This Dieter Helm article in the FT is packed so full of wrongness I hardly know where to start 🧐
He's been chanting the same "focus on R&D not deployment" mantra for so long he can't see how comprehensively wrong it has been proven 🙈
THREAD
1/
ft.com/content/8ffe8e…
He's been chanting the same "focus on R&D not deployment" mantra for so long he can't see how comprehensively wrong it has been proven 🙈
THREAD
1/
ft.com/content/8ffe8e…
Backstory 1
Prof Helm is a highly influential Oxford economist who wrote a report for Govt on the cost of UK energy
Long story but >>1yr later it is deep in long grass
Our coverage (NB how familiar it sounds to FT article…):
carbonbrief.org/depth-challeng…
carbonbrief.org/reaction-diete…
Prof Helm is a highly influential Oxford economist who wrote a report for Govt on the cost of UK energy
Long story but >>1yr later it is deep in long grass
Our coverage (NB how familiar it sounds to FT article…):
carbonbrief.org/depth-challeng…
carbonbrief.org/reaction-diete…
Backstory 2
After Helm's review was published, Govt took unusual step of sending it out for external consultation… here's a snapshot of responses:
After Helm's review was published, Govt took unusual step of sending it out for external consultation… here's a snapshot of responses:
Backstory 3
Secretary of State Greg Clark responded to the report in a recent speech, which at first sight agrees with Helm.
But read closer and you will see it repudiates much of Helm's thinking…it's very much a "yes, but" response to Helm's review.
gov.uk/government/spe…
Secretary of State Greg Clark responded to the report in a recent speech, which at first sight agrees with Helm.
But read closer and you will see it repudiates much of Helm's thinking…it's very much a "yes, but" response to Helm's review.
gov.uk/government/spe…
All the caveats:
Before I start, let me be 1st to agree w Dieter on how far world is from global climate goals, how large the challenge looms & how big a prob is posed by coal, Trump & all the rest.
But srsly.
There are plenty of real problems w/out making up imaginary ones.
Before I start, let me be 1st to agree w Dieter on how far world is from global climate goals, how large the challenge looms & how big a prob is posed by coal, Trump & all the rest.
But srsly.
There are plenty of real problems w/out making up imaginary ones.
Let's turn back to Helm's new FT article.
As I said, much to disagree with so let's take things par by par:
Par 1 "little achieved on climate"…
…except UNEP just showed how far we've come from a once-likely future of 4C+ warming
Progress ≠ success
carbonbrief.org/unep-limiting-…
As I said, much to disagree with so let's take things par by par:
Par 1 "little achieved on climate"…
…except UNEP just showed how far we've come from a once-likely future of 4C+ warming
Progress ≠ success
carbonbrief.org/unep-limiting-…
Par 5 (sorry, this could take a while)
"Nonsense to say decarbonisation won't cost money"
Literally no-one is claiming this.
But evidence to date strongly suggests decarbonisation is compatible with continued economic growth.
theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
"Nonsense to say decarbonisation won't cost money"
Literally no-one is claiming this.
But evidence to date strongly suggests decarbonisation is compatible with continued economic growth.
theccc.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
More on Helm's costs argument…
To focus on costs alone is such a tired tactic. What abt benefits?
eg European Comm plan for "climate neutral" EU by 2050 said it'd have negligible impact on GDP, which would still double.
(+this ignores climate damages)
To focus on costs alone is such a tired tactic. What abt benefits?
eg European Comm plan for "climate neutral" EU by 2050 said it'd have negligible impact on GDP, which would still double.
(+this ignores climate damages)
Next: Par 6 "climate policy has increased bills" (I paraphrase)
You would think Dieter might be on top of this subject, having just done a review for Govt…and yet…he seems to have missed UK energy bills falling over the past 10 years.
You would think Dieter might be on top of this subject, having just done a review for Govt…and yet…he seems to have missed UK energy bills falling over the past 10 years.
Par 6 bonus points:
"voters are ultimately more concerned about their bills than climate"
Perhaps true, but UK public concern over energy bills is near record lows…
"voters are ultimately more concerned about their bills than climate"
Perhaps true, but UK public concern over energy bills is near record lows…
Par 6 even more bonus points:
That EU plan to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 says the share of household spending going towards energy would *fall* in the process.
That EU plan to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 says the share of household spending going towards energy would *fall* in the process.
Par 7: French diesel price rises are "driven by the carbon tax"
Sorry Dieter, nul points.
Recent oil price increases are the main culprit:
Sorry Dieter, nul points.
Recent oil price increases are the main culprit:
Par 8: "China has nearly 1,000GW of coal and is building another 250GW"
…except China has a cap on coal capacity of no more than 1,100GW.
Moreover, even existing Chinese coal plants only run half the time.
Capacity ≠ generation & CO2 emissions
carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-…
…except China has a cap on coal capacity of no more than 1,100GW.
Moreover, even existing Chinese coal plants only run half the time.
Capacity ≠ generation & CO2 emissions
carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-…
Par 9: "Europeans might not really be cutting their carbon footprint because imports"
This used to be true in the UK but it clearly isn't any more, see chart. Next.
This used to be true in the UK but it clearly isn't any more, see chart. Next.
Par 10: "The first 2C of warming won't be damaging to GDP"
This is based on a dodgy & since-revised chart in a literature review. Chart author says costs > benefits above 1C, so, er, already.
(More importantly, GDP isn't the only measure of damage.)
carbonbrief.org/qa-social-cost…
This is based on a dodgy & since-revised chart in a literature review. Chart author says costs > benefits above 1C, so, er, already.
(More importantly, GDP isn't the only measure of damage.)
carbonbrief.org/qa-social-cost…
Par 12: "Paris is a top-down climate deal driven by the UN"
Oops. The *entire point* of Paris is that it builds on *Nationally-Determined Contributions* rather than a top-down division of labour.
The clue is in the name, Dieter.
Nationally. Determined.
carbonbrief.org/explainer-what…
Oops. The *entire point* of Paris is that it builds on *Nationally-Determined Contributions* rather than a top-down division of labour.
The clue is in the name, Dieter.
Nationally. Determined.
carbonbrief.org/explainer-what…
Par 14: "None of the existing renewable techs are going to do the job"
This must be why the just-released EU plan for net-zero emissions relies on *existing renewable techs* such as wind and solar to supply 50-60% of the bloc's energy in 2050.
Right?
This must be why the just-released EU plan for net-zero emissions relies on *existing renewable techs* such as wind and solar to supply 50-60% of the bloc's energy in 2050.
Right?
Par 15: "Stop putting all our $ on wind/solar, spend on R&D instead"
AARRGGH! This arg is so dumb.
NO-ONE disagrees w more R&D.
But we can walk AND chew gum – we already are. Dieter keeps saying this even as renewable costs drop because *deployment*.
carbonbrief.org/unep-limiting-…
AARRGGH! This arg is so dumb.
NO-ONE disagrees w more R&D.
But we can walk AND chew gum – we already are. Dieter keeps saying this even as renewable costs drop because *deployment*.
carbonbrief.org/unep-limiting-…
Par 15 bonus:
As this droll below-the-line comment points out, it is pure fantasy to imagine that brand new tech R&D can be developed, commercialised and ridden to the rescue on the timescales required to tackle climate change.
(Of course, we DO still need R&D)
As this droll below-the-line comment points out, it is pure fantasy to imagine that brand new tech R&D can be developed, commercialised and ridden to the rescue on the timescales required to tackle climate change.
(Of course, we DO still need R&D)
So in summary:
It's true that the world is far from avoiding the worst of climate change.
But it isn't a "rethink" that's needed, it's more of everything we already have, including R&D, deployment and genuinely innovative thinking.
END/
It's true that the world is far from avoiding the worst of climate change.
But it isn't a "rethink" that's needed, it's more of everything we already have, including R&D, deployment and genuinely innovative thinking.
END/
