Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

As the UK prepares its next carbon budget, what needs to be included?

News Feed
Friday, February 21, 2025

Labour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.Ministers will be given hundreds of pages of advice on steps they need to take for an expected reduction of emissions to about a quarter of today’s levels by 2040. The seventh carbon budget, which will be published on Wednesday, is the latest in a series stretching back to 2008.The timeframe for this advice goes far beyond the usual political horizon: the budget will set carbon levels from 2038 to 2042. But the Climate Change Committee, the statutory adviser under the Climate Change Act, is expected to warn that the UK is already falling badly behind.Although the CCC cannot prescribe policy, it can make recommendations and set out the limits within which the government can act – for instance, if airports are expanded and people take more flights, there will need to be much deeper cuts to carbon elsewhere in the economy.For that reason, the advice is likely to make uncomfortable reading for senior ministers. Green campaigners and businesses have grown increasingly alarmed at the rhetoric from sections of the cabinet, which has sometimes seemed to pit economic growth against environmental aims.Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, warned of a “growth at all costs, growth is king narrative” that was painting climate and nature concerns as a hindrance.Some recent decisions – to greenlight a new runway at Heathrow, and to continue subsidising the tree-burning power station Drax, albeit at a lower rate than before – have been protested against. Far worse has been the rhetoric: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor the exchequer, alarmed many when she said planning reforms would let developers “focus on getting things built and stop worrying over the bats and the newts”.A recent decision to continue subsiding the tree-burning Drax power station cast doubt on Labour’s green credentials. Photograph: Gary Calton/The ObserverYet the economic arguments for climate action are clear and well established. Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “The cost to the global economy [of failing to control temperature rises] could reach $38tn a year, according to research published in 2024. In the UK, about 6.3 million households are currently at risk of flooding, which could rise to around 8 million by 2050, according to the Environment Agency. It is not just economically prudent to invest in reducing carbon emissions – it would be extreme economic folly not to do so.”Several other big decisions are still in play, including regulations on housebuilders to make new-build homes low-carbon, and a review of nature and farming regulation. But most divisive of all is likely to be the decision over new oil and gas fields in the North Sea, many of which – including one of the biggest, Rosebank – are already in the licensing system. As Labour’s manifesto commitment was to award no new licences without revoking current ones, some in government are arguing for Rosebank to go ahead.Pitting green as the antithesis to growth also risks alienating business, says Rachel Solomon Williams, the executive director at the Aldersgate Group of companies that push for a green economy. “To create a strong and resilient economy we need to be taking the lead in the low-carbon sectors that will drive sustainable growth in the future,” she said. “Businesses across the country want to see a regulatory and policy landscape that rewards ambition and innovation in the private sector, rather than a race to the bottom.”With the UK well off track to meet its current carbon budgets, more action will be needed in the short and longer term, in every sector of the economy, involving changes to nearly every aspect of our lives from how we live at home to how we get around, what we work on and what we eat.Ministers must set the seventh carbon budget by the end of June 2026. They are likely to accept the recommended overall carbon target, but the detailed policy advice will be up for grabs. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are committed to meeting our ambitious targets. Britain is back in the business of climate leadership because the only way to protect current and future generations is by becoming a clean energy superpower and leading global climate action.”EnergyIf the government meets its target of decarbonising the electricity system almost completely by 2030 – a very large “if” – that will not be the end of the story. Electricity supply must roughly double from current levels to meet future demand. Ed Matthew, the director of the UK programme at the E3G thinktank, said: “The power system is key because both heating and transport and about two-thirds of industry will need to be electrified. The 2030 target is really just the start of the electrification journey.”Grid upgrades will be needed, along with more focus on demand management, and storage will be key. E3G is calling for more investment in hydrogen, which can be stored in solid or liquid form for producing energy on demand.HomesHome heating makes up roughly 18% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, largely from using gas. By the 2040s, most homes will need to be using heat pumps, but their takeup has so far been stubbornly slow. Last summer, only about 250,000 homes were using heat pumps.They are more expensive to install than gas boilers, and are still not as cheap to run as they should be, because the way the UK’s electricity market works makes electricity much dearer compared with gas. There are even question marks over whether new homes will be built with heat pumps under forthcoming building regulations called the “future homes standard”.Ed Miliband, the energy and net zero secretary, sounded lukewarm on the technology recently when he told a select committee: “I am very wary of saying that we will stop people having gas boilers at a point when we cannot guarantee that heat pumps will be cheaper for people.”Yet there are currently no real alternatives to mass heat pump installations if the UK is to be weaned off gas. The CCC is expected to make this point forcefully.IndustryGiving up fossil fuels in industry will require far more electrification and investment in new technologies, such as electric arc furnaces for steel-making; hydrogen for use in chemicals, plastics and fertilisers; and low-carbon versions of cement. For some industries, the only option will be carbon capture and storage, to which the government will devote more than £20bn in the next two decades.All of this will require investment, but few private sector companies are taking the steps needed. Some are likely to be waiting to see what help the government might offer; others may be in engaged in a game of chicken, trying to bully ministers into watering down the UK’s net zero commitments.Williams, of the Aldersgate Group, said: “By making clear that it’s firmly committed to rapid decarbonisation, the government will provide much-needed economic certainty that will ultimately drive investment and generate prosperity.”TransportFrom 2035, it will be impossible to buy a new petrol or diesel car. Most of the UK’s 30 million strong fleet is likely still be reliant on fossil fuels for some years after, however. Electric vehicles are also no panacea: they still produce significant air pollution and are becoming heavier along with conventional cars.If decarbonisation targets are to be met, people will need to use public transport far more in future. This should also stimulate economic growth – according to the National Infrastructure Commission, the UK lags badly behind other European countries in the availability of public transport in many of its major regional cities, and this is a major brake on productivity.Although the government has begun to take the railways back into public ownership, returned bus services to regulatory oversight and backed an Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there is little sign of the joined-up national public transport strategy and investment in local networks such as trams that experts say is needed.FarmingHooting tractors jamming Whitehall in protest at the removal of inheritance tax breaks have set the tone for this government’s relationship with farmers. Yet farmers are vital to any net zero strategy, to grow more trees, preserve and re-wet peatlands, and reduce the increasing share of emissions from agriculture – which has already overtaken electricity and will be the biggest source of greenhouse gases in just over a decade, according to analysis from the Energy Climate Intelligence Unit.Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas of which animal manure is a leading source, must be tackled as a matter of urgency if the world is to avoid the worst ravages of climate breakdown.Farmers, who have been protesting against the removal of inheritance tax breaks, are vital to any net zero strategy. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPAAction is also in farmers’ own interests, according to Tom Lancaster, an analyst at the ECIU. “Farming is the sector perhaps most exposed to the risks of climate change. We’ve just seen one of the worst harvests in decades in the UK, as farmers battled through the wettest 18 months on record and relentless winter rainfall, made worse by climate change,” he said. “We will only see more terrible harvests and flooded and drought-stricken farms in the future if we don’t do more now to move faster towards net zero.”Behavioural changeThe last government refused to countenance any message that people would have to adapt their behaviour in order to bring down carbon emissions. But all the analysis from the CCC so far shows that without changing consumption, it will not be possible to create the low-carbon society needed. This need not be drastic, and it would be good for us: walking more, cycling where possible, taking public transport instead of the car, and eating less meat would all improve most people’s health.Getting that message across will face deep-seated obstacles, however, including accusations of nanny state-ism – and Keir Starmer’s claim that carbon targets can be reached “without telling people how to live their lives”. Childs, at Friends of the Earth, said proving the benefits was key: “The policy pathway for meeting our carbon budget must not only be robust enough to achieve them – it must also make people’s lives tangibly better, if the mandate for change is to remain strong.”

Expert recommendations will impact plans for energy, housing, transport industry and farming for decadesLabour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Continue reading...

Labour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.

Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Ministers will be given hundreds of pages of advice on steps they need to take for an expected reduction of emissions to about a quarter of today’s levels by 2040. The seventh carbon budget, which will be published on Wednesday, is the latest in a series stretching back to 2008.

The timeframe for this advice goes far beyond the usual political horizon: the budget will set carbon levels from 2038 to 2042. But the Climate Change Committee, the statutory adviser under the Climate Change Act, is expected to warn that the UK is already falling badly behind.

Although the CCC cannot prescribe policy, it can make recommendations and set out the limits within which the government can act – for instance, if airports are expanded and people take more flights, there will need to be much deeper cuts to carbon elsewhere in the economy.

For that reason, the advice is likely to make uncomfortable reading for senior ministers. Green campaigners and businesses have grown increasingly alarmed at the rhetoric from sections of the cabinet, which has sometimes seemed to pit economic growth against environmental aims.

Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, warned of a “growth at all costs, growth is king narrative” that was painting climate and nature concerns as a hindrance.

Some recent decisions – to greenlight a new runway at Heathrow, and to continue subsidising the tree-burning power station Drax, albeit at a lower rate than before – have been protested against. Far worse has been the rhetoric: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor the exchequer, alarmed many when she said planning reforms would let developers “focus on getting things built and stop worrying over the bats and the newts”.

A recent decision to continue subsiding the tree-burning Drax power station cast doubt on Labour’s green credentials. Photograph: Gary Calton/The Observer

Yet the economic arguments for climate action are clear and well established. Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “The cost to the global economy [of failing to control temperature rises] could reach $38tn a year, according to research published in 2024. In the UK, about 6.3 million households are currently at risk of flooding, which could rise to around 8 million by 2050, according to the Environment Agency. It is not just economically prudent to invest in reducing carbon emissions – it would be extreme economic folly not to do so.”

Several other big decisions are still in play, including regulations on housebuilders to make new-build homes low-carbon, and a review of nature and farming regulation. But most divisive of all is likely to be the decision over new oil and gas fields in the North Sea, many of which – including one of the biggest, Rosebank – are already in the licensing system. As Labour’s manifesto commitment was to award no new licences without revoking current ones, some in government are arguing for Rosebank to go ahead.

Pitting green as the antithesis to growth also risks alienating business, says Rachel Solomon Williams, the executive director at the Aldersgate Group of companies that push for a green economy. “To create a strong and resilient economy we need to be taking the lead in the low-carbon sectors that will drive sustainable growth in the future,” she said. “Businesses across the country want to see a regulatory and policy landscape that rewards ambition and innovation in the private sector, rather than a race to the bottom.”

With the UK well off track to meet its current carbon budgets, more action will be needed in the short and longer term, in every sector of the economy, involving changes to nearly every aspect of our lives from how we live at home to how we get around, what we work on and what we eat.

Ministers must set the seventh carbon budget by the end of June 2026. They are likely to accept the recommended overall carbon target, but the detailed policy advice will be up for grabs. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are committed to meeting our ambitious targets. Britain is back in the business of climate leadership because the only way to protect current and future generations is by becoming a clean energy superpower and leading global climate action.”

Energy

If the government meets its target of decarbonising the electricity system almost completely by 2030 – a very large “if” – that will not be the end of the story. Electricity supply must roughly double from current levels to meet future demand. Ed Matthew, the director of the UK programme at the E3G thinktank, said: “The power system is key because both heating and transport and about two-thirds of industry will need to be electrified. The 2030 target is really just the start of the electrification journey.”

Grid upgrades will be needed, along with more focus on demand management, and storage will be key. E3G is calling for more investment in hydrogen, which can be stored in solid or liquid form for producing energy on demand.

Homes

Home heating makes up roughly 18% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, largely from using gas. By the 2040s, most homes will need to be using heat pumps, but their takeup has so far been stubbornly slow. Last summer, only about 250,000 homes were using heat pumps.

They are more expensive to install than gas boilers, and are still not as cheap to run as they should be, because the way the UK’s electricity market works makes electricity much dearer compared with gas. There are even question marks over whether new homes will be built with heat pumps under forthcoming building regulations called the “future homes standard”.

Ed Miliband, the energy and net zero secretary, sounded lukewarm on the technology recently when he told a select committee: “I am very wary of saying that we will stop people having gas boilers at a point when we cannot guarantee that heat pumps will be cheaper for people.”

Yet there are currently no real alternatives to mass heat pump installations if the UK is to be weaned off gas. The CCC is expected to make this point forcefully.

Industry

Giving up fossil fuels in industry will require far more electrification and investment in new technologies, such as electric arc furnaces for steel-making; hydrogen for use in chemicals, plastics and fertilisers; and low-carbon versions of cement. For some industries, the only option will be carbon capture and storage, to which the government will devote more than £20bn in the next two decades.

All of this will require investment, but few private sector companies are taking the steps needed. Some are likely to be waiting to see what help the government might offer; others may be in engaged in a game of chicken, trying to bully ministers into watering down the UK’s net zero commitments.

Williams, of the Aldersgate Group, said: “By making clear that it’s firmly committed to rapid decarbonisation, the government will provide much-needed economic certainty that will ultimately drive investment and generate prosperity.”

Transport

From 2035, it will be impossible to buy a new petrol or diesel car. Most of the UK’s 30 million strong fleet is likely still be reliant on fossil fuels for some years after, however. Electric vehicles are also no panacea: they still produce significant air pollution and are becoming heavier along with conventional cars.

If decarbonisation targets are to be met, people will need to use public transport far more in future. This should also stimulate economic growth – according to the National Infrastructure Commission, the UK lags badly behind other European countries in the availability of public transport in many of its major regional cities, and this is a major brake on productivity.

Although the government has begun to take the railways back into public ownership, returned bus services to regulatory oversight and backed an Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there is little sign of the joined-up national public transport strategy and investment in local networks such as trams that experts say is needed.

Farming

Hooting tractors jamming Whitehall in protest at the removal of inheritance tax breaks have set the tone for this government’s relationship with farmers. Yet farmers are vital to any net zero strategy, to grow more trees, preserve and re-wet peatlands, and reduce the increasing share of emissions from agriculture – which has already overtaken electricity and will be the biggest source of greenhouse gases in just over a decade, according to analysis from the Energy Climate Intelligence Unit.

Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas of which animal manure is a leading source, must be tackled as a matter of urgency if the world is to avoid the worst ravages of climate breakdown.

Farmers, who have been protesting against the removal of inheritance tax breaks, are vital to any net zero strategy. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA

Action is also in farmers’ own interests, according to Tom Lancaster, an analyst at the ECIU. “Farming is the sector perhaps most exposed to the risks of climate change. We’ve just seen one of the worst harvests in decades in the UK, as farmers battled through the wettest 18 months on record and relentless winter rainfall, made worse by climate change,” he said. “We will only see more terrible harvests and flooded and drought-stricken farms in the future if we don’t do more now to move faster towards net zero.”

Behavioural change

The last government refused to countenance any message that people would have to adapt their behaviour in order to bring down carbon emissions. But all the analysis from the CCC so far shows that without changing consumption, it will not be possible to create the low-carbon society needed. This need not be drastic, and it would be good for us: walking more, cycling where possible, taking public transport instead of the car, and eating less meat would all improve most people’s health.

Getting that message across will face deep-seated obstacles, however, including accusations of nanny state-ism – and Keir Starmer’s claim that carbon targets can be reached “without telling people how to live their lives”. Childs, at Friends of the Earth, said proving the benefits was key: “The policy pathway for meeting our carbon budget must not only be robust enough to achieve them – it must also make people’s lives tangibly better, if the mandate for change is to remain strong.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Indigenous Resistance Stalls Colombia's Potential Renewable Energy Boom in La Guajira

The La Guajira region in northern Colombia, home to the Indigenous Wayuu community, holds vast potential for renewable energy, especially wind power, but projects have faced resistance

CABO DE LA VELA, Colombia (AP) — Giant wind turbines tower over a cemetery sacred to Zoyla Velasquez and her Indigenous Wayuu community, native to the La Guajira region in northern Colombia.This arid, wind-swept region, dotted with cacti and roaming herds of goats, holds immense potential to position Colombia as a wind and solar energy leader. However, resistance from the Wayuu community has stalled many proposed projects by multinational companies and the government. The Wayuu have concerns about the environmental and cultural impacts and the lack of prior consultation in what's one of the nation’s poorest regions. Now, these companies are also eyeing the region’s offshore wind farm prospects.“This cemetery is sacred to us, the Wayuu,” 64-year-old Velasquez said in Spanish, though she is more comfortable speaking in her native Wayuunaiki. Wayuu leaders say what is threatened isn’t the cemetery itself but the spirituality of the territory. “It is here that the bones of our ancestors rest. That's what matters most to us.”The region could generate approximately 15 gigawatts of wind energy, according to Colombia’s Mining and Energy Planning Unit, which could power up to an estimated 37.5 million homes annually. It's part of Colombia’s just energy transition, aiming to replace fossil fuels with renewables while supporting vulnerable groups like Indigenous peoples. The Wayuu say this isn’t happening.Construction started on the La Guajira 1 wind farm — which looms over the cemetery near Cabo de la Vela — in 2020 after a mix of legal processes, government backing, and controversial negotiations and unsatisfactory prior consultation. It faced significant opposition from the Wayuu and has been producing electricity since 2022, but is not yet hooked up to the interconnected system. “Wayuu spirituality is the fundamental base of our life and existence,” said Aníbal Mercado, a “Palabrero,” head of the regional Wayuu council. He wasn't part of the consultations due to his staunch opposition. “If something disturbs the peacefulness of our dead, they’re affecting spiritual peace and tranquility. And as long as (the turbines) are there, there is going to be direct violation, anxiety and impact.” EDITOR’S NOTE: This is part of a series of on how tribes and Indigenous communities are coping with and combating climate change.A lot of the population also preserve traditional, semi nomadic ways of living on “rancherias,” which are thatched-like roofed huts, made from dried cacti and mud, herd cattle and goats, and many are armed. They also have a traditional governance system and laws based on their cultural and spiritual practices. Critics warn that the government’s push to expedite approvals for other developments could escalate tensions. “La Guajira has been very sought after by these companies,” Samuel Lanao, head of Corpoguajira, La Guajira’s environment authority told The Associated Press in Riohacha, the region's capital. “When a foreign company enters these territories with the intention of exploiting renewable energies, there is always going to be a clash."Colombia's government has committed to respecting Indigenous rights through legal frameworks like the 1991 Constitution, which recognizes Indigenous autonomy, and international agreements that ensure their right to prior consultation and participation in decisions that affect them. The 2016 Peace Agreement also touched on Indigenous communities’ rights, land restitution, and participation in political processes.Social issues have begun to spook companies, with 57 planned projects stalled, according to Indepaz, a Bogotá-based development organization with extensive research on the matter. While some projects are Colombian, the majority involve international companies from Brazil, Europe, U.S. and Canada.“It’s clear they’re worried. There’s been a slowdown in the progress of these energy transition projects precisely because of that conflict,” Lanao said. “I believe that the national government plays an important role in achieving a community-company agreement.” Colombia’s environment ministry did not respond to requests for comment. The region is home to Cerrejon, one of the largest open-pit coal mines in the world and a major player in Latin America’s mining sector, which has been in operation since 1985. The mine has just nine years left in its lifespan, and its closure, without alternative plans in place, will deal a significant blow to the region’s economy.“You can imagine what this energy transition means to us,” Lanao said. “This renewable energy sector comes to supply the income that the coal exploitation gives us today in La Guajira.”Developing wind projects in Guajira is key to guaranteeing a reliable supply of electricity in Colombia, says Margarita Nieves, founder of Colombian Offshore Wind Research Network and La Guajira native. Nieves added for La Guajira, it represents an opportunity to have a new industry that will generate employment, position it as a center for the production of goods and services for the wind energy sector, and contribute to meeting the electricity demand of its inhabitants.But the issue is also causing internal friction within the Wayuu community which stems from differing views on economic benefits, with some supporting development for financial gain. The AP spoke to several Wayuu families living near wind turbines who do not oppose the companies operating there, as they have received financial assistance and housing.Others are not convinced.“An old saying goes that if you’ve never owned a chicken, manure looks like an egg to you,” Mercado, the Palabrero, said when asked about those in the community who accept help from the companies, which is much less than what he'd consider fair compensation. “There are many communities that have never had anything. In the midst of so much need, so much crisis, so much hunger, any little penny that they are being offered now seems like a miracle cure and the greatest wealth in the world to them,” he said. New offshore plans also shunned Companies are now carrying out studies for offshore wind farms, which is also enraging the Wayuu, especially traditional fishers, known as Apalanchii. Lanao, of the environmental authority, says just because the project is in the sea, it does not mean the communities do not have influence.The Apalanchii use traditional fishing techniques, with nets, hooks and sometimes spearfishing. It is not only a means of sustenance but also a culturally important activity which they say ties them to their ancestors and the land.“We are really worried about the offshore wind farms,” said fisherman Aaron Laguna Ipuana, 57, during an early morning fishing trip in Cabo de la Vela with his crew. “They're going to displace us and the sea is everything to us. It sustains us."Mercado says the government needs to do more to ensure Wayuu people are involved. “We are concerned that these projects continue and that the government is letting them go ahead, without even coming to say what is going to happen and what is in the interest of the Wayuu people," said Mercado. “The Wayuu defend their territory with blood and death, if necessary,” he said. At the cemetery, Velasquez, dressed in a traditional Wayuu robe and headscarf, gently strokes and observes the graves alongside her sister and young niece. In the background, the turbine blades continue to turn.“The nobility of a Wayuu is used by companies,” Velazquez says. “May they do something good for us ... the way we want it.” The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Europe greenwashing with north Africa’s renewable energy, report says

Greenpeace argues European-backed projects hamper countries’ ability to decarbonise their own economiesEuropean countries are extracting renewable energy from Morocco and Egypt to “greenwash” their own economies, while leaving north Africans reliant on dirty imported fuels and paying the environmental costs, a Greenpeace report says.Both Morocco and Egypt are aiming to leverage their strategic locations south of the Mediterranean, and their solar and wind power potential, to position themselves as pivotal to Europe’s quest to diversify its energy supply. Continue reading...

European countries are extracting renewable energy from Morocco and Egypt to “greenwash” their own economies, while leaving north Africans reliant on dirty imported fuels and paying the environmental costs, a Greenpeace report says.Both Morocco and Egypt are aiming to leverage their strategic locations south of the Mediterranean, and their solar and wind power potential, to position themselves as pivotal to Europe’s quest to diversify its energy supply.Greenpeace’s report argues that European-backed renewable and lower-carbon projects producing energy for export are hampering the two countries’ ability to decarbonise their own economies, displacing local populations and consuming millions of litres of fresh water, in some cases in environments where it was already scarce.At the same time, both Egypt and Morocco also remain net importers of fossil fuel energy, buying in large quantities of oil and gas to fuel their own economies, while selling their cleaner energy to Europe, according to the report.After the outbreak of war between Ukraine and Russia, European energy companies ploughed billions in investment into Egypt to access the country’s gas reserves, as they sought alternatives to the 80bn cubic metres (2.8tn cubic feet) of Russian gas suddenly taken off the market.But disruption to geological formations due to overdrilling by gas and oil companies has led to soil erosion and contamination, polluting the water supply, Greenpeace says, arguing that Egyptians have scarcely benefited.Now, the report says, Egypt “is increasing its domestic use of dirty fuels such as mazut – a blend of heavy hydrocarbons containing toxins like sulphides and heavy metals – with a view to freeing up more gas for export to Europe.”But, according to one international thinktank, Egypt will need international investment if it is to build the infrastructure and industry that it needs in order to scale up its renewable sector rapidly. The Atlantic Council argues: “With smart, forward-looking policies and strategic investments from the Egyptian government, combined with robust international partnerships, Egypt can become a global clean energy hub.”In Morocco, TotalEnergies has invested $10.6bn (£8.4bn) in a green hydrogen and ammonia plant in Guelmim-Oued Noun, with production starting in 2027, and Germany has also committed up to €300m (£250m) for green hydrogen facilities, with both projects aimed at export markets.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionHanen Keskes, the campaigns lead at Greenpeace Middle East and North Africa, said: “The global north must take responsibility for reducing its own consumption and building domestic renewable capacity, instead of externalising socio-environmental costs to the global south. We must continue to fight to decolonise and transform the global financial architecture.”

Connecticut considers incentives to spur networked geothermal projects

Connecticut could become the latest state to pursue networked geothermal systems as a way of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, improving public health, and reducing energy cost burdens for residents. State lawmakers are considering a bill, HB 6929 , that would create a grant and loan program to support development…

Advocates point to the emissions reductions the systems can achieve. More than 40% of the state’s households burn heating oil to stay warm, and another 37% use natural gas; meanwhile, the only emissions associated with geothermal heat come from generating the electricity used to run the heat pumps installed in buildings across the system. Geothermal networks can also save customers money because the energy underground is free and ground-source heat pumps use far less electricity than air-source heat pumps or electric resistance heat. In Framingham, Massachusetts, the country’s first utility-scale geothermal network is projected to cut some customers’ heating bills by as much as 75% this winter, testified Eric Bosworth, clean technologies manager for Eversource, which built and owns the project. The adoption of geothermal networks can also help utilities — and their workers — transfer skills into a new field as energy systems transition away from natural gas, supporters said. “They have experience and expertise that can be leveraged,” Bosworth said, noting that gas industry workers constructed much of the Framingham system. Geothermal heat pumps have been around for more than 100 years, but the idea of using the equipment to serve dozens of homes connected in a loop first started to catch on in 2017, when Massachusetts energy transition nonprofit HEET began pitching it to utilities. They were interested, and in June 2024, Eversource brought the Framingham system online. Today the network serves 135 residential and commercial customers in the city of Framingham. National Grid is also in the process of developing a system in Boston. Other states have seen the promise in geothermal networks, too. Six states in addition to New York and Massachusetts have passed legislation supporting utility construction of thermal energy networks, according to the Building Decarbonization Coalition, and some 22 to 27 pilot projects have been proposed to regulators nationwide. In Connecticut, environmental groups have been discussing the geothermal possibilities with utilities for a few years, said Shannon Laun, the Conservation Law Foundation’s vice president for Connecticut. Eversource has shown interest in developing a pilot project and taken preliminary steps to seek approval to proceed, but specific legislation supporting geothermal networks would be more likely to galvanize action from utilities, she said. “We’re starting to see some new momentum with this bill,” Laun said.

Energy is central to American politics. That all started with Jimmy Carter.

We have yet to solve the problems that Carter confronted head-on as president.

In 1981, a Democratic president who’d made energy policy a centerpiece of his administration left the White House after just one term — voted out partly due to the perception that he didn’t do enough to combat inflation and high energy prices amid destabilizing conflict in the Middle East. His successor promised to open up the country’s oilfields and to “make America great again.” It’s not exactly 1981 all over again, but today — as the country holds funeral services for Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, who died on December 29 at the age of 100 — the echoes of his term in office are loud enough to warrant taking a second look at how Carter’s presidency inaugurated the world we live in, one in which energy is central to American politics.  “From the minute he took office, Jimmy Carter made it clear that energy reform was top of his agenda. Literally,” the Princeton historian Meg Jacobs, author of the book Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s, said in an email. “He got out of his limo during the procession to the White House, during the freezing cold, and watched the rest from a solar-heated viewing stand.” In symbolism and substance, President Carter displayed an obsessive attention to energy. He famously installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, but more consequentially, he created the Department of Energy, and allocated what remains a record amount of funding into energy research and development. Carter’s energy policy had two primary objectives: reducing the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil, and reducing its energy consumption altogether. The first goal has remained the watchword of the nation’s energy policy ever since. But the second, rooted in the Sunday school teacher’s conservationist and communitarian ethos, helped end his presidency — and helped convince future leaders that Americans’ refusal to be told to make do with less was an immutable political fact. Carter’s attention to energy was the result of its appearance in the 1970s as a novel political problem. For most of the 20th century, the country had had little in the way of a coordinated energy policy, and the subject was far removed from political contestation in the public eye — even as the postwar American dream of car-dependent suburban homeownership was predicated on the assurance of oil’s eternal abundance and cheapness. The ’70s was the decade in which that promise started to crack up. “By the mid-1970s, if you’re a middle-class working person who’s been encouraged to move to the suburbs and buy a V8 Ford or Pontiac, you’re structurally dependent on cheap oil and access to that oil for the reproduction of your everyday life,” said Caleb Wellum, a historian at the University of Toronto. Read Next The highly flammable politics of high gas prices Eve Andrews So it was a profoundly disruptive moment for the nation when, in October of 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries announced an embargo on exports of oil to any country that had supported Israel in the Six-Day War — catalyzing high gas prices in the U.S., lines of cars at gas stations stretching for blocks, and a years-long period of “stagflation” characterized by the demoralizing combination of high inflation, low growth, and high unemployment.  Besides the economic devastation it wrought, the embargo carried symbolic weight: “This comes after the Vietnam War, which was a blow to the collective ego of the United States because we had not emerged victorious. And then these nations that we thought were sort of our client states in the Middle East all of a sudden dictating to us about certain things. It was rather stunning at the time,” said Jay Hakes, the former administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration and director of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library. The presidents who immediately inherited the situation, Richard Nixon and, upon his resignation, Gerald Ford, sought to remedy the situation primarily by expanding domestic energy production. But their focus on energy was less zealous than Carter’s — and far less visionary. By the time Carter took office, on January 20, 1977, memories of the gasoline lines were already starting to fade. But with inflation and oil prices still high, and the U.S. still reliant on foreign imports of oil, Carter made it his mission to remind the country that it needed to think about energy. “A lot of his presidency was about convincing Americans that there still was an energy crisis even though the embargo was over,” Wellum said. “The conditions that the embargo had taken advantage of were still present, and the U.S. still had this problem it had to figure out.” But Carter had a complex political coalition to wrangle behind his ambitions. The Democratic Party he led was split between two visions of how to address the issue: “You have the kind of old left, New Deal Democrat who is interested in protecting consumers, protecting the working class, and making life more affordable for more people, and that is in tension with the new left, environmentalist side of the left wing that’s questioning the ethics of consumption, saying that maybe oil is too cheap,” said Wellum. On the other side of the aisle, animated by free-market economic doctrines then on the rise, was a Republican Party insistent that the gas shortages were “not a matter of scarcity but a matter of government overreach, bad government policy, and environmentalist overreach,” Wellum said. The prescription, eagerly supported by the oil industry: “We need access to Alaska. We need access to the Outer Continental Shelf. We need to rethink how we restrict or regulate oil production,” Wellum continued. “If we do that, the free market and the oil companies and the American spirit will innovate and produce our way out of this energy crisis. We don’t need to consume less; we can have even more.” This narrative was more or less anathema to Carter, who complemented his push for energy independence with an insistence that Americans do their part and collectively sacrifice for the nation. Clad in a cardigan, he addressed the country two weeks after taking office and implored Americans to turn their thermostats down to “65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night” to address the ongoing natural gas shortages. At the same time, Carter was a contradictory figure who in some ways embodied aspects of each of the coalitions of his time — at once a big-government liberal and a deregulator; simultaneously the conservationist who fought the oil industry to preserve vast areas in Alaska and the energy hawk who expanded domestic coal production despite being aware of the science, already established, behind human-made global warming. “People often talk about Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer, but he’s also Jimmy Carter the nuclear engineer,” said Wellum. In some ways, Carter’s economic policy marked the turning point toward the era of neoliberalism — a transition that Wellum argues in his book Energizing Neoliberalism: The 1970s Energy Crisis & the Making of Modern America was directly spurred by the oil crises of that decade. Driven by a belief in the efficiency of markets, Carter lifted the price controls on oil that Nixon had imposed in 1971 — a move characterized by critics at the time as a giveaway to the oil industry.  But Carter also signed the country’s first significant appliance efficiency standards into law, and invested unprecedented amounts of federal funds in energy research and development. These investments laid the groundwork for later breakthroughs, including the drilling technology behind hydraulic fracking, which enabled the U.S. shale boom in the 2000s. They also included a full-scale embrace of solar energy — a policy that, Hakes argued, “50 years from now, will be considered Carter’s major achievement.” Protesters outside the White House blamed the Carter administration’s handling of the energy crisis for fuel shortages and long lines at gas stations. Wally McNamee / Corbis via Getty Images Carter characterized the nation’s need to secure and conserve its energy as the “moral equivalent of war” — a phrase derided in the press using its acronym, MEOW. The political problem was simple: “Hectoring the electorate in that way is not good politics,” said Wellum. Carter had already cemented the public image of himself as a preachy moralizer when things came to a turning point in 1979, with dramatic events in Iran. After the Islamic Revolution, another symbolic repudiation of American global hegemony, came a second oil shock — and more gas-station lines, which Hakes argued may have contributed even more to sinking Carter’s reelection than the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. “Carter’s poll ratings were lower in the spring of 1979 when we had the gasoline lines than they were later after the hostages were taken,” said Hakes. It was a perfect opportunity for a presidential candidate whose message to Americans was that they could have everything they wanted. “Reagan was the candidate who was optimistic about America, who would talk about how, if we can get government off your backs, we can liberate you ‘to do those things that I know you can do so well,’” said Wellum. “And Carter came across as this kind of moralizing guy, saying, ‘Americans have become decadent and no one’s listening to me.’” In the presidential debates, Wellum said, “Carter emphasized conservation, and Reagan was emphasizing how we can restore abundant American production in the future, as opposed to a more efficient, environmentally friendly future.” Reagan won the Electoral College by 489 votes to Carter’s 49. “At the popular level, that is a blow to the 70s as the environmental decade — the creation of the EPA, the Department of Energy, Earth Day in 1970,” said Welum. “There’s the backlash to that, the feeling that it’s anti-American, it’s anti-growth, it’s anti-freedom.” The lesson was heeded by politicians of all stripes. Hakes, whose books on energy policy include The Presidents And The Planet: Climate Change Science and Politics from Eisenhower to Bush, said the word “sacrifice,” once a political cliché, almost completely disappeared from presidential speeches after Carter. Hakes puts this down partly to the fact that Carter was among the last presidents from a generation with a different attitude towards abundance and sacrifice. “The political leaders of that time generally had experienced World War II,” notes Hakes. (Carter was at the Naval Academy during the war and didn’t graduate in time to serve.) But for a few decades after Carter’s presidency, energy conservation became a nonissue in U.S. politics. Due in part to Carter and Reagan’s policies, as well as European and Japanese gas taxes, the world became far less reliant on Middle Eastern oil in the 1980s. Oil prices tanked in 1986 and remained low through the duration of the century. Needless to say, the importance of reducing oil consumption has since returned with a vengeance to the foreground of current affairs, fueled by climate crisis as well as new geopolitical conflicts. But we have yet to solve the issues that Carter confronted. Within the climate movement, self-described “ecomodernists” argue that environmentalism’s legacy of conservationism is an albatross that permanently tars it in the public eye with the unpopular politics of austerity, while proponents of “degrowth” insist on the need to focus on reducing consumption. For socialist critics of the environmental movement, meanwhile, the ingredient missing from its ability to persuade people to take climate change seriously is a class politics, given the levels of money and power invested in the status quo. “Environmental politics around energy, but also on climate, is really difficult to do, especially without some form of redistribution,” said Wellum — and the times feel bleak for those invested in this approach: “I’m pessimistic, or sad, that we don’t really know what to do around rethinking and reorganizing consumption, and the argument around redistribution seems even more in the wilderness,” Wellum said. To Hakes, the apparent defeat of Carter’s approach is tragic. “If climate change is a problem, people should feel under some moral obligation: I will turn off the lights, or I will obey the speed limit because I know that my pollution will be a lot less, or I will go out of my way to buy the most efficient appliances and automobiles that meet my needs and I can afford. Or maybe I’ll walk a mile to pick up something rather than drive,” Hakes said. “But politicians since Carter have not dared to say that, and maybe that’s a political reality we have to live with,” Hakes added. “One would assume that at this point people would say, ‘Our children and grandchildren deserve to have nature, and we shouldn’t be changing the environment pell-mell,’ and conservation would come back onto the agenda. I haven’t seen that yet. And I don’t even see seeds of that.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Energy is central to American politics. That all started with Jimmy Carter. on Jan 9, 2025.

The role of modeling in the energy transition

At the MITEI Fall Colloquium, the administrator of the US Energy Information Administration explained why long-term energy models are not forecasting tools — and why they’re still vitally important.

Joseph F. DeCarolis, administrator for the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), has one overarching piece of advice for anyone poring over long-term energy projections.“Whatever you do, don’t start believing the numbers,” DeCarolis said at the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) Fall Colloquium. “There’s a tendency when you sit in front of the computer and you’re watching the model spit out numbers at you … that you’ll really start to believe those numbers with high precision. Don’t fall for it. Always remain skeptical.”This event was part of MITEI’s new speaker series, MITEI Presents: Advancing the Energy Transition, which connects the MIT community with the energy experts and leaders who are working on scientific, technological, and policy solutions that are urgently needed to accelerate the energy transition.The point of DeCarolis’s talk, titled “Stay humble and prepare for surprises: Lessons for the energy transition,” was not that energy models are unimportant. On the contrary, DeCarolis said, energy models give stakeholders a framework that allows them to consider present-day decisions in the context of potential future scenarios. However, he repeatedly stressed the importance of accounting for uncertainty, and not treating these projections as “crystal balls.”“We can use models to help inform decision strategies,” DeCarolis said. “We know there’s a bunch of future uncertainty. We don’t know what's going to happen, but we can incorporate that uncertainty into our model and help come up with a path forward.”Dialogue, not forecastsEIA is the statistical and analytic agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, with a mission to collect, analyze, and disseminate independent and impartial energy information to help stakeholders make better-informed decisions. Although EIA analyzes the impacts of energy policies, the agency does not make or advise on policy itself. DeCarolis, who was previously professor and University Faculty Scholar in the Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University, noted that EIA does not need to seek approval from anyone else in the federal government before publishing its data and reports. “That independence is very important to us, because it means that we can focus on doing our work and providing the best information we possibly can,” he said.Among the many reports produced by EIA is the agency’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), which projects U.S. energy production, consumption, and prices. Every other year, the agency also produces the AEO Retrospective, which shows the relationship between past projections and actual energy indicators.“The first question you might ask is, ‘Should we use these models to produce a forecast?’” DeCarolis said. “The answer for me to that question is: No, we should not do that. When models are used to produce forecasts, the results are generally pretty dismal.”DeCarolis pointed to wildly inaccurate past projections about the proliferation of nuclear energy in the United States as an example of the problems inherent in forecasting. However, he noted, there are “still lots of really valuable uses” for energy models. Rather than using them to predict future energy consumption and prices, DeCarolis said, stakeholders should use models to inform their own thinking.“[Models] can simply be an aid in helping us think and hypothesize about the future of energy,” DeCarolis said. “They can help us create a dialogue among different stakeholders on complex issues. If we’re thinking about something like the energy transition, and we want to start a dialogue, there has to be some basis for that dialogue. If you have a systematic representation of the energy system that you can advance into the future, we can start to have a debate about the model and what it means. We can also identify key sources of uncertainty and knowledge gaps.”Modeling uncertaintyThe key to working with energy models is not to try to eliminate uncertainty, DeCarolis said, but rather to account for it. One way to better understand uncertainty, he noted, is to look at past projections, and consider how they ended up differing from real-world results. DeCarolis pointed to two “surprises” over the past several decades: the exponential growth of shale oil and natural gas production (which had the impact of limiting coal’s share of the energy market and therefore reducing carbon emissions), as well as the rapid rise in wind and solar energy. In both cases, market conditions changed far more quickly than energy modelers anticipated, leading to inaccurate projections.“For all those reasons, we ended up with [projected] CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions that were quite high compared to actual,” DeCarolis said. “We’re a statistical agency, so we’re really looking carefully at the data, but it can take some time to identify the signal through the noise.”Although EIA does not produce forecasts in the AEO, people have sometimes interpreted the reference case in the agency’s reports as predictions. In an effort to illustrate the unpredictability of future outcomes in the 2023 edition of the AEO, the agency added “cones of uncertainty” to its projection of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, with ranges of outcomes based on the difference between past projections and actual results. One cone captures 50 percent of historical projection errors, while another represents 95 percent of historical errors.“They capture whatever bias there is in our projections,” DeCarolis said of the uncertainty cones. “It’s being captured because we’re comparing actual [emissions] to projections. The weakness of this, though, is: who’s to say that those historical projection errors apply to the future? We don’t know that, but I still think that there’s something useful to be learned from this exercise.”The future of energy modelingLooking ahead, DeCarolis said, there is a “laundry list of things that keep me up at night as a modeler.” These include the impacts of climate change; how those impacts will affect demand for renewable energy; how quickly industry and government will overcome obstacles to building out clean energy infrastructure and supply chains; technological innovation; and increased energy demand from data centers running compute-intensive workloads.“What about enhanced geothermal? Fusion? Space-based solar power?” DeCarolis asked. “Should those be in the model? What sorts of technology breakthroughs are we missing? And then, of course, there are the unknown unknowns — the things that I can’t conceive of to put on this list, but are probably going to happen.”In addition to capturing the fullest range of outcomes, DeCarolis said, EIA wants to be flexible, nimble, transparent, and accessible — creating reports that can easily incorporate new model features and produce timely analyses. To that end, the agency has undertaken two new initiatives. First, the 2025 AEO will use a revamped version of the National Energy Modeling System that includes modules for hydrogen production and pricing, carbon management, and hydrocarbon supply. Second, an effort called Project BlueSky is aiming to develop the agency’s next-generation energy system model, which DeCarolis said will be modular and open source.DeCarolis noted that the energy system is both highly complex and rapidly evolving, and he warned that “mental shortcuts” and the fear of being wrong can lead modelers to ignore possible future developments. “We have to remain humble and intellectually honest about what we know,” DeCarolis said. “That way, we can provide decision-makers with an honest assessment of what we think could happen in the future.” 

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.