Date published: 2008/02/04
Mark Moody-Stuart, ex-chairman of Shell and a chairman or director of loads of other companies, says on the BBC:
To address the climate challenge we need to reduce the carbon content of our energy by at least half.
But at the same time we must learn to generate a unit of GDP for about half the energy which we use at present.
Energy efficiency and carbon content of energy are equally important, but they require different approaches to achieve them.
I am a great believer in both the power of consumer choice and the market. As we come to understand the consequences, we do tend to make greener choices.
But most of us will only make those choices if they deliver the convenience and utility to which we are used or aspire; and if they do not cost more (or we can afford the luxury of choice).
...
For carbon content, we need a mechanism which forces energy supplies in the right direction. This means putting a price on carbon for major producers (and large-scale users) of energy through a carbon cap and trade system, such as we already have in Europe.Unfortunately, this system has been initially subject to government and business special pleading and gaming. Or it means a carbon tax.
Both are complex and should only be applied to major producers or users. Trading encourages carbon-avoiding investment where it has the most impact. It also allows the transfer, through market mechanisms, of financial resources to China and India.
I do not think we will get a more global agreement without such transfer. Taxation has the great merit that it provides a clear floor price of carbon.
So for me the preferred option is a combination - a tax, but with the ability to reduce it through trading, getting the best combination of a floor price and efficiency of investment.
Most people think that a price of something around 40 dollars a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) to producers would do the trick.
Before you panic about the cost to you and industrial transport, that is only about 5p a litre on fuel - within the noise of oil price variations.
On the other hand, for efficiency we need regulatory frameworks - very tough efficiency standards on buildings, on lighting and on personal transport.
That means banning the manufacture or import of old fashioned light bulbs.
...
It means very tough standards on buildings. This is already having an effect in London where to achieve highly valuable planning permission, developments are already achieving energy efficiency which we thought we would not achieve for a decade or more.And for personal transportation? That means banning "gas guzzlers" and steadily increasing the total efficiency of any vehicle sold.
You can buy the roomiest, vroomiest car, as long as it meets the efficiency standard.
There is nothing that controversial here. But needless to say, the devil is in the detail. And when he mentions that his proposed carbon tax level "is only about 5p a litre on fuel" (others would double or triple it), he completely fails to mention that car drivers already pay around 59p a litre of tax on fuel (and that is for petrol, diesel is higher still). So drivers already pay a whacking great carbon tax, but the ruling elite are never happy and want to screw drivers ever more, in order that other people (e.g. train passengers) can pay no (or indeed, even a negative) carbon tax. Nowhere in his article does Moody-Stuart mention this small matter.
(And is he going to ban race cars? They of course get pathetic mileage. Or is it ok to drive inefficent cars as long as you are doing it in an extremely expensive way?)
Meanwhile Roger Harrabin, a BBC environment "analyst", in response to this article, writes an accompanying article:
The EU should ban the sale of cars that do under 35 miles to the gallon, the ex-chairman of oil giant Shell says.
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart told BBC News the motor industry would adapt to cope with stricter environmental rules.
The UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders opposes the idea, saying drivers of the most polluting cars pay extra through road tax and petrol duty.
But Sir Mark said this simply let rich people avoid taking responsibility for tackling climate change.
...
Sir Mark says that with a growing world demand for cars, jobs lost in one polluting part of the industry will be more than replaced by jobs in a newer, cleaner part of industry.His remarks may chime well with many of the public.
Opinion polls consistently show that people are prepared to change their ways to tackle climate change - but only if their neighbours are forced to do the same.
This fact is regularly ignored by politicians fearing a potential backlash.
They may find in future that it is less controversial for them to impose tough rules on everyone rather than to seek compromises to accommodate minorities.
Well, after clarifying what Moody-Stuart failed to clarify in his own article (that the arbitrary limit of what is an "efficient" car is 35 mpg), Harrabin launches a political diatribe at the end. For "minorities" read "the 75% of the country that gets to work by car". And the BBC wonders why some people think it has a very academic middle class agenda? Harrabin consistently produces just about the most biased BBC website articles, and given that the BBC (laughingly) claims it is impartial, they really should sack him.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").