• Skip to main content
  • Skip to after header navigation
  • Skip to site footer
Citizens' Climate Lobby UK

Citizens' Climate Lobby UK

Lobbying for a carbon fee and dividend

  • Home
  • The Problems
    • Climate Change Is Real
    • Climate Change Is Manmade
    • Climate Change Is Dangerous
    • Tragedy of the Commons
  • The Solutions
    • Carbon Pricing
    • Revenue Recycling
    • Border Adjustments
    • Climate Income
    • Citizens’ Role
  • Our Campaigns
    • Your Campaign, Your Way
    • Write to your MP
    • Set Up a Public Meeting
    • Run a Social Media Campaign
    • Influence Organizations
    • Campaign Request Form
  • Support Us
    • Join
    • Renew
    • Donate
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Our Values
    • Our History
    • Our Structure
  • Contact

News

EU initiates its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism – polluters will pay, including the UK!

2nd October 2023 by Catherine Dawson

At the end of July, on the same day that it reported on the Government granting over 100 new North Sea oil and gas licences, Carbon Brief Daily reported on the Financial Times front page article titled..”Britain makes it cheaper to pollute by watering down carbon market scheme”…….“Whitehall recently quietly announced changes to the UK’s carbon-trading scheme, including offering more allowances than expected to polluting industries. The move has pushed carbon prices to trade at a steep discount compared with those in Europe, sparking warnings from industry that it will undermine green investments and increase fossil fuel use.” It adds: “Since the announcement, the UK ETS has fallen to trade at a near-40% discount to its EU counterpart, at £47 a tonne compared with €88.50 (£75.86). The two schemes previously traded near parity; a discount first emerged this spring as traders grew nervous over the UK government’s commitment to matching the climate ambitions of the EU. The gap has widened this month.” 

The carbon-trading scheme referred to is the Emissions Trading System (ETS) which puts a price on emissions released by fossil fuel users at the point of emission. A gas extraction company will not pay it, a company making electricity from gas will, it covers about 40% of UK emissions. When it was considering pricing GHG emissions the EU agreed on ETS (2005) as it was easier to impose on 27 separate countries than a direct carbon tax which would have been the preferred option.

The carbon price is dependent on market forces and for many years wasn’t that effective an incentive to decarbonise. In 2021 the UK left the EU ETS and claimed that its new scheme would be stronger, having removed some flaws and introduced a carbon price floor. As reported above the release of more rather than less free allowances to carbon intensive companies this year has completely undermined the carbon price and the incentive to decarbonise!

Yesterday the EU initiated the first phase of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) system to impose carbon emissions tariffs on imported cement, iron and steel, aluminium, fertilisers, and electricity. This tariff is designed to prevent ‘carbon leakage’ – manufacturers deciding to move production to countries with lower carbon pricing. The fear of carbon leakage has been one of the main arguments against carbon pricing. The UK government had considered imposing CBAM in 2021 but for some reason the idea lost favour and it was presumed that the UK could easily remain a world leader in green technology.

The EU is also planning an ETS II including transport and buildings emissions. The planned UK extension only now covers domestic maritime and waste incineration as a wider extension to inland transport and buildings was scrapped. The EU is allowing member countries to choose either a national carbon tax or ETS II. So far Austria has established the Klimabonus, a tax on carbon which returns the revenue as a dividend to the householder, aka carbon fee and dividend or Climate Income.

Ironically the effect of weakening the UK ETS will lead to a higher bill on UK imports to the EU, the Financial Times reported yesterday in an article titled “UK exporters face hefty EU carbon tax bill after Sunak weakens climate policies”. The article, quoted in Carbon Brief Daily, explains that the collapse of UK ETS prices means that hundreds of millions of pounds will go to paying the CBAM rather than to the UK Treasury ….The lower emissions price also means that the UK Treasury will generate less revenue from carbon pricing; in effect the changes will divert a portion of companies’ carbon bills from Westminster to Brussels.”

Not only did the Government not seize the opportunity when leaving the EU ETS to become a world leader in carbon pricing reform with Climate Income and CBAM; but it has further weakened UK carbon pricing so that it will have to pay the price when the EU introduces CBAM.

 

Filed Under: Border Adjustment Tax, Carbon Pricing, CBAM, Decarbonisation, ETS Tagged With: carbon pricing, Carbon Tax, emissions trading scheme, ETS, EU ETS, fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions

Carbon fee and dividend back on the table in the US!

30th September 2023 by Catherine Dawson

Citizens’ Climate International Press release:

SEPT. 29, 2023 — Citizens’ Climate International welcomes the introduction of legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would place a steadily rising fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels and return revenue from the fee to households. 

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, introduced by Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA), offers an effective market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions known as carbon fee and dividend. In addition to speeding up the transition to clean energy, the bill would also protect American businesses from unfair competition with imports from countries that do not have an equivalent price on carbon, applying what is known as a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).

“At CCI, we consider this the gold standard for carbon pricing and the best way to quickly phase out fossil fuels,” said Joe Robertson, executive director of Citizens’ Climate International. “This legislation can be a model for other countries to price carbon. By giving the proceeds to households, polluters will bear the cost for their harmful activities, not people.”

Carbon pricing policies that return proceeds to households have been enacted or are under consideration in Canada, Austria, Switzerland and Germany.

Citizens’ Climate Lobby, CCI’s sister organisation that supports climate advocates in the U.S., noted in a press release that “a carbon price neatly complements the Inflation Reduction Act. Experts from the Rhodium Group point out, ‘A carbon price can amplify the impact of clean energy incentives.’ A policy like the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act will essentially supercharge the effect of the IRA’s subsidies, encouraging corporate polluters to opt for low-carbon alternatives even faster.” 

In a press release this week, Rep. Carbajal said, “We do not have the luxury of time when it comes to getting to carbon neutral. We need to give big corporations a real, unequivocal incentive to shrink their carbon footprint. We need to put a fee on carbon…..With this legislation, not only do we require fossil fuel companies to phase out dirty fossil fuels. We also put money directly into communities that can then use that money to invest in our local economies, create jobs – especially jobs in clean energy sectors, which will be in higher demand. And in the end, we save lives from lowering our emissions curve, cleaning up our air, and keeping us on track to carbon neutrality by 2050.”

End of press release.

The bill was also introduced by Rep. Peters who said ..“Last Congress, we devoted historic investments to develop and deploy clean energy infrastructure through the IRA and IIJA. Now, we need carbon pricing to lower the cost of clean technologies and to incentivise the entire economy to reduce its emissions. Our bill puts us on path to a low carbon future and ensures a just and equitable transition by returning revenues to the American people.”

Hopefully this will be a turning point in America as more people realise the value of a tax on carbon alongside the regulation and subsidy approach of the IRA.

Resources

  • Rep. Carbajal introduces legislation to decrease carbon emissions by setting carbon fee, returning dividend directly to American people  
  • Carbon pricing bill would supercharge effect of IRA subsidies, cut carbon pollution
  • “Klimageld” to return CO2 price revenues to citizens not before 2025
  • International Energy Agency: Swiss Carbon Tax
  • Canada leads the way on carbon pricing
  • Austria to give out annual €200 ‘climate bonus’

 

Filed Under: Border Adjustment Tax, Carbon fee and dividend, Carbon Pricing, CBAM, Citizens' Climate International, Citizens' Climate Lobby Tagged With: carbon fee and dividend, carbon pricing, Carbon Tax, Citizens' Climate International, citizens' climate lobby, climate income, decarbonisation

Rosebank approved – giving the go ahead for 200m tonnes of carbon….

27th September 2023 by Catherine Dawson

Rosebank has been given the go ahead today despite the repeated warnings of the IEA.

The approval is in no small part due to the fact that there is no price on pollution at the point of production.

Ironically the windfall tax has not disincentivised further development because the “investment allowance” allows companies to claim tax relief on investments. This investment allowance, deemed a “huge tax subsidy” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, means that for every £100 an oil and gas company spends on new oil and gas, they get roughly £45 off their tax bill. The government will forgo 4 billion of the levy. The same investment allowances were not granted to renewable energy generators and the Electricity Generation Levy was only applied to renewable and low carbon generators!

The approval comes despite the best efforts of many and not just the usual suspects. In  August, 50 MPs and peers from all major parties urged the then energy secretary Grant Shapps to block Rosebank, arguing it could produce 200m tonnes of carbon dioxide and that most of the cost of the development would be shouldered by taxpayers. Carbon Brief’s Simon Evans tweeted this morning that burning all its production – some 300m+ barrels of oil & gas – would be equivalent to the annual emissions of around 90 countries and 400m people!

This 2022 Carbon Brief analysis looks at the question Can new UK oil and gas licences ever be ‘climate compatible’, also note this comprehensive analysis of the Prime Minister’s climate policy speech last week.

James Dyke, associate professor in earth system science at Exeter University, explains why the decision on Rosebank is so harmful.

There was discussion on World at One today, R4 (13.07 – 13.23), Dave Vince (founder Ecotricity) pointed out that the 4 billion foregone taxes could have been invested in solar which would lead to more jobs, cheaper energy and higher energy security.  He also stated the need for a carbon tax on fossil fuels produced in the North Sea.

Filed Under: Climate Change, IEA Tagged With: carbon pricing, Climate emergency, fossil fuel subsidies, fossil fuels

That Net Zero speech – what’s the verdict so far?

21st September 2023 by Catherine Dawson

Yesterday the Prime Minister was forced to react to a leak and bring forward a speech about his more ‘pragmatic’ approach to Net Zero. A lot of ink has been spilled over the speech and there are extensive minute by minute reports of the speech and this morning’s R4 Today programme interview in the Guardian and i and probably other media.

As well as claims over policies which may have been briefly discussed but were never going to get into the law books, Mr Sunak has stated that he will push back the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars to 2035, relax rules on the phase out of gas boiler installations by 2035 and the 2026 ban of off grid fossil fuel boiler and scrap energy efficiency rules for landlords. (Energy companies have been competing to cut the costs of heat pumps and other alternatives such as infra red heating are also available but rarely mentioned).

Alok Sharma, currently at the UN Climate summit, (where Guterres has stated that fossil fuel producers profit from destruction, and yesterday warned that the “gates of hell” were at hand), told the BBC there was consternation at the UN which is worried that other countries may take a lead from the UK by rowing back on their own climate commitments.

Kwasi Karteng was worried that pushing back the 2030 ICE car deadline would discourage investment…

I was concerned about pushing out the date for ICEs phase out, the internal combustion engine. Philip [Dunne, the Conservative chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee] mentioned the fact that there has been a huge take up for electric vehicles. Of course there has, the target 2030 has really focused the minds of manufacturers. That is what is accelerating and driving a lot of the transition, a lot of the change. And my worry is that, if you push that out, you are sending the wrong signal.  As business secretary, I used to go to places all round the country, particularly in Sunderland in the north-east [where Nissan is based], and there was huge amounts of capital that was being deployed because they felt we had very strong and very ambitious targets and they wanted to get behind that movement. And of course there is some concern in the party that if we relax those targets, we won’t crowd in the investment and it will be to the detriment of jobs and wealth creation.

Statement by Sam Hall, the Director of the Conservative Environment Network (which includes over 150 MPs and peers)

“This was an unnecessary speech that risks damaging the Conservative Party’s hard-won reputation on environmental issues. Today the PM has changed little of substance besides delaying the transition to electric cars. Sticking to the 2030 deadline would have saved UK motorists money, supported car firms that have invested in new EV factories, and unlocked crucial investment in charge point infrastructure. New measures to speed up grid infrastructure and incentivise heat pump uptake are very welcome, however.

“But the framing of today’s announcements has created an unhelpful impression for voters that the party is backtracking on climate action. It was a missed opportunity to make a positive case for net zero Britain, which is a flagship government policy, reassure industry, and explain the trade-offs involved in slower emissions reduction, namely lost green investment and more expensive climate impacts in Britain.”

Statement by Professor Piers Forster, Chair of the Committee on climate Change

“We need go away and do the calculations, but today’s announcement is likely to take the UK further away from being able to meet its legal commitments. This, coupled with the recent unsuccessful offshore wind auction, gives us concern“.

Statement by Chris Stark, CEO of the Committee on Climate Change

“Let’s look at where we are on this. In June we said the progress that we’ve seen recently on cutting emissions will not take us to the 2030 target. We’ve been cutting emissions by about 1% per year, outside of the power sector, the one sector we’ve been doing well. That needs to quadruple over the next eight years.

What has happened since then is that we’ve had a failed auction for offshore wind, and now a setback from some of the key policies that the prime minister (sic). That is going to make it harder to hit the 2030 goal.

We’re going to go away and do the numbers on that. But the key thing is that those goals still remain. The prime minister recommitted to them.

So I would say that the wishful thinking here is that we have not got a policy package to hit the legal targets that this country has set in law through the Climate Change Act…..I think the government needs to look again at the policies. We need to do more. There’s no real question of that. So, yesterday was not about doing more, it was about doing less”.

A brief selection of business/professional organisation leader opinion on these proposals

The UK 2030 target is a vital catalyst to accelerate Ford into a cleaner future,”…Our business needs three things from the UK government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three.” ….We need the policy focus trained on bolstering the EV market in the short term and supporting consumers while headwinds are strong: infrastructure remains immature, tariffs loom and cost-of-living is high.” Lisa Brankin, Chair Ford.

 Mr Sunak is “condemning people to many more years of living in cold and draughty homes that are expensive to heat, in cities clogged with dirty air from fossil fuels, missing out on the economic regeneration this ambition brings.”Chris Norbury, chief executive of E.on UK

“It’s hugely disappointing to see the Government row back from its commitments to net zero, particularly on improving the energy efficiency of our homes. Making homes more energy efficient is a win-win, not only helping to save our planet, but also boosting our economy by creating jobs and, crucially, saving money,” Chief executive Kate Henderson of The National Housing Federation. 

 “Sunak claims that watering down net zero policies will save families money. However, the proposal to scrap new minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector will have the exact opposite effect. Private renters face the highest rates of fuel poverty, and energy efficiency improvements are the key way to cut energy bills.” Juliet Phillips, Senior Policy Advisor at E3G.

Mr Sunak also repeated his claim that new oil and gas exploration was necessary for energy security and cheaper fuel bills which the government has erroneously claimed are 4 x cleaner than imports. Carbon Brief Daily recently pointed out that …An analysis published in 2022 found that, on average, UK production in the North Sea was nearly three times more emissions intensive than Norwegian production – the country the UK currently sources most of its oil and gas from – and has become more emissions intensive in recent year. The claim was also fact checked on Radio 4’s More or Less recently. Unless the Government was to nationalise oil and gas production and return to previous levels of storage and domestic refining capability the cost of fossil fuels in the UK will remain dependent on the international market price.

For analysis of the implications of continuing North Sea development see Carbon Brief – Factcheck: Why banning new North sea oil and gas is not a ‘Just Stop Oil’ plan.

For a detailed analysis of the implications of the proposals set out in yesterday’s speech see Carbon Brief  – Analysis: UK government’s climate U-turns put legally binding targets in jeopardy. and In-depth Q&A: What do Rishi Sunak’s U-turns mean for UK climate policy?

It could also be pointed out that the argument that there has been no discussion and choice seems to have conveniently forgotten the 2020 Citizens Climate Assembly and although Mr Sunak pointed out the 1st and 2nd Carbon budgets had been exceeded the Climate Change Committee was pessimistic about achieving the fourth (2023-27) and the fifth (2028-32) before the deadline pushback proposals.

Mr Sunak made much of the argument that as small emitters we have a justification for slowing down. Whilst we also may be contributing only 1.1% of GHG, (having outsourced much of our heavy industry) we are actually among the top 17 global emitters.  Paul Waugh pointed out in a recent article on the government’s mixed signals that..“Crucially, all these one per cents add up. Stripping out China, US, India and Russia, around half of the planet’s emissions are made up of countries which emit less than 2 per cent or less of the total. If each of them argued their “small” contribution was an excuse for delay, no targets would ever be hit. We shouldn’t forget that many leading industrialised countries disproportionately contributed to the gases already in the atmosphere, and the UK is the eight biggest historic emitter. A key plank of the UN deal on climate change is for those richer countries to cut emissions faster and to help poorer states adapt”. Guterres had actually called for developed nations to reach net zero by 2040 in the Climate Action Acceleration Agenda, a point he reiterated yesterday. The IPCC had stated in 2022 that to limit warming to 1.5C, global emissions must peak before 2025, and then be halved by early 2030s – in part by ending the world’s reliance on fossil fuels, including reducing use of unabated coal by three quarters by 2030, a statement acknowledged by the UK government on the day of the publication in April 2022.

Dr Friederike Otto, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, pointed out on Radio 4’s World at One today that keeping the commitment to Net Zero by 2050 isn’t enough as the pushbacks will mean that more GHG will be emitted in the meantime.

Finally a Financial Times editorial sums it all up brilliantly  –

“The Conservative premier apparently sees presenting himself as someone who would slow and alleviate the short-term climate transition burden on families as a way to draw a clear divide with the Labour opposition. True leadership, however, would involve finding ways to carry voters with him through the challenges ahead and seizing on the green transition to rekindle growth and spur innovation. This, not backtracking, would be the best way for Sunak to demonstrate that he deserves to keep his job after the next election”.

 

 

Filed Under: Decarbonisation, Economics, fuel poverty, Net Zero Tagged With: Climate Change, decarbonisation, economics, net zero

African Climate Summit calls for global carbon taxation and further international financing reforms.

7th September 2023 by Catherine Dawson

CCI has released a statement at the end of the African Climate Summit today…

SEPT. 7, 2023 — Citizens’ Climate International enthusiastically supports a call from the African Climate Summit for a global carbon taxation regime that could be part of the agenda at the COP28 climate conference in Dubai this fall.

“In addition to being the most effective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a global system for coordinated carbon taxation can also provide the much-needed resources for African countries to transition away from fossil fuels and adapt to the damaging effects of climate change,” said David Michael Terungwa, coordinator of CCI in Africa.

While in Nairobi, Terungwa led a training of climate advocates on building political will for climate action through lobbying, preparing Citizens Climate International volunteers in Kenya to lobby the Kenyan government to put a price on carbon.

The Summit, which wrapped up Wednesday in Nairobi, Kenya, proposed the global carbon tax in a declaration signed by heads of state attending the Summit. In the “Call to action” section of the declaration, the signatories said they:

“Urge world leaders to rally behind the proposal for a global carbon taxation regime including a carbon tax on fossil fuel trade, maritime transport and aviation, that may also be augmented by a global financial transaction tax (FTT)) to provide dedicated, affordable, and accessible finance for climate-positive investments at scale, and ring-fencing of these resources and decision-making from undue influence from geopolitical and national interests.”

The declaration also calls for transformational reforms in international financing to relieve the debt burden that inhibits economic development in many countries. In particular, it calls for “debt pause clauses” for countries recovering from catastrophic natural disasters that are becoming more frequent with climate change.

“Debt often becomes a hole that many countries cannot climb out of,” said Terungwa. “When disaster strikes, limited resources are better spent to help people put their lives back together.”

At the summit President Ruto and other leaders urged reforms to the global financial structures ‘that have left African nations paying about five times more to borrow money than others, worsening the debt crisis for many’. This is the issue highlighted by Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley in the Bridgetown Initiative’ and a component of the CCI dialogue with the World Bank Group.  Speaking about the Bridgetown initiative in April Antonio Guterres commented..“The international financial architecture is short-sighted, crisis-prone, and bears no relation to the economic reality of today,”

There was also a renewed call for the global north to fulfill promises such as the 2009 pledge of $100 bn annually to developing nations in climate finance.  If the financial barriers were removed Africa could not only prosper itself without further locking in global warming but also help us all……

In Africa, we can be a green industrial hub that helps other regions achieve their net-zero strategies by 2050. Unlocking the renewable energy resources that we have in our continent is not only good for Africa, it is good for the rest of the world.” 

“We do not want to say ‘let those guys pay because they are the polluters’, we are saying, ‘let’s all pay’, and then let’s have a mechanism where we invest these resources where we unlock the biggest value on decarbonisation.”

 

 

Filed Under: African Climate Summit, Carbon Pricing, Climate Change, Decarbonisation Tagged With: African Climate Summit, carbon pricing, Carbon Tax, Citizens' Climate International, Climate Change, Climate emergency, decarbonisation

Citizens’ Climate International statement on the UN’s condemnation of the Saudi Aramco business strategy

1st September 2023 by Catherine Dawson

SEPT. 1, 2023 — In light of a recently released UN letter alluding to human rights violations by oil giant Saudi Aramco, Citizens’ Climate International is calling on all fossil fuel companies to immediately develop future business strategies that reduce rather than increase the manufacture of climate-altering fuels. (Shell and BP have also reined back on investment in renewables over the past year).

“With the window to preserve a stable climate rapidly closing, and new research projecting climate disruption will kill more than 1 billion people by the end of the century, it is unconscionable that many oil and gas firms plan to ramp up the extraction and production of fossil fuels,” said CCI Executive Director Joe Robertson. “A liveable future is a human right, and companies should not violate that right by choosing profit over people.”

In the letter sent to Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser on June 26, five UN experts said, “Rather than aligning its business strategy with the Paris [Climate] Agreement goals, and cutting fossil fuel production and its emissions at the rapid rate necessary to meet the 1.5°C climate mitigation goal, Saudi Aramco’s business strategy is currently increasing its fossil fuel production… This approach disregards Saudi Aramco’s own responsibility to reduce production to address its climate change-related human rights impacts.”

The letter also holds accountable a number of financial institutions that are funding Saudi Aramco’s oil and gas expansion, among them JP Morgan, Citi, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The letter requested information on 10 points brought up in a complaint filed by Client Earth, but Saudi Aramco has not yet responded.

In June, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that to limit global warming to 1.5°C, countries must progressively phase out fossil fuels, “moving to leave oil, coal and gas in the ground where they belong.” 

“Phasing out fossil fuels can’t happen unless companies get in line with reality and stop extracting oil and gas,” said Robertson. “They can make money by investing in non-polluting energy and other sustainable business activities. It’s time for them to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.”

Resources

  • UN rights experts raise climate change concerns with Saudi Aramco
  • Oil and gas firms planning ‘frightening’ fossil fuels growth, report finds
  • Letter from UN experts to Saudi Aramco
  • ClientEarth complaint on Saudi Aramco filed with UN
  • The heat is on. Let’s deal with the cause: Fossil fuels

 

 

Filed Under: Citizens' Climate International, Decarbonisation, United Nations Security Council Tagged With: Climate emergency, decarbonisation, economics, fossil fuels, Human rights

Citizens’ Climate International says… The heat is on. Let’s deal with the cause: Fossil fuels

4th August 2023 by Catherine Dawson

With heat extremes removing all doubt about climate change, let’s deal with the cause: Fossil fuels

By Steve Valk

With record-shattering heat making headlines around the world, this is a good time to connect some dots to see what’s behind the weather extremes affecting people this summer and what needs to be done to keep things from getting worse.

Record heat

The most obvious impact at the moment is the sky-high temperatures putting July on pace to be the world’s hottest month on record. How hot? In parts of Arizona, where temperatures have risen to about 110° Fahrenheit for more than a month, people have been hospitalized with serious burns that occur simply from falling down and having bare skin come in contact with surfaces, like asphalt, that reach as much as 180º F.

In addition to the heat dome sitting over the southern U.S., other heat domes around the Northern Hemisphere are pushing up global temperatures. A heat dome over North Africa is affecting European countries around the Mediterranean Sea, with hot, dry conditions contributing to massive wildfires in Greece. Last year, more than 61,000 people died in Europe from heat-related causes. In southern Iran, a combination of actual temperature and high humidity created an astonishing heat index of 152° F. China this summer hit an all-time high of 126º F.

Meanwhile, oceans are heating up to disastrous effect. Off the coast of southern Florida, the water has heated up to hot-tub temperatures in the 90s and as high as 100. This type of heat will bleach the fragile corals in the region. As we get into hurricane season, warmer water will provide the energy for more destructive storms.

But wait, there’s more, and this one is really alarming. Scientists looking at data for the last 150 years associated with currents like the Gulf Stream that redistribute heat on both sides of the Atlantic now say this aquatic conveyor belt could shut down in the next few decades. The collapse of this conveyor belt, known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, raises the spectre of ushering in a European ice age, a scenario depicted in the 2004 disaster film ‘The Day after Tomorrow’ .

The Washington Post’s Sarah Kaplan explains how climate change is driving this threat:

Under Earth’s current climate, this aquatic conveyor belt transports warm, salty water from the tropics to the North Atlantic, and then sends colder water back south along the ocean floor. But as rising global temperatures melt Arctic ice, the resulting influx of cold freshwater has thrown a wrench in the system — and could shut it down entirely.

Given what we’re experiencing this summer, the reality of climate change is now undeniable. The tragedy is that we’ve wasted valuable time convincing ourselves that the threat was real enough to take effective action. In a recent interview with the Guardian, climate scientist James Hansen, who first alerted the world to this impending global catastrophe in the late 1980s, lamented the delay in responding:

[Hansen] said the record heatwaves that have roiled the US, Europe, China and elsewhere in recent weeks have heightened “a sense of disappointment that we scientists did not communicate more clearly and that we did not elect leaders capable of a more intelligent response.”

“It means we are damned fools,” Hansen said of humanity’s ponderous response to the climate crisis. “We have to taste it to believe it.”

The primary cause: Fossil fuels

Now that we’ve tasted it, it’s important to turn our attention to the chefs who cooked it up: The fossil fuel industry. “The Climate Crisis is in the main a fossil fuel crisis,” said “An Inconvenient Truth” filmmaker Al Gore in a recent interview with the New York Times. He had more to say:

“Fossil fuel companies are desperately trying to use their political and economic networks and their successful capture of policy in too many countries to slow down this transition. They don’t disclose their emissions. They don’t have any phase-out plan. They’re not committed to a real net zero pathway. They’re greenwashing. They’re performing anti-climate plotting.”

There’s little mystery as to what must happen in order to prevent climate change from making much of our world uninhabitable: Total phase out of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. And to watch commercials from the major oil companies, either on TV or online, one might get the impression that these corporations are at the forefront of efforts to reach net zero emissions by mid-century. But, as Kate Yoder wrote for Grist last fall, Big Oil is gaslighting us in their marketing efforts:

Well over half of Big Oil’s advertisements promote the message that they have embraced clean energy and emissions reductions, and other such “green claims,” according to a new report from InfluenceMap, a think tank based in London. Researchers found that BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies spent an estimated $750 million last year to promote a climate-friendly image — and the report calls that “a conservative estimate.”

By now, anyone familiar with the #ExxonKnew revelations knows how the company realized decades ago that continued use of their product would have catastrophic consequences for the climate. Despite this knowledge, they funded campaigns to cast doubt on the science of climate change that, disastrously, impeded progress on national policies in the U.S. to bring down heat-trapping emissions. Oliver Millman at The Guardian reported earlier this year:

Armed with this knowledge, Exxon embarked upon a lengthy campaign to downplay or discredit what its own scientists had confirmed. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief executive of the oil company, said that the climate models were “not competent” and that “there are uncertainties” over the impact of burning fossil fuels.

Faced with today’s overwhelming evidence that climate change is indeed happening as a result of burning fossil fuels, Big Oil is shifting strategies from denial to delay, hoping to wring out every last dollar of profit by slowing the transition to clean energy and electrification. Check out this thinly veiled attack on electric vehicles from ExxonMobil where people, tethered to wires and cables, break free by driving a gas-powered vehicle. InsideEVs has more on this.

In a recent story in The Guardian, Dharna Noor lays out the duplicitous maneuvering of Big Oil, making pledges to reduce emissions to keep government regulators at bay and then walking back those pledges when opportunities arise to cash in.

Climate-fueled extreme weather persisted through spring and summer. But fossil fuel companies have only doubled down on their oil- and gas-filled business models. Shell promised to cut oil production by 20% by 2030, but then this year said it already met that goal by selling off some operations to another oil company –thereby not reducing emissions in the atmosphere. BP has also expanded gas drilling. And Exxon’s CEO, Darren Woods, told an industry conference last month that his company plans to double the amount of oil produced from its US shale holdings within the next five years…

Timmons Roberts, professor of environment and sociology at Brown University, provided Noor with an apt analogy of what the oil industry is doing.

To foster a real energy transition, said Roberts, leaders must stop believing that energy companies will voluntarily change their business models. He likened politicians’ behavior to the gag in the Peanuts comic, wherein Charlie Brown repeatedly attempts to kick a football held up by Lucy, even though she always pulls it away and lets him fall over.

One major newspaper is calling out Big Oil for their wanton behavior at humanity’s expense. In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times suggests it’s time to give up the notion that fossil fuel companies have any intention of being part of the solution.

Too many powerful people in government, business and civic organizations have clung to the fantasy that some of the most powerful and destructive companies in history would eventually face reality and transform on their own initiative into clean and sustainable operations.

But the last year has shown they are committed to profiting from pollution. While major oil companies post record profits, they are retreating on their climate pledges, lobbying to reverse climate policies and trying to derail the switch to electric vehicles.

What is so disheartening is that, having known that their product would render the planet uninhabitable for many of its people, the giants of oil and gas had the opportunity to transform their business model but chose not to. They had the resources to pour massive amounts of capital into wind, solar and energy storage to evolve into the energy companies of the 21st century that could alter the self-destructive course humanity is set on.

Solutions

It is now readily apparent that help from the fossil fuel industry will not be forthcoming, at least not voluntarily. Governments must take the steps that will force their hand to choose between a business model that preserves a livable world or one that quickly becomes extinct, like the dinosaurs whose carbon-rich remains they harvest.

The biggest step governments can take is to hold polluters accountable for the damage they’ve done by imposing a steadily increasing fee on the carbon content of their product. If the bulk of that revenue is given to the people, most households — especially poor and middle-income — would see no economic impact from the carbon fee. In fact, many would see a net gain. Citizens’ Climate Lobby has an excellent proposal for pricing carbon and distributing the revenue to households.

Faced with the reality that businesses and consumers would start to see clean energy and electric vehicles as preferable for being comparatively cheaper, the fossil fuel industry would provide more than lip service toward efforts to rein in carbon emissions. They would make major investments in clean technologies to truly transform their businesses and become part of the solution instead of the main problem.

To ensure that a carbon price has the desired effect throughout the whole world, it is essential that it be applied everywhere. That’s why the International Monetary Fund has proposed an international carbon price floor (ICPF) between $25 and $75 a ton, depending on the country’s level of development. CCI supports a fair, cooperative, graduated ICPF and will work to see it implemented.

One more important step to phase out fossil fuels is the initiative to enact a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. The proposed treaty calls for:

  • Ending the expanding fossil fuel production.
  • A fair phaseout of fossil fuel production, “where nations with the capacity and historical responsibility for emissions transition fastest, providing support to others around the world.” 
  • Fast tracking the adoption of clean energy and economic diversification away from fossil fuels so that no worker, community or country is left behind.

CCI has endorsed the treaty and is working to get other institutions, like the World Bank, to endorse the treaty, too.

The extreme, record-breaking heat this summer — and weather-related disasters associated with it — should put to rest any doubts about the existence of climate change. We know that the principal driver of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, which must end with all deliberate speed if we are to have any chance of warding off catastrophic consequences. We have the solutions — solar, wind, geothermal, energy storage and electric vehicles — for ending our dependence on oil, gas and coal. With time running out, there are no excuses to delay this transition.

The fossil fuel industry has demonstrated time and again their unwillingness to engage in good faith on the climate issue. Let’s stop playing Charlie Brown to their Lucy and take actions that will make their product obsolete.

(Blog from CCI website).

 

 

 

Filed Under: Blog, Carbon fee and dividend, Carbon Pricing, CCI, Citizens' Climate International, Climate Change, Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty, IMF Tagged With: carbon fee and dividend, carbon pricing, Carbon Tax, Citizens' Climate International, Climate Change, Climate emergency, climate income, fossil fuels

Sadly, as feared, the Government has decided to back the wrong horse…(updated on 1/8/23).

31st July 2023 by Catherine Dawson

Despite all the evidence that the world can’t remain below 1.5C of global warming if new oil and gas exploitation continues, yesterday the UK Government gave the go ahead for exploration and production in the North Sea. The Government argues that it is essential for energy security, will ensure prices can be lessened and that the UK will still need oil and gas after reaching net zero, stating that the country will still be dependent for a quarter of its energy on oil and gas, presumably totally offset by carbon capture!* North Sea oil and gas is also stated as being ‘cleaner’ despite dropping the requirements of the 2021 ‘climate compatibility checkpoint’ from subsequent energy security plans and the fact that the UK oil and gas industry doesn’t currently have the most stringent policies on flaring and venting. Carbon Brief Daily (1/8/23) points out that …An analysis published in 2022 found that, on average, UK production in the North Sea was nearly three times more emissions intensive than Norwegian production – the country the UK currently sources most of its oil and gas from – and has become more emissions intensive in recent years.

Unless the Government were to nationalise the industry the UK government will not be able to control prices as UK output will be insufficient to affect the global market; the UK also doesn’t have the refining capacity to prevent exports for refinement, about 80% of UK oil is currently exported. The Committee for Climate Change put the case against the continuing development of new oil and gas fields in February 2022 and Stop Cambo has a recent debunker of Government claims that UK oil and gas production would be greener and cheaper, see also Dave Waltham’s recent article. 

Carbon Brief (1/8/23) points out that….The government’s official advisors the Climate Change Committee has estimated that reaching net-zero would require investments of £1.4tn, with this total substantially offset by savings – largely in reduced fossil fuel imports – amounting to £1.1tn. This is before taking account of avoided climate impacts and other benefits such as cleaner air.

Chris Skidmore has tweeted about the decision… “This is the wrong decision at precisely the wrong time, when the rest of the world is experiencing record heatwaves.It is on the wrong side of a future economy that will be founded on renewable and clean industries and not fossil fuels.” Back in March Cambridge University organised over 600 scientists to send a letter to the PM asking him not to permit new oil and gas development, which was ignored. They have now sent a second letter adding that… “With searing heat around the world reminding us of the very real danger posed by climate change, we are even more disappointed that the government’s revised Net Zero Strategy did not rule out any new development of onshore and offshore oil and gas fields.”

Far better to ‘max out’ on renewables by creating the right financial and regulatory climate rather than continue to subsidise an industry which will either one day become a stranded asset or the profits of fossil fuel exploitation will be more than offset by the environmental costs which are becoming all too evident now. 

A visible, rising and predictable carbon tax** (as endorsed last week by The Times) would create the right signals for decarbonisation to become even more cost-effective against fossil fuels. If, of course CI were implemented, it would reduce the cost burden which the Government fears and which is driving so much of the current retrenchment on both sides of the political divide.

*In 2015 the Peterhead power station and the White Rose scheme in North Yorkshire was cancelled by the Government. BusinessGreen editor James Murray, writes: “[I]f these [CCS] projects are so critical to achieving net zero why has the government spent over a decade failing to deliver a functioning carbon capture project in the UK? Why is the expanding pipeline of new projects still waiting on clarity on the regulatory and subsidy framework in which they will operate? And does the government really think it can build this industry with just £20bn of funding over 20 years, especially when it has just moved to reduce the cost of carbon?”(see below). While there is a role for CCS and DAC it shouldn’t be used as an excuse to carry on exploiting fossil fuels, currently worldwide CCS projects capture about 40 m tonnes of carbon dioxide pa – equivalent to 10% of the UK’s annual emissions (and UK emissions are 1.1% of the global total).

 **The current main UK carbon taxation policy, ETS (which covers 40% of emissions) has itself been watered down so it is now half the EU ETS carbon price, the front page of the FT announced yesterday that ‘Britain makes it cheaper to pollute by watering down carbon market scheme’….. “Whitehall recently quietly announced changes to the UK’s carbon-trading scheme, including offering more allowances than expected to polluting industries. The move has pushed carbon prices to trade at a steep discount compared with those in Europe, sparking warnings from industry that it will undermine green investments and increase fossil fuel use.” It adds: “Since the announcement, the UK ETS has fallen to trade at a near-40% discount to its EU counterpart, at £47 a tonne compared with €88.50 (£75.86). The two schemes previously traded near parity; a discount first emerged this spring as traders grew nervous over the UK government’s commitment to matching the climate ambitions of the EU. The gap has widened this month.” 

 

Filed Under: Carbon Pricing, Decarbonisation, Economics, ETS Tagged With: carbon pricing, Climate Change, Climate emergency, Committee on Climate Change, decarbonisation, economics, emissions trading scheme, ETS, fossil fuels, global emissions, net zero

The Met Office warns that the July of 2022 may become the new normal – let’s tell our MPs most people don’t want to backtrack……

27th July 2023 by Catherine Dawson

The Met Office has confirmed that the temperatures of last year’s summer, if we keep to a predicted medium emission scenario (Met office modelling that assumes carbon emissions peak around 2045 and then fall) will be considered cool by 2060 and average by 2021, and Antonio Guterres warned later today that “the era of global boiling has arrived”.

On the Today programme this morning Lord Deben argued that apart from emissions reductions in electricity generation progress has been painfully slow with a 1% fall in emissions, which needs to quadruple to meet the government’s 2030 net zero targets. Deben stated that he was relieved that the Government isn’t budging on the 2030 ICE vehicle sales deadline for selling ICE but that the debate since the by-election has been damaging (and the government is easing a deadline on installing gas boilers for landlords and is considering easing the requirements on landlords to reach C energy efficiency ratings on property to let by 2028).

The Government, he argued, needs to do far more to make the economic case for reaching net zero and to make the process fair, (which the ULEZ scheme which got government funding for scrappage in some areas but not in London and the SE blatantly was not), putting the economic argument for the benefits of decarbonisation at the heart of the argument or it will continue to be threatened by the next headwind. 

This week CCL members have been encouraged to write to their MPs while responses to the by-election and the weather remain in the news. Carbon Brief today points out that the Met Office report is not being ignored in the most skeptical serious papers!

If you have not already done so please do consider taking up the pen (metaphorically) to write to your MP to remind them that the climate crisis is here now and most people of all political hues want action and want it to be fair. According to the DESNZ Public Attitudes Tracker: Net Zero and Climate Change Spring 2023, UK, the majority of people (82%) said they were at least fairly concerned about climate change, unchanged since Summer 2022 (83%) and slightly lower than the highest levels reported in Autumn and Winter 2021 (85%).

There is advice on letter writing here and you can find contact details etc at TheyWorkForYou. Please bcc to [email protected]

Ed Atkinson has written a draft letter template, (see below) which you can adapt, do add some personal details if it is the first time, I pointed out how my kid’s school sports days and proms were either blighted by extreme rainfall or heat even back in the mid 2000s! Appreciation for something your MP has achieved is also good, CCL and CCI supports the principle of collaboration rather than confrontation. 

The lesson from the recent Uxbridge by-election is surely not that we should reign back from green policies, polling suggests that the wider electorate will not support that. Rather, it is that we should be careful when green policies directly impact on household finances. A Climate Income actually does the exact reverse: it is a policy that will directly place funds into citizens’ bank accounts. This enables a robust policy for driving carbon from the economy, and so meet our net zero targets, to be a vote winner in the next election for a wide range of the electorate.

You may also want to mention The Times endorsement of carbon taxation, (CCL news item, not paywall article), especially if you think your MP is likely to be a Times reader! The Times does not specifically mention CI but it is arguing for the tax to be hypothecated and to subsidise renewable energy. As Ed Conway points out in today’s Times, we need more carrot and less stick!

For further background please see this recent blog.

Let’s remind our politicians that there is not only no justification for dropping commitments to net zero while Rhodes burns and people die, but also no need!

 

Filed Under: Campaign, Carbon Pricing, Climate Change, Decarbonisation, Economics Tagged With: carbon pricing, Carbon Tax, Climate Change, Climate emergency, climate income, decarbonisation, economics

Amidst the calls for retrenching on climate policies The Times hints at the most effective and fairest solution….

24th July 2023 by Catherine Dawson

Whilst not asking directly for Climate Income an editorial in The Times today puts the case for a Carbon Tax…..The message from policymakers must be that mitigating climate change can best be tackled through the continual innovations that are characteristic of market economies. And that doing so, using the price mechanism to encourage new technologies, is practical. It is widely understood that a carbon tax would be highly effective in persuading consumers and businesses to switch their energy consumption and behaviour. This would need to apply to carbon consumption and not only production, lest richer countries merely outsource their production to poorer economies. Revenues from a carbon tax could be used to subsidise renewable sources of energy and thereby encourage their wide adoption.

Carbon taxation in general is to be welcomed as it gives the right economic signals and makes decarbonisation cost effective.  Even better would be Climate Income which would ensure the transition doesn’t hurt householders, especially the poorest! (See also a new blog).

Filed Under: Carbon Pricing, Climate Change, Decarbonisation, Economics Tagged With: carbon pricing, Climate Change, Climate emergency, decarbonisation, economics

  • Previous
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Page 7
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 22
  • Next
Citizens Climate Lobby UK

An informally constituted community group

Follow Us on Social Media

  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn

Copyright © 2026 · Citizens Climate Lobby UK · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy