09 Feb 2012
Several of the UK's leading green entrepreneurs have written to newly-appointed Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey calling on him to reinvigorate the government's environmental agenda and step up support for clean technologies.
The letter sets out five requests from the green business sector and calls on the new Lib Dem Cabinet minister to provide greater clarity, confidence and continuity from DECC's policies.
The letter was orchestrated by green consultancy SecondNature and signed by Climate Change Capital's James Cameron, Ben Goldsmith of Wheb Group, Ecotricity's Dale Vince, Mainstream Renewable Power's Eddie O'Connor, Jeremy Leggett of Solarcentury, and SecondNature's Charles Perry.
It sets out a series of wide-ranging requests, calling on Davey to lobby other departments to ensure that they do not abandon the coalition's pledge to become the "greenest government ever", and better communicate the benefits associated with renewable energy technologies that are seeing costs fall at a time when fossil fuel prices become more volatile.
It also urges Davey to "stimulate green jobs and communicate a more compelling narrative that UK competitive advantage lies in creating a ‘sustainable green economy'".
In addition, the letter makes a number of policy requests calling on Davey to publicly support mandatory carbon reporting rules that are currently being considered by the government and deliver a plan for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.
It also calls for a shift in the debate on green taxes, which recently saw MPs attack the Treasury for failing to honour a coalition agreement pledge to increase environmental levies.
"We ask that you adopt the 'polluter pays principle' by incentivising clean purchasing behaviour with 'green incentives' while collecting 'pollution taxes'," the letter states. "The oxymoronic language of 'green taxes' confuses the public that renewable energy will continue to add costs to consumer bills while the converse is the case – renewable energy will actually reduce consumer bills."
The letter is the latest in a series of calls from green businesses and NGOs for the newly appointed Secretary of State to use his new position to reinvigorate the government's green agenda and push back against Conservative backbenchers and ministers who have been lobbying for a watering down of the coalition's green ambitions.
Writing in the Guardian earlier this week, Andy Atkins, David Nassbaum and John Sauven, the respective directors of Friends of the Earth, WWF and Greenpeace, praised Davey's appointment and his initial commitment to the green economy.
But they also called on Davey and Prime Minister David Cameron step up efforts to "provide the policy clarity and certainty on energy saving, renewables and decarbonisation of the energy system that shows the UK is a long-term good bet for green business".
"The test of Davey's success, and that of the government, will be if they deliver a timely boost to the economy, thousands of skilled jobs, and get a good deal for consumers," they said.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT POLITICS
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
BIS initiative aims to shift government and corporate procurement towards low carbon goods and services
INSIGHT
NEWSLETTER
INSIGHT
This new handbook explores practices that allow organisations to overcome their technological limitations and traditional office-culture challenges - freeing employees to do more with less from wherever they want to.
The centralised printers used in many businesses are wasteful, unreliable and expensive to run - just as their suppliers intend
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Partial and poor reporting of a serious matter
Why does BusinessGreen not provide a full and complete copy of this letter, so that we can see exactly what is being suggested? Comments could then be serious and more meaningful.
Posted by Christopher Maltin, Organic Power, 09 Feb 2012
Green Jobs do Not Cost Money
Time after time after time those who work within the Environmental and Renewable Energy and Renewable Fuels Industry cannot relate the fact that promoting these industries and developments does not imply at all that the Programmes or Projects require inordinate subsidies or that they even reuire enhanced financial subsidies. The mad dash to meet the Renewable Energy and the Renewable Fuels demands stimulated by various Governments and Associations of Governments requests has been the reasoninh behind why the industry (in response) has maintained the wish to have continued and continual subsidies. This is more an egotistic belief than a reality. Of course with some industries there has been a need to build up the understanding of technologies and that has resulted in demands for resoureces and raw materials that would have otherwise been used for other purposes. So we have had the use of Food Crops for Fuels and the result has been the forcing up of food crop prices to meet the demands of fuel production at the expense of food uses. This has then resulted in the need for subsidies to make the fuels. So we see the demise of the Ensus Wheat to Ethanol plant in Tees-side leaving the RBS with a debt of over £100 Million and the Abengoa Wheat to Ethanol PLant in Rotterdam leaving a similar debt to banks there all because they cannot make their desired fuels as they have said because the costs of the raw material are higher than the sales prices of the fuels they produce. And we see the often considered interests in the Waste to Energy (aka Incineration/Gasification plants being touted around by Governments and their Consulting Engineering Poodles proffering these as a solution to treating waste knowing full well that these cost so much money and that they are so environmentally doubtful that the only way that they can be financed is by the PFI/PPP/PPPP or the latest euphemism - Prudential Borrowing rote so that the Tax Payers do not know that they are thrice subsidised: firstly in Capital Costs and low interest rates, secondly through enhanced gate fees for treatment, and thirdly by being allowed to have a double value ROCs for making electricity even if all that electricity was used up making the plants work. We then see the Wind Turbine manufacturers bellyaching over the fact that they cannot get their huge subsidies to build these (direct grants at 40% of the costs to build, and capital allowances of 25%) and then they are worried that their ROCs rates are still only 2 or 3 times the average price the general public pay for electricity. If this issue wasn't so lucrative then how come thes facilities change hands so freely in financial deals at two or even five times the building costs even before they have been built and commissioned. And we are now seeing the same with the Photo-Electricity companies who have made an absolute mint doing the same thing. No wonder they are frightened of the ultimate and newest development in P_V (Photo_Voltaic) systems which are using spray-applied technologies that will bring the capital costs down to around 15% of the current over-priced hard plate (so-called) thin film systems. This new technology which is at the fore-front of developments is revolutionary beyond extreme. It embodies a sprayed application of P_V finishes that can be applied to any surface (new or old) from a bridge (like the Pont du Nord or the Forth Rail Bridge to a railway cutting a dam wall any building or structiure - even the Eiffel Tower - any structure or tank (a sewage works as well) or an airport roof and the extent is endless with the effect that all previously thought of locations can be used. Now if this wasn't a good example of new technology in the forefront of making why is it that the comapny is being asked to be set up in Malta and Turkey and is being given investment opportunities from Korea China Brazil to South Africa and Morocco through to Russia and Australia? Why? Simply because this will curtail the developments of the current P_V systems with an affordable technology that can be universally applied. Now also we hear of the Neptune-Energy submerged Sea Turbines currently being developed in the UK. This Company without-a-doubt will be moving from the UK shortly because its needs in investment are being crowded out by the megaliths of "afraid investers" who are more interested in making a "quick buck" on the current wind turbines debacle than this very inovative programme. It is heard that the Koreans are interested in this programme and are about to take it to the Far East. Is this not a Stephen Cockerel moment when the Hovercraft moved to the USA. So stop moaning people inovate. So stop moaning about the needs for subsidies and innovate.
Posted by Paul, 09 Feb 2012
Letter to Davey from Green Entrepreneurs
I trust Mr Davey will view with scepticism this letter from a handful of people who have made a fortune out of renewables with no impact on climate change.
Posted by jamied, 09 Feb 2012