[sustran] [NewMobilityCafe] Ex-chairman of Shell: We need to produce more with less energy

[Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory]

TO this week's "Viewpoint" on the BBC World Service website:

"Making transport more efficient starts with making cities much, much 
more dense, walkable and attractive, as well as reducing the need and 
desire to leave the city. The second step is creating transportation 
vehicles and infrastructure which provide the access not possible with 
walking alone, and this means more cycling, plus improving efficiency of 
the already super-efficient public transportation.

Sir Mark mentions nothing about these things. Personal cars, in Sir 
Mark's vision, could still be the "roomiest" and "vroomiest car" as long 
as they meet an efficiency standard (which he says elsewhere 
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7225451.stm> would be 35 
mpg). Even if every car is individually cleaner, his vision just means 
more cars, many used by one person at a time, as now: A waste of energy, 
time and space."

-- 
--------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory


Society depends on more for less -
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7218002.stm>

*If the world is to end the threat from climate change, we need to 
produce more with less energy, says Mark Moody Stuart. In this week's 
Green Room, he outlines his vision that will help society fulfil this 
goal. *

To address the climate challenge we need to reduce the carbon content of 
our energy by at least half.

But at the same time we must learn to generate a unit of GDP for about 
half the energy which we use at present.

Energy efficiency and carbon content of energy are equally important, 
but they require different approaches to achieve them.

I am a great believer in both the power of consumer choice and the 
market. As we come to understand the consequences, we do tend to make 
greener choices.

But most of us will only make those choices if they deliver the 
convenience and utility to which we are used or aspire; and if they do 
not cost more (or we can afford the luxury of choice).

Consumer opinion and choice is important, but it will not do the trick 
on its own. Its importance is in encouraging companies to supply the 
market in more climate friendly ways, and most importantly in 
encouraging governments (for whom consumers vote) to take the steps needed.

* 'Bitter experience' *

So what of the market? It is an unsurpassed mechanism for allocating 
resources to deliver better things. Through competition, technologies 
are optimised or discarded, opening the field for creativity and choice. 
I believe in the power and value of markets.

But like most things, they have a failing. Without regulation to channel 
their power, markets will not deliver things which are of no immediate 
benefit to the individual making his or her choice, even though they may 
be beneficial to society.

Without regulation, markets would not have delivered unleaded gasoline, 
catalytic converters on the exhausts of cars or seatbelts and airbags, 
nor clean air to London after the killer smogs of the 1950s.

In New Delhi, regulation forced three-wheeled vehicles, taxis and buses 
to switch to clean gas fuel. The initial complaints were great, but 
everyone, including the taxi drivers, blessed the result.

These regulations were not cost free, but everyone benefited. Regulation 
was needed to channel the power of the market, but regulatory frameworks 
have to be simple and practical.

The gut opposition of business people to regulation comes from bitter 
experience of regulations which don't just frame the market but bind it 
hand and foot and tell us how things must be done.

This kills markets and takes the fun and variety out of life.

* Carbon price *

So what are the frameworks we need?

For carbon content, we need a mechanism which forces energy supplies in 
the right direction. This means putting a price on carbon for major 
producers (and large-scale users) of energy through a carbon cap and 
trade system, such as we already have in Europe.

Unfortunately, this system has been initially subject to government and 
business special pleading and gaming. Or it means a carbon tax.

Both are complex and should only be applied to major producers or users. 
Trading encourages carbon-avoiding investment where it has the most 
impact. It also allows the transfer, through market mechanisms, of 
financial resources to China and India.

I do not think we will get a more global agreement without such 
transfer. Taxation has the great merit that it provides a clear floor 
price of carbon.

So for me the preferred option is a combination - a tax, but with the 
ability to reduce it through trading, getting the best combination of a 
floor price and efficiency of investment.

Most people think that a price of something around 40 dollars a tonne of 
carbon dioxide (CO2) to producers would do the trick.

* Market decides *

Before you panic about the cost to you and industrial transport, that is 
only about 5p a litre on fuel - within the noise of oil price variations.

On the other hand, for efficiency we need regulatory frameworks - very 
tough efficiency standards on buildings, on lighting and on personal 
transport.

That means banning the manufacture or import of old fashioned light bulbs.

Technically, this actually just means putting a standard on the 
efficiency of lights so that markets decide whether the best answer is 
compact fluorescent lights or the newer LEDs - old incandescents would 
never meet such a hurdle.

It means very tough standards on buildings. This is already having an 
effect in London where to achieve highly valuable planning permission, 
developments are already achieving energy efficiency which we thought we 
would not achieve for a decade or more.

And for personal transportation? That means banning "gas guzzlers" and 
steadily increasing the total efficiency of any vehicle sold.

You can buy the roomiest, vroomiest car, as long as it meets the 
efficiency standard.

My wife and I have driven a hybrid since 2001 and it is a beautiful and 
comfortable piece of engineering, silent and will do 100mph (we tried 
it, but not in England!).

That may not be the best technology - the market will find out. But we 
must constrain the market in an efficiency framework.

To achieve the same through taxation would mean fuel taxes at levels 
which would play havoc with industry, countryside dwellers and the poor 
who need transport.

/Sir Mark Moody-Stuart is non-executive chairman of Anglo American, 
[ex-chairman of Shell] and is a member of the UN Global Compact and 
chairman of the Global Compact Foundation"
/