument between Osborne and DECC is about whether investment should be predominantly directed into renewables or gas. Gas, being cheaper, is favoured by Osborne.

But it is also an argument between the Lib Dems and Conservatives. Osborne's Liberal Democrat deputy, Danny Alexander, has signalled that he will call for a 2030 decarbonisation goal to be implemented when he speaks at the party's conference in two weeks.

He will also use his speech to attack the Conservatives for not acknowledging the economic benefits of investing in low carbon tech.

In reply to the CCC letter, Mr Davey, who this week adopted responsibility for renewables policy that was previously the ex-energy minister Charles Hendry's brief, issued a statement.

This said that a target is "under consideration" but argued that the Government's "existing plans are consistent with significant decarbonisation of the power sector".

Davey is known to believe that a limit on carbon emissions from the sector could be achieved using a statutory instrument instead of being included in the Energy Bill.

Osborne is currently sanguine about DECC's consultation on a carbon emissions limit for 2030, because he doesn't think it would make a material difference in practice.

But Davey's ace in his hand remains the carbon budgets that have been agreed by Parliament, which could trump Treasury policy provided that it is played with a strong suit.

Davey's response to the Committee's letter emphasises this, that the statutory carbon budgets that are set by the Committee, and agreed by Parliament, underscore all policy and planned market reforms.

“We have always said [our reforms] will include gas fired plant," the statement says, “which is quick to build and flexible." But "after 2030 we expect that gas will increasingly be used only as back up, or fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage technology.

"Alongside up-scaling of renewables, nuclear new build, and eventually with carbon capture and storage, gas has an important role to play in the transition to a low carbon grid."

But how much gas generation could be installed and still permit the UK realistically to meet its carbon budgets?

“Our numbers show that we can accommodate around 30 to 45GW of unabated gas over the next twenty years and still hit our carbon targets, but any further fossil fuels will need CCS, which is not yet commercially viable," Davey said on Wednesday.

This means over a dozen new gas-fired power plants in the next 15 years.

While the Committee's letter was greeted with approval by the clean tech sector, this response by Davey has been met with scepticism.

Utility company SSE tweeted that, contrary to the Treasury view, a "2030 decarbonisation target in EMR would provide much-needed certainty for low-carbon investors and developers".

Climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace, Joss Garman, calculated that “where you have as much as 45GW of unabated gas in 2030 (and if you assume demand by then of around 420TWh), this would require that all those gas stations are only operating for 15% of the time if we are to keep on track with carbon targets. It also requires all of the UK’s coal stations are shut down or operating with fully functioning Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)."

"The UK is already over-reliant on gas, which was the main driver behind recent energy bill rises," said Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF.

The cross-party energy select committee, led by Tim Yeo, has also reiterated calls for a 2030 decarbonisation goal.

“Our gas generation strategy work is about providing certainty to investors to ensure sufficient investment comes forward, whilst also living within our legally binding carbon budgets,” concluded Ed Davey's statement.

To Garman and the other objectors, this seems like trying to have your cake and eat it.

Davey buys £20m for onshore wind in exchange for £500m for gas

Subsidies for onshore wind farms will be reduced by 10%, not the 25% demanded by the Treasury, says Energy Secretary Ed Davey, but at a long-term cost to carbon emissions.

To win this agreement, the Department has had to concede that gas generation will continue "to play an important part in the energy mix well into and beyond 2030, while meeting our carbon budgets".

This "important part" is ensured with a grant of £500 million for gas field exploration. To put this in context, the dispute between the Treasury and DECC centred over a difference of around just £20 million in support for 1GW of onshore wind.

The effect on greenhouse gas emissions after 2030 is likely to be alarming. David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF-UK, sent a letter to David Cameron yesterday, complaining of "a clear bias on the part of Mr Osborne towards investment in new gas-fired power stations" which would imperil the UK's climate targets and could raise bills for consumers.

“The proposal that emissions from gas plants built before 2015 will effectively never have to limit their emissions jeopardises our ability to meet UK carbon targets," he said. “The announcement on this, which was slipped out late on a Friday and which had the Chancellor’s fingerprints all over it, is another example of the Treasury’s malign influence on energy policy."

John Sauven, Greenpeace's executive director, also commented that: “The Treasury is fighting tooth and nail to oppose a 2030 decarbonisation target or support for future renewables targets. Mr Osborne has rebranded himself Mr Polluting Gas. It's up to Nick Clegg to stick what's left of Lib Dem principles back into this process."

£25 billion investment

However, marine energy developers will celebrate a 250% increase in their support from 2 ROCs (renewable obligation certificates) to 5 ROCs per MWh, subject to a 30MW limit per generating station.

"The case for investment in renewable energy is so strong and that is why, across government, we are backing it," said Energy Secretary Mr. Davey, making the announcement.

He said that representatives of industry and business support the subsidy cut of 10%, but not of 25%. “And that will bring forward investment between £20 and £25 billion between 2013 and 2017, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs," he promised.

"No one would want to over-subsidise an industry," he said.

He tried to reassure the wind industry by saying that there would not be a further change in the support levels or targets for carbon reductions in the autumn.

"The climate legislation says that if there has been a change in any of the generation costs for a renewable technology, whatever it is, we should have a review. So if it does change dramatically, then of course everyone agrees that we should have a review."

When pressed by James Naughtie on the Today programme this morning, Ed Davey said that meeting emission reduction targets depended on carbon capture and storage and nuclear power coming on stream by 2030, as well as major investment in renewables. He did not mention demand reduction.

"We don't have a target for the amount of energy to be generated from renewable sources at the moment," he said. Mr Davey said that there was cross-party agreement on the legally-binding targets to reduce carbon emissions. "What we're discussing is whether there should be an intermediate target for decarbonising the power sector. There is a debate to be had about that, around the Energy Bill," he said. That is expected in the Autumn.

The announcement of the results of the Banding Review consultation for the Renewables Obligation was delayed last week, following intervention from the Treasury, but was finally announced today.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) quantified the impact on consumer bills between 2013 and 2015, as a reduction of £6 off household energy bills next year and £5 the year after.

By 2017, DECC hopes that this will deliver as much as 79 TWh of renewable electricity per annum in the UK, 11 TWh more than at present, which still not enough, just 74%, of the 108TWh of electricity needed to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy target.

The Renewables Obligation is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting large-scale renewables, and the review covers the final period of support, 2013-17 (2014-17 for offshore wind), before the scheme ends.

The announcement comes ahead of the Government's Global Investment Conference and series of 17 business summits taking place at the British Business Embassy at Lancaster House during the upcoming Games, which aim to secure further investment into the UK.

John Cridland, CBI Director-General, welcomed the announcement, saying it “will help to encourage investment into our energy sector, creating jobs and supporting growth". He also thought that "the Government is right that gas should play a crucial role in any future energy mix. We have argued that there is no need for a false choice between renewables, nuclear, gas, and carbon capture and storage. It’s clear from the evidence that we need a diverse supply.”

Support for onshore wind from 2013-17 will be reduced by 10% to 0.9 ROCs, guaranteed until at least 2014 but could change after then if there is a significant change in generation costs.

If there is evidence of significant reduction of generation costs in early 2013, then subsidies will again reduce in April 2014. The Government will also consider how local communities can have more of a say over, and receive greater economic benefit from, hosting onshore wind farms.

Biomass and solar

There will be a new band to support existing coal plant converting to sustainable biomass fuels. This will increase the amount of renewable energy produced at less cost to consumers.

The new enhanced co-firing band will be split into two new bands: mid-range at 0.6 ROCs/MWh, and high-range co-firing at 0.7 ROCs/MWh in 2013/14, rising to 0.9 ROCs/MWh from 2014/15.

This was welcomed by Dorothy Thompson, Chief Executive of Drax, the country's largest coal burning plant, which is in the process of conversion to be able to burn more and more biomass. She said that she is now “confident that we can transform Drax into a predominantly biomass fuelled generator".

Generators will need to burn at least 50% biomass in a unit to be eligible for support. Bioliquids are excluded from this.

There will be a consultation on lowering the support level for standard co-firing to 0.3 ROCs/MWh in 2013/14 and 2014/15, increasing to 0.5 ROCs/MWh from 2015/16.

Support for generation using 100% biomass is to be set at 1.5 ROCs/MWh, degressing to 1.4 ROCs/MWh for new accreditations and additional capacity added after 31 March 2016.

There will be no immediate reduction in support for large-scale solar, but, as with onshore wind, the level will be kept under review. Installations under 5 MW will only be eligible for feed-in tariff support.

New landfill gas generating capacity will not receive any support from 1 April 2013, but new generators using gas wholly from closed landfill sites will be eligible for support at 0.2 ROCs/MWh and electricity generated using new waste heat to power generating capacity will be eligible for 0.1 ROCs/MWh at both existing stations as well as new stations using gas from any landfill site.

The gas bill

In return for this extra 11 TW hours, DECC has given its commitment to a new dash for gas, provided that gas remains cheap.

It will have “a key role in ensuring that we have sufficient capacity both to meet everyday demand and complementing an increasing amount of relatively intermittent and inflexible generation", the DECC statement says. "We do not expect the role of gas to be restricted to providing back up to renewables, and in the longer term we see an important role for gas with CCS."

£500m of grants are being made available for large shallow water gas fields in the UK Continental Shelf, and more information on the Government's strategy will be set out in the Autumn.

The full bill impacts of current bandings and 2013-17 bandings:

Absolute contribution to average household electricity bills of RO support costs under current bands and the revised bands

£2011 prices	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17
Current bands	44	47	49	50
Revised bands	38	42	50	53
Difference between revised and current bands	-6	-5	1	3

(Using household electricity demand before the impact of other policies)

Bandings for all technologies:

Table 1 - Bandings under the Renewables Obligation

Renewable electricity technologies	Current support (2012-2013) ROCs per MWh	Post-consultation decisions
		Level of support (ROCs per MWh)	Comment and other changes
Advanced gasification	2	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17	One ACT band supporting ‘standard’ and ‘advanced’ ACTs at the same ROC level
Advanced pyrolysis
Anaerobic digestion	2	2 in 2013.14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17	Closure of band to new projects at or below 5 MW from 1 April 2013, subject to consultation
Biomass conversion	No current band but 1.5 ROCs under current banding arrangements	1	New band. Unit by unit approach. No energy crops uplift. Change to definition of relevant fossil fuel generating station.
Biomass conversion with CHP	No current band but 2 ROCs under current banding arrangements	1.5 in 2013/14 and 2014/15	New band. Unit by unit approach. No energy crops uplift. Change to the definition of relevant fossil fuel generating station. Close band to new accreditations from 1 April 2015.
Co-firing of biomass (standard)	0.5	Solid and gaseous biomass (less than 50% biomass co-fired in a unit): 0.3 (proposed) in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 0.5 from 2015/16.	Unit by unit approach. ROC levels in 2013/14 and 2014/15 subject to further consultation.
		Bioliquids (less than 100% biomass co-fired in a unit): 0.3 (proposed) in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 0.5 from 2015/16.
Co-firing of biomass (enhanced)	No current band but 0.5 ROCs under current banding arrangements	Mid-range co-firing (50-less than 85%): 0.6	New band. Unit by unit approach. Excludes bioliquids (other than energy crops). Cost control mechanism to be introduced, subject to consultation
		High-range co-firing (85-less than 100%): 0.7 in 2013/14; 0.9 from 2014/15
Co-firing of biomass with CHP (standard)	1	0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support available to new accredit-ations until 31 March 2015	Unit by unit approach. Close band to new accreditations from 1 April 2015.
Co-firing of biomass with CHP (enhanced)	No current band but 1 ROC/MWh under current banding arrangements	0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support available to new accredit-ations until 31 March 2015	New band. Unit by unit approach. Close band to new accreditations from 1 April 2015.
Co-firing of energy crops (standard)	1	0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support for co-firing of biomass (standard). No uplift available for mid-range or high-range co-firing.	Band to be closed, subject to consult-ation. Unit by unit approach. Changes to definition of energy crops.
Co-firing of energy crops with CHP (standard)	1.5	0.5 ROC uplift in addition to prevailing ROC support for co-firing of energy crops (standard). Band not available for mid-range or high-range co-firing.	Band to be closed, subject to consultation Unit by unit approach. Changes to the definition of energy crops. Close band to new accreditations from 1 April 2015.
Dedicated biomass	1.5	1.5 until 31 March 2016; 1.4 from 1 April 2016	Introduction of a supplier cap, subject to consultation
Dedicated biomass with CHP	2	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15	Changes proposed to add fossil derived bioliquids, to exclude biomass conversion and to close this band to new accreditations from 1 April 2015
Dedicated energy crops	2	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17	Changes to the definition of energy crops
Dedicated energy crops with CHP	2	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17	Changes to the definition of energy crops.
Energy from waste with CHP	1	1	Decision to retain support at current level following consultation
Geothermal	2	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17
Geopressure	1	1
Hydro-electricity	1	0.7	Closure of band to new projects at or below 5 MW, from 1 April 2013, subject to consultation.
Landfill gas	0.25	0 for open landfill sites	New bands for closed landfill sites and Waste Heat to Power.
		0.2 for closed sites
		0.1 for new Waste Heat to Power band at open and closed sites.
Microgeneration	2	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17
Offshore wind	2 in 2013/14; 1.5 from 2014/15 onwards	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17
Onshore wind	1	0.9	Closure of band to new projects at or below 5 MW, from 1 April 2013, subject to consultation
Sewage gas	0.5	0.5
Solar photovoltaic	2	Banding proposals subject to re-consultation. Closure of band to new projects at or below 5 MW, from 1 April 2013, subject to consultation.
Tidal impoundment (range) – tidal barrage (<1GW)	2	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17
Tidal impoundment (range) – tidal lagoon (<1GW)
Tidal stream	2	5  up to a 30 MW project cap. 2 above the cap.
Wave
Standard gasification	1	2 in 2013/14 and 2014/15; 1.9 in 2015/16 and 1.8 in 2016/17	One ACT band supporting ‘standard’ and ‘advanced’ ACTs at the same ROC level
Standard pyrolysis

Alongside publication of the banding review results, DECC has also published an assessment of how incineration of waste to produce energy and heat can be made more efficient.

DECC has not yet published its impact assessment.

David Cameron fails to back the Green Growth Action Alliance

David Cameron, or Camoron as I have started spelling it, was in Mexico this week and witnessed the launch of a Green Growth Action Alliance, but failed to back it or mention the green economy in his keynote speech to the world's business and G20 leaders.

On Monday, the Prime Minister was at the G20 Business Summit (B20), which serves as a business advisory to G20 officials, where a Task Force on Green Growth attended by Mexican President Felipe Calderón urged Heads of State to adopt policies that will simultaneously help to green and grow the economy in environmentally, economically and socially sustainable ways.

Yet Camoron's speech made no mention of this.

The Green Growth Task Force is asking G20 governments to initiate negotiations to achieve a sustainable energy trade agreement, create a robust price on carbon through coordinated international policies, end fossil fuel subsidies and to direct a portion of carbon price revenues to support innovation in sustainable technologies.

The call to end subsidies for fossil fuels was the subject of a 24-hour "Twitter storm" begun by Stephen Fry and aimed at the G20 and Rio+20, on behalf of 350.org, which attracted over 100,000 tweets.

The Task Force also launched the Green Growth Action Alliance, whose honorary chairman is President Felipe Calderón. This new public-private partnership initiative of comprises 48 of the world’s largest energy companies, international financial institutions, and development finance institutions which aims to address the massive shortfall in financing the low carbon revolution globally.

Wind turbine manufacturer Vestas’ CEO Ditlev Engel explained that it will “boost public and private investment into green infrastructure. Each year, $1 trillion is needed to deliver the necessary infrastructure and to shift us onto a low carbon path.”

To attract finance, and monitored by the World Economic Forum, the Alliance will work with existing initiatives, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Energy for All initiative, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the International Development Finance Club (IDFC), currently chaired by Germany's promotional bank KfW, and the San Giorgio Group (a policy research collaborative initiative by the Climate Policy Initiative, the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the Climate Policy Initiative and the United Nations Foundation.

Members of the Alliance include leading companies such as Accenture, Samsung, KfW Bankengruppe, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank Group, Vestas and Enel.

This is a powerful coalition. Again, Camoron made no comment.

Instead, in his speech he promoted trade as a way to lift developing countries out of poverty without a single reference to the green economy, or sustainable development, or the Rio+20 summit, or climate change or anything else apart from trade.

David Camoron just doesn't get it. He started his premiership giving hope to environmentalists and the green sector, and has been backsliding ever since.

Even his former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, is incredulous at the missed opportunity deriving from Number 10 and the Treasury's capitulation to pressure from a narrow body of Conservative supporters.

It's not that he's in a country which doesn't understand this stuff. Mexico is so far the only nation in the world other than the UK to have a Climate Change Act, which is similar to the UK's and was passed in April. Like the UK's it requires future governments to meet regular emissions reduction targets, but its goal is ultimately to cut the nation's carbon emissions 50% by 2050, instead of the UK's 80%. Almost one quarter (24%) of electricity must be generated from renewable sources by 2024.

Camoron has not travelled south to Rio de Janeiro for the Earth Summit on Sustainable Development which opens today and is being attended instead by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman.

Amongst those travelling to Mexico with the Prime Minister were Hugh Richmond, Managing Director of ENER-G Natural Power, plus representatives of Diageo, Rolls Royce, Virgin Atlantic, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Chancellor George Osborne and Trade & Investment Minister Lord Green.

Could the Climate Change Act be used to curb new gas-fired plants?

DECC's decision to set EPCs at 450gCO2/kWh could be open to legal challenge.

It is now fashionable to term natural gas a “transitional" fuel on the road to a low or zero carbon economy at some vague point in the fuzzy future.

Just as many thought carbon capture and storage would be a “get out of jail free" card enabling business as usual (note: this does not include the International Panel on Climate Change), in the same way that many people once believed that quack doctors' miracle cures for ailments actually worked, gas is now the favourite conventional temporary solution to our climate change problems.

In January, I wrote that "low gas prices are the biggest threat to renewables", and this was borne out by the Chancellor's Budget and Ed Davey's announcement this week.

Ed Davey has decided that Emissions Performance Certificates for new gas-fired power stations can be set at 450g of CO2 per kilowatt hour until 2045, 15 years beyond the date recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

To comply with the recommendations of the Committee, the emissions level would need to fall to 50g/kWh at 2030.

In that column, I wrote that "we must particularly guard against constructing more gas-fired power stations as this would lock us into higher emissions for twenty or more years".

Tory George Osborne and Lib-Dem Ed Davey seem to be united in this Coalition vision. We may not have shale gas in this country (yet) and it's unlikely that we ever will, nor is gas currently as cheap as coal to burn in power stations.

No, its big advantage is that a gas-fired power station can be up and running in two years, making electricity cheaper than wind power, with around half the emissions of coal.

Last week, Green MP Caroline Lucas asked Charles Hendry if he thought that the Committee's requirement that an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 required that electricity generation be almost entirely decarbonised by 2030.

His response referred to last December's Carbon Plan, which looked at different scenarios consistent with meeting carbon budgets. He said that "Government are not setting an explicit decarbonisation goal for electricity generation in 2030 at this point, given the uncertainties involved in setting a target this far out, which include levels of electricity demand and cost-effectiveness of different technologies".

But the Government is setting the level of the playing field which helps define the cost-effectiveness of different technologies. Davey's pronouncement is part of that.

And it can also estimate very well for how long a gas-fired power station will continue generating if built in the next three to four years; it will certainly be doing so by 2030, just 14 years later.

According its own recent estimates, published in DECC’s Updated Emissions Projections in October 2011, an additional 4.9 gigawatts (GW) of new gas-fired electricity generation capacity is projected to come online by 2020.

Of this, 4.1GW is projected by 2016, but in reality it's even more than this: new gas projects with government consent currently amount to 16.2GW.

Information from National Grid and New Power shows that all of these projects could be online before 2020.

This level of unabated gas operating at 450g/kWh at 2030, let alone 2045, would make it impossible for the UK to meet its long-term carbon emission reduction goals.

Hendry is talking disingenuous nonsense.

The wind/gas future

Recent analysis by Platts on the electricity market argues that 'transitional' gas and wind power will form the backbone of the system in the near future.

They write: "This will be combined with baseload power from biomass and a declining amount of legacy coal and nuclear.

"Gas will act as the hydrocarbon bridge to a more sophisticated low carbon smart energy system that will include a greater range of RES, backed by demand response, storage and other clever means of balancing electricity supply with demand."

Platts' conclusion is that energy companies have two choices: either enter a declining competitive market or pursue renewables.

Platts calls renewables “subsidy-backed", but as we have seen from the Budget gas and oil are subsidised in their own way, by tax breaks for example, just as any other form of electricity generation.

Nevertheless, in simple levelised cost terms, seen from this point of view, wind has just about reached what we could term grid parity.

In this picture, gas is required to fill in the gaps when the wind isn't blowing sufficiently, and the gas power stations will remain idle when it is.

This gives us a picture of the future. In a competitive market, with a smart grid, buyers will choose whichever is the cheapest power source at that moment.

In the UK, the question is whether such a pattern will bring down emissions sufficiently to meet the U.K.'s legally-binding requirements under the Climate Change Act.

The next legal challenge

I have no doubt that Friends of the Earth, currently celebrating their third victory over the Department for Energy and Climate Change over solar feed-in tariffs that was announced on Friday, will be watching carefully to see if they can to mount a legal case themselves against Ed Davey's decision, on the grounds that it could lead to the UK failing to meet its carbon budgets under the provisions of the Climate Change Act.

Under this, the UK must have reduced its carbon emissions by 35% by 2022 and 50% by 2027.

As they have calculated, with this amount of gas generation that will be impossible.

Rhian Kelly, CBI Director for Business Environment policy, has commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling on feed-in tariffs, saying: “What’s important now is that the Government learns the lessons from this sorry solar saga.

“As it puts the finishing touches to reforms to electricity markets and the Green Deal, it must be sure it creates a stable, predictable policy framework which leads to investor confidence and generates jobs.”

Rhian Kelly, that is a nice dream. Government energy policy remains as stable as a galleon in a gale.

The government puts all of the UK's environmental legislation under threat

Environmental groups are horrified by the coalition government's inclusion of every single one of the UK's 278 environmental laws in a list of legislation that it is offering for the axe, under its new, populist "Red Tape Challenge".

The list includes the Climate Change Act, laws protecting air and water quality, rights of way, national parks, animal safety and promoting energy efficiency, rules against flytipping, litter and environmental pollution.

The above website states that "Good regulation... protects consumers, employees and the environment, it helps build a more fair society and can even save lives."

It goes on then to add "But over the years, regulations – and the inspections and bureaucracy that go with them – have piled up and up. This has hurt business, doing real damage to our economy. And it’s done harm to our society too".

The crowdsourcing exercise is designed purely to make businesses think that the Governmnet is on their side. In reality, much of this legislation cannot be repealed - especially those of European origin like the EcoDesign Directive or the Waste Directive - without encountering severe penalties. The rationale for including them is to look at instances of ‘gold-plating’ – where the UK has gone beyond the minimum required by the EU legislation.

But even Lord Davidson himself stated in his report on the topic of gold-plating two years ago: “it is sometimes beneficial for the UK economy to set or maintain regulatory standards which exceed the minimum requirements of European legislation. The EU may not always set the most appropriate level of regulation. The decision to introduce or maintain higher standards or stricter regulatory regimes than is required by EU directives could bring benefits as well as costs”.

The Climate Change Act is a flagship piece of recent legislation - the first in the world to commit a government to emission reduction, and something which business has been calling for to provide the certainty necessary to inspire investment.

Last month, a campaign was launched by climate change sceptics to repeal the law - but it is not coming from business and is not popular - the only news on its website has been Tweeted just four times.

So why is the act also included? Margaret Ounsley, Head of Public Affairs at WWF-UK said: "Allowing precious and hard-won environmental laws to be repealed in this manner would be ridiculous. Frankly we credit the Government with more sense than to tear up incredibly important legislation such as the Climate Change Act in an attempt to appear consultative or dynamic."

And John Sauven, director of Greenpeace, added: "We don't yet know if this is cock-up or conspiracy. If it's a cock-up, David Cameron needs to come out and say the Climate Change Act, central to the push for a clean technology revolution, is safe from the axe. But if ministers are serious about scrapping it and other vital environmental regulations then we'll be looking at something akin to the worst excesses of the Bush-Cheney White House. When did clean air and green jobs become a burden?"

Adrian Wilkes, Executive Chairman, The Environmental Industries Commission, said, "BIS’ latest deregulatory threat is dangerously misguided and poses a potentially major threat to the UK’s environmental industry – bizarrely at a time when the Chancellor is promoting green job creation in his Plan for Growth".

The Red Tape Challenge website says that ministers and government officials will use the feedback they get "to help them cut the right regulations in the right way".

Every few weeks the laws relevant to different topics are up for feedback. Environmental laws affect multiple and various categories such as transport, waterways, energy, manufacturing and quarrying.

The Government has already axed the Eco-Driver Training bill, which would have trained drivers of large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles to drive more cost-effectively, that was consulted upon by the previous administration.

An end to 'gold-plating'

The Department for Business, Industry and Skills (BIS) has also already begun (last December) an initiative to end the practice of going beyond the requirements of European Directives so that they "are not unfairly restricting British companies".

This initiative, however, is far from new - it was begun under the previous administration, in a review by Lord Neil Davidson QC who published his final report on 28 November 2006.

BIS has now adopted Guiding Principles for EU legislation to tackle what it calls 'regulatory creep'.

In the past, in the environmental arena, this exercise has been largely about avoiding duplication. For example, in the Waste Framework Directive it's possible for there to be exemptions made from the standard requirement to obtain a waste permit. Defra is consulting with the Environment Agency to update guidance on waste to make more effective use of the permit exemption provision. Inert waste was being controlled twice and this has been amended. The Environmental Permit Programme (EPP) has merged and streamlined the regulatory regimes for Waste Management Licensing (WML) and Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC), which means that a site now only needs to have a single environmental permit for these activities.

Sometimes, however, it is necessary to increase environmental protection.

Business leaders in Scotland agreed with Davidson's view that sometimes gold-plating is necessary. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce response said: "the gold plating of EU directives will not necessarily lead to increased business compliance costs; there is a need to simplify and streamline the nature of regulation; ensure implementation in the clearest and most efficient way".

Friends of the Earth has argued that the charge of gold-plating Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) was misplaced and believes the term itself is "unhelpful and inaccurate".

CIWEM (the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) goes further, calling it "a pejorative term" which "implies that any environmental regulation that goes beyond the absolute minimum is an unnecessary burden and to be accepted only under extreme circumstances".

Instead CIWEM believes that the UK should be seeking to have "the best environmental regulation in Europe rather than the weakest, where this can be achieved at reasonable cost and particularly in cases where there is clear benefit-cost advantage."

The new red tape challenge exercise seems to be designed as an exercise in pandering to prejudices - it is hopefully not serious, since in practice not a huge amount can be changed.

Nevertheless it is clearly important for every business in the green sectors to tell the government that they need the laws to protect them as well as us and our environment.

What lunacy, and what a waste of time from the so-called "greenest government ever".