Instead of an exit strategy, the government have been laying the groundwork for a continuation of coal.
Instead of an exit strategy, the government have been laying the groundwork for a continuation of coal
This week has seen the UK government attempt to take a leadership role in climate action with a joint UK-China statement on the ‘clear imperative’ to tackle ‘one of the greatest global challenges we face’. Government representatives have also been pushing for international action at the Bonn Climate Change Conference.
The government are keen to promote their progress on the world stage and there are reasons why this is justified. The introduction of a Climate Change Act in 2008 was a world first; Ed Davey’s leadership of the Green Growth Group over the last few years has been effective at promoting the low-carbon economy within the EU; and this week’s joint statement with China was a genuinely useful step towards negotiating an international agreement on climate change.
However, the UK government is at risk of losing face because, whilst we have made some good progress on climate policy, we still have no clear exit strategy from coal, the most carbon intensive means of generating power.
Instead of an exit strategy, the government have actually been laying the groundwork for a continuation of coal.
In the same week they have been trumpeting their climate credentials they have sent representatives to a meeting in Seville to try to water down regulations for coal-fired power stations.
The Seville meeting was part of a process for setting the air pollution standards that ‘large combustion plants’ must meet from 2019 onwards, known as BREF. Unfortunately, this process is impossibly complicated and so government have had to rely on the expertise of big energy companies – the same companies that will be affected by the regulations. A number of the UK’s ‘officials’ in this process are indeed energy company employees.
The government are also just finalising the details of a ‘capacity market’ which will give handouts to coal generators to make sure they stay online AND they have just commissioned some consultants to report on the costs involved for old power stations to extend their lives.
These are not signs of a government trying its hardest to reduce coal use, cut emissions, and address climate change. Greenpeace analysis has found that 10GW of coal, half the current capacity, could stay online through the 2020’s, largely thanks to government support.
Obviously reducing carbon emissions is not the only objective of a power system, it must also provide secure and affordable supply. This is why the government are looking to keep coal online – they believe it is secure and affordable.
But a power station is only as secure as its fuel supply. With the majority of our coal (45 per cent) coming from Russia it doesn’t look like the most secure option. In fact far more of our coal comes from Russia than our gas
And in terms of affordability – it is true that coal generation is cheap at the moment but due to the eccentricities of our power market, coal generators will be paid a price for their power that is set by the price of gas. So coal is profitable, not affordable. Consumers see little saving on their bills because coal is kept online
It is also important to note that the longer coal stations are kept online, the less attractive it is to build any new capacity. This means that more consumer money will be required to incentivise investment in the new generation the country needs
Security and affordability aside, it is indisputable that coal is the most damaging fuel source for the climate. The government’s official advisers have recommended that the power sector must reduce its carbon intensity from the current 500g per kilowatt hour of electricity to 50g by 2030 if we are to meet our legal climate targets. Coal has a carbon intensity of 1000g so it is difficult to see how it can remain online if the government is serious about meeting it’s targets.
More than any other energy source, coal is viewed internationally as a yardstick of climate action. No country can credibly claim to be addressing carbon emissions whilst unabated coal remains part of the energy mix. Last year 36 per cent of UK electricity came from coal, more than from any other fuel source.
Both the US and China have recently announced plans to limit coal use. The UK is in danger of being left behind and of looking foolish on the world stage for promoting climate leadership without addressing the coal problem on its own doorstep.
Dr Jimmy Aldridge is a campaign researcher and analyst for Greenpeace and a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
14 Responses to “The UK risks looking foolish if it doesn’t address its coal problem”
SadButMadLad
“Dr Jimmy Aldridge is a campaign researcher and analyst for Greenpeace and a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward” and a useful idiot for Russia.
Greenpeace are so worried about the UK’s affect on global climate yet they do nothing to stop China’s affect on the climate. The UK’s affect is less than 1%, yet the vast majority of anthropogenic climate change is by China and Russia. Greenpeace go out of their way to make the UK the nasty one when they do nothing at all at stopping China from filling the atmosphere with CO2. If Greenpeace was really bothered about the climate and the environment they would be in China committing terrorist, sorry protection, acts to stop China’s development of coal power stations. You’d think that Greenpeace are China’s puppets, not Russia’s.
That Greenpeace are bothered about the UK’s 1% but not China is like the way they are bothered about fracking which creates fractures in the rock nanometers in size tens of thousands of meters underground yet they do nothing to stop the bigger holes in the ground via which CO2 polluting fuel is extracted. Coal to you and me. Why aren’t Greenpeace actively picketing and closing down coal mines NOW?
Henry Tinsley
This is tripe. Greenpeace is an international organization, not one solely involved in the UK. Have you not noticed that they campaign on international issues, and that several of their activists were recently locked up by the Russians?
SadButMadLad
They might be international, but they only work for the rich in the west. They do their best to stop developing countries develop. Look at how GP stopped a hydro scheme in Chile and hinder India as it increases it’s energy output to make its economy grow. GP are pro the 1%. GP are not for the environment.
As for being locked up by the Russians, the Ruskies do everything to further the selling of their gas. GP haven’t stopped the Russians drilling for gas, its just a publicity exercise to get my donations. GP have stopped fracking in the UK though and that benefits the Russians. Both ways the Russians win, plausible deniability over the Arctic Sunrise case and a market for their gas in Europe because no UK gas.
Henry Tinsley
Greenpeace are for the 1% and not for the environment? They can reasonably be criticised for many things, but this is just a silly and paranoid view.
ShaleGasExpert
So what’s the solution? Could it include gas? Gas has no issues with competing fuels (including efficiency) but Greenpeace policy is actively hostile to locally produced natural gas.
Nice to commend the advances in reducing coal by the US and China, but Greenpeace seems to have instant amnesia by ignoring the substantial (but not total of course) role of natural gas.