A People's War

Many of the methods of providing cleaner energy are having problems. Last month a planned wind farm on the Isle of Lewis was ruled out; many of us hope no-one decides to build a new nuclear power station; and there are real worries about the links between biofuels and higher food prices.

Whilst we need low- and zero-carbon forms of energy supply to progress, it is surprising how little debate there is on reducing the demand for energy. Yet everyone agrees (even the government) that this is the cheapest, quickest way to limit our impact on the climate. What is happening?

It appears that the government prefers to talk to the few people that represent the big supply utilities, whether oil, gas or electricity. It is manageable. They fit round one table. There are trade-offs and concessions to make, but these are expected and can be contained. The supply side is seen as rational: they are there to make money, so the objective is to make sure they can do this whilst also contributing to sustainability.

On the demand side, I suspect the problem is viewed as something completely different by government. There are 25m households in the UK containing nearly 50m decision- makers. There is no-one to represent them, so they cannot voice a collective view. Many people do not understand energy issues: they don’t know the difference between a kW and a kWh; they are ignorant of whether or not they have a cavity wall, let alone whether it is filled.

As to knowing the size of their household’s carbon footprint, forget it. Householders, and businesses, are seen as a large part of the problem. They are ignorant, unpredictable and diffuse.

There is no denying that there are different challenges in dealing with energy supply and demand. However, a change in perspective could be warranted. It is known that the majority of people in the UK are worried, or even very worried, about climate change. Many of them would be delighted to have leadership, so that they know what to do to reduce their impact on the climate and to feel that they are doing their bit.

What would happen if 25m households and 2m businesses are incorporated into the action? They are seen as the solution, not the problem? They can all start contributing innovative and novel ideas, building up a united sense of purpose. That is the challenge the government should welcome.

We know that the technology is there to achieve major reductions in each of the sectors, whether road transport, aviation, homes or business. What is needed is a coherent strategy, led by government, to combine political will, public support and changed behaviour with these technologies and deliver a lower carbon future. And to do it now. The climate won’t wait.

The Climate Change Bill provides the framework and the Climate Change Committee can help the government deliver. The missing ingredient is the government’s commitment.

The rhetoric is there — as evidenced by the fine words of Gordon Brown: ‘The climate change crisis is the product of many generations, but overcoming it must be the great project of this generation. …the costs of urgent action are far less than the costs of delay; and the earlier we act, the easier and less expensive our task will be. The EU view is that to stand a chance of keeping the temperature increase below the 2oC target… emissions from industrialised countries like Britain should be cut by 60 to 80 per cent by 2050... I am determined... that the government will meet its responsibilities and maintain its global leadership.’

The scenarios are also there in publications from the Environmental Change Institute, the Tyndall Centre and the Commission for Integrated Transport. These spell out, in varying detail, what has to be done.

In 2005, the Lower Carbon Futures team and colleagues produced the 40 per cent house report, demonstrating how to achieve a 60 per cent cut in residential carbon emissions by 2050. This confirmed the methods to halve the energy used in lights and appliances and to reduce the need for heating by at least a third in every home.

In addition, there will be one or more low- and zero-carbon technologies helping to reduce carbon emissions in every property: solar hot water, photovoltaics, combined heat and power, biomass stoves and heat pumps. Even in the middle of winter these can provide 25GW of electricity capacity from the residential sector alone which more than offsets the 22GW of nuclear and coal-fired plant that is due to be retired.

There does not need to be an energy gap especially as demand reduction can start today: the technologies required are known whereas new nuclear and carbon capture and storage may not be delivering additional supply for another 10-12 years.

Last November, I completed Home Truths, for Friends of the Earth and the Co-operative Bank, which went further by examining the policies required to achieve an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. Its suggestions focussed on the existing housing stock as proposals for new-build homes are progressing relatively well with plans to be zero-carbon by 2016.

It is improving what is already built that is problematic as, depending on demolition rates, up to 95 per cent of the homes we live in today will still be occupied in 2050. The proposals in Home Truths combine strong action on climate change with a real commitment to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016, as required in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. There are strong synergies between these two arms of policy and both are urgent.

The most important task is for the government to create a completely new, positive, political strategy that inspires people to act and confirms that climate change is serious and urgent. Only government can provide the missing link: a strong, clear, overarching low-carbon strategy to combine energy and housing. The policies proposed in Home Truths are, therefore, extensive. They start with a high level of commitment to ensure that people get the message and radical change starts quickly.

The expenditure is grouped under tax cuts and government investment. In total, these come to nearly £13bn per year, until at least 2016. The proposal is funded through the government, not through the utilities, to ensure that the costs do not fall on low-income households as this would exacerbate fuel poverty further. Low-income families do not pay tax but they do buy gas and electricity, and would therefore have to contribute to any utility-funded programme.

Whilst £13bn a year is a substantial sum, it echoes the findings of the Stern Review that early action is still the least costly route to a low-carbon future. Any delay increases the costs and the risks:

‘Mitigation — taking strong action to reduce emissions — must be viewed as an investment, a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future’ (executive summary, i, Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change).

Some of the thinking behind the policies deserves further detail. The compelling case for tacking fuel poverty is achieved, initially, by investing in a low-carbon zone in every local authority. These would tackle half the fuel poor homes by 2012, in a concentrated, street-by-street fashion. The idea is modelled on the existing Warm Zones, but includes low- and zero-carbon technologies to ‘future proof’ the occupants.

Several of the other policies, such as the low-interest loans and stamp duty rebates, build on the energy performance certificates and the introduction of mandatory minimum standards. These are part of a market transformation package that includes education, incentives and regulation similar to what has happened with boilers, fridges and now light bulbs. Those properties that are rated G and F are known to provide unhealthy housing and have to be improved anyway under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

The cheap loans are to improve the housing stock and bring homes up to and beyond the minimum standard. With this route, you do not have to have the capital up-front which is important for cash-strapped households.

This proposal builds on the German experience, known as the KfW scheme, which is using subsidised loans to improve pre-1984 properties. The standard of upgrade required has to be significant to warrant the administrative costs of the scheme — say at least two bands on the Energy Performance Certificate.

Many new initiatives, from communities (e.g. Transition Towns), from businesses (such as the film and music industries, BT and M&S) and from inspirational individuals (as in the Existing Homes Alliance) are demonstrating how to deliver on climate change mitigation. All that is needed is for government to be bold and to build on this groundswell of enthusiasm. The zeitgeist is there, it is for the government to deliver. The population is crying out for this sort of leadership and 50 million decision-makers equal 50 million voters.

The biggest rewards may come from the reduction in supply-side problems. As we place photovoltaics on our roofs, nuclear may not be needed with all its concomitant waste problems. As we insulate our homes and heat our hot water with solar thermal, gas imports decline and the UK’s energy supply becomes more secure. As businesses reduce their energy overheads, they become more competitive. And as we begin to walk and cycle more, we become fitter and world food supplies are less threatened by competition with biofuel. A low-carbon future that comes from reducing demand really is win, win, win.

Brenda is a Senior Research Fellow at the ECI, and a co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre.