There are far better deals than the Green Deal

 Minister Greg Barker signing off £224 million of public money this week to finance the Green Deal.

For those disillusioned with the Green Deal, there is no shortage of alternatives, many of which are more attractive and less hassle.

Energy Secretary Ed Davey was keen recently to assure the public that the Green Deal will have a significant uptake and make a difference to the lamentable energy efficiency of the UK's housing stock.

There were plenty of people willing to express scepticism, especially given the off-putting cost of obtaining an initial assessment (around £100) and the 7% interest rate on the loan which makes many measures unaffordable within the context of the Golden Rule, that the savings generated must lie within the cost of the measure.

But the Green Deal is not the only show in town. Far from it.

One of the alternatives is that there are plenty of quick win, low-cost measures you can take yourself to save energy and money on bills that are not even catered for with the Green Deal.

These include simple draught-proofing of doors and windows; installing flue gas heat reclamation on non-condensing boilers (cheaper than buying a condensing boiler); or installing secondary glazing (almost as good, but not as nearly as expensive, as installing double glazing).

But you may still need cash, even if these measures will pay for themselves quickly, at least for the last two measures, and for many larger jobs.

For this, there are many loan offers for energy efficiency on the market, beginning at 0%, and all lower than the Green Deal. We will look first at offers for householders, then businesses and the public sector.

Top of the list is the offer from the Co-operative Bank. It is offering an Energy Efficient Advance with an interest rate of just 1.04% for the first two years over the Bank of England base rate, i.e. 1.54% or an AER of 2%. Up to £20,000 may be borrowed, and you can even take a payment holiday for up to 6 months. There is an approved list of measures, which includes the usual kinds of insulation and double glazing, as well as a few renewable electric and heat technologies.

Not to be outdone, the Nationwide Building Society is also offering an energy efficiency loans scheme with interest rates from 2.29%. Its Green Additional Borrowing service allows existing mortgage customers to take out loans of £5,000 to £20,000 to fund anything from heat pumps to double glazing, insulation and solar panels.

And for some time the Ecology Building Society has offered its "C-Change Retrofit mortgage" that has a discount on its standard variable rate of 4.9%, of 0.25% for every grade improvement in the building's Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating that is delivered through home improvements.

Then there is the Royal Bank of Scotland's new energy efficiency loan service, which will complement its already successful renewables loan scheme. Under this, its bank managers will offer energy efficiency audits to small business customers, which will recommend behavioural changes or building improvements. Financing will be offered to cover the cost. However, the cost of an initial audit may be offputting: around £1,000. But with saving possible of around £9,000 a year, based on about £20,000 of spending, RBS says, it's still worthwhile. The interest rate is unknown at present.

Some councils offer their own interest-free energy efficiency loans to householders. For example, Wirral Borough Council, which offers a loan for loft and cavity wall insulation, central heating boilers, draught-proofing and solar water heating. Wigan Council is another example.

Even better is a set of schemes in Scotland, which include not only interest-free loans of up to £2,500 but grants of £200 as well. It's worth checking your local authority website for similar deals.

There are several differences between these types of schemes and the Green Deal. 

Firstly, the loans are unsecured. Secondly, the Green Deal aims to have many checks and balances on the quality of the work, and of the contractors who carry it out. One may only employ approved assessors and installers; but with many of the other deals on offer, any contractor may carry out the work, and of course it's a case of ‘buyer beware’.

The above schemes are generally for homeowners or tenants.

But what about businesses and the public sector?

For SMEs, there is always the Carbon Trust energy-efficiency loans, which are available at 0% interest, for amounts between £5,000 and £200,000. They are often used to upgrade heating systems but can be used for insulation and other types of refurbishment and equipment. In Northern Ireland, amounts of up to £400,000 are available.

For bodies in the public sector, there is the Salix range of funds. They are different for the different provinces of the UK, but in each case are available for schools, NHS, educational institutions, public services and local authorities. They are interest-free loans, repayable over a four-year period. With many measures paying for themselves well within this period, this results in a net zero cost or even cost benefit soon to clients. So far, over 2,230 energy efficiency projects have been undertaken in England in the last two years. This has resulted in annual energy savings of £27 million from public bodies, not to mention 159,000 tonnes of annual CO2 savings.

Under Salix' Energy Efficiency Recycling Funds scheme, amounts as high of £500,000 can be loaned. This is matched by the client and fed into a ring-fenced fund, to be spent on improving energy-saving projects with a payback of less than five years. The energy savings are returned to the fund until the original project investment is repaid. After that, the client can keep the savings. The fund itself can stay in place.

There are also, for businesses, Enhanced Capital Allowances, allowing businesses to purchase energy-saving plant or machinery specified on the Energy Technology List, which is managed by the Carbon Trust. This provides businesses with a 100% first-year tax relief on their qualifying capital expenditure. So, if a business pays corporation tax of 28%, for every £1,000 spent on such equipments, the annual tax bill reduces by £56, providing a cash flow boost of £224 for every £1000 spent in the year of purchase. Of course, on top of that is the saving on energy bills.

So, for those disillusioned with the Green Deal, there is no shortage of alternatives, many of which are more attractive and less hassle.

It really is a no-brainer; everyone should be looking into these.

DECC’s own draft Impact Assessment projects says that between 2013 and 2020, six million lofts and 6.3 million cavity walls must be insulated, but the Government admits that only 700,000 lofts and 1.7 million cavity walls will be insulated under the ECO. We need as many ways to meet the target as possible, so all of these schemes are very welcome. I expect several more pay-as-you-save schemes to come on the market in the next year, now the model has been established.

Turning Britain's lights off (safely) would save £1.192 billion each year

The cliché most commonly used to describe a guiding principle behind UK energy policy is "keeping the lights on". I say: let's turn them off instead. Based on what other countries have done, we could save £1.192 billion every year. And that's just the start of the benefits.

The French have just passed a law on the lighting of non-residential buildings.

Beginning on July 1, it requires shops and offices in France to turn off their lights one hour after the last worker leaves a building. All shop window displays will be turned off at 1 a.m. Shop windows may only be lit from 7 a.m. or an hour before opening time.

Necessary public lighting will not be lit before sunset. Exceptions will be made during Christmas and other significant events, as well as in some tourist and cultural areas.

This is expected to save about two terawatt-hours of electricity every year, about the same as the annual consumption of 750,000 households. Based on the average UK electricity bill that would equal £842.25 million.

It will also prevent the release of about 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The French Environment Minister, Delphine Batho, hopes that the decree will change the public’s attitude towards energy-saving practices and make France a pioneer in preventing light pollution.

It will save money for companies and for local authorities. Should the UK follow suit? Could it go even further?

Turning the lights off in streets and non-residential buildings would have many benefits. Most species of bird use the position of the stars to migrate and to navigate at night, but artificial light can lead them off-track and away from their migration routes.

In Slovenia, they have spotted a direct connection between the lighting of public buildings, which began following independence, and the disappearance of insect life. There used to be 460 species of moths in a church on a hill in Kranj (in north-western Slovenia). Since it began to be floodlit at night, this has dwindled to no more than twenty.

Light pollution is opposed by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, since it ruins our appreciation of the night sky. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 made light nuisance subject to the same criminal law as noise and smells. It applies to "artificial light emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance".

It does not necessarily cover the nine million or so streetlamps found in the country.

And this is as far as the law goes in the UK: legislation says nothing about energy efficiency or nature conservation.

There is a clear case for public lighting to be curtailed dramatically, providing that safety is not compromised, for three reasons:
• Economics;
• Curbing carbon emissions; and
• Nature conservation.

Slovenia has the toughest light pollution laws in the world, the Slovene Light Pollution Law. It was passed in 2007, following 12 years of campaigning, and has resulted, five years later, in its capital Ljubljana replacing half of its street lighting with new, less powerful versions, saving an estimated 40 to 60% of energy.

Its fundamental principle is: ‘No lighting is allowed to shine above the horizon’. With a population of two million, it is expected that over the first ten years, up to €10 million worth of energy will have been saved.

But with new technology it is possible to go much further than either the French or the Slovenians. Smart, wireless technology can mean that street lighting, right down to individual lamps, could be controlled independently to take care of particular circumstances.

For example, they could be adjusted to respond to weather, individual need and the timing of events such as a concert or sports match.

According to Jacob van der Pol, of NXP Semiconductors in the Netherlands, a company which makes intelligent lighting: "If there is a football match, the lights in the area can be told to come on when everyone is leaving and dimmed after they have gone. The technology allows you to adapt to circumstance."

The German city of Dörentrup has been pioneering this type of solution. By default, every night at 11pm all street lights are turned off.

Inhabitants can then request a light to be turned back on as needed, by sending a code to a special phone number, called Dial4light. Each street has its own code, that can be found either on this website, or on each lamp-post.

It has been proved to be so successful that it has been extended to 11 other cities, but it has not been without controversy and consequent refinement.

Residents originally had to register on the website before being able to use the system, but this requirement met with protests and has been withdrawn. The arrangement even covers the lighting of sports facilities and parks. The request to switch on the light results in the light staying on for 15 minutes after which it goes off automatically, but that may be renewed, and the policy is subject to evaluation.

Following complaints from residents on inhabited streets about safety, the latest tests are confined to streets which are not inhabited. The city of Hennef reckons that, if applied to the entire city, Dial4Light could save about €300,000 in electricity costs per year for street lighting.

Hennef has a population of just 46,342. Based on this, if the policy was applied in a similar way to the whole of the UK (population 62,641,000), it would save the UK £349.52 million per year.

If the UK also adopted the French law, it would save a further £842.25 million, resulting in a total of £1.192 billion each year.

This is not to mention the other benefits on wildlife, light pollution and curbing carbon emissions.

Since cost pressures are forcing many municipalities to save on the lighting of public streets and roads, this would be an excellent and simple strategy to copy in the UK.

And for building managers, installing low-energy, high-performance LED lighting, with controls allowing them to switch off at night or whenever the building is unoccupied, would save a lot of money, reduce their carbon footprint and, done properly, have no negative impact on business operation.

It's an illuminating thought.

The companies who bring us electricity should belong to us

Many people have not heard of district network operators. They operate behind the scenes, separate from the National Grid and the transmission companies, and most people would not even suspect their existence.

These 14 companies manage the switchgear, transformers, cables and everything else that plays such a vital part in keeping the lights on and the machines running around the country.

The electricity suppliers, the people to whom you pay the bills, lease the use of these regional networks, in much the same way that other telephone companies lease the telephone network from BT.

As I exposed this week in this news story, the suppliers are forced to pay whatever charge is made to them by the DNOs, and this charge ends up as part of your electricity bill, which varies from region to region, but is on average 16%.

This is effectively a natural monopoly, which allows the companies owning the networks to set their prices at whatever level they see fit.

Moreover, we have found out that 85% of these companies are foreign owned, just as is the case with many of the UK's water and sewage utility companies. This is considered to be a way of bringing investment into the country.

This may be so, but no one will invest without wishing to make a profit, and it seems that most of the profit leaves the country.

This profit totalled over £1.2bn in 2011/12. The biggest profit by far in terms of dividend as a percentage of profit was made by Western Power Distribution, serving the South West, South Wales and the Midlands, whose owners, PPL, are in America. They made a pre-tax profit of £190m.

As Richard Hall from Consumer Focus comments: "The absence of competitors, and the certainty that there will always be demand for electricity, removes many of the incentives to keep performance up, and prices down, that most ordinary businesses face".

I am not necessarily criticising Ofgem, which seems to be doing its best to get a grip on the problem, but it is only two years into a price control programme, having failed to do anything of significance for many years previously.

What this topic needs is more exposure and public discussion.

Even more worrying than the fact that it is a monopoly, is that this business sector does not seem to have escaped the tendency found elsewhere in the economy, of large, especially foreign-owned companies, using tax avoidance schemes.

The company reports, which are all available on the Ofgem website, show that while some of them pay a reasonable amount of tax, others are paying nothing like the 26% rate of corporation tax that they should be paying.

For example, Electricity North West, owned in Australia and the USA, was actually given a rebate of £15m in 2011/12, and the previous year paid just 13% tax.

Eastern Power Networks, owned in Hong Kong, last year received a rebate of £10m, and the previous year rebate of £12m, or minus 57% of pre-tax profit. Its two sister companies, London Power Networks and South Eastern Power Networks, (the three make up UK Power Networks), paid 7% and 1% respectively.

Ofgem can do nothing about this, of course, it's up to HMRC.

But ultimately it's up to the government. I've written several times before about the scandals of poor investment and big profits being made by some water companies, and argued that the best model for utilities is a social enterprise one, as practised by Welsh Water.

This "not for profit" business structure sees not only Welsh Water making record-breaking investment in infrastructure, but taking on more workers and paying each customer, who is a shareholder, a bonus of £22 each, which amounted to £150m over seven years.

Mutual companies, like the Co-operative Banking Group and John Lewis, are sustainable social enterprises, owned by members, doing better than their counterparts in the fully private sector and, what's more, continuing to recycle their profits back into other UK businesses, as well as providing better value for customers.

As I keep saying, imagine all water companies and energy companies run this way. Even banks. It wouldn’t be a case of ‘us’ and ‘them’, but just ‘us’. It gives people themselves a level of responsibility for, and involvement in, the essential services that we need.

This feeling of co-ownership would help to put an end to the criticisms that are continually levelled against most banks, water and energy companies.

It's a myth that we need foreign owned companies to run our utilities in order to provide investment. What we need is good and responsible management. An effective way of achieving this is for them to be forced to become not-for-profit social enterprises, since their primary purpose is to provide a social service.

In the case of the DNOs, Ofgem has been wise to include on its independent panel that looks at customer relations Teresa Perchard, the director of policy and advocacy at Citizens Advice, and Malcolm Rigg, director of the Policy Studies Institute. They will hopefully bring some sensible pressure to bear, but it's a bit like using a spade to shift a mountain.

What's needed is a radical shakeup. But despite the clamour, the banking industry is largely carrying on as before the 2007 crisis. Government has proved itself ineffective in forcing them to become more responsible.

In the absence of any other regulation, we must look to Ofgem to force responsibility in this sector. Ofgem must be held to public account.

Exposed: The hidden monopoly that ramps up UK electricity bills

UK electricity network operators are being accused of unfairly charging customers for the privilege of using the network to send electricity to consumers, and exploiting their monopoly status in order to make excessive profits.

Dale Vince, CEO of independent renewable electricity supplier Ecotricity, said: "On average these guys make an operating profit margin of almost 50%, and a pre tax profit margin of over 30% – that’s big by any standard, in any sector. And yet they are being allowed (by OFGEM) to impose price rises well above inflation – averaging 5.6% across the UK this year and as much as 11% in some areas".

Together in 2011/12, these companies made a profit of £1.2bn and gave a dividend of £1.5bn to their owners, who are mostly based abroad.

On average, 16% of consumers' electricity bills goes to the DNOs. This compares to 58% for the wholesale cost of fuel supply, and just 2% for the subsidies that go to renewable electricity.

Most people haven't heard of district network operators. But these are the eight companies that run the regional electricity networks.

Called Distribution Network Operators (DNOs), they are licensed by Ofgem, which, in 2009, began regulating the revenues DNOs can collect from network users, i.e. the electricity suppliers.

They effectively run a monopoly but their own company reports show that they only pay an average rate of tax to the Exchequer of 6% of their pre-tax profit. Almost all of these distribution companies (85% by turnover) are now owned by foreign companies. This means their profit leaves the country, as the following table shows:

Company	Area	Owner	Country of owner
SSE Power Distribution Plc	Northern Scotland	SSE	Scotland
Southern Electric Power Distribution Plc	Southern Scotland	SSE	Scotland
SP Energy Networks	North Wales	ScottishPower, part of Iberdrola	Spain
Northern Ireland Electricity	Northern Ireland	ESB Group (the Electricity Supply Board)	N.Ireland
Electricity North West	North West	Owned by bankers, with HQs abroad: JP Morgan Investment Management Inc and Colonial First State Global Asset Management, part of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia	Australia & USA
Northern Power Grid owns Northern Powergrid (Northeast) Limited and Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc,	North East	A wholly owned subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company	America
UK Power Networks	South East, East and London	Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings,40%, Power Assets Holdings, 40%, and The Li Ka Shing Foundation, 20%	China
Western Power Distribution	South West, South Wales and Midlands	PPL, formerly known as Pennsylvania Power and Light	America

Cheung Kong Infrastructure is controlled by Hong Kong-based tycoon Li Ka-shing.

These companies made the following profits and dividends in 2011/12:

Company	Profit (£m)	Dividend	Dividend as % of profit
SSE Power Distribution Plc	167	200	120
Southern Electric Power Distribution Plc	58	100	172
SP Energy Networks	152	95	62
Northern Ireland Electricity	unknown
Electricity North West	70	62	89
Northern Power Grid	218	70	32
UK Power Networks	348	175	47
Western Power Distribution	190	804	1886.75
Total	1,203	1,508

I asked various consumer groups to comment on these revelations. Richard Hall, head of energy regulation at Consumer Focus said: "While consumers can shop around for their electricity supplier, they can’t choose which network brings it to their door.

"The absence of competitors, and the certainty that there will always be demand for electricity, removes many of the incentives to keep performance up, and prices down, that most ordinary businesses face.

"Consumers therefore rely on the regulator to put rules and incentives in place to ensure the networks deliver high quality services at a reasonable price. With energy bills doubling in the last seven years, it’s imperative that Ofgem wrings every drop of value it can out of the price controls it agrees with them."

The Consumer Association, Which?, and uSwitch. They responded that this was a new area for them, which they had not considered before, and they all felt unable to comment. uSwitch said: “It’s not an area that we have commented on previously and we don’t know enough about it to be able to add any particular insight or value”.

And yet the implications are potentially huge with vast sums involved. These companies are spending, and making, billions of pounds, away from the public eye, although under the regulation of Ofgem.

A spokesperson for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) commented: “Ofgem’s new framework for regulating network companies’ investment activities (“RIIO”) introduces outputs for the network companies to deliver and they will get incentives or penalties according to how well they deliver them. One of these incentives the Broad Measure of Customer Satisfaction stakeholder engagement incentive, is to encourage network companies to address key social issues such as fuel poverty and consumer vulnerability”.

Customer satisfaction is overseen by an independent panel, chaired by Ofgem. The last time this panel met, in summer last year, it was made up of:

• Philip Cullum, Partner Consumer and Demand Insight, Ofgem (Chair)
• Colin Browne (Communications Consultant)
• Mary Fagan (Group Communications and Corporate Affairs Director at ITV)
• Teresa Perchard (Director of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens Advice)
• Malcolm Rigg (Director of the Policy Studies Institute), and
• Andrew Whyte (Communications Consultant).

These individuals said they were "favourably impressed by the number of references to activities providing additional assistance to vulnerable consumers". However, "some DNOs had failed to meet minimum requirements", they said, mentioning no names.

All of the DNOs’ submissions, detailing their community work, are available from the above link.

RIIO, regulator Ofgem's transmission price control system, stands for Revenue = Incentives+Innovation+Outputs. It is supposed to place much more emphasis on incentives to invest in upgrading the network and customer satisfaction.

The current round of improvements to the network which Ofgem has asked for will add an average of 5.6% two bills, though the amount varies significantly region to region. This averages out at about £4.30 per customer per year.

Ofgem is also in the third year of its Distribution Price Control Review 5 DPCR5, which runs from April 2010 to March 2015. A new eight-year agreement will be set after this, and other companies will be entitled to bid to control the networks, though this is considered unlikely.

Ofgem says that when the new contracts come in, then those who do not perform will be penalised, while any that outperform will be made to pass on any savings to their customers.

One of the incentives is to encourage customer satisfaction, where a reward of up to 0.2% of "allowed revenue" is given to those companies which achieve a certain level, as judged by the independent panel. However, this is yet to happen.

An Ofgem spokesperson said that "the price controls are needed as these networks are natural monopolies and therefore there is no realistic way of introducing competition across the whole sector".

It insists that since "Britain’s networks are undergoing a significant upgrade and through Ofgem’s price controls this investment is being secured at a fair cost to consumers.

"To further ensure value for consumers, during the current price control Ofgem set the toughest rate of return ever set for a regulated company (4.7% vanilla Weighted Average Cost of Capital)," they said.

As far as Ofgem is concerned, this state of affairs attracts outside investment into the country. "In 2011, the investment in Britain’s electricity network was twice the amount that was awarded in dividends," they said.

Ofgem is monitoring the situation. "We are currently in a position to consider the financial information relating to the first two years of this five year price control. It is important to note that DNOs’ spending will vary over the five years."

They said that the last time the DNOs put in their bids, in December, Ofgem shaved off £5bn of their costs, a significant amount, saying that they could implement their work programmes for less money.

"In addition," they said, "at the end of the control any underspends or savings will be shared with customers. Overall, we anticipate that at the end of the current price control returns for the DNOs will be within our anticipated range but come down from current levels, while consumers will have benefited significantly from improvements in quality of service."

David Smith, the chief executive of the Energy Networks Association (ENA), the trade body that represents the networks, insisted that his members gave value for money: “The networks deliver the vital services that keep our lights on, our homes warm and our industry and business in operation. It is a service that society depends upon and the reliability of the networks in the UK is unique at 99.9996%."

He acknowledged that they were "natural regional monopolies" but said, "There is no other logical efficient way to deliver this kind of infrastructure," and made the case that "a substantial proportion of profits are being ploughed back into critical investment to deliver a smarter, lower carbon energy system," which needed updating since much of it was installed a long time ago.

“It is estimated that jobs in the network companies will increase one and a half times over the next 20 years," he said.

“Focusing on pre-tax profit margins is inappropriate and misleading as the DNOs spend many hundreds of millions of pounds in capital expenditure each year which does not appear on the profit statement. The cash flows received by the companies are much less.”

Now we know: £155bn: the cost of new nuclear power to consumers

It has been a bad week for nuclear power and the prospects of building new power stations.

Last week, Cumbria County Council voted against the area being used as a deep geological dump for existing nuclear waste, sending the whole process of looking for something to do with the country's stockpile back to the drawing board.

Looking after this existing waste takes up more than half of the annual budget of the Department for Energy and Climate Change. That's £1.6bn of public money every year.

On Monday, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published a damning report on the management of this waste, which said that "deadlines for cleaning up Sellafield have been missed, while total lifetime costs for decommissioning the site continue to rise and now stand at £67.5bn".

Margaret Hodge, its Chair, noted that: "taxpayers will have to foot the bill" and they "are not getting a good deal". Last year the consortium tasked with sorting out the mess, was rewarded with £54m in fees, despite only two out of 14 major projects being on track.

Also on Monday, Centrica announced it was ending its partnership with EDF, writing off a massive £200m and launching a share buy-back scheme to return another £500m of unused capital to its investors. As with RWE and E.ON last year, and, as Martin Horwood, MP, put it, "like any sane investor in my view, it has decided that it is not going to touch these new nuclear plans with a bargepole".

Finally, yesterday, MPs on the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee debated the question of the subsidy-by-another-name for new nuclear build in this country, contracts for difference, floated in the Energy Bill, but lacking detail of any sort.

The energy chief executive of Electricité de France, Vincent de Rivaz, told the Financial Times that the last thing stopping them going ahead with building a new nuclear plant at Hinckley and Sizewell “is the contract for difference. Once we have that, we’ll have a compelling investment case to attract partners into the project”.

In other words, as Martin Horwood told MPs, “If you don’t subsidise us, there is no business case.”

How much is EDF asking for? The negotiations have so far been shrouded in secrecy, but for the first time, some figures came out in yesterday's debate.

According to the Energy Fair group of energy consultants and academics, the real cost of nuclear power is at least £200 per MWh. This is much more than the cost of offshore wind power (140 per MWh) or that of onshore wind power (£90 MWh).

Based on this, EDF might be asking for something as high as £165 per MWh for the strike price. A similar figure comes from Steve Thomas of Greenwich University and Peter Atherton of Citi: a strike cost price of £161 per megawatt.

This compares to today’s wholesale price for electricity of around £51 per megawatt.

The government would have to enter into a 30-year contract life for the two proposed plants at Hinkley and Sizewell.

Over this period, then, the total cost to householders and businesses or taxpayers would be £155bn by 2050. That is without any of the additional costs, such as insurance and accident protection, dealing with waste, etc.

As Mike Weatherley MP said yesterday: "Imagine the renewable energy industry if we had invested over £155bn in it".

Much of this cash would leave the country as EDF is based in France.

We are talking about not some new technology like tidal power, but a mature and not very competitive industry started in 1956.

MPs were asking for the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise the economic case for nuclear new build and contracts for difference. Unfortunately, its chair, Margaret Hodge told them that, much as she would like to do this, she couldn't, because the committee can only examine contracts after they have been signed. In this case, that would be too late.

MPs bewailed the lack of information that Parliament had been given about the negotiations with the EDF. Joan Walley said: "It is impossible to understand how Government policy is being taken forward in this area, because of the complete lack of transparency and of an evidence base."

This led Ed Davey to come before MPs and pledge that the House would be told the nature of any contract agreed with EDF before it were signed. Then why haven't they done that already?

Let's be clear, the Treasury’s levy control framework, which caps the costs that can be added to consumers’ bills, currently specifies a figure of £2.6bn a year. There are estimates that the cap would have to rise to £12.5bn or more to provide 16 GW of nuclear power by 2025.

I don't think the Treasury is going to agree to this.

EDF's Olkiluoto plant in Finland was begun in 2005 and should have gone on line in 2009. It is six years overdue and €4.3bn over budget. Its Flamanville facility is now four years late and and €4.8bn over budget.

Clearly, new nuclear cannot be built without a subsidy. Therefore, it should not go ahead at all. Instead, it should yield to other forms of energy, particularly renewable energy.

Ed Davey promised yesterday that "each contract will need to deliver value for money for the consumer and be compatible with state-aid rules". On present evidence, EDF is a not going to deliver this.

Waiting in the wings are Chinese companies. And do we really want state-owned Chinese companies entering into the British energy market and being privy to our nuclear secrets?

The village that took on the planning system - and won

Director Helen Iles at the premier of Living In the Future.

Last week, a remarkable film sold out in all theatres in which it premiered, and I was lucky enough to get a ticket.

It tells the story of a five-year battle by ordinary people fed up with not having access to housing that they could afford, who wanted to build affordable, ecologically-sound housing for themselves on land which they owned.

The story began when nine families occupying 35 acres of land in South Wales innocently submitted boxes of detailed architectural designs and plans to their local council, seeking approval, which was initially met with hostility. The leader of the council is filmed saying: "Not now, not ever. Never!" as he rejected their application.

Their battle eventually succeeded, and resulted not only in a change in planning policy in that council, which has been adopted throughout Wales, thanks to the support of Wales' former Environment Minister, Jane Davidson, but a campaign to change the Building Regulations themselves, which, at present, are totally unfit for the purpose of enabling this type of architecture.

The film is Living In The Future. After the screening I talked to the director, Helen Iles, who has spent several years following, and filming, the development of this project.

The organisation involved, Lammas, set up an eco-village, Tir y Gafel, and are using it as a pioneering project to inspire others to do the same throughout the country.

It contains the first buildings in the country that are of ‘low impact’ and built with planning permission in accordance with Building Regulations.

These buildings use traditional methods of construction: timber frame, round houses, straw bale, and all natural materials: sheeps' wool for insulation, roundwood, mud.

Buildings for all of the families and a community building were constructed for the astonishingly low total cost of about £70,000. Of course, much of the labour was free, coming from the many volunteers who turned up to help.

The local council has stipulated that within three years 75% of the settlement's income must be self generated from the land, as a planning condition. This is a target the village’s inhabitants are still struggling to meet.

I asked Helen why she chose to focus on the planning issue for the substance of her movie. "It is incredibly hard to get councils to understand this type of settlement and building," she said.

"Not only that, but the Building Regulations are geared to conventional types of construction. If, for example, people want to have an outside composting toilet, then officials say: "Why? Surely we've left all that behind!'"

Similar issues apply to the choice of building materials and sewage treatment using reedbeds.

In fact, when the Building Enforcement Officers visited the site they came up with a list of hundreds of things that should have been done. In the end, these were whittled down to a few that were relatively easy to deal with, compared, that is, to knocking the buildings down and starting all over again.

You would class the people pursuing this dream as hippies. But I was reminded of the early days of the Centre for Alternative Technology, where I used to work. This started in much the same way, as an experiment in sustainable living in the early ‘70s, and was also founded by a peculiar mixture of hippies and upper-class dropouts.

The solutions that they pioneered are now mainstream simply because the mainstream has recognised the necessity of making them so.

I am confident that, while the nature of the buildings might change a little, and that the vast majority of people will not live in this kind of housing, a great many do want to live closer to nature, and in buildings that are softer and friendlier which they can design themselves and which are much, much cheaper.

With so many people needing affordable housing, you can hardly argue that there is no demand. The degree of interest in this type of living is evidenced by how popular the film has proved last week.

What is obvious from watching the film is the extreme stress suffered by these pioneers as they struggle not only with bullying of families and growing food, but building their homes and dealing with a non-comprehending bureaucracy.

They were lucky to have a friend in Jane Davidson.

"Jane was a visionary herself," said Helen. "She came and listened to the people at Lammas. She always listened to people. She was the best Environment Minister Wales has ever had. Most of her policies came from the ground up."

Sadly, Jane retired from politics and the Welsh Assembly Government to concentrate on her smallholding, and is now Director of the Wales Institute for Sustainability at the local Trinity St David University.

But the legacy she has left includes the vision of One Planet Living, which underpins the Welsh Assembly Government's Technical Advice Note 6 "Planning For Sustainable Rural Communities", part of Wales' comprehensive planning policy in line with its constitutional commitment to sustainable development, something which makes Wales unique in the whole world.

Planning officers everywhere deserve to take note of the experience of Pembrokeshire and the Welsh Assembly Government. Largely unseen by the majority, a quiet revolution is taking place.

At some point other communities will spring up in other parts of the country.

The film, admirably financed by the Welsh Assembly Government, is available under Creative Commons principles, i.e. it has no copyright, but the makers would appreciate a donation or the payment of a voluntary fee for public showings.

I recommend you to view it, visit the eco-village, and support the campaign to get the Building Regulations changed.

It's Europe that has made our land more green and pleasant

Do you think that the UK's membership of the European Union is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing? If a referendum were held on the UK's membership, how do you think you would vote?

These are the questions that David Cameron is addressing in his speech on Europe, and that are asked in public polling surveys on this most touchy of subjects.

According to one recent survey, which asked just these questions, over 56% would "probably or definitely" answer that they would vote to leave, and 45% think that Britain's membership is a Bad Thing. Only 28% believe it is Good for the country.

But the answer you get depends on the question you ask.

Suppose a pollster asked you this question:

Are you grateful that we have clean beaches?

Or how about:

Is legislation to keep our water and air clean from industrial pollution a good thing?

What about:

Do you think it is a good idea to set targets for manufacturers to make their products consume less energy?

I am willing to bet that well over three quarters of the population would answer yes to all of these questions.

Then the polling company might ask the question:

Are you aware that all of the above are controlled by laws emanating from Europe that have been accepted by the British government?

I am willing to bet that well over three quarters of the population would answer no to that question.

In this debate on Europe we hear a lot from the business lobby about red tape from Europe holding back growth.

As if, were we tomorrow to cast off from the continental landmass, like a hot air balloon we would rise majestically into a sky of profit having jettisoned the ballast of legal compliance.

It is never mentioned exactly which laws are supposed to be jettisoned.

Even the coalition government's own campaign to cut red tape, in which the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs has played an enthusiastic role, has actually found little besides ancient and redundant legislation that it can bury without affecting health and ecosystems in a way that would cause public outrage.

It is precisely our membership of the European Union that has forced business and agriculture in this country to take care of our environment and protect our health, to safeguard species and habitats from the otherwise careless activities associated with the production of goods and wealth, energy and employment.

These are successes that figure high on people's list of priorities. Breaches of, say, pollution laws, occurring on their doorsteps trigger howls of anguish and outrage.

The Bathing Water Directive protects our beaches. Directives like the Groundwater, Habitats, Industrial Emissions, Landfill, Nitrates and Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive protect us, our children, families and neighbourhoods from dangerous pollution.

Do UKIP and Eurosceptic MPs in all parties wish to abolish all of these as they abandon Europe?

Do they, perhaps, want to make Britain the continent's 'dirty old man'?

Let me ask you: are these protections, instead, not something to celebrate?

We can legitimately ask that, if our national government had not been not forced by Brussels to incorporate these laws into national legislation, whether it would have done so, and indeed whether they would be enforced, and by whom?

Think of how many times Britain has been taken to court for breaches of environmental laws, for example in the case of dirty beaches.

It is because of Europe that raw sewage is no longer poured straight into the sea and our rivers and waterways.

Even now, London is under threat of prosecution from Europe for breaches of air pollution legislation.

These foreigners should not be sticking their noses into our business, you say? Who else is going to protect our environment?

If you want us to leave Europe then you have to be clear on this.

That 'the environment', meaning weather, sea currents, migrating birds and so on, does not respect international boundaries is precisely the reason why we need a continent-wide protection regime.

And it is because it has set, and is due to meet as a bloc, its targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, for growth in renewable energy, and for increases in the energy efficiency of products made within its boundaries, in its fight against the worst ravages of climate change, that Europe can speak with a louder and more authoritative voice at global climate change talks.

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and the Landfill Directive encourage recycling. The ambition of the Water Framework Directive is to protect our waterways.

I am sorry, but unless you can convince me that, outside of Europe, we would introduce protection at least as good as these for the environment, and, even more importantly, enforce all of these, I will vote overwhelmingly for us to stay within the European Union.

I'm all for simplifying red tape. But let's hear it for European green tape. Without it, our environment would be even more despoiled than it is already.

The case for the Severn tidal barrage must be improved

Former Welsh Secretary Peter Hain, MP for Neath near Swansea, has given MPs an enthusiastic account of the proposed design by Hafren Power for a tidal barrage across the Severn estuary twice recently.

The first time was in the Commons debate on the Energy Bill and the second was last Thursday in front of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which is pursuing an enquiry into the scheme.

I have to declare an interest here: I was commissioned to help write a document advocating the advantages of the scheme at an early stage.

I think it is a very exciting project. But at the same time I want to see any negative environmental effects of the scheme minimised.

It's now well known that this is a completely different proposition from the previous tidal barrage proposal that was rejected in 2010.

For example, it is claimed that the turbines are fish friendly, because they operate at a lower speed, enabling fish to swim both ways through them.

These new turbines will also work on the ebb and flow of the tide, meaning they can generate power 24/7.

Peter Hain told the Committee that the developers, Hafren Power, are prepared to settle for a strike price for the electricity generated that is the same as that received by offshore wind under contracts for difference (CfD). That, if true, is very reasonable.

The claim by the developers is that it will generate 5% of the UK's electricity needs, about the same as three new nuclear power stations and 7,000 wind turbines.

But it will last a lot longer. Like any hydroelectric scheme, it will last for up to 120 years, possibly more, and for most of its life it will therefore produce electricity 75% cheaper than coal or gas. Another considerable advantage.

No Treasury (taxpayers') money will be required to help finance it. However, it will use up a considerable amount of the Levy Control Framework. DECC has already indicated that this could be a concern for other low carbon technologies, for which little money would be left. Why put all one's eggs in one project basket?

The developers claim that the project will remove the need for millions of pounds worth of flood defences being built, because in itself it will protect much of the area from the risk of sea level rise and storm surges. They have even offered to build a Bridgwater bund to protect the Somerset Levels, which are very vulnerable.

However, this money saved cannot be offset against the Levy Control Framework, which is passed on to electricity consumers. There is no way to compensate them for the money saved from not spending on flood defences.

Nor has Hafren demonstrated that the project will protect areas upstream of the barrage from floodwaters coming down river.

It claims that it will generate 50,000 jobs, and on this basis it has won the support of Martin Mansfield, General Secretary of the Welsh TUC and Andy Richards, Wales Secretary for the Unite Union. However there is no supporting evidence explaining how so many jobs can be created.

The Angling Trust is adamant that the technology as so far presented to it is not safe for fish. Other conservation groups equally remain to be convinced.

The Habitats Directive requires that any designated ecology threatened by development must be compensated for elsewhere. In order to comply, the estuary would have to be stripped of its special status by application to the European Commission, a process which could take years due to the scientific evidence that would need to be collected and the natural inertia of the Commission.

Hain, in giving his evidence, was bending over backwards to help appease these objections. The man is staking his reputation as an MP on a private company's single project.

It would be tragic if a perfectly good opportunity to tackle climate change, energy security, promote renewable energy and stimulate the economy to the extent that this project has the potential to, were to be scuppered by the traditional, knee-jerk, objections of the traditional wing of the conservation movement.

After all, it is projected that between 10 and 20% of the habitat within the Severn estuary will be lost due to climate change and other factors anyway, in the future. The barrage proposal claims that 25% will be lost. This leaves a net loss of between 5 and 15%, which is perhaps not so significant when comparing to the environmental benefits.

The company has committed to engage with the Angling Trust, the RSPB and other conservation groups in developing the design. It has invited the Trust to test the turbine with them to see if it is a danger to fish. Together they can perhaps develop an even more fish friendly version of the turbine.

Similarly, a war has been growing between Bristol and Port Talbot ports over their mutual future viability, once the barrage is built, and employment prospects. They need to talk to each other and engage with the project to make sure that everyone benefits and no one loses out.

The project also has the potential to divide the south-west from South Wales, over competition for jobs. Developers must make sure that each side benefits here too.

This is a project with such potentially massive benefits that it cannot be dismissed easily. Its impacts will be correspondingly huge.

All big projects represent big change, and this scares people. They find it difficult to imagine what the finished product will be like and how it will affect the surrounding area.

All affected parties must therefore come together and explore it to see if together they can find a mutually acceptable solution.

It behoves Hafren to listen carefully to them all, to take their concerns on board and work with them.

All of this will take time. But it is the only environmentally and socially acceptable way to proceed.

2013 will be the year energy management grows up

The Government continues to claim that it is delivering certainty to potential investors in low carbon technology, while these selfsame investors continue to say they don't have it.

The new Energy Bill and the Finance Bill 2013 all contain reams of assurances or regulations intended to balance the competing requirements of the two wings of the Coalition. This is represented in Westminster shorthand by Osborne, Energy Minister John Hayes and Environment Secretary Owen Patersen and 100 or so back-bench MPs on the one hand, and Greg Barker plus many Lib-Dem MPs on the other hand. Energy Secretary Ed Davey leans towards the latter rather than the former grouping, but manages to defend DECC's turf at least some of the time against the parsimonious tendency of the Treasury.

I'm sorry, I'll rephrase that: the above two documents are intended to balance the competing requirements of keeping the lights on for the UK, improving energy security and combating climate change.

Like the resolution called The Doha Gateway Package, which came out of the latest UNFCCC climate talks (vague ideas to do little until 2015), they represent both a victory for business-as-usual and a beanfest for legions of accountants and consultants who will be needed to interpret them for everyone else. In failing to tackle the dangers revealed by the latest evidence of the rate of climate change, they will satisfy no one but these players.

As the world races to increasingly certain climate disaster later this century, governments' payoffs to the bankers to compensate them for the mistakes they themselves made five years ago, mean that they have a plausible excuse not to cough up the mere 1% of global GDP required to ameliorate and mitigate the worst excesses of climate change.

Even as Chancellor George Osborne simplifies the Carbon Reduction Commitment, for the benefit of businesses affected by it, he introduces even more complex rules, governing the Carbon Price Support (CPS), Climate Change Levy (CCL), Carbon Price Floor (CPF), Capacity Payments and Feed-in Tariffs with Contracts for Difference, terms only civil servants could have dreamed up.

And this is after business complained that an earlier version of the Bill was too complicated.

The Gas Strategy promises support for gas extraction but gives no support for a new gas power station.

As I prophesised at the beginning of this year, the prognosis for concrete action on the construction of a new nuclear power station is still unclear, a year later, despite approval being granted by the Health and Safety Executive for NNB GenCo's European Pressurised Water Reactor design, because no one knows from where the money to pay for it will come.

Offshore wind power remains a reasonably safe bet, but only for turbines erected before 2018, when the Renewables Obligation gives way to the carbon price floor. And no one knows yet how that will work, because the price of carbon insists on staying frustratingly low.

All of which means that at the end of 2012, hopes are pinned on the one set of actions that is easier and cheaper to attain than any of the above. This has been a dark horse, largely ignored by government for decades, but now racing up on the outside with a chance to clinch a win, if the imaginative proposals in a recent consultation document are implemented.

I'm talking about energy efficiency of course. Demand reduction is already included in the Energy Bill's Capacity Market, but the suggestion of businesses and individuals being given premium payments for each kilowatt–hour saved by installing energy-efficient equipment are the centrepoint of last November's proposals for reducing energy demand, published by DECC.

The payments would work in a similar way to feed-in tariffs, but instead of being paid for generating renewable electricity, bill-payers would be paid for not consuming electricity, a solution that is, paradoxically, cheaper for energy companies than building new generators. It was first pioneered by Californian utility Pacific Gas and Electric in the 1970s.

The consultation contains other exciting ideas: an energy supplier obligation for the non-domestic sector to encourage energy companies to insulate business premises, similar to the Energy Company Obligation in the domestic sector, and financial incentives to encourage the replacement of out of date equipment like motors, boilers and fridges with new, more efficient versions.

Financiers say they are seeking certainty from Government. The CBI complains at the length of time it is taking for policies to become law. The Federation of Small Businesses and the manufacturers’ organisation, the EEF, complain about carbon taxes.

But investing in energy efficiency has always been able to provide certainty. Marginal abatement cost curves of energy measures, like those provided by DECC, McKinsey, Mott MacDonald or the Committee on Climate Change, consistently put it up front, on the left, below the line. Sure, different measures have different the internal rates of return, and they are dependent on future energy prices and inflation rates. Yet this is familiar territory for business.

It's just that energy management has not so far attracted the attention of senior executives. But from now on it must and will increasingly do so, especially if these proposals, which we should all back, are made law.

The absolute conclusion is: we can wait forever for government to act, and when it does it will never satisfy each and every one of us. But the logic of energy management, correctly applied, will always yield investor certainty. It will save carbon, save money, and create jobs.

Doha wins 'damage aid' for poor countries

For the first time, developing countries have won recognition of the danger they face from climate change, securing a promise from developing countries that they will receive funding to repair the "loss and damage" incurred.

US negotiators fought hard against this proposal and made sure no term implying legal liability was used, to avoid the possibility of litigation; the money will instead be described as aid. It is already being called 'damage aid'.

But “climate finance is not charity or foreign aid,” said Brandon Wu, Senior Policy Advisor, ActionAid. "The Doha outcome completely fails to provide clarity. Lacking concrete numbers and dates, it lets rich countries off the hook. Developing countries have no idea whether climate finance will go up or down, or even whether it will reliably flow."

Ronald Jumeau, the Seychelles negotiator, told his American counterpart: "If we had had more ambition [on emissions cuts from rich countries], we would not have to ask for so much [money] for adaptation. If there had been more money for adaptation [to climate change], we would not be looking for money for loss and damage. What's next? Loss of our islands?"

Observers now expect armies of consultancies to spring up, which will debate from both sides the scientific basis of attributing specific extreme events and weather effects to climate change

The Doha Gateway Package

“What we have on the table is extremely weak. I think it worse than people expected,” concluded Hoda Baraka, Arab World Project, Greenpeace at the end of the final 36-hour session of the fortnight-long UN climate change talks among 195 nations in Qatar.

The other headline results from what is called the Doha Gateway Package, are:

negotiators resolved the Second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol by adopting amendments;

concluded the long-term cooperative action (LCA) track, including rules around finance, accounting and review;

and agreed to move forward with the Durban Agreement, with a workplan for 2013. This will begin negotiating the global legally binding agreement, which is scheduled to be signed in 2015 and will come into force five years later.

The final Doha Gateway text was rushed through the last plenary by the Qatari host over objections. "Saving the process; killing the planet", as the Sierra Student Coalition's International Committee put it.

Two activists, Libyan Raied Gheblawi, 22, and Algerian Mohamed Anis Amirouche, 19, were deported from Qatar on Thursday after holding up a banner in the central meeting point reading "Qatar, why host not lead?"

Kyoto Protocol

The Doha outcome confirmed the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol starting on 1 January 2013. Its participants, however, account only for around 14% of world emissions.

It will run for eight years, up to the entry into force of a promised new global legal agreement in 2020.

The adopted target by the EU and Croatia and Iceland, of cutting emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2020, is open to being increased to 30%. The targets of all participating countries will be revisited by 2014 with a view to considering raising ambitions.

The EU and other countries taking on targets will have a limit on the number of purchases they can make of surplus emission allowances ('AAUs') left over from the first commitment period.

The EU Member States, and all other potential buyers (Australia, Japan, Liechtenstein, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland) have declared anyway that they will not purchase AAUs carried over from the first period.

EU finance

The agreement leaves the EU as the world's leading provider of official development assistance and climate finance to developing countries.

The bloc had pledged €7.2 billion in 'fast start' finance for the period 2010-12 and has assured its developing country partners that climate finance will continue after this year.

Several EU Member States and other developed countries such as the UK announced specific finance pledges for 2013, and in some cases up to 2015.

The decisions also extend a work programme on long-term finance for a year, with the aim of helping developed countries identify pathways for scaling up climate finance to $100 billion per year by 2020 from public, private and alternative sources.

Greg Barker, UK Energy and Climate Change Minister, and Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, CEO of UAE’s renewable energy company Masdar, announced they will launch a new roundtable for the world’s largest public and private sector investors in low carbon industries during Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week, in January. This aims to scale up investment to combat climate change in developing economies.

Barker said: “Alongside the formal negotiations taking place here in Doha, there’s a formidable amount of informal discussion around how to mobilise at scale the private finance needed to tackle climate change".

The winners at Doha

“Any government walking out here saying it is a success is suffering from a terrible case of cognitive dissonance,” said Kumi Naidoo, executive director, Greenpeace, articulating the feelings of most leaving the conference.

"They have to align the political reality of these conversations with what the science says. This failure is a betrayal of the people in the Philippines and all the other people who face climate impacts now."

Who was to blame for this failure? “It was only a handful of countries, such as Poland, Russia, Canada, the US and Japan, who held the negotiations to ransom,” thought Samantha Smith, leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative.

Asad Rehman, Friends of the Earth International spokesperson in Qatar, added: "most notably the US”. Sophia McNab, UK Youth Climate Coalition delegate, went even further: “This text is a win for the USA, developed countries and fossil fuel interests. It’s a betrayal of all vulnerable nations, and our future.”

“The coal industry won here, the oil industry won here,” agreed Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy, Union of Concerned Scientists. "You saw on display the power of these industries and their short term profit to influence the governments of the world."

Wael Hmaidan, director of Climate Action Network International, said: “The path forward is actually quite clear: we have the technology and know-how. But we also need people in all regions of the world to demand leadership from their governments”.

Why Doha failed, and what to do about it

The blame for the failure at Doha to deliver a significant breakthrough to save the future world from devastating consequences of climate change once again lies with the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry and the failure of politicians to act responsibly, in line with the scientific evidence.

In America in particular, but also in Britain, this industry is allowed to lobby and fund politicians and political parties, and in return they are expected to deliver political decisions in their favour. This is a far cry from responsible, participative democracy that citizens expect and need.

The website opensecrets.org documents the amount of money spent by oil and gas companies lobbying American politicians and financing their election campaigns. The top five companies spent the huge total of $42,470,000 on lobbying in 2012. They are: Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Chevron and BP.

20 oil companies donated a massive $25,429,233 in political contributions during the last American election. The majority of it went to the Republicans, but enough went to the Democrats to secure the required response, given the make-up of Congress.

The result in Doha reveals what they got in exchange for this cash. For them, it represents a bargain.

For Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy, Union of Concerned Scientists, COP18 wasn't an environmental conference. It was "a trade fair" on behalf of the oil and gas industry which was there to protect its short-term profits.

Hence, the local paper's headline at the weekend: "Qatar is victory for the climate". This is sheer Orwellian spin, as in 1984's Ministry of Peace being actually responsible for war.

Qatar was widely criticised during the talks for failing to set clear targets for reducing its own emissions. Instead it argues that its liquefied natural gas exports mean it is helping other nations move away from using more polluting coal. This is like saying heroin dealing is okay because it's not as addictive as crack cocaine.

The fact that coal-dependent Poland is to host next year's talks means the takeover of the UN negotiation process by the fossil fuel industry is complete.

So if we can expect nothing of these talks, what can we do? Environmentalists and activists must realise that instead change has to come at a local and regional level.

I am just reading an excellent book, The Leaderless Revolution, by Carne Ross, a former diplomat who was Britain's Foreign Office representative at the United Nations in the run-up to the Iraq war.

His analysis of these types of international negotiations is spot on, and it comes from real life experience.

Entrenched positions and irresponsible decisions are the direct result of decision-makers being both far removed from the impact of their actions and being completely unaccountable for their decisions.

He quotes research showing that even when people with dramatically opposed opinions in a given community come together to make a decision affecting all of them, they will reach a reasonable and appropriate solution only if they know that they have genuine responsibility for the result.

That is to say, if the consequences of their decision affects them or others close to them directly.

Time and again, Ross cites examples where his own reports to ministers resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians in countries that he had never visited, and he himself was completely unaccountable for these deaths, just as they were.

He talks of his undying shame that he took such decisions so lightly. It took him a long time to come to his senses and realise that none of his reports for Whitehall, or the policies adopted by politicians based on his and many similar reports, went anywhere near to solving the problems that they were intended to address, such as making the world a safer place.

In fact, they had the exact opposite effect.

Politicians, he says, are incapable of doing the right thing because they cannot comprehend and arbitrate the forces that we assume, and which they persuade us, they are able to deal with.

Reality is too complex, they are preoccupied with many other concerns, including whether they will win the next election, and their hands are often tied.

An argument in a community today in Britain, over whether a windfarm should be sited nearby, frequently results in acrimonious and polarised debate, because the members of the community are not themselves responsible for the windfarm, or indeed for any form of energy supply to their community.

If they had to decide how to provide all the heat and power their community needed, if they had secured the finance themselves, if they had decided or been given a set of conditions, such as that whatever generation plant they chose should be as low carbon as possible, and if they could manage the plant afterwards, and received the rewards of their investment themselves, then the likelihood is that they would reach a reasonable solution.

In the debate, they would be prepared to listen to each other's point of view and take them into account in the process.

But communities are rarely given that responsibility.

Ross says that as a result we ourselves must take such responsibility, as, for example, citizens are doing with the Isle of Wight's Ecoisland project.

We give political power away at our peril, and when we do there is no guarantee it will result in a better situation than the one we can make on our own.

This would be true Localism, but far from what David Cameron intended when he made it a plank of his election manifesto.

His form of localism was a hollow promise. No politician will ever, in reality, give power away to the people. Why on earth would they ask you to vote for them if so?

Instead, they make promises that they know we want to believe, like “Yes we can” and ‘the greenest government ever”, and we do vote for them.

We are always let down.

Ross decries internet activism also, saying that the technology it uses is too easily appropriated by commerce and politicians.

Instead, he proposes, simply, talking to others in your community, and moving on from there.

It’s where the power revolution has to start. After Doha, it’s the only place to start.

Why Doha failed, and what to do about it

The blame for the failure at Doha to deliver a significant breakthrough to save the future world from devastating consequences of climate change once again lies with the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry and the failure of politicians to act responsibly, in line with the scientific evidence.

In America in particular, but also in Britain, this industry is allowed to lobby and fund politicians and political parties, and in return they are expected to deliver political decisions in their favour. This is a far cry from responsible, participative democracy that citizens expect and need.

The website opensecrets.org documents the amount of money spent by oil and gas companies lobbying American politicians and financing their election campaigns. The top five companies spent the huge total of $42,470,000 on lobbying in 2012. They are: Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Chevron and BP.

20 oil companies donated a massive $25,429,233 in political contributions during the last American election. The majority of it went to the Republicans, but enough went to the Democrats to secure the required response, given the make-up of Congress.

The result in Doha reveals what they got in exchange for this cash. For them, it represents a bargain.

For Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy, Union of Concerned Scientists, COP18 wasn't an environmental conference. It was "a trade fair" on behalf of the oil and gas industry which was there to protect its short-term profits.

Hence, the local paper's headline at the weekend: "Qatar is victory for the climate". This is sheer Orwellian spin, as in 1984's Ministry of Peace being actually responsible for war.

Qatar was widely criticised during the talks for failing to set clear targets for reducing its own emissions. Instead it argues that its liquefied natural gas exports mean it is helping other nations move away from using more polluting coal. This is like saying heroin dealing is okay because it's not as addictive as crack cocaine.

The fact that coal-dependent Poland is to host next year's talks means the takeover of the UN negotiation process by the fossil fuel industry is complete.

So if we can expect nothing of these talks, what can we do? Environmentalists and activists must realise that instead change has to come at a local and regional level.

I am just reading an excellent book, The Leaderless Revolution, by Carne Ross, a former diplomat who was Britain's Foreign Office representative at the United Nations in the run-up to the Iraq war.

His analysis of these types of international negotiations is spot on, and it comes from real life experience.

Entrenched positions and irresponsible decisions are the direct result of decision-makers being both far removed from the impact of their actions and being completely unaccountable for their decisions.

He quotes research showing that even when people with dramatically opposed opinions in a given community come together to make a decision affecting all of them, they will reach a reasonable and appropriate solution only if they know that they have genuine responsibility for the result.

That is to say, if the consequences of their decision affects them or others close to them directly.

Time and again, Ross cites examples where his own reports to ministers resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians in countries that he had never visited, and he himself was completely unaccountable for these deaths just as they were.

He talks of his undying shame that he took such decisions so lightly. It took him a long time to come to his senses and realise that none of his reports for Whitehall, or the policies adopted by politicians based on his and many similar reports, went anywhere near to solving the problems that they were intended to address, such as making the world a safer place.

In fact, they had the exact opposite effect.

Politicians, he says, are incapable of doing the right thing because they cannot comprehend and arbitrate the forces that we assume, and which they persuade us, they are able to deal with.

Reality is too complex, they are preoccupied with many other concerns, including whether they will win the next election, and their hands are often tied.

An argument in a community today in Britain, over whether a windfarm should be sited nearby, frequently results in acrimonious and polarised debate, because the members of the community are not themselves responsible for the windfarm, or indeed for any form of energy supply to their community.

If they had to decide how to provide all the heat and power their community needed, if they had secured the finance themselves, if they had decided or been given a set of conditions, such as that whatever generation plant they chose should be as a low carbon as possible, and if they could manage the plant afterwards, and received the rewards of their investment themselves, then the likelihood is that they would reach a reasonable solution.

In the debate, they would be prepared to listen to each other's point of view and take them into account in the process.

But communities are rarely given that responsibility.

Ross says that as a result we ourselves must take such responsibility, as, for example, citizens are doing with the Isle of Wight's Ecoisland project.

We give political power away at our peril, and when we do there is no guarantee it will result in a better situation than the one we can make on our own.

This would be true Localism, but far from what David Cameron intended when he made it a plank of his election manifesto.

His form of localism was a hollow promise. No politician will ever, in reality, give power away to the people. Why on earth would they ask you to vote for them if so?

Instead, they make promises that they know we want to believe, like “Yes we can” and ‘the greenest government ever”, and we do vote for them.

We are always let down.

Ross decries internet activism also, saying that the technology it uses is too easily appropriated by commerce and politicians.

Instead, he proposes, simply, talking to others in your community, and moving on from there.

It’s where the power revolution has to start. After Doha, it’s the only place to start.

Doha: Climate negotiators fail to meet the scientific challenge

Young UNICEF UK campaigners asking Ed Davey to speak up for children before he left for the UN climate change talks in Doha. Photo: Rosie Reed Gold/UNICEF.

On the last day, talks at Doha aimed at securing a global agreement to tackle climate change are providing scant hope, although individual announcements from nations on the sidelines provide some progress.

The central issue, as always, is fairness over who pays.

US lead negotiator, Todd Stern, told the plenary assembly that he wanted to see “the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" provide the basis of agreement, but that "unless we can find common ground on that principle and the way in which it should apply in the world of the 2020s, we won’t succeed in producing a new Durban Platform agreement”.

The U.S. has a target of reducing emissions by 17% by 2020 compared to 2005 emissions (equal to just 4% below 1990 levels). Its negotiators said that this is unlikely to change. They say they cannot see a way of getting a global agreement for seven years; until 2020.

Like 85% of nations, the U.S. has spurned extending the Kyoto Protocol, leaving a group led by the European Union and Australia to take this forward. They believe Kyoto is no longer relevant because emerging nations led by China and India will have no targets to curb their soaring emissions from 2013.

Delegates have been repeatedly told how dire prospects are. "If anything, the science is telling us it's now getting warmer quicker than we had previously expected," said UK Energy Secretary Ed Davey, who is in Doha. "Our actions as a world are going slower than we had previously hoped."

"The question of climate management is extremely serious," Laurent Fabius, France's foreign minister, agreed. "It appears we have already exceeded the 2-degree limit. If that is the case, there are absolutely catastrophic consequences. We must react." Tackling climate change is "the new challenge in world diplomacy".

But so far, too few countries are making the kind of commitments to cut emissions that scientists agree would keep global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius limit that is estimated to prevent the most devastating effects of climate change.

Many attending the Doha talks are saying that 4 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2100 looks almost inevitable.

Meanwhile, countries debate who will pay to save the planet.

Qatar has offered no money. National pledges by Germany, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and the EU Commission in Doha total over 6.85 billion euros for the next two years, more than in 2011-12.

The UK will be allocating around £1.8 billion aid money to climate finance up to 2015. Ed Davey, speaking at Doha, reiterated the UK’s support for contributing to the $100 billion a year by 2020 commitment of new and additional funds.

Germany and Britain this week launched the NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigating Actions) Facility, to support countries to implement action against climate change. Ed Davey, pledging £25 million from the International Climate Fund (ICF), said it will “help support those developing countries that are taking ambitious action to close the gap to 2°C". Countries will compete for the funding to support their own projects. One in Mexico will go towards sustainable new housing by establishing the necessary framework conditions.

Hosts Qatar did say they will develop a 1,800 megawatt (MW) solar energy plant in 2014 costing up to $20 billion, mainly to power its desalination plants. The country has no naturally-occurring pure water. It will increase the proportion of its renewable electricity generation to 16% from zero. "We need to diversify our energy mix," said Fahad Bin Mohammed al-Attiya, chairman of the Qatari organizers of climate talks in Doha. Qatar supplies Britain with much of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) and is the world's top exporter. But it has not set any targets for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

A senior Saudi Arabia official said his country was taking the climate change issue "seriously. It is implementing carbon capture storage in the world's biggest oilfield, Ghawar, where injecting carbon dioxide back into the field helps to raise pressure and increase oil output, as well as trapping planet-warming gas".

Indonesia announced it has approved a U.N.-led rainforest conservation scheme under Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), that sets aside nearly 80,000 hectares (200,000 acres), much of it carbon-rich peat swamp forest at risk of being felled for palm oil plantations, and rewards its investors, Russian energy giant Gazprom and German insurance firm Allianz, with 104 million tradable carbon offset credits. Each credit represents a metric ton of carbon, worth almost 500 million euros based on current market rates. It is the first scheme of its kind to win formal backing in the country, and the world's first on protecting 'deep peat'.

Back in the U.S., the Obama administration said it is to invest $120 million in developing cheaper batteries for electric vehicles and grid storage. The five year project will establish a research hub with Dow Chemical Co, Applied Materials Inc, Johnson Controls Inc and the Clean Energy Trust.

Still in the U.S., the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reported that from January to October, 46.2% of new electricity-generating capacity installed was renewable. Wind accounted for 77% of this.

But the reality is that all of these announcements are nothing like what is required; they are like using a bucket to bale out the rising oceans.

"Some sort of agreement will be achieved – it always is," writes observer Giles Parkinson. However, he concludes, "the more that the UN talks fall short of expectations, the more that domestic politics plays into the hands of vested interests".

Next year, coal-dependent Poland will host the talks. Environmentalists expect little progress there either. They are now looking to Paris, which will host the 2015 talks, for realistic progress.

Energy Bill means a new sunrise for renewable energy

A new Energy Bill, two years in the making, will triple investment in renewable energy and mean the end for coal-powered generation.

The Bill commits the Government to supporting low carbon electricity to the tune of £7.6 billion by 2020, over three times the current level of £2.3 billion for 2012-13.

The Carbon Capture and Storage Association, the Nuclear Industry Association and RenewableUK welcomed the introduction of the Bill, saying it "would help to unlock billions in investment in low carbon generation, enable the UK to meet its energy security and climate change targets, and create thousands of jobs".

Solar Trade Association's PV specialist, Ray Noble, said the Bill means that "solar power will be massive" and called for a dedicated strategy for PV, "like gas".

Announcing the Bill in Parliament, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Davey, said: "The Bill will support the construction of a diverse mix of renewables, new nuclear, gas and CCS, protecting our economy from energy shortfalls. It will stimulate supply chains and support jobs in every part of the country, capitalising on our engineering prowess and our natural resources, cementing the UK’s place at the forefront of clean energy development."

The push for low carbon electricity will add £95 a year to the average household bill by 2020, an increase of 7%.

Much of the support will be delivered through long-term contracts for difference (CfD), designed to guarantee stable revenues for investors in low-carbon energy. They will provide cash for generators of nuclear power and renewables if the market price of electricity drops below a specified strike price. A new Government owned company will act as a single counterparty to the CfDs.

A ‘capacity market’ will encourage investors to build gas-fired power plants to provide back-up for when wind farms are not generating. The System Operator (National Grid) will decide the level of generation capacity it judges is appropriate and then contract for it through an auction four years in advance.

Carbon emissions

An Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) set at a maximum of 450g CO2/kilowatt hour (kWh) will curb the most polluting coal-powered stations; any new coal-fired power station would have to be fitted with carbon emission capturing technology. "This law will mark the end of any plans for new, highly polluting coal-fired power stations in this country," commented Greenpeace political director Joss Garman.

Gas-fired power plants would remain unabated at this level, however, prompting Green Party MP Caroline Lucas to call for amendments to the Bill to rule out a new "dash for gas".

The Bill pushes the date for setting a 2030 decarbonisation range for the power sector, to 2016, once the Climate Change Committee has provided advice on the fifth Carbon Budget, which covers the period 2028 – 2033.

This has prompted calls, led by Conservative Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Tim Yeo, for amendments to the Bill that would introduce a decarbonisation target for 2030 straight away, a move supported by Alistair Smith, Chair of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ Power Division. He said: “The lack of an emissions target for 2030 leads to longer term uncertainty on clean energy investments."

The central modeling for the Bill assumes a scenario where the carbon intensity of electricity generation is 100g/kWh by 2030. Two further scenarios modelled for comparison are either side of this figure: 200 and 50g/kWh. The latter is the level recommended by the Committee on Climate Change.

Wind farm builder Alstom UK, one of seven companies who wrote to the Government arguing that a decarbonisation target was vital to permit them to locate factories in the UK, issued a statement saying: "We will continue to invest, but the pace is likely to be slower without a decarbonisation target."

Nuclear power

Oversight of the nuclear industry will be enhanced through creating an independent statutory nuclear regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

Richard George, Greenpeace nuclear campaigner, said: “The coalition agreement pledged not to subsidise new nuclear reactors. Yet the energy bill offers massive public subsidies to anyone willing to build new nuclear reactors."

Energy efficiency

During the passage of the Bill, proposals will be added to ensure energy companies help consumers to get on the best energy tariff, and to promote energy efficiency through electricity demand reduction.

Andrew Kuyk, Director of Sustainability for The Food and Drink Federation (FDF), welcomed the certainty, but wanted to see more detail. "We look forward to engaging in further discussions on how to enable ours and other UK industries to maximise... their energy efficiency in increasingly competitive world markets.”

The emphasis on energy efficiency was also welcomed by the UK Green Building Council, and Brian Smithers, director of Rexel UK, who, however, issued cautions: "Firstly, unless monitoring energy use becomes standard, it will be impossible for homeowners and businesses to understand where the biggest wins can be made.

"Secondly, the British public is relatively unaware of energy saving technologies. An energy efficiency information "hub" will be key to educating consumers and businesses alike about the benefits of measures including LED lighting, automation and efficient heating. However, we can’t just leave this to the energy suppliers."

Further reactions

John Cridland, CBI director-general, said: “Energy-intensive manufacturing is finally getting its place in the sun today, by the exemption from necessary new energy costs. Equally important is the welcome boost the bill gives to investor certainty."

Pöyry’s Richard Slark thought less certainty was given than is present in the Renewables Obligation, which will be phased put in 2018.

The Bill was welcomed by the electricity generation industry. Angela Knight, head of Energy UK, called it: “a big and positive step forward. This means that the huge investment will now start being made in our energy infrastructure and this will create jobs and help economic recovery."

Ernst and Young’s Power & Utilities Partner, Tony Ward, cautioned: "It may not be until autumn 2013 before this Bill reaches the statute book, so maintaining confidence in its safe passage will be vital."

The view from Doha is uninspiring

What we need from our leaders is: inspiration. In Doha, it seems sadly lacking.

If you fly to Doha in Qatar on he Gulf, you pass 35,000 feet over the oilfields of Iran and Iraq.

In the oily blackness of night, hundreds of orange gas flares outshine city lights by a factor of fifty, visible from space.

Kuwait is sparkly island, as is Doha itself, yet another reminder of the power fossil fuel reserves have over the Middle East.

The tiny desert isthmus of Qatar holds not a drop of natural potable water. It makes £106 billion a year from selling oil and gas that hapnes to be under its barren sands. Its residents have the highest per capita income on earth.

They get all their electricity for free. It is used profligately. The urinals in Doha airport are constantly flushed with hot water. All of the country's water has to be desalinated using oil-fired electricity.

It is here, in the Qatar National Conference Centre, where the representatives of most countries in the world have gathered for yet another round of painfully slow, and apparently almost inconsequential, negotiations to curb global levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The grandfathers of the oil rich elite that runs this state were bedoin, wandering the desert with their tents and camels. Now they own fleets of Lexus 4x4s and Porsches.

I met a senior account manager for a Fortune 400 listed company that supplies process machinery to the oil industry in Kuwait. He held a Jordanian passport and said he believes in climate change. "But what can I do? It's not up to people like me to change the system. Our machinery will work just as well on renewable energy. But here is where the market is".

A wealthy manager of a pipeline maintenance company, in his spotless white schumagg and thoub, told me that he was aware of the talks going on in the conference centre down the road, but for him it was "just another conference". He won't be going.

Next week is one to promote trade, held by the World Chambers Federation, where 12,000 chambers will be represented. He will attend that. Good for business. The following week is a film festival, peddling dreams and escape stories.

All of this is part of the wish of Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, Qatar's ruler, to be a big player on the world stage, to convince the world that Qatar is not just about oil, but culture.

Maybe he does think, like Masdar's leaders, that the game will one day be up for oil. The country is currently spending £20 million, with Chevron and GreenGulf, on a Solar Test Facility, to investigate what technology can best convert the copious amount of solar radiation that falls on this desert land to electricity. It includes a solar desalination plant.

By hosting COP-18, the Emir is hedging his bets. COP-18 means that these annual horse-trading, long-grass-kicking stand-offs have been doing the rounds of nations for eighteen years.

Knowledge of the threat of climate change is not new.

Twenty three years ago, I was asked by Greenpeace Book's John May to write a comic book explaining global warming to young people.

Three years before that, Margaret Thatcher, in the only act for which I unreservedly admire her, alerted world leaders, especially Ronald Reagan, to it.

If only today's world leaders had Maggie's conviction.

At the heart of the story I wrote for John was a conflict between a greedy industrialist and his brother, an enlightened environmentalist. It was based on the Goldsmith brothers, James, the financier and corporate raider, and Ed, the Ecologist magazine's former publisher.

James' son, Zac, is now Conservative MP for Richmond Park, and as good an example of a Green Tory as you will find.

I suppose what I'm saying is, that at the Doha talks, being held in the context of the most dire warnings yet about global temperature rises, it is political leadership that is needed more than ever.

The talks give the impression of being complicated, and they are, but the principles are simple: the developed nations need to cough up and everyone needs to commit.

Politicians need to talk with conviction, echoing President Kennedy with "ask not what the planet can do for you but what you can do for the planet".

Or echoing Churchill, with "We will fight climate change in the factories, in the fields and in the streets. We will never surrender!"

In a word, what we need from our leaders is: inspiration.

In Doha, it seems sadly lacking.