Sorry, what follows is a response to this post by angor532 (#46187197). Due to technical difficulties I was unable to send a direct response to his original post.
Okay angor
Below are my responses to each of your comments from the above post:
YOU WROTE: "measures taken by a fiercely nationalist conservative government" scary thought! noted "the heirs to Margaret Thatcher set an ambitious long term target: Zero emissions by 2050" - the love children of Thatcher set some ambitious targets....another scary thought. noted "This target creates investment certainty"....How does it to do this? name some specific laws....usually its either a "carrot or stick" law applied within the market. This was the crux of my original question .....aspirational targets alone do stuff all.
RESPONSE: As acorn indicated, the zero emissions by 2050 “target” was legislated via the Climate Change Act back in 2008 (12 years ago!). You can read up on it here:
The initial target was for only an 80% reduction on 1990 emissions. However, following further advice from the independent “Committee on Climate Change”, the Act was amended on 27.6.2019 to a “zero emissions” target via the “The Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019”:
This is not an “aspirational target”, but a legislated one. Under the Act, the UK has to measure its emissions and report these on an annual basis. You can read up on progress made so far here:
To understand how this works, the following explanation from page 7 of the document is useful:
“.... The UK has domestic targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA)4. The CCA established a long-term legally binding framework to reduce emissions, initially committing the UK to reducing emissions by at least 80% below 1990/95 baselines by 2050. In June 2019, following the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C and advice from the independent Committee on Climate Change, the CCA was amended to commit the UK to achieving a 100% reduction in emissions (to net zero) by 2050.
The CCA also introduced carbon budgets, which set legally binding limits on the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions the UK can emit for a given five-year period5. The first carbon budget ran from 2008-12. In 2014, the UK confirmed that it had met the budget, with emissions 36 MtCO2e below the cap of 3,018 MtCO2e6. The second carbon budget ran from 2013-17. In 2019, the UK confirmed that it had met the budget, with emissions 384 MtCO2e below the cap of 2,782 MtCO2e7. A final statement for the third carbon budget, covering the period 2018-22, will be published in May 2024.”
So no, the zero emissions target by 2050 is not an “aspirational” target, but a legislated one, backed up by a reporting system as well as 5-year emission budgets that allow tracking of progress towards the legislated target.
Remember, “what you measure you can control”.
As to specific legislation that allows the target to be met, I will refer to legislation applying to the transport sector further down in this post.
YOU WROTE: the next statement is a biggie....
"The UK has already reduced emissions by 42% while growing the economy by 72% and has put clean growth at the heart of our modern Industrial Strategy. This could see the number of “green collar jobs” grow to 2 million and the value of exports from the low carbon economy grow to £170 billion a year by 2030."......this is a standard political motherhood statement. The LNP run a similar narrative...BTW those numbers compared to the overall UK GDP pie are small....and there is further supposition ie "could grow jobs and exports". lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda...
RESPONSE: angor, my aim was not to embellish what the UK has achieved in terms of both emission reduction and economic growth. Even I can recognise that the above is – not a motherhood statement – but a select few statistics, which compared to the economy overall are – as you correctly point out – relatively small. However, what these numbers highlight is that having a 2050 zero emission target does not result in economic Armageddon as the Murdoch press and some right-wing politicians here in Australia would like people believe.
Given that any forward-looking numbers on green collar job creation or low carbon economy exports are predictions, it is easy for you to dismiss them as “coulda, woulda, shoulda…”. However, these numbers have not been sucked out of thin air. They are partially based on detailed collaborative studies between consultants and local council authorities.
The "supposition" is based on fairly detailed analysis and consultation, as you can see from the following report:
Are you suggesting that we stop all economic modelling of any kind as it is inherently useless? We need no planning of any kind as it concerns the future, which is indeterminable?
YOU WROTE: "regulatory certainty."- how is the UK applying this?... again the original crux of my query....specific examples of law, regulation.
RESPONSE: There you go angor, the specific legislation:
YOU WROTE: "EV manufacturers eventually need to bear the cost "....eventually? who bears the cost before then?
RESPONSE: Who bears the cost of carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels? At the moment it is society at large. Iff there are any costs associated with the decommissioning/disposal/recycling of EV batteries, then these costs certainly ought to be borne by EV manufacturers rather than society at large.
However, and I already made this clear in my original post, the “user pays” principle must apply to ALL sectors. This is why I wrote:
“To me that means that yes, EV manufacturers eventually need to bear the cost - if any - of battery recycling, but it also means that ICE car manufacturers ought to pay for the pollution and loss of life due to the burning of fossil fuels EVs are not going to kill as many people as ICE cars already do at the moment.
"This study estimates that in 2000 motor vehicle-related ambient air pollution accounted for between 900 and 4500 morbidity cases—cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases and bronchitis—and between 900 and 2000 early deaths."
To me, these are the real deaths that EVs are going to prevent, rather than deaths based on hypothetical scenarios dreamt up by vested interest groups and newspapers.
YOU WROTE: "if any".....so you're suggesting EV manufacturers might not have any costs to bear?
RESPONSE: Exactly angor and I am basing this on the fact that EV manufacturers are saying that
“…we do regard the batteries as an asset of the future rather than a problem of the future”.
The following is a video of the launch event of VW’s ID.3 electric vehicle. At 56:07 into the presentation, this exact issue is being discussed:
In other words, unlike fossil fuel emissions, battery materials can be recycled and possibly in a profitable fashion. So rather than representing a cost, this might represent a potential future profit centre for EV manufacturers. Also, I believe the following section from Tesla's first ever "Impact Report" pretty much answers your question:
BATTERY RECYCLING A common question we hear is, “What happens to Tesla vehicle battery packs once they reach their end of life?” An important distinction between fossil fuels and lithium-ion batteries as an energy source is that while fossil fuels are extracted and used once, the materials in a lithium-ion battery are recyclable. When petroleum is pumped out of the ground, chemically refined and then burned, it releases harmful emissions into the atmosphere that are not recovered for reuse. Battery materials, in contrast, are refined and put into a cell, and will still remain at the end of their life, when they can be recycled to recover its valuable materials for reuse over and over again.
Since Tesla battery packs are made to last many years, we are only just starting to receive these batteries back from the field. Currently, most of the batteries for recycling come to us through R&D, manufacturing, quality control and service operations.
Today, we work with third-party recyclers around the world to process all scrap and end-of-life batteries to recover valuable metals. Our recycling partners work with us to ensure that non-valuable or non-recoverable materials from the batteries are disposed of responsibly. At Gigafactory1, Tesla is developing a unique battery recycling system that will process both battery manufacturing scrap and end-of-life batteries. Through this system, the recovery of critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt will be maximized along with the recovery of all metals used in the battery cell, such as copper, aluminum and steel. All of these materials will be recovered in forms optimized for new battery material production.
The closed-loop battery recycling process at Gigafactory 1 presents a compelling solution to move energy supply away from the fossil-fuel based practice of take, make and burn, to a more circular model of recycling end-of-life batteries for reuse over and over again. From an economic perspective, we expect to recognize significant savings over the long term, as the costs associated with large-scale battery material recovery and recycling will be far lower than purchasing and transporting new materials.
YOU WROTE: "So it appears the UK is listening to the sciente"......are they really? which is why Covid deaths and infections are under control in the UK?? PS i was'nt going to bring COVID into the discussion but seeing as you did... i returned favour.
RESPONSE: Sorry angor, good try. However, I did NOT bring up COVID… you did.
All I wrote was that in the context of man-made climate change, the UK government is listening to the science. Hence the 2050 zero emissions target, which was set following the advice from and independent Committee on Climate Change. Sorry, but I am not going to get into compare & contrast climate change and EVs vs. COVID.
YOU WROTE: another biggie -"Once you set a lofty target such as "zero emissions by 2050", this needs supporting policy to make this a reality. One example is the "Consulting on ending the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans", with the aim of achieving the transition away from diesel and ICE cars by 2035, if not earlier. As noted earlier in this thread (see #45963158), Shell has stated that it thinks the transition could be brought forward to 2030!........HOW! what specific policy? tax, subsidy, carrot or stick?.....you almost got my attention with "supporting policy" until you said "consulting".....remember consulting and lofty targets are not the same as LAW.
RESPONSE Sorry angor, in case you are not up to speed on UK politics. The current UK government under the leadership of Borris Johnson assumed office on 24th July 2019. Like most new Prime Ministers, new policies and legislations are not ready on day 1 of coming into office. In the context of ending the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans, the government initiated a consultation process that incidentally ended yesterday (31.7.2020). Out of the consultation process, legislation will be drawn up and that has to pass through parliament to become law. In the case of phasing out of ICE cars in the UK by 2035 or earlier, you can be fairly sure that this will indeed happen.
If you really want another specific example of policy aimed at meeting the zero emissions target by 2050, look up “The Energy Act 2013” (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/32/contents/enacted) which established Emission Performance Standards for new fossil fuel power plants. You can read up on Section 60, which outlines the “Monitoring and enforcement” of the Act as well as Schedule 5, which provides additional detail on “Emissions limit duty: monitoring and enforcement”
So, targets are legislated, policies to see the targets achieved are legislated and as highlighted by Shell’s announcement that it thinks the transition away from ICE ought to happen by 2030, corporations are using the regulatory certainty to come up with their own initiatives.
YOU WROTE: "Merely by setting sensible targets, industry is given the necessary signals it requires to move towards realising these targets."....err...NO "signals" and "lofty targets" do stuff all, unless backed up with LAW.See above angor, they are backed up by LAW.
RESPONSE: Don’t use your own lack of reading to attack someone else’s argument!
In Australia we had the 20% “Renewable Energy Target” – i.e. where 20% of electricity generation had to be derived from renewable energy by 2020.
This did not send the nation broke nor did it lead to black-outs. Despite the 2015 “fudge”. I did not think that I needed to spell it out, but what I meant was that in a free market economy, given certain regulatory settings, our capitalist system as well as technological innovation will allow the best solutions to emerge. Without a target, there is simply no direction or motivation. The “carrot” for a corporation that is able to move ahead of its competition towards realising the regulated zero emission goal, is to gain market share and make more profits, while the “laggards” become uncompetitive and get to feel the legislative “stick”.
YOU WROTE: "So to answer part of your question, the regulatory framework will direct private capital investment towards industries of the future."......FINALLY hallelujah!! "regulatory framework"......please name them, what regulation? what laws? what taxes or subsidies?
YOU WROTE: "lots of other smart ways of encouraging the move towards a sustainable transportation"......what are they? (I'm not that smart) and if they are so smart and presumably desirable and beneficial, than why isn't the UK or Australia applying them?
RESPONSE: I did not say that the UK is not applying them – quite the opposite - I am saying that the UK is smart indeed, by setting targets, implementing supporting regulation and legislation as well as implementing other smart programs to move towards sustainable living… and it has done so for decades!
Since 1.1.2001, the UK already has a “Plug-in Car Grant” of up to GBP 5,000. However, to be eligible, the plug-in vehicles need to meet certain criteria, such as:
· Range: Electric vehicles (EVs) must be able to travel a minimum of 70 miles (110 km) between charges. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) must have a minimum all-electric range of 10 miles (16 km). · Minimum top speed: Vehicles must be able to reach a speed of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) or more. · Warranty: Vehicles must have a 3-year or 60,000 miles (97,000 km) vehicle warranty (guarantee) and a 3-year battery and electric drive train warranty, with the option of extending the battery warranty for an extra 2 years ('drive train' means the parts that send power from the engine to the wheels. These include the clutch, transmission (gear box), drive shafts, U-joints and differential). · Battery performance: Vehicles must have either a minimum 5-year warranty on the battery and electric drive train as standard, or extra evidence of battery performance to show reasonable performance after 3 years of use · Electrical safety: Vehicles must comply with certain regulations (UN-ECE Reg 100.01) that show that they are electrically safe.
The UK is light years ahead of Australia, as it is already putting in place incentives to see only the best EVs on UK roads.
YOU WROTE: "EV technology has moved way past the need for subsidies. Private capital will flow with regulatory certainty".....don't need subsidies? GOOD!..."Private Capital will flow with reg certainty".....what specific regulatory certainty?...Banning ICE by a certain date?
RESPONSE: Yes, banning ICE by a certain date is one example. However, look at what is happening. By now, so many nations have already indicated that they will be banning ICE cars in the near future, that car manufacturers are already shifting towards EV production.
Even then, it would not hurt if Australia also banned ICE’s by a certain date (together with setting a zero-emission target and other initiatives), as this would set a signal to the corporate world, as to where future business opportunity lies and where growth is going to come from.
YOU WROTE: "level playing field"...what do you mean? the market is pretty good at setting a level playing field...Fuel excise in Australia is 42c/L. Should the excise be lowered to provide a more "level playing field"?
We still want to encourage lower emissions while thinking of new ways to fund our road and transportation system. I am fairly sure that the financial savings to society from EVs far outweigh the loss of revenue from the lack of fuel excise.
However, a “level playing field” to me implies that we also charge ICE cars for the demonstrated health damage that ICE car exhausts cause. As noted earlier, according to page ix.) bullet point 5 of this 2005 government study (https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2005/files/wp_063.pdf):
"This study estimates that in 2000 motor vehicle-related ambient air pollution accounted for between 900 and 4500 morbidity cases—cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases and bronchitis—and between 900 and 2000 early deaths."
A level playing field also means, as others have recently suggested, to let fossil fuel companies pay for climate change damage such as bushfires:
I know that not many will agree with me, but to me even the cost of Australia’s Middle East war effort ought to be paid by fossil fuel corporations whose interests there are being defended at the cost of the Australian and (USA, UK, coalition of the willing, etc.) tax payer.
YOU WROTE: "Australia can make a mint flogging off lithium and cobalt deposits ".....Australia already is making a mint flogging lithium and other rare earths.
RESPONSE: Yes, and that is DUMB! We let others reap the benefits of value adding by processing the ore, making batteries and manufacturing EVs…
Only to then import the EVs back into the country.
YOU WROTE: "vertically integrated EV or battery industry in Australia".....GREAT idea! why don't you ring Elon and tell him exactly the same thing ie lots of cobalt and lithium here, plenty of sunshine and lots of private capital to invest in EV and Battery manufacturing.Maybe ring Twiggy also wilh all his lazy billions.....hes getting bored of making a mint out of iron ore.
RESPONSE: Elon and Twiggy as well as any number of other businesses will look at Australia and shake their head. Without any energy policy, and the threat of sovereign risk as a result of the policy vacuum I can hardly make an argument as to why they should risk their billions – lazy or not – without knowing the intention of the government for the next couple of decades – i.e. the time horizon of any investment that we are talking about.
YOU WROTE: "require a good deal of government brains thrust.".......again, what is it you want government to do?....Generally governments have three instruments at their disposal applied with varying degrees of sophistication & complexity - Tax, Public funding or Prohibition. What do you want government to do other than set "lofty targets" and "consult"?
RESPONSE:
SET SENSIBLE TARGETS BASED ON THE BEST SCIENTIFIC ADVICE.
SET A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK TO ACHIEVE THE TARGETS PROVIDE BUSINESSES WITH LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY CERTAINTY SO THEY CAN INVEST THEIR CAPITAL TOWARDS ACHIEVEMENT OF THE DEFINED TARGETS.
ENGAGE IN GENUINE CONSULTATION TO ACHIEVE THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN “CARROT AND STICK” IN THE RESULTING LEGISLATION.
LOOK AT THE UK AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT CAN BE DONE.
AVOID THE USE OF BODIES SUCH AS THE COVID COMMISSION TO PUSH A FOSSIL FUEL AGENDA.
YOU WROTE: and finally.....exhausting!"The decision about which way we want to see Australia move, is of course ours".......decision is ours? as in the people of Australia, the voters....who voted against Shorten and his ambitious, you could say, "Lofty target" of 50% EVs &renewable by 2030.........I rest my case...the people have spoken.
RESPONSE: Yes angor, and that decision was made in 2019, before the last bushfire season, which has made many reconsider their position.
Opinions, priorities and voting intentions change over time – welcome to our democracy!
YOU WROTE: PP, i suggest you edit out all the wishy washy, mother hood, feel good statements, including the scary Thatcher conservative love children stuff, and try and stick to facts and substance.
RESPONSE Angor, I hope that you can digest and process the facts and figures I have provided in the above. I note that you have not provided a single fact or figure of any kind in this discussion. However, I am looking forward to considering them, once you do so. I only mentioned Thatcher, because she seems to be the role model for both UK and Australian conservatives, but the resulting environmental policies between the UK and Australia could not be more different.
YOU WROTE: I'm still waiting for some good practical suggestions on how Government can assist with "a sustainable transport future".....other than banning EVs by a certain date.
RESPONSE: Well angor, any move TOWARDS sustainability by definition has to mean moving AWAY from burning fossil fuels.
Lowering allowable vehicle emissions does not really address the issue of sustainability, while the banning of ICE vehicles at some point in the future does.
Rather than setting a blanket nation-wide zero emission target, one could start with emission-free CBDs in major cities across Australia and gradually extent these emission free zones further and further out until they encompass all our major cities. Perhaps electric scooters and bikes rather than EVs will be the solution that will emerge over time? Looking at the exhausts coming out of some ICE cars and trucks, stricter policing of existing emission standards also seems to be necessary, with ICE cars that cannot meet existing emission standards being de-commissioned.
Lots of things will be done once we have a government that is not beholden to the fossil fuel industry – as evidenced by politicians juggling lumps of coal around in the Australian parliament.
