environmentalresearchweb blog

« Resilience of East European Cities | Main | GRACE and the dance of the kilograms »

Green bonfires

Bonfire Night (5 November) came early this year with the government’s ‘Bonfire of the Quangos’ in late October. It is to abolish or downgrade many quangos (quasi-autonomous non-departmental public bodies), notably the Sustainable Development Commission, and the long-established Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, along (less worryingly) with the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The full list, of 200 or so, also includes British Nuclear Fuels Ltd, NESTA, the Design Council and, crucially, the Renewables Advisory Board, the Renewable Fuels Agency and even the Regional Development Agencies – who have been strong in backing renewables locally. Still evidently under review (although not necessarily for abolition, just reorganization) are the Environment Agency, the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority.

Some of this was just sabre (or rather axe) rattling, and some of the agenciesa or organisations were pretty defunct shells (e.g. most of the UKAEAs work has been privatized, as has BNFLs). But some, like the SDC, the RCEP, the RAB, and the (so far untouched) EST and Carbon Trust, might be seen as crucial to the proper development of a sustainable future – although some rationalisation could be merited. The Regional Development Agencies will be sorely missed, but some of their work will be taken over by central government. And over the last few years the government has set up some new agencies and functions, which may in effect replace some of those now lost – notably the Climate Change Committee. Soon we may get more details of the proposed Green Investment Bank, which some see as eclipsing some of the Carbon Trust’s functions. So far, all we’ve been told though is that the Department of Business Innovation and Skills will ‘lead the creation of a UK-wide Green Investment Bank that will be capitalized initially with a £1bn spending allocation with additional significant proceeds from the sale of government-owned assets, to catalyse additional investment in green infrastructure’. That’s less that the £3–4bn thought to be needed, and the £2bn initially proposed, but it’s a start.

There has been some discussion about the future role of the Environment Agency. It’s hard to imagine how it could be abolished. But actually these days, much of the running is being made by the Crown Estate, given that many new renewable-energy projects are offshore. And there are some interesting new issues emerging. For example, WWF recently highlighted an obscure legality in Crown Estate leases that continues to prioritize oil and gas exploration off the UK’s coast to the detriment of renewables. Basically it seems, Crown Estates can terminate existing rights granted to offshore wind-farm operators whenever the government declares a license for oil and gas exploration in the same area. Not only can wind farm operators lose their lease, but they face premature decommissioning costs when their lease is revoked and are not entitled to any compensation to recover any expected financial returns.

WWF claims that such uncertainty over the financial viability of these leases could potentially detract investors, with knock-on effects for the renewables industry and the future growth of the green economy. This, it says, comes in a context that is already very favourable to the oil and gas industry.

WWF says that where there is a conflict between offshore renewables and oil and gas exploration, priority should clearly be given to renewable energy projects, in light of the UK’s climate-change commitments and the sector’s potential to create a substantial number of new jobs in the UK. But the lure of oil and gas revenues and taxes may dominate. We need agencies that resist this sort of thing and push effectively for more progressive approaches. Sadly we may have lost some of them.

Much of the skill and expertise base created by the offshore oil and gas industry is of course very relevant to the newly emerging offshore wind industry, as is some of the supply chain and servicing infrastructure. So there ought to be positive opportunities for collaboration. But there are clearly also conflicts. As a further example, looking to the future, Trade body Oil and Gas UK recently said that a number of planned wind farms around the UK potentially impinge on the operations of offshore oil rigs, and there needed to be clearer legislation to avoid legal ambiguities over rights. In its submission to a government consultation on the National Policy Statement on energy policy, Oil and Gas UK said that the policy statements did not take account of the way offshore wind farms could impede mobile drilling rigs, disrupt helicopter flights and get in the way of pipelines and underwater equipment. And it added: ‘It would be most unfortunate if individual licensees were forced to resort to legal processes in order to defend the rights granted under their existing petroleum licences.’ Although, according to Windpower Monthly, Oil and Gas UK has denied reports that it was actually planning legal action against wind developers, the potential for conflict is clearly there.

We have got used to stand-offs between oil and gas exploration companies and Greenpeace, especially these days in deepwater sites. Are we to expect a new version, with wind developers defending their patch – as they too move out to deepwater locations? Maybe at some point, in the absence of an appropriate Quango, the Navy will have to intervene!

No Bonfire of the Heretics

On 4 November a Channel 4 TV documentary assembled some environmental heretics in an attempt to demonstrate splits in the green movement over nuclear power and GM, but their views were met with polite, if somewhat bemused, reactions from representatives of green organizations in a subsequent studio discussion session. Stewart Brand’s minority views on nuclear have any case been pretty much demolished in a un-hectoring analysis by Amory Lovins at www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths.pdf, while a conflict over their evidently very different views on climate change was avoided by not having Mark Lynas and Patrick Moore in the studio together.

Posted by Dave Elliott on November 6, 2010 12:29 PM | Permalink