Biomass & litigating against Drax's costly little game

As noted here before, there's something ludicrous and indeed ultimately dangerous in governments making targets that are "legally binding" - particularly targets of the purely aspirational / virtue-signaling[1] kind - thereby inviting lawsuits when somebody can find an argument that the target won't be met.  My earlier observation was that governments will soon tire of this costly game, and will find ways to imunise themselves against it.  The best thing is not to set "legally binding targets" in the first place, because the alternative remedy against endless litigation is to put government beyond the law, a very dangerous step indeed.  

Anyhow: someone has seen fit to litigate against HMG for its ridiculous "BECCS" policy - bioenergy with carbon capture and storage.  For those unfamiliar with the notion: some kinds of bioenergy may fairly reckoned to be (almost) carbon neutral.  If one captures this energy output (e.g. as electricity), and permanently sequestrates the CO2 emitted in the process, one may with equal fairness be reckoned to have achieved "negative emissions" (subject to having accurately reckoned on the extra energy, emissions etc needed for this entire operation). 

Even on its own terms[2], there's a gigantic flaw in this logic (along with some smaller difficulties).  In practical terms and with existing technology, to do this on the industrial scale required to be useful, the range of biofuels that may be employed is essentially confined to rather high-quality wood, which only comes from the trunks and boughs of mature trees.  But using these as fuel is far from carbon neutral over anything like a sensible timeframe.  Even with perfect counterfactuals the resulting "carbon debt" is measured in decades or even centuries; or maybe it's outright irrecoverable.  Drax - the world's biggest tree-burner, likes everyone to believe they are burning bits of old bark and sweepings from the carpenter's floor - but that's utter bollocks.  The bio-stuff that genuinely doesn't incur much carbon debt when it's used as fuel (e.g. the aforesaid crud; the products of coppicing; fast-growing reeds etc) just can't be used by Drax - it simply ain't the right quality to be used by their kit.

But.  The UK's plans for achieving NZC 2050 are wholly dependent on BECCS - just as indeed are the UK's credentials as regards its current CO2 performance significantly dependent upon Drax and a handful of other industrial-scale tree-burning power stations, whose contribution to the UK's numbers (not to mention whose subsidies) depends upon a "carbon accounting" sleight of hand which allows them to ignore the carbon debt they run up when burning high-quality timber.  Drax isn't reducing CO2 emissions right now (as it is being subsidised to do), it is in fact increasing CO2, because burning biomass with long carbon debt is even more CO2-intensive than coal-burning; and twice as much as burning gas, which in the UK is nowadays the only practical alternative[3].  

The whole thing is a multi-billion pound scam that consumes our money and whole forests every year; and should never have seen the light of day (courtesy of the two successive LibDem energy secretaries, Huhne and Davey, the former of whom has benefitted financially from the biomass industry, post his other disgrace).  We're stuck with it until 2027 (when the subsidies run out), but there is absolutely no need to extend Drax's scam beyond that date and allow it to be the pioneer of BECCS, as it intends - and as HMG seems intent on encouraging.

Why is it tolerated?  Easy: as well as the spurious CO2-reduction credits for both Drax and HMG, the electricity is flexible ("despatchable"); the fuel can be obtained from friendly nations; and there are lots of UK jobs involved - the logistical side of shifting millions of tonnes of wood pellets every year has become quite an industry, not to mention the jobs that are envisaged for building the BECCS set-up.  

The parties bringing the litigation with the aim of calling a halt to all this, are drawing the High Court's attention to the total lack of scientific logic behind the BECCS concept in practice.  

It will be interesting to see what the justices make of it.  Much as I dislike the "lawfare" phenomenon, on this occasion I reckon the lawsuit has merit.

ND

___________________

[1] Nobody will do anything about this before the next GE: and we then run the risk of a Starmer government legislating for "legally binding targets" on a range of ghastly woke social-engineering goals.  Plenty on the redistributive / reparationist left will welcome this with open arms.

[2] There is absolutely no point in arguing against it on other terms.  You may like the sound of your own voice but otherwise you'll not get a hearing.

[3] Incidentally, there's evidence Drax may not even be living up to the crazy low standards of "sustainability" they are obliged to meet now, sleight-of-hand and all, let alone any stricter ones that would be appropriate in terms of the genuine science and logic of the situation.

Voting at 16: unintended consequences?

It's been a bit of a thing on the left to militate for the voting age to be reduced to 16.  It was in Corbyn's ill-fated 2019 manifesto.  Without doubt, they assume the 16-18 cohort would be a big boost to their vote.

Really?  There's a thoughtful essay here by Aaron Bastani  - the epitome of a thoughtful leftie, though some of his many thoughts are daft - in which he notes that this is by no means a given. 

No, Younger People Aren’t Always More Progressive - just look at Brazil and Israel ... There is no reason reactionary politics can’t flourish this century given the multitude of challenges humanity faces.   

His thesis is indeed firmly centered on Brazil and Israel, which is convenient for someone whose readership probably prefers to think of UK youth as inherently progressive.  But he could have found evidence for what he's saying in many a European country, including hereabouts. 

In fact, surely what's most likely is that 16-18 votes will go to whatever demagogue comes up with a catchy viral theme, be that "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn!" or something confected on behalf of the likes of a media-savvy Trump etc etc.   And timing will be everything: it'll be whatever sweeps the www at just the right moment.  There's no telling what you'll get, and whether it would be Right or Left (by classical taxonomy) - but it could be ghastly.

As it happens, I can't see ultra-cautious Starmer including this in his next manifesto - though he'll most probably have coalition issues to think about, and you know the Greens and LibDems will want it.  They should be careful what they wish for.

ND 

Corbyn Makes His Move

You have to feel a bit sorry for Paul Mason: an intelligent, thoughtful & imaginative chap, basically honest, a bit didactic & earnest, much taken with some of Karl Marx's insights, groping around for a 21st C application for them, would like to be consistent ... but the Real World somehow doesn't fall as neatly into his categories as he'd eagerly wish.

So now Corbyn's made his move - well, a move, he had to do something now or be condemned to utter, contemptible irrelevance - and Paul would like to think this immediately confirms everything he's analysed and was hoping for.  "Corbyn has taken a brave step. Now he must rule out any ‘Labour Brexit’".   Hmm.  Let's see how much Little Paul's enjoying it a fortnight from now.

So what to make of Corbyn's roll of the die?  It's clearly reactive, and no great stroke, that's for sure: comfortably within anything Cummings will have considered.  Team Boris is still drawing everyone else onto the battlefield of its own choosing.  (Which, incidentally, makes all the sillier Mason's opening contention that "Corbyn just got inside everyone else’s decision cycles" - a reference to the thinking of the great John Boyd that will be familiar to many readers.)

I think we may assume Team Corbyn, rattled by initiatives coming from elsewhere (Lucas, Kinnock, Hammond etc) felt the urgent need to slap something on the table.  With a couple of blatant attempts to shield their SNP flank as a preparatory step (but weakening their own Scottish legion in the process), their own effort looks very much like an attempt at a low-risk, win-win, no-regrets type of affair.  If it works, and Jezza is wafted into No.10 by this strange backdoor method, well, he's in!  No telling what he might do with executive authority whilst pretending to be arranging a GE and an A50 extension. 

If it fails, well, Boris gets to crash out (as the Leninist / Stalinist faction always wanted) with only his fingerprints on the deed; revolutionary purity is retained; and maybe it brings down Swinson in the process as an added bonus.  Indeed, you'd have to say on balance they are hoping for and expecting the latter, because by insisting on Corbyn being PM, they've actually blown it from the start, as well they know.

Now Swinson: there's an interesting thing.  The Corbyn outriders are busily saying this'll be the end of her, what with rejecting the saintly Jezza overtures out of hand like that.  Now I have no particular insight into the LibDems (does anyone here?): but I'd say her immediate reactions were spot-on, and that she'll be infinitely less discomfitted by this - maybe indeed, not bovvered at all - than Lucas was by her mighty BAME faux pas.  Why would Swinson wish to submerge her position as leader of the largest unequivocally Remain group of MPs in Parliament for a bit-part in a complex Milne-plot?  (The SNP - a group that really can see some win-win possibilities - are clearly banking on No Deal followed by IndyRef2.)  It'll be Lucas, Fish-woman and Grieve who'll be squirming at being told what to do by Labour.

Meanwhile, Team Boris will be barely distracted.  Nobody shows any sign of getting ahead of them, or turning their flanks - still less "getting inside their decision cycle".  The fact that Corbyn has given up his distant reverse-slope position for a brief foray in the open, well, it's no great stroke.  Let him spend a few weeks in the woke version of a smoke-filled room with Lucas et al, and see how clever he feels at the end of that.

CU said yesterday that Sept and Oct could be fun.  August still has some life in it yet!

ND

The Swirling Realignment of British Politics

The 'Independent Group' - a small splinter of plywood, or the first jolt of tectonic shift?  The Brexit Party (Co Ltd) - a single-issue vanity project, or the model for parties of the 2020's?  The 'UK Youth Climate Coalition' - an NGO ramp, or a nascent force for change?  The only thing we may be sure of is that none of these new developments will go short of cash: that's the easy bit.

Yes, as we all knew, 2019 is going to be a year for the political connoisseur.  Which politician, and/or which organisation, will be both sharp and flexible enough to make anything from these swirling pieces of jigsaw?  Can bricks be made from the straws-in-the-wind?  Let's look at the existing organisations, all of which look leaden-footed right now, but all of which have resources and incentives to attempt to capitalise on the chaos.

1.  Celtic Fringe parties (primarily SNP, DUP, Sinn Fein).  All essentially single-issue and opportunistic.  Probably don't need to change in order to survive in their current state, even if that's a rather passive objective.  SNP will need to weather the Salmond storm (and hence will tend to wind their necks in a bit more than they otherwise would); but it's not clear that Labour are in any position to roll them back out of Westminster at the next GE.  One comes across suggestions of a 'unilateral inde-referendum', which couldn't be ruled out.  Mostly, though, with the Salmond of Damocles over their heads, it'll be watch-and-wait.**

For many months I have puzzled over Sinn Fein's quiescence; and it's nearly two years since I last got a proper political briefing in a Dublin pub.  My inclination is to assume that, as an organisation with a clear goal and the ability to play a long game, they are just waiting for the chance to pluck the juicy prize when the bough bends sufficiently for them to reach up and take it.  (To this end, BTW, they must surely be willing ultimately to take up those Westminster seats that everyone assumes they'll forswear forever.)

2.  Libs.  Is it too glib to pass on without further comment?  In a world where genuine political novelty is in the air, they don't look like any sort of major beneficiary, even if someone might someday casually enquire as to the price of their rather small block-vote.  (We all know that answer: PR.)

3.  Greens.   Must rather like the look of the 'UK Youth Climate Coalition', in much the same way as a bunch of OAPs like the look of kids playing mixed-sex touch rugby in the park.  Everyone hopes to harness da yoof (particularly if they know how to set up a good website) but only Momentum shows any signs of weaponising it so far (see below).

4.  Labour.  Do any C@W readers have an insider's insight here?  My secondhand info is that the split within Labour between Corbyn-worshippers and the rest runs bitter and deep to a degree only lefties really understand.  Still, we must assume the Official Labour Party will keep it together enough to take the field at the next GE.  We must also assume that, buoyed by the (relative) success of the student-loan bribe in 2017, they will be offering free unicorns to every child; and, most specifcally, a voting age of 16 - perhaps arguing to 18-19-20's that they'll get much more of what they want if they vote for reinforcements from even younger teens next time.  (Monbiot shows here how they'll easily dress this up.)  

And, as noted before, Momentum (that's Momentum Co Ltd, actually and technically another middle-age corporate vehicle) have already gone a way down this youth road, with moderate success.  The key here is whether Disillusioned-with-Jeremy of Bedsit, England can keep the faith for another two whole years.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Anyhow, the near term future for Labour looks to me like More Of The Same.  Making no headway in Scotland.  Worried about northern Brexit towns.  Quite deeply exhausted by internal warfare - too much so to mount any kind of genuine revival or metamorphosis.   (The summer of antisemitism really did take a toll, as far as I can tell.)  Corbyn, and particularly McDonnell, starting to look their age, whilst still kidding themselves they can play a waiting game.**  Starmer the only vestige of manifest leadership (or maybe Watson?), even if Cooper is keeping plenty of powder dry.  Which brings us to ...

5. The Wicked Tories.  I suppose we must reckon that the next few days might bring about a few desertions...  [OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS]   And it's hard to overlook the sheer number of C@W BTL comments that read "I'll never vote for those bastards ever again, ever".   And perhaps the new Farage vanity-vehicle is really attractive enough to adopt the mantle over the next two years.  (Though if that's the plan, they might have come up with a better party name.)

That said:  the Tories are UK history's great survivors.  Loyalty, inertia, lassitude; as you will.  But it's not called Conservative for nothing (and has there every been a bogeyman quite like Corbyn?)  Of course, it also speaks to More of The Same too, even more resoundingly than with Labour.  There can't be an accommodation with Farage, at least until after the next GE.  No mighty leaders-in-waiting have set up camp within the party, even if a romantic sort of Boris-camp has subsisted for years and we can all see the other petty displays of unlimited ambition in little side-booths all across Westminster.  

So - there are some jigsaw pieces to push mournfully around the table.  How many more substantive elements will complete the picture at the time of the next GE?

ND
____________________
** Sinn Fein might have some excuse for watch-and-wait; but in the case of both the SNP and Labour, I reckon they are kidding themselves as to the effectiveness of their would-be opportunism.  They all dream of being Wellington at Salamanca; but in reality it's more like idleness and inability to make the political weather. 
   

Changes. Boundary Changes!

Around these parts we have strongly criticised Tory strategists for failing to nail the much-needed Parliamentary boundary changes in the coalition agreement - which was the Only Thing That Mattered (given that whoever got into power in 2010, in whatever combination, was going to sign up to a bit of austerity etc).

So now, fellas: eye on the ball and fix the bloody boundaries !  Do it now!  A quiet word to the DUP - lads, think of something realistic we can do for you, and join us in this little Bill we have up our sleeves, anything you want really - and Get It Done !  Now !

Yes, there are other consitutional matters that need serious attention in the coming Parliament, and I trust that wise heads have thought them through carefully.  There is some intelligent magnanimity to be shown to the Scots, and a glorious opportunity for some intelligent, win-win devo-localism across the land.  But that can wait.

Fix The Boundaries Now !  There may never be a better opportunity.

Back to celebrating:  Croydon Central ...  165 votes, haha.  Ed Davey, heheheh.

ND

_______
Update(1):  pleased to see Andrew Neil raise boundary changes as his first question to Grant Shapps just now (13:40)

Update(2):  they don't even need the DUP now 

Autumn Statement; Are the Tories and Labour working together on it?

Watching the media being generated at the moment around the total non-event that is the Autumn statement it is hard not to believe that finally Labour and the Tories have united for a national coalition.

The contents of the Autumn statement are bordering on non-existent. New roads that have already been announced, £2 billion in spare change for the NHS that is only £1.3 billion really. Flood defence spending allocated, but was announced in the Budget. These are not even worthy of a mention in reality but because we need an Autumn statement have been cobbled together as some sort of 'event.'

What is even weirder for those who can still be bothered to pay attention is that Labour and the Tories have exactly the same policies on everything that is important.

Europe, stay in,
Immigration, shrug shoulders,
Taxes, raise a bit via leaving thresholds under inflation
Deficit, ignore
Debt, increase hugely
Health, spend like billio
Welfare, pretend reform but ignore the Pensions issue
Defence, cut spending
Education, stop reforms

They are literally the same. As for the Lib Dems, well who cares anymore, I doubt even they do.

Yet in the media Labour criticise every Tory cut and the Tories lambast Labour for their economic profligacy. In reality, the debt and deficit position of Osborne is identical to that which would have occurred under Alistair Darling. There is not one iota of difference in the real world.

In fact, bar some educational changes, the Tories have achieved nothing at all that Labour would not have done of any major significance.

This is the real cause of the rise of UKIP, SNP and Greens. Sections of the population are slowly realising the Westminster/Civil service consensus is wrong on many of the major issues that face the Country.

Interestingly, the media have yet to cotton on. Swayed by their Westminster lunches and connections they see small divisions where there are none. They allow the manufactured differences to be perpetuated.

It's a sad state of affairs but I doubt the next election will see the real sea change, not enough people will have braved the change away from their tribal loyalties to recognise the problems. Perhaps the one after that when serious events will have concentrated minds somewhat more.

Lib Dem implosion harms Cameron and destroys Coalition politics

The silly 'scandals' around the Liberal Democrat party - which whilst unpleasant would not be frontline new in a world where children are murdered and raped in Syria every day, were it not for a media inspired storm, are nonetheless putting the final bullets into a potential future Conservative Government.

The Tories have long been in a bad position electorally, their votes pile up in the South and nowhere else, leading them to have a large market share, but poor return under firs past the post. With Lib Dem votes now going to leave the yellow's that remaining parties will divvie up the votes.

As the protest party has beocme UKIP, since the LD's went into Government and the official opposition is the labour party it is not hard to see where the LD vote goes. Very little will flow to the Tory party - who are 8% behind in the polls anyway with just over a year to go to the election.

Who would have thought that when the Coalition was formed that it would be such an electoral disaster for both parties. The idea that we have another Coalition Government in the next few years is fanciful - the learning surely will be to try to lead a minority Government.

All that effort on trying to fix the economy for George Osborne has gone to waste.

Centrica denied subsidy - a small victory

No doubt Mr Drew will update this later, but initial reaction this morning to the news that Centrica won't be building offshore or onshore gas storage is that I am surprised and pleased.

Clearly, without subsidy this project could not go ahead and so Centrica have shelved it. Also, given market dynamics there was no demand for this project without a huge government subsidy. This is as it should be, no market need, no pay taxpayers moollah.

 Moreover, only in April Centrica announced a deal with Cheniere energy to supply shale gas to the UK. So we have a nice diversified supply set, Norway, North Sea, Qatar and the US, with the interconnector as a last resort for Russian gas. This is why the UK does not need 3 months storage like say Germany, which is hugely dependent on the whim of Moscow for its gas supplies.

The only slightly worrying part of this story is that the Lib Dems are in charge of DECC, this means that this subsidy was more likely denied because the Lib Dems hate the idea of a dash-for-gas which puts such a commonsense and commercial hole in their preferred dash-for insanity (otherwise known as windfarms) policy. Sadly the windfarm subsidies far, far outweigh anything Centrica is asking for gas.

So its a small victory for the market and Government policy today, but a small victory in a losing war for taxpayers.

'Duplicitous Toerags': Quote of the Day

"The Lib Dems are duplicitous toerags, though I have to say they are very good ministerial colleagues" - Tory minister

Ah - that's the way we like our insults !

An amusing end to a crazy week. Let the fun begin.

ND

Lib Dems propose Bank Giveaway - sense from the Loonies.

Now the Chancellor has hinted that he likes this idea of the Government shares in banks being given away in the past. Indeed, it is a good capitalist idea, people being made shareholders. In addition, once people owned bank shares they would stop being so keen to bash the bankers. It might help if the banks in question were in a fit enough state to re-start dividend payments.

The only doubts are the cost of execution, which are not properly dealt with in any media that I see. Ideally, all the shares would be paid into ISA accounts and also help to encourage people to start saving. However, for millions of people, many of whom would have to sign up to new accounts, this would be difficult. I guess you could make an opt-in solution whereby you only get your stake if you want it? overall though the costs of making this happen may stretch to tens or even hundreds of millions which is a high price to pay - and one lucky broker is going to have a very good year off the back of it!

Also the small problem of a £40 billion whole in the Country's balance sheet has to be taken into consideration, for in effect this giveaway is like a giant one off tax cut (the money was borrowed to pay the banks and now the liability is going to get stuck on the Government balance sheet with no off-setting asset) - and as such will be difficult to execute in the next couple of year with spending so tight and tax revenues still at low levels. Still, although the above points need addressing, the idea is one that merits being worked through.

Vince's Budget breakfast

CU was at a breakfast in the City today with old timer Vince Cable doing a speech on the Budget and state of the country. Due to excessive sausage sandwich consumption my notes are more illegible than usual due to spillage:

Anyway, on the economy Vince, who repeated his Shell never made predictions when I worked there in the 1930's and so I won't now said:

- UK GDP 2009, -4%


- Unemployment by end 2009, at least 3.5 million


- Government borrowing, £175 billion


- House prices have a long way to fall, he thought back to 3 or 4x average earnings (CU- 50% fall + in total as they reached 8.5x at height of boom)


He thought it would be a very unexciting budget as the Chancellor has fired his guns last year and has no ammo left. He also suggested it was a Monetary solution that was being followed and not a fiscal one. he thought he was very clever talking about Friedman and Keynes.

(CU- And wrong too. What is blindingly obvious is that the Treasury that has the money has splurged in a Keynesian fashion and the Bank of England that has the monetary supply has done QE as a cure. So we have a nice messy mix of both. Might work, might not; definitely the expensive option)

As for the Lib Dems, he said raise no tax threshold to £10,000 and pay for it by removing pensions incentives and harmonising capital gains with income. This is arch Brownian redistribution which even Labour have not tried. So much for Vince being an orange book man. Clearly a long-time since he had to work for a living in the private sector.

The only other thing he said of note was to agree with Reform who have a report out suggesting ways to cut public spending. happily he said all this can wait a while, big questions like public pensions, mass uni education, defence spending all need rationalising. But no now, not with an election in a year. Pathetic. At this point he made one or two partisan jibes, all aimed at George Osborne. Don't think he mentioned Darling once in the speech.

So now you know what a Lib Dem approach would be. Raise taxes, massive redistribution of wealth, promise to cut spending but never do it, bash the Tories. A vote for Vince is a vote for Gordon; can't see how they would ever go into Government with the Tories with these policies.

He had one good answer when someone asked if we should stop talking down the economy. he said all that sort of talk was nonsense, the economy was in a right state and we should admit it and try to fix it, rather than bullshit (quote) that thinking happy thoughts will make things right.





Guess he agrees with my short position on the FTSE then....