These are clearly complex questions. Fortunately, the Zero Carbon Society, E3 Foundation and 4CMR web pages show our city is awash with able brains on this subject, of whom Jonathan Hollander and Stephen Stretton spring immediately to mind.

Tim Joslin has raised the key question I feel - it is not merely a question of biofuels or no biofuels, but the opportunity costs involved. Essentially then, the question cannot be considered in isolation, but we must deal with the environmental question per se.

Let us be clear, Labour has got the big decisions right on climate change. We’ve set tough targets nationally, and funded green technologies.

The publication of the Stern Report was a key moment. Climate Change is real and we need to address it - whether biofuels are the answer, as you rightly note, is more than open to debate. Labour’s eco-record however deserves brief repetition:

The UK is well ahead of Kyoto targets thanks to this government, but we cannot be complacent. We have insisted that all new homes will be zero-carbon from 2016. Over the next 3 years, our policies will mean that a further 5 million households will be helped with insulation, that 100 million low energy light bulbs will be given out; and other energy saving products will be provided to 4 million homes. I am encouraged that local institutions such as schools are leading the way. I recently visited Mayfield Primary, which has installed solar panels and smart electricity meters.

If elected MP, I would seek to engage with green experts at both a local and national level, and harness the talent we have available within the city before I reach any decisive decisions on this question. I recognise the problems inherent within merely exporting the west’s problems to the developing world, and tough targets must be set for advanced economies concerning biofuels. This is a question for climate scientists more than politicians, and we should be led by the experts!

Here is what Tony Juniper said:

“I certainly do not back more destruction for the production of biofuels. However, do bear in mind that in Brazil alone there is some 60 million hectares of degraded land that is not producing anything, and in many other tropical countries a similar situation prevails. Restoring the fertility of this land can lead to increased output of crops while at the same time keeping away from the forest frontier. Sugar cane in this sense could be grown without more forest clearance.

This is a very complex set of issues and I fear that there is no simple answer. Rest assured, however, that I will stand up for the protection of nature and people over short-sighted and destructive policies promoting the production of biofuels.
Best wishes, Tony Juniper”

As he says the issues are complex, the waters easily muddied, and the devil in the detail.

That is why I think it is critical to separate the greenwash provided by burning insignificant amounts of waste, from the industrial scale production of biofuel crops.

When he says that sugar cane can restore soil fertility, is he talking about organic or perhaps permaculture, or some other production system that I don’t know about, or about intensively fertilised, oil dependent production?

I would like to know more about the 60 million hectares of Brazil (and elsewhere) which are not producing anything, as I am concerned that this may include forest which is a carbon sink, and land inhabitated by indigenous peoples who are under severe threat.

I do not feel assured that he will not support the use of biofuel in industrial power generation, since my follow up questions have not been answered.

In light of the accumulating evidence of the detrimental impacts and unsustainability of biofuels, perhaps parliamentary candidates could be asked whether they would vote for the immediate suspension of the RTFO, since, as detailed in the post (point 9), there seems to be no legal obstacle to the UK taking this action.

“There are two very different agendas here: “extraction” implies a global tax, which makes some sense, “importation” implies a national [tax]”
Agreed.

“[which would be] unilateral [], as advocated by Adrian in a previous post.”
Not necessarily. It could be a coordinated tax between nations. There are reasons to suppose that a coordinated tax might induce more cooperation than emissions trading, because the value of permits themselves would not be an issue.

“The risk with the latter is that fossil fuel consumption will simply be displaced. ”

To paraphrase, fossil fuels could be displaced in three ways:
a) carbon-taxed consumers buy products created by industry in non-carbon taxed countries
[this can be offset with border tax adjustments for embodied energy - if they can be made to work]
b) the products don’t move, but the lowering of world price of fossil fuels stimulates more demand in developing countries.
[we can’t do much about this, except encourage developing countries to join in until we have a global cap, or, equivalently encourage coal exporters to restrict the amount they supply (CoPEC). Why not do both?]
c) in time: what we don’t burn now, we might burn later
[We don’t know whether or not we will burn all the fossil fuels — but it’s still better to prevent burning stuff now. Maybe we will find sources of energy that are so cheap that we won’t need to burn fossil fuels]

“Further, the Man in the Wardrobe Fallacy will undermine the effectiveness of the tax in reducing carbon emissions. Wealth transferred from high carbon emitters to low carbon emitters within the economy will cause a rebound effect in our overall national carbon emissions - we could simply end up emitting as much (or even more) carbon, more efficiently.”

To paraphrase “Man in a wardrobe” fallacy is saying >
In the short run, there is a rebound effect, but I would argue that effect is less than 100%; in the long run, it depends whether or not we burn all the fossil fuels.

“Even if a unilateral carbon tax had some effect, the risk is that governments will not see the value of efficiency savings in the tax system before they see the impact of the policy on economic growth,”
>

“and will rapidly abandon the tax or not create a high enough carbon cost to make a difference.”

“And don’t underestimate vested interests - remember the fuel tax protests?”

Agreed; but the endowment effect can be separated from the incentive effect. I don’t think supply constrictions are enough - they will lead to new sources of oil being found that are even more damaging. We need demand constriction too; albeit in a way that encourages alternatives first.

See:
Climate Policy Given Political Constraints

or

Carbon Pricing

In conclusion, I think these rebound issues are serious issues. I will note that these criticisms apply equally to cap-and-trade schemes and taxes, for a given level of policy stringency, although Cap and trade schemes have FURTHER leakages too, associated with offsets.

We should note that we are not solving the problem even if we were to eliminating emissions overnight from the rich countries. However, *even if* the only effect (say) of climate policy was to reduce domestic emissions would be to reduce the world price of fossil fuels, it would still be a good start, because we would be developing alternative sources of energy.

I’m not sure of the magnitude of the short term rebound effects (I would estimate that they are quite small). Carbonomics http://stoft.com/p/carbonomics.html discusses the relative elasticities in question. Long term effects depend as to whether we burn all the fossil fuels or not, and that depends.

regards
S.

“It… would be charged at extraction or importation of the fossil fuel.”

This is the critical point. There are two very different agendas here: “extraction” implies a global tax, which makes some sense, “importation” implies a national, unilateral tax, as advocated by Adrian in a previous post. The risk with the latter is that fossil fuel consumption will simply be displaced.

Further, the Man in the Wardrobe Fallacy will undermine the effectiveness of the tax in reducing carbon emissions. Wealth transferred from high carbon emitters to low carbon emitters within the economy will cause a rebound effect in our overall national carbon emissions - we could simply end up emitting as much (or even more) carbon, more efficiently.

Even if a unilateral carbon tax had some effect, the risk is that governments will not see the value of efficiency savings in the tax system before they see the impact of the policy on economic growth, and will rapidly abandon the tax or not create a high enough carbon cost to make a difference. And don’t underestimate vested interests - remember the fuel tax protests?

1. PROBLEM: Where in Cambridge can I pursue the tackling of climate change? ACTION act as a hub. STATUS: Open: Proposals being developed (SJS).

2. PROBLEM How do you attract people to the society? Society’s Fair - Sitting with Cambridge University Energy Network - CUEN. ACTION: PC to arrange societies fair. STATUS: Open

3. PROBLEM: Need more social interaction. Regular pub meet at Anchor pub. ACTION: Society to consult other societies about such an event. STATUS: Open

4. PROBLEM: Difficulty finding functional website: more than one around. ACTION: (JH/SJS?) ensure everything points to the same site http://www.zerocarbonnow.org. STATUS: MOSTLY DONE: (everything points to http://ww.zerocarbonnow.org ; http://www.zcarb.net now a development site only ; CambridgeClimate new function to be determined). STATUS: Closed except for CC website.

5. PROBLEM: Link to mailing list is hard to find: ACTION: make it bolder; put it on the front page. STATUS: Complete. Closed

6. PROBLEM: Lack of information about climate change at the same time as overload. ACTION: Society/TT to provide series of briefing sheets going forward. STATUS: Action for the foundation.

7. PROBLEM: Need Names and Faces to Website ACTION: (DK?) to collate this and add to Zero Carbon website. STATUS: Open

8. PROBLEM: Two domain names: ACTION (society) with unified under 1 banner STATUS: See point 1.

“…you are what you do, not what you say.”

In the ZeroCarbonBritain scenario we looked at having an Island Britain. Would it be possible to meet our energy (inc. food) need within the resources of Island Britain. This was seen as an important by those we consulted. However, it is by no means an ideal.

We would be very interested in an European grid and the opportunities that would offer, making it significantly easier for the EU as a whole to meet their energy needs. Integration with Europe will be a key part of our research going forward.

On Nuclear, this is discussed in our report however the conclusion was not to use it.

In regard to our use of TEQ over tax we feel this be significantly more equitable and create a common purpose with government, business and individuals working together. It would also offer a cap which taxation does not.

The revenue generated from the TEQ system could be used to displace other taxation. Changing government revenue generation from employment for example to carbon (and equivalents) would be an economical effective move as you highlight.

All the best,
Martin

Growing algae in the desert to produce fuel is not being done commercially yet. The possibility of future biofuels with less environmental impact doesn’t justify promoting destructive biofuel crops now.

In the paper I note that, if you’re going to do large-scale engineering in the desert, growing algae is always going to be much less efficient than using solar power technologies to produce electricity. I don’t see the point, unless we have too little imagination to see that we don’t necessarily have to run transport on carbon-based fuels.