Author: Nigel A-F

Number 10. Prime Minister’s Office. 17^th February 2019.

Prime Minister at her desk, prepping for PMQs. Enter Private Secretary.

PS. Prime Minister, the children are going on strike.

PM. Which ones? Labour or our lot?

PS. No, no Prime Minister, the school children. They’re going on strike.

PM. Oh for goodness sake! Isn’t there already enough to be worrying about? What are they going on strike for?

PS. They’re having a day of strike action in protest at the lack of action on climate change.

PM. Are they allowed to do that?

PS. Well, strictly speaking no Prime Minister. But it’s difficult. If we ignore it then we’ll be seen as out of touch. If we register it and condemn it then we’ll be seen as reactionary and out of touch. And if we condone it then we’ll be seen as out of touch and over-reacting by the teaching establishment, who’ll accuse us of not appreciating the pressures they are already under and demand a review of the curriculum and resourcing.

PM. What do you suggest?

PS. I think it’s a one-liner from you to point out that the best way to prepare for the future is to study hard, and then send in Perry with a statement about how the UK is leading the world on intent and action.

PM. How can we be leading a lack of action? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

PS. Well strictly speaking it is Prime Minister. But to be fair, there is mileage in being seen to be doing not enough less slowly than everyone else. At the same time we could leak the latest overspend on the carrier budget to the Mail as a diversion and…

PM. Is there an overspend on the carrier budget?

PS. Well strictly speaking no Prime Minister. The ships are on budget, after strippages and adjustment by the Treasury. But there is a lack of provision for any aircraft.

PM. Banging head on desk. Oh goodness, goodness me!

PS. Well it’s not that serious Prime Minister. We can get some on eBay I’m sure.

PM. I’ve got an idea.

PS. Yes, Prime Minister?

PM. Isn’t it the case that sea levels are going to rise as a result of climate change?

PS. Massively, Prime Minister. Whole communities could be wiped out. South Thanet is looking particularly vulnerable.

PM. That’s a safe Tory seat.

PS. Indeed Prime Minister.

PM. This is more serious than I thought. How about this? Transfer the budget for the carriers from the MOD to BEIS and re-role them as climate change relief ships. That way they could operate usefully all around the world and won’t need any fast jets. And it would teach young Williamson a lesson for being so lippy with the Chinese.

PS. Yes Prime Minister. Inspired.

An initiative to achieve low-carbon energy installations for schools and other estates on oil, at the least possible risk and without the requirement for capital investment.

ReEnergise is currently contacting schools and rural estates that use oil for heating, to gauge interest in a new financing scheme that we hope will provide the catalyst for converting before the Renewable Heat Incentive closes for new installations on 1^st April 2021. For now, we’ve called it the Schools Low-Carbon Programme because it’s been developed in response to feedback from bursars and school governing bodies about existing options. However, it would work equally well for any rural estates seeking to transition without needing to find the capital.

Since first publicising it in mid-December last year 6 schools and one rural estate have already indicated an interest.

The nub of the issue is that there is a clear conflict between the national need to transition to low-carbon energy systems over the next few years and the challenges and risks that schools face in seeking to transition: in particular, a lack of capital for this type of project and no desire to be tied into a long-term lease.

We want to encourage as many schools as possible to consider this concept seriously in the coming year. For clients it would provide:

• The same or better levels of heat.
• Reduced annual operating costs.
• Budget security.
• A lot less hassle with the heating.
• Excellent sustainability credentials.
• Confidence of value for money.
• No need to find the capital or be tied to any long-term fixed lease repayments.

We will run each project on an open-book basis, at a level of profit agreed in advance.

If any reader is interested and has not already received a direct communication about this, please let us know and we’ll provide more detail.

We do believe this will prove a game-changer.

 

Mayor Trump has called a meeting in the market place. He is looking quite angry today.

‘Ahem. Some people here, bad people, have caused a trail of chaos and destruction in the town. It’s bad. Very bad. My new conservatory has been totally totalled. Gone. Not a conservatory anymore.’

Yes,’ said Mr Troop, the Town Clerk, who had been reinstated again and was learning to be a bit more mindful of who paid his wages. ‘The total bill for damages amounts to over £45, which is very serious.’

‘Serious,’ said Mayor Trump.

‘It was the b****y hurricane,’ said Chippy Minton, the carpenter and a known activist (trouble maker). ‘You’re smoking the wrong dope!’

‘My shop was flattened’ said Mr Clamp the greengrocer. ‘Fruit and veg everywhere, all mashed up.’

‘You could sell veggy smoothies now,’ said Mrs Minton.

‘Not funny,’ said Clamp.

‘I read a report by the UK Committee on Climate Change’ said Mrs Cobbitt the flower seller. ‘It said that we are already experiencing the symptoms of global warming and that it’s no coincidence that there are more hurricanes and fires and things now.’

‘Totally fake news,’ said Mayor Trump. ‘There have always been hurricanes and fires and bad stuff. Anyway, it snowed last week so how can there be global warming?’

‘Because,’ said Mrs Cobbitt, ‘warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. More snowing is just a symptom of that.’

‘I don’t believe it,’ said Mayor Trump, getting more orange, as he did whenever he was challenged and couldn’t get his way by bullying people. ‘Global warming is just a Chinese plot.’

‘Well global scientific opinion seems pretty unanimous about it now,’ said Mr Wilkins the plumber. He always kept himself to himself, so it was a surprise to hear him pipe up now.

‘I’ve been reading up on it,’ he said, as the others looked round at him with raised eyebrows. ‘We badly need to reduce our carbon emissions and clean up our act, or we’ll be in the doo-doo. I’ve started installing a heat pump in my house. It’ll work a treat, and the subsidies are fantastic. I’m actually going to save a lot of money compared to my oil-fired system.’

Miss Lovelace the Milliner started to see Mr Wilkins in quite a new light and moved over to stand next to him.

‘It’s a trap,’ said Mayor Trump.

‘No. I’ve had an independent assessment and it all stacks up,’ said Mr Wilkins. ‘Heat pumps are great. They’re clean; and the rate of subsidy is the best. It’s really going to help my bottom line.’ And he winked at Miss Lovelace.

‘Actually, we could set up a shared ground loop around the town and get lots of properties on it,’ said Mrs Cobbitt, who seemed to have become the local expert on these things. ‘The government is really keen on that now. It’s a good way for everybody to benefit.’

Mayor Trump was about to say something really quite rude, but luckily – as it was before 9pm – at that very moment the fire brigade arrived to rescue the town cat who had got washed up onto one of the roofs during the flood that came with the hurricane.

And the rest is history…

 

What we really need is Die Hard 2030 starring Bruce Willis in his most knife-edge car chase yet.

Two weeks ago I suggested that the IPCC report is partly to blame for the ambivalent reaction it has so far received in policy making quarters and the general disinterest in the popular press.

Outrageous suggestion? Read on.

I have no qualification to judge the scientific or economic merit of the IPCC report, nor would I dare. But it is not easy reading. The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) – all 34 pages of it – is meticulously balanced and scientific in style. What’s wrong with that – it has to be doesn’t it? Yes, but this is intended to be a document which makes the observations more accessible for policy makers, and I don’t think it does that. Its very balance and absence of any theatrics does not bring to life the consequences of inaction in a way that will make populations and policy makers sit up and take note in the way that we need.

I’d suggest that what we need is text that paints a picture and offers some tangible and localised examples. E.g. ‘If we don’t get to net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 then Hurricane Michaels will hit the Eastern Seaboard of the USA at a rate of one a week during the hurricane season’… ‘Venice will be uninhabitable by 2035’… ’Majorca will be finished as a tourist destination by 2040.’  (I’m not saying that precisely these things will happen – it’s the nature of the language I’m trying to get across).

Instead what we get is language like this:

Limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes (high confidence).

Did your eyes glaze over? Could it be more generalised and obtuse? Here’s another example:

A reduction of 0.1 m in global sea level rise implies that up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on population in the year 2010 and assuming no adaptation (medium confidence).

See what I mean? The first extract is dryer than an extra dry Ryvita biscuit, and completely open to interpretation by those with vested interests. The second is precise and sounds serious enough. But again, it’s too easily ignored by policy makers. Which 10 million people are going to be saved? Which coastlines are going to escape devastation? Because if it’s not going to be in my backyard I don’t need to worry, do I?

The point is that this is disaster movie material starting to come true, before our very eyes, but it’s being portrayed with all the (absence of) drama of a parliamentary select committee session. (Sorry Ministers).

I suggest what we need from the IPCC now is a Summary of the Summary, with some graphic, localised examples that will make voters pay attention. Because if the voters ain’t moved, the leaders won’t act.

We need to get the Daily Mail fired up and Bruce Willis back behind the wheel for one more movie…Yippee-i-a Mr Trump.

 

By now everybody must know that the IPCC published a report on Climate Change last week. The gist is that we really do need to keep the rise in average global temperatures down to only 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid a lot of trouble; and to do that we need to reduce and limit carbon emissions, which will require ‘rapid and far-reaching transitions’ across the global economy of an unprecedented scale: in short, a sea-change in how we acquire and run global energy for human use. The report notes that we are already at 1.5 degrees in parts of the globe and already experiencing some of the effects.

I took time out to read the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), all 34 pages of it. It’s not easy reading. If you want a helpful summary of The Summary by one Jeremy Leggett, go to this link https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/10/10/this-weeks-un-warning-of-climate-chaos-is-the-total-world-rewrite-they-say-we-need-doable/

Reactions have been interesting, to say the least, and in a sense those reactions tell us more about the challenge we face than the report itself.

Consider – this is a credible report by an international collection of experts. The future is grave indeed. I’d use the analogy that we are on the Titanic, we are going to hit the iceberg, the ship is going to sink, there are not enough lifeboats, and now the task is to work out how best to use the available lifeboats to save as many lives as we can. Or maybe cut up other parts of the ship as well to make more rafts.

Doesn’t look good. In response the responsible organisations already deeply concerned with the impact of man-made climate change have used it to reinforce their point. Perfectly reasonable reaction.

Many of them have also noted that the report shows that the drastic transformation required can be achieved in time to avert trouble. I don’t think so. Not because it’s not technically feasible; but because – to continue the analogy – the Titanic is commanded by 193 captains, with different languages, interests, codes of practice, etc, and a host of fare-paying passengers intent on carrying on having a party. Here are some examples and I’m sure you can see the inferences:

• Most UK newspapers thought the Strictly Snog saga was more important.
• The BBC covered it well enough the day it came out, but then in the coverage of Hurricane Michael and the Mallorca Storm on subsequent days failed to make any connection. Don’t we think these events might just be clues?
• EU ministers met this week to agree vehicle emission reductions, but many of them hedged their bets and refused to endorse the levels proposed.
• The boss of Shell, Mr van Beurden, agreed that it’s very serious; but instead of using it as a moment to announce how Shell are going to take a lead in developing low-carbon/low emissions alternatives he said that we’d need to plant forests equivalent to the size of Brazil, so that the CO2 from continuing use of high-carbon fossil fuels (oil and gas) can be absorbed.
• Mr Trump is just, well… Mr Trump.

It’s not hard to see why this would happen, given that there is no precedent for all the nations of the world to work together to a common goal in times of adversity, except when half of them were working together to beat the other half.

Paradoxically, I believe the report is partly to blame, but I’ll offer a justification for that statement in another piece shortly.

 

Remember that song by the Walker Brothers? Of course, it ain’t true – it’s gonna go on shining and shining and shining. What they should have written was that the Government subsidies for solar PV aren’t going to go on forever, but they couldn’t get the words to fit the melody so they compromised.

In fact the Government subsidy regime is closing for new installations on 1st April next year. I am talking about new here. So, that means that any estate that gets its solar PV registered with Ofgem before 1st April next year gets locked into receipt of the 20-year index-linked subsidy for every kWh generated or exported to the grid; whereas any estate that gets it done after 1st April next year gets no subsidy at all. It does make a difference to the net benefit.

A lot of schools and rural estates, with a bit of prompting from us, have recognised the significance of this and we are now working with them to get their solar installations done before the deadline. Over the Summer holidays we’re organising the installations at Repton College, Pocklington School, Solihull School and Barlavington Estate, and several others are in the pipeline for later in the year.

There’s quite of lot of detail to be worked through: assessing the estate for the best sites, scoping the right array for each site, securing local grid operator permission to install, tendering for installers, commissioning, registering the installations with Ofgem. However, recognising that most of our clients have neither the time nor the in-house knowledge, we arrange all of that.

If you’re interested, it’s not too late to make the most of free sunshine.

♫♬Don’t Let the Sun Go Down On Me ♫♫

Recently declared Government policy is that oil is to be removed from the fuel mix for rural estates by 2030.

Seems a long time away, but we already know that the deadline for new systems to qualify for the current 20-year heat subsidy regime is 1 April 2021. The implication is clear enough: schools and other estates need to be getting any oil systems converted to low-carbon alternatives before April 2021, or take the financial risk of doing it after the subsidy regime has closed.

Schools, at least, need to start considering their options during 2018 or at the very latest during 2019, because switching from oil cannot be done in a hurry without incurring undue risk. The right technology needs to be identified, which means getting hold of some trustworthy impartial advice. The finance needs to be put in place, either from within or through a 3rd party, as subsidies only start once an installation has been commissioned and registered with Ofgem. And, for schools, the programme needs to be approved by the Governing Body, which in our experience is likely to take some months. After all, it’s a significant investment. The installation project is likely to take from 4 to 8 months, so all told the lead time is 1 to 2 years.

Working back from the April 2021 deadline, it rather suggests planning should start during 2018 or at the very latest during 2019.

It’s not all doom and gloom. The subsidies are helpful. All depending on the detail at the site, the value of the subsidy over its 20-year life could be as high as £1M or more. Likewise, the net financial benefit in switching to a low-carbon alternative could be well over £1M.

Here’s a chart we’ve shown before. It’s a relatively small ground source heat pump system, but do please take a look at the average return on investment and eventual net benefit figures in the Performance overview box.

Ground Source Heat Pump returns chart: Fandangle Hall School. (Results based on a real school estate. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a real school called Fandangle Hall).