Home » Posts tagged 'Britain' (Page 10)
Tag Archives: Britain
UK Leads G7 in the Combined Metric of Economic Growth + Carbon Cuts
A new Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit report confirms that Britain has been the most successful G7 nation over the last 25 years on the combined metric of growing its economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In the 25-years since 1992 when clean air and the corresponding lowering of healthcare spending became an important policy for the United Kingdom, the country grew its per capita GDP by 130% while lowering GHG emissions 33% — proving that a country can simultaneously grow their economy AND lower greenhouse gas emissions.
In the same timeframe, Japan grew its per-capita GDP by 83% while increasing its per-capita emissions by 10.5% — making it the worst performer of all the G7 nations. (Not to pick on Japan which has the most difficult population pyramid demographic problem of any nation on the planet)
“It’s really time to slay once and for all the old canard that cutting carbon emissions means economic harm.
As this report shows, if you have consistent policymaking and cross-party consensus, it’s perfectly possible to get richer and cleaner at the same time. Britain isn’t the only country that’s done it – it’s true for most of the G7 – but we’ve clearly been the best of the bunch.
There are signs that these successes are now transferring to the rest of the world. Globally, emissions have been flat for three years while world GDP has grown by 8%. But science indicates this isn’t enough to fulfil the objective of the UN Convention and prevent ‘dangerous’ climate change – for that, emissions need to start falling soon. This study should give confidence that with good policies, it’s achievable.” — Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit
And in the United Kingdom, Scotland has led the way on the switch from coal to renewable energy and it rightly deserves much of the praise handed to the UK over the ongoing clean air success story, while England and Wales deserve much of the credit for growing the UK economy. As usual, Northern Ireland is ‘holding its own’ and although it is presently caught in the middle of an election cycle it seems that it might ramp-up to follow Scotland’s environmental success, post-election.
Scotland sets 50% renewable energy target (BBC)
Pre-Brexit, UK Leads G7 In ‘Conscious Decoupling’ Of Economic Growth & Carbon Cuts (CleanTechnica)
The Road to Decoupling: 21 Countries Are Reducing Carbon Emissions While Growing GDP (World Resources Institute)
By far, the biggest reason UK emissions have dropped in every decade since WWII is a HUGE shift away from coal. At one time almost 100% of Britain’s electricity was sourced by brown or black coal. Some of which was replaced by hydro-power, and later, by nuclear. Eventually, even more coal-fired capacity was replaced by natural gas, and most recently, by renewables.
The inexorable march away from coal-fired generation in the UK has resulted in cleaner air. It is by far the biggest factor in Britain’s ongoing clean air success story.
Still, it’s not enough progress. Scotland has set the standard that the rest of the UK should follow — which will take strong leadership in the House of Commons.
The Way Forward for Clean Air, Lower Healthcare Spending, and a Thriving Economy for Britain
There are many ways to accomplish those goals and everything has its own particular cost. But two pathways jump out as the most beneficial per pound sterling.
ONE: Continue to replace coal-fired power generation with any other power generator. Yes, everything else burns cleaner than coal! Burning home heating fuel is cleaner than coal. Natural gas-fired power generation can be up to 1-million times cleaner than burning some grades of brown coal. Even upgrading coal-fired power generation from brown coal ‘lignite’ fuel to black coal ‘anthracite’ fuel results in astonishing improvements in air quality.
Fortunately, this is the (unevenly applied) default in the United Kingdom, which, when combined with the solid and thoughtful policies of Scotland and Wales, results in cleaner air, lower healthcare costs, and boosts economic growth via lower energy prices.
Record UK wind generation lowers electricity prices (Power Engineering)
TWO: In addition to everything mentioned above, the other low-hanging fruit leading towards cleaner air, to lower healthcare spending, and to boost economic output (by lowering energy costs) is via energy-efficiency.
Prime Minister Theresa May should recognize that no matter how cleanly we can generate one GigaWatt of electricity — energy-efficiency savings (demand reduction) that are equal to one GigaWatt are many times cleaner — and energy-efficiency improvements are typically simple and cost-effective.
Imagine a UK government policy that lowers primary energy consumption (demand) by 30% across-the-board over the next 5-years.
That’s possible with the right policy, and infinitely cheaper than adding the exact same amount of energy production capacity to the grid.
Cheaper, by orders of magnitude. In fact, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant construction could be cancelled AND other proposed power plant projects could be shelved for at least a decade with that much efficiency added to the grid.
Simple programmes get the best results
If the UK government added an energy-efficiency programme shared between three government entities, costs and (importantly) accolades would be shared.
The Department of Energy & Climate Change, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Department for Communities and Local Government, would gain support from voters and expats by supporting a national energy-efficiency programme consisting of a £100 per capita credit on energy-saving electronics and materials.
For a business that employs 5 people, that’s a one-time credit of (up to) £500 towards energy-efficiency at that business, which will buy A TON of efficiency and thereby lower energy consumption/energy bills for that company.
All else being equal; Are those business owners more likely to vote Conservative in the next election? I would have to say, Yes.
Obviously, those 5 employees also live near their workplace and use electricity at home. Therefore, they too should receive a one-time (up to) £100 per capita credit at the hardware store for the purchase of LED or other energy-saving lights, smart thermostats, weather-stripping, insulation, receptacle gaskets and other energy-saving electronics or materials.
Each of those 5 people will now save significant amounts on their monthly electricity bill.
Again, all else being equal; Are those homeowners or tenants more likely to vote Conservative in the next election? The answer is likely to be affirmative if the present government decides to save each one of them, tens or hundreds of pounds per year on their annual electricity bill.
It sounds expensive until you consider the cost of adding 30 GigaWatts to the UK grid to cover wasted energy vs. spending a much smaller amount to conserve the same amount of energy.
There is simply no comparison. Energy-efficiency wins every time, and is dirt cheap in relation to the costs of building new power generation capacity.
A £100 per capita energy-efficiency credit is the way forward for clean air, lower healthcare spending, and a thriving economy for Britain (via lower energy costs) and pound for pound, nothing else comes close to accomplishing those goals at such a comparatively low spend.
No Taxation Without Representation!
“No Taxation Without Representation!” was a term coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750.
By 1761 the terminology was changed by James Otis who said; “Taxation without representation is tyranny!” referring to the level of resentment felt by American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament where the colonists elected no representatives and received no tangible benefit.
It became an anti-British slogan in the years leading up to the American Revolution. Eventually Britain lost control of its colony, and after a dreadful war that colony became known as the United States of America.
They say the only two certainties in life are Death and Taxes. But surely not far behind is the Negative Fallout of taxation without representation.
And in the 1700’s Britain made a costly error. After all, how many can say they once owned the territory we now call North America and lost it?
Some 250 years later, the EU Parliament having failed to learn one of the most important lessons of modern history, is now doing a similar thing.
The EU Parliament wants to tax Britons, but not allow them representation in the European Union Parliament from March 29, 2017 through March 29, 2019 — even though Britain will remain a dues-paying European Union member during that time.
The un-democrats in Brussels think it’s fine to continue taxing Britons £30 million (net) per day but won’t allow them a seat at the table! That totals £22 billion from March 2017 to March 2019, in exchange for exactly zero decision-making ability during that time.
British MEP’s (Member of the European Parliament) can make statements, answer questions and challenge EU MEP’s on their assertions, but they can’t enter any room where actual EU decisions are made, nor will they be allowed to vote on legislation in the EU Parliament.
Which isn’t democratic! No public relations agency on Earth could spin that situation into an example of democracy.
When British taxpayers are paying £22 billion over two years with no political representation, it’s a textbook case of taxation without representation.
The question to ask yourself is; Could Britain spend that £22 billion ‘better’ than the EU?
Were I Prime Minister Theresa May, I wouldn’t unilaterally pull out of the EU via the WTO route, because this situation hasn’t begun to gather momentum!
Once British taxpayers realize that they are (and have been for a long time!) sending £30 million per day to the EU and now British MEP’s can’t vote on EU legislation, they’ll realize how badly they’ve been used.
The longer this goes on, the better for the Brexit camp as it shows what the European Union is all about. And in Britain’s case, it was always about using Britain as a cash cow to fund EU priorities while flying under the media radar.
“Fool me once, it’s your fault. Fool me twice, and it’s my fault.”
Not only does the EU Parliament want Britain to continue to subsidize the European Union to the tune of £30 million per day until March 29, 2019 — it also wants Britain to pay a £52 billion ‘divorce payment’ now and in full — before Brexit negotiations begin.
The question to ask yourself is; Could Britain spend that £52 billion ‘better’ than the EU?
Nigel Farage called it the EU ‘Mafia’ racket (which he later retracted) while others having come to the realization of what it represents to the British taxpayer will rightfully conclude it’s a case of taxation without representation via extortion — because the EU won’t allow Brexit negotiations to proceed until the payola is received.
The European Union wants 74 billion pounds (in total) before Brexit negotiations begin
The EU wants Britain to pay £74 billion before Brexit negotiations begin but won’t allow Britain a seat at the EU decision-making table even as Britain remains a dues-paying member of the European Union.
And that isn’t democracy, that’s tyranny mixed with kleptocracy.
Related Article:
Article 50 Invoked: Time to Make a List!
With Article 50 invoked, plans for successful Brexit negotiations that lead to successful outcomes for both parties are imperative
Now that UK Prime Minister Theresa May has officially triggered Brexit by notifying the European Commission President Donald Tusk of Britain’s intention to leave the European Union, it’s time to make a list.
So, what should be the nature of that list?
As any self-respecting diplomat knows, it should be a list of the Top Ten items most likely to be agreed. This is a tried and true tenet of diplomacy where diplomats set up a success-based paradigm for their negotiators to increase the opportunities for successful outcomes via the negotiation process.
We all know when things begin well they have a much better chance of ending well. Conversely, if things begin badly they tend to get worse over time and end in disaster. It’s a simple human nature equation.
It’s not true in all cases, but when negotiations begin with goodwill on both sides and work from a list of negotiating points, negotiators craft success after success, leading to a conclusion everyone can live with (and yes!) celebrate.
Listen to the Voice of Experience Upon Whose Shoulders We Stand
Experienced diplomats like Henry Kissinger and Andrei Gromyko would never have considered entering negotiations without a plan for success, nor a plan that didn’t feature a Top Ten (or Top Six, etc) list of items to be discussed and solved, in order to set up a successful track record to enhance future negotiations.
It directs negotiations toward intellectual honesty — because it instantly proves whether goodwill exists, or whether the person on the other side of the table appears there under duress or to bamboozle the other party. Neither of which will result in anything good.
- Choosing the items to be negotiated by whim of individual government ministers (because each minister quite rightly represents their own constituents, and consequently see the negotiations only through the prism of their local agenda) is probably the worst way to enter negotiations.
- Another contender for the worst way to enter negotiations is for the media and/or the court of public opinion to be the de facto deciders of the topics to be negotiated, for the media loves a good story (who doesn’t!) and fireworks between politicians sell a lot of newspapers. One can’t blame the media, in fact, more power to them! But negotiations led by the media acting in its own best interest will always result in the worst possible outcomes.
The only way to ‘win’ is via ‘Win-Win’
The wisest course of action for Theresa May and Donald Tusk is to sketch-out a list of items at which negotiators could succeed early, thereby giving the negotiations some much-needed early momentum. It’s important to announce those successes so that credibility is enhanced for both sides and it’s likewise important to share the accolades with negotiators.
In the absence of success stories, the media default mode is to declare the negotiations ‘a disaster’ and both leaders will be pilloried out of politics. And that’s as it should be.
It’s unimportant which matters are up for discussion first, what is important is that negotiators succeed early and often. Any success, whether large or small drives the media narrative and the international consciousness.
Gibraltar, that status of EU citizens in the UK, territorial fishing rights, a so-called ‘divorce’ bill, the colour of passports, etc. are all bandied about by the media (and that’s great, they do a great job of informing the public) but which of these should be placed or not placed on the initial Top Ten list for the earliest and best success?
Only the two governments know the answers to that question.
Or, maybe they don’t. And if they don’t, there is no better day than today to place a phone call to the other leader in order to ask; ‘What points could we find early agreement on?’ Which is a wonderful way to begin any day.
I respectfully urge UK Prime Minister Theresa May and EC President Donald Tusk to ask the other; What points could we find early agreement on?
In that way, instead of the narrative defaulting to what sells newspapers, the narrative will be controlled by the leadership. That’s Leadership with a capital ‘L’ please.
Leadership, respect for the other and working towards a track record of success is the way to Build a Better Britain and the way to create a more united European Union! Anything less, is unworthy of these two great statespersons.
Letter to Britain 