How "Rebalancing the economy" would affect Govt emissions projections

[Chris Broome]

Hi All,

I have copied below an e-mail exchange I have had with one of the staff at the new Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

I am keen to learn how the Government’s stated desire to “rebalance the economy” fits with tackling climate change. The “rebalancing” is partly intended to be geographical, so economic growth extends beyond London and the South East. The concept also includes an aspiration that manufacturing and infrastructure become a bigger part of the whole economy. So I decided to look at the Government’s own emissions projections figures to see if they were based on manufacturing and construction forming an increasing proportion of the UK economy.

I found that those sectors (referred to collectively as “Industrial production” in the tables) are in fact projected to grow at only around half the rate of the economy as a whole, up to 2035.

This would appear to be rather bleak news because it implies that if the Government efforts to expand these sectors succeed, carbon emissions are likely to rise - compared to the 10 % in excess of the Fourth and Fifth Carbon Budgets that this same set of figures projects. (See the “Emissions Gap” section, in this article from last year that I have sent round before - http://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-cut-uk-emissions-61-by-2030-for-fifth-carbon-budget ).

My BEIS contact did not appear to answer my question so I will ask it again. I may wait until a new set of annual emissions projections is produced, hopefully shortly.

So to what degree should climate campaigners should oppose or support plans for a new infrastructure and an Industrial Strategy? Certainly, authorities such as the Local Enterprise Partnerships in the north of England are very keen to expand in these areas, which seem to offer the most potential for economic growth. They do emphasise low-carbon technology as one sector which should be especially supported but only as one of many. Then, of course, many UK manufacturers are worried about the impacts of cheap foreign competition, Brexit etc. There is a possibility of an extended period of industrial decline. In fact, we are arguably already in one. A new report says that since 2000, jobs in manufacturing have increased but not output – see http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2016/10/20/british-manufacturing-has-entered-a-new-phase-of-decline-new-speri-brief/  (and in particular the Guardian article in the link). I would suggest that a future path that properly addresses climate change is bound to involve de-industrialisation at a much sharper rate than any that could achieve much political support in the current environment. But we also have to engage with political leaders.

So these comments are intended to contribute to an ongoing discussion and any comments are welcome.

Best Regards,

Chris

E-MAIL EXCHANGE WITH BEIS FOLLOWS:-

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Emissions Projections <emissionsp...@beis.gov.uk>
To: Chris Broome <chris1...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, 21 October 2016, 11:03
Subject: RE: Are "Rebalancing the economy" measures included in DECC emissions projections ?

Dear Mr Broome,

 

Thank you for your enquiry about growth rate assumptions in our energy and emissions projections (EEP). Please accept my apologies for the time it has taken us to get back to you.

 

As you have noted, we use two different growth projection series:

 

·         An overall projection of UK GDP growth. This is based on historic data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and projections from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), as per the footnotes to Annex M of the 2015 EEP. For the assumptions behind these projections I would refer you to the OBR.

 

·         An industry growth model, which we have produced at BEIS. This is a regression model based on historic correlation between UK industrial growth, GDP and exchange rates.

 

We have revised our industry growth model this year and it now uses input data on the ratios of import and export prices and HMT bond rates. We have done this to ensure that our industrial growth projections are as accurate as possible, based on the data available to us.

 

The UK Government is determined to tackle climate change to help create a safer and more prosperous future for everyone. Bringing energy, industrial strategy, science, and climate change together in a single department will help ensure efficient paths to carbon reduction.

 

Yours sincerely,

Simon Feraday.

Energy and Emissions Projections team.

 

 

From: Chris Broome [mailto:chris1...@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 26 September 2016 16:20
To: Emissions Projections
Subject: Are "Rebalancing the economy" measures included in DECC emissions projections ?

 

Dear BEIS,

 

In DECC’s Energy and Emissions Projections of November 2015, there is an Annex M, “Growth assumptions and prices”. (Document is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updated-energy-and-emissions-projections-2015 .This includes a reference scenario that projects GDP to grow by 2.4-2.5% in every year from 2017 to 2035. In the same years, “Industrial production”, which includes construction, grows by 1.2-1.4%.

 

Can you advise whether these projections include an assumption that the Government’s intention to “rebalance the economy” is successful?  If so, why is the growth in industrial production only around half that of the economy as a whole?

 

I understand there may be no straightforward answer to my question and DECC may have included some measures aimed at such a rebalancing  but not others. It is an idea that David Cameron explained before the General Election - https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/news/63341/david-cameron-speech-rebalancing-economy . Since then, the Treasury have published “Fixing the Foundations”, a policy document that spells out general plans for all the main sectors of the economy. It is includes some more specific commitments, such as to deliver the first Roads Investment Strategy (see page 30 of this document, at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-the-foundations-creating-a-more-prosperous-nation . Then, there is as yet no specific industrial strategy but it seems reasonable to assume that when introduced, its intention will be to grow industrial production.

 

As a climate campaigner, I am concerned that if rebalancing plans were considered to be too vague to be included, emissions may prove to have been under-estimated, if they are ultimately introduced and prove successful.

 

I look forward to receiving any information you can offer on this.

 

Best Regards,

Chris Broome

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

[Edward Hill]

Thanks Chris.

For me, the unconventional thinking called for by Andrew Simms in your previous post should start with a well-publicised boycott of the corporate-dominated political class, due to the fact that they are dishonestly / criminally misleading the public about the future.

The reality for ordinary people of the humiliating health assessments when there are no jobs (see Ken Loach’s ‘I Daniel Blake’), and of the Heathrow expansion when there is a climate change emergency, show that the priority for the political class is the growth of corporate profits, rather than the long-term well-being of people and planet.

There will be ever fewer waged jobs in future, because of de-industrialisation and automation. Locally, we are planning a community-led time-exchange system, in parallel to our present money system, to guarantee the right to types of work that do not consume non-renewable resources - such as creative, caring, therapy, food. Those on benefits would be given time credits so they can access one-to-one trainers for exercise & diet, as well as breaks for carers, and opportunities for everyone.  Time exchange work can allow a gradual shift to a 20 / 20 working week (waged/exchange), while reducing our contribution to climate change, and increasing local resilience.

Each person joining the scheme will sign a declaration of long-term rights and responsibilities, which are reviewed and monitored as a community:

1.   Guarantee of Work.  Work and social support always available though time exchange, in parallel to normal waged employment

2.   Community Veto to prevent the growth of Climate Change & Pollution. Local community veto against businesses which pollute the land, air or water, such as large developments, polluting transport infrastructure, or fracking.

3.   Family Planning. Prevention of Loss of Wildlife, Climate Change and Poverty. Agreement by each woman to have no more than two children, averaged over the community, and by her partner to respect this.

  

Ideas and comments?

 

vbw …..Edward,

Maritime Greenwich

 

These are the relevant links:

Andrew Simms

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/19/conventional-thinking-will-not-solve-the-climate-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

David Korten

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/21/we-never-voted-corporate-rule

 

Saral Sarkar - especially the final three paragraphs

http://eco-socialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/a-historic-event-or-fraud-critical.html

I understand there may be no straightforward answer to my question and DECC may have included some measures aimed at such a rebalancing  but not others. It is an idea that David Cameron explained before the General Election - https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/news/63341/david-cameron-speech-rebalancing-economy . Since then, the Treasury have published “Fixing the Foundations”, a policy document that spells out general plans for all the main sectors of the economy. It is includes some more specific commitments, such as to deliver the first Roads Investment Strategy (see page 30 of this document, athttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-the-foundations-creating-a-more-prosperous-nation . Then, there is as yet no specific industrial strategy but it seems reasonable to assume that when introduced, its intention will be to grow industrial production.

 

As a climate campaigner, I am concerned that if rebalancing plans were considered to be too vague to be included, emissions may prove to have been under-estimated, if they are ultimately introduced and prove successful.

 

I look forward to receiving any information you can offer on this.

 

Best Regards,

Chris Broome

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

-- 
This Google Discussion group is moderated by Peter Robinson, on behalf of the Campaign against Climate Change. 
 
To send a post to this group on a NEW TOPIC, send your email to climatea...@googlegroups.com. To develop an existing topic reply to an existing email (in general do not change the subject heading).
 

For notes how this group is run go to 
http://groups.google.com/group/climateallianceuk/browse_thread/thread/ac76153f77975c5d?hl=en.

Don’t forget to look at the Campaign against Climate Change website:- http://www.campaigncc.org/ 
 
Facebook is https://www.facebook.com/campaigncc
Twitter is https://twitter.com/campaigncc
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to climateallianc...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to climatea...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/climateallianceuk.
To view this discussion on the web, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/climateallianceuk/1099503691.1007605.1477668319086%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[SCA Info]

Hi Chris, Climate Forum, and I've copied in some TU colleagues working on similar issues,

You ask some cracking questions! I fear your hunch is right that this has not been thought through - I don't think they really care about either climate or manufacturing industry.

There is some related discussion in a document you will love (wicked diagrams), available here http://ciemap.leeds.ac.uk/index.php/2016/04/12/ciemap-report-a-low-carbon-future-for-the-uk/ (actually I found this from a link in the Andrew Simms article!)

On p8 they talk about a scenario in the Carbon Plan (created by a cost-optimisation model) which sees significantly reducing production of steel and cement as the way forward. The authors beg to differ and say one helpful way forward would be to include imports in UK carbon targets, so we don't just cut production here to reach our targets, but find ways to reduce our global footprint instead.

The TU group I am working with want to unpick these issues and get trade unions and industry (in Y&H) asking the right questions.

When Paul Blomfield MP spoke to our meeting recently, he offered to take such issues up with BEIS, as he is a member of their select committee.

Hope to speak more about this with you soon, Chris,

Jenny

Jenny Patient

Campaigns Worker

Sheffield Climate Alliance
07760 174 335

I understand there may be no straightforward answer to my question and DECC may have included some measures aimed at such a rebalancing  but not others. It is an idea that David Cameron explained before the General Election - https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/economy/news/63341/david-cameron-speech-rebalancing-economy . Since then, the Treasury have published “Fixing the Foundations”, a policy document that spells out general plans for all the main sectors of the economy. It is includes some more specific commitments, such as to deliver the first Roads Investment Strategy (see page 30 of this document, at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-the-foundations-creating-a-more-prosperous-nation . Then, there is as yet no specific industrial strategy but it seems reasonable to assume that when introduced, its intention will be to grow industrial production.

 

As a climate campaigner, I am concerned that if rebalancing plans were considered to be too vague to be included, emissions may prove to have been under-estimated, if they are ultimately introduced and prove successful.

 

I look forward to receiving any information you can offer on this.

 

Best Regards,

Chris Broome

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

--
This Google Discussion group is moderated by Peter Robinson, on behalf of the Campaign against Climate Change.
 

To send a post to this group on a NEW TOPIC, send your email to climateallianceuk@googlegroups.com. To develop an existing topic reply to an existing email (in general do not change the subject heading).

 

For notes how this group is run go to
http://groups.google.com/group/climateallianceuk/browse_thread/thread/ac76153f77975c5d?hl=en.

Don’t forget to look at the Campaign against Climate Change website:- http://www.campaigncc.org/
 
Facebook is https://www.facebook.com/campaigncc
Twitter is https://twitter.com/campaigncc
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Climate Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to climateallianceuk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to climateallianceuk@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/climateallianceuk.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/climateallianceuk/1099503691.1007605.1477668319086%40mail.yahoo.com.