Energy & Environment

Greta Thunberg recently castigated Parliament for hiding behind “very creative carbon accounting”, in order to fulfil its climate goals. By failing to account for imported emissions, Britain, along with other developed countries, is effectively ‘outsourcing’ its emissions. Official government statistics report that as of 2016, Britain produced about 373 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. However, according to the Global Carbon Project, calculated from a consumption perspective, Britain consumes about 40% more carbon emissions than it produces. 

As such, domestic targets which focus on production are insufficient as they fail to account for cross-border emissions. For example, the 82 million tonnes of imported emissions from China do not count as “British”. As Professor McLaren of Lancaster University argues, this parochial focus on net-zero could result in delayed emissions cuts and an insufficient focus on developing negative emissions technologies. How then should Britain respond?

First, Britain needs to take full responsibility for all of its emissions, not just emissions that occur within its borders. This requires a shift towards the inclusion of consumption-based emissions figures in national statistics. The process of adopting consumption-based emissions is already well underway in many cities and states, most notably Oregon which published a state-wide consumption-based report in 2015. 

Second, Britain should use trade deals as a tool to encourage exporting countries to reduce emissions. New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, for example, has emphasised the ability to embed environmental principles in trade negotiations. One need only look to America’s trade deals which (though ignored by the Trump administration) penalise countries that fail to adhere to the Paris Climate Accord. As Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate Research in Norway suggests, including data on cross-border emissions into negotiations could help “facilitate a more robust agreement.” 

Trade deals, as part of greater cooperation between countries on climate issues, should also facilitate the exchange of cleaner production practices and resources, be it carbon-capture or renewable energy technology. One area which could greatly benefit from such collaboration is freight transport. Transferring goods via aviation (when comparing similar weights and distances) releases far more emissions in comparison to shipping and has few affordable low-carbon alternatives.

Lastly, it is necessary to discern where the imported goods come from. The same products, depending on how energy-efficient production is, can release different levels of emissions. Data from the Global Trade Analysis Project highlights how cars and car parts imported from China release far more carbon dioxide than those exported by Germany. Sweden releases about 50% fewer emissions than coal-reliant Poland in the production of car batteries. It is pivotal that Britain is aware of such discrepancies, and takes proactive steps to correct them, perhaps through the rearrangement of supply chains and trade partners. 

Looking at how swiftly trade routes have been realigned in response to the trade war between the USA and China, this along with the use of trade deals to encourage a global shift towards cleaner production should render the task entirely feasible. In the short term, given the large amount of emissions imported from China (as mentioned above), especially with regards to car parts and electronics, it would be wise for the UK to look towards more environmentally-friendly countries such as Sweden. The goal in the long term should be to catalyse the international shift towards environmentally-friendly sources of energy such that the provenance of the good is no longer an issue.

Britain deserves credit for her initiative in tackling climate change. Yet outsourcing emissions only serves to further compound the problem, shifting most of the blame onto developing countries that rely heavily on exports. In attempting to measure and negate emissions, Britain’s net-zero law, however admirable, looks destined to fall short.

Johnny Tan is undertaking work experience with Bright Blue. The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

Food wastage, that is food lost by deterioration or discard, has both a financial and social cost, not to mention its contribution to global hunger. To emphasise the sheer magnitude of this issue, the FAO (2013) found that 1.4 billion hectares of the land used to grow food was wasted in 2007. This figure equates to an area larger than China or Canada, and only superseded by the size of Russia. Given this shameful figure, one might be surprised to know that many governments have, in fact, generated policies and legislation to improve food waste management, such as the avoidance of landfill. Whether or not they’ve been well-executed is another question entirely. Beyond legislation, another key part of the food waste equation has been rather neglected – pre-waste solutions in the private sector.

Generally, society places, perhaps too much, onus on the individual to limit food waste and reduce their use of plastic. What we should be doing instead is transferring some of this responsibility onto large food retailers, such as Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asada, and Morrisons. The reason being that they have direct links with consumers, farmers and processes, meaning they can influence most levels of the supply chain.

When food processors directly deal with big retailers through various contracts and agreements, they tend to impose strict conditions for deliveries and returning unsold products, which severely hinders food waste prevention. For example, when suppliers agree to deliver orders in a short-period of time, they often overstock to avoid penalties, which sometimes results in food waste. Furthermore, big retailers also require 70% of its shelf-life remaining for the products to be accepted, as stated in Mena, Adenso-Diaz & Yurt’s (2010) paper. This issue becomes particularly difficult for producers to navigate, especially for those with limited access to alternative channels to sell their stock, or if the products are sold under the retailers’ “own-brand” labels. With the latter issue, tolerance for slip-ups is small, as unsold products are unable to be directed.

Another key, and perhaps more concerning cause, is that some supermarkets now set cosmetic standards for their fruit and vegetables, as if the beauty industry’s standards for women wasn’t already enough. These requirements cause retailers to reject moderately imperfect-looking food. Interestingly, in an academic paper entitled European Retailers as Agents of Change Towards sustainability: The Case of Fruit Production in Brazil, British retailers were named the primary culprits of setting these senseless aesthetics of fruit and vegetables in Europe, making perfectly edible produce unsellable.

So, yes, we have established that food retailers are instruments of change in the transition towards sustainable production methods. But, what strategies can food retailers actually employ to reduce food waste without compromising the safety of consumers. Below, I offer some recommendations for retailers to tackle this issue:

1. Improve inventory management processes to decrease excess inventory and handling. In the U.S, Whole Foods and Targetadopted software, where they input the store-layout, and request that deliveries are stacked according to this sequencing.
2. Increase communication and transparency between farmers and food processors, which may include, but not limited to enforcing a stricter time period for retailers to either amend or cancel an order.
3. Sell “ugly” fruit and vegetables at a discount in-store (Asda and Morrisons are currently trailing this idea), donate surplus edible food to charity (e.g., Food Cycle, Fare Share, Neighbourly& WRAP UK), or business-to-business transfer of excess food.
4. Decrease or eliminate deals for consumers to discourage the excessive consumption of food (e.g., buy one get one free).
5. Amend overly strict, and sometimes misleading product labelling. Consumers often misconstrue “best by” dates for expiration dates, causing people to throw away products prematurely. In most cases, labelling is up to the large food retailers, and are not standardised or regulated by an independent body. Kor, Prabhu & Esposito (2017) suggest that retailers should urge manufacturers to replace “best by” with “best if used by”.

Ultimately, reducing food waste is neither in the hands of the retailer or consumer. Instead, it requires a collaborative approach across the business supply chain, which spans across retailers, farmers, consumers, technology, social enterprises and food processors.

Georgia Hardisty is currently undertaking work experience at Bright Blue. The views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

In his first trip to Scotland, the country that lands 61% of the UK’s total fishing catch by weight, the new PM promised – flushed with rhetoric of “taking back control” of our national waters – that UK fishing was off the table in any future UK-EU trade deals. 

Yet, the new Government has of yet not made any substantive policy announcements as to what post-Brexit fisheries policy will be. In contrast, the former Government published a Fisheries White Paper to set out their vision for “sustainable fisheries for future generations”, included the goal of making sure all fish stocks will be recovered to healthy levels in the 25 Year Environment Plan, and initiated a Fisheries Bill that was until very recently making its way through Parliament. 

The new PM therefore needs to establish the current Government’s thinking on fisheries as the UK exits the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the EU’s framework for managing common EU fishing waters and stocks. Indeed, this is especially pertinent with the recent proroguing of parliament halting the progress of the Fisheries Bill. 

Under the CFP, fishing quotas, known as ‘total allowable catches’ (TACs), are set annually at an EU level. They are required to comply with the CFP’s principal of fishing only at levels where fish stocks can sustainably recover by 2020 – a level known as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Notably, for TACs set between 2001 and 2017, it has been shown that 70% of TACs set by the EU were unsustainable as they were set above scientific advice for the MSY level. 

Once quotas are decided on an EU level, they are allocated to member states based on ‘relative stability’, which takes into account several factors such as historical catch data and the need of coastal communities dependent on fisheries. 

In the UK, the responsibility over TACs amongst national fishing fleets is devolved. Scotland receives the majority of UK TACs, landing over half the fish caught by UK vessels by both total weight and total value.

One of the most notorious issues that the CFP encounters is that of ‘bycatch’ – the landing of species by a boat that are protected in some way. Vessels will often throw away fish they do not have a quota for to be able to continue fishing. The CFP attempts to regulate this through a ‘landing obligation’, that from the start of this year requires boats to land all fish caught that have a quota placed on them. 

Whilst outlawing the wasteful practice of discarding bycatch, the ‘landing obligation’ is a blunt instrument because vessels can use up their fishing quotas through unintentionally landing certain fish, and be prevented from further fishing. This is a particular problem for mixed fisheries that land multiple species of fish, meaning quotas can quickly be used up.  

Brexit is not all doom and gloom: it provides an opportunity to change the problems with the CFP.

Specifically in relation to the issues generated by fishing quotas, the new PM could capitalise on Brexit through developing a market-based scheme for managing quotas, as is done in Iceland.

Market-based schemes are, with the right policies and incentives, often an efficient way of achieving environmental aims. 

Indeed, the former Government was pursuing a similar scheme through its Agriculture Bill, which intended to replace the Common Agricultural Policy’s (CAP) system of distributing rural payments based on the amount of land owned with a scheme that linked subsidies to the amount of ecosystem services provided – as recommended by past Bright Blue research.

Allowing fishing quotas to be traded amongst fishing vessels would have two major benefits when compared to the CFP. 

First, it would provide vessels with more flexibility. Creating a supply of quotas, that can be bought or sold, allows vessels to continue fishing through buying more of a quota even if bycatch is caught accidentally. As quotas become scarcer, their price would reflect this. This gets around the stubborn effect of the landing obligation that closes fisheries if a quota is exceeded.  

Second, certain policies can be built into a market-based scheme to encourage more sustainable fishing, such as incentives to use more selective fishing gear. 

Importantly, other issues would still need addressing, such as questions over the extent of and access to UK waters, and how to distribute existing quotas. Yet a market-based scheme allows more flexibility to manage quotas with the fact it is difficult to completely avoid bycatching certain species of fish. 

In developing post-Brexit fisheries policy, the new PM would do well to reform the cumbersome aspects of the CFP. A market-based scheme for quotas is a sensible place to start.

William Nicolle is a Researcher at Bright Blue. Image licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0.

During our new Prime Minister’s first outing in Parliament, he recommitted himself to meeting the UK’s ambitious net zero target, stating that his Government would “place the climate change agenda at the absolute core of what we are doing.” Getting to net zero will be no easy task, but it is vital that we reach it, and this Prime Minister knows that. One of the first and easiest things he can do to get there is to bring back onshore wind.

Onshore wind is the cheapest form of electricity generation – it could cost as little as £45/MWh. Building the onshore wind the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recommends we need for the lowest-cost route to net zero could even support 31,000 jobs by 2035, and save every household £50 a year on their energy bills. However, at present, onshore wind is kept from competing in Contract for Difference (CfD) auctions, which offer renewable projects a guaranteed price for their electricity. 

This de-risking process is important, as it provides greater investor certainty that lowers capital costs, in turn enabling onshore wind sites to produce energy at subsidy-free prices. Furthermore, because CfD auctions embed market competition for this Government subsidy, we only award them to the cheapest competitors in the race. If we want to boost our renewable capacity, then we should be doing so in the cheapest way we know how.

In 2015, the Conservative manifesto pledged to “end any new public subsidy” for onshore wind, after calls from Conservative MPs whose constituents were concerned about bankrolling the spread of onshore wind into their backyards. These towering structures are not exactly discreet, but I, like a growing number of people, don’t mind them. I see them as a symbol of our innovative economy, contributing to our world-leading record on decarbonisation whilst providing affordable energy.

In fact, most people agree. The Conservative Environment Network’s polling showed that 74% of Conservatives support onshore wind. This is now a popular technology, and we are in a different world than the one in 2015. A new net zero world, with a new Prime Minister. If we listened to the public’s concerns about onshore wind back then, then surely we should listen to them now they want it back.

Only recently, 150 MPs wrote to the Prime Minister calling for the barriers to onshore wind farms to be lifted, including six Conservatives who had previously written to David Cameron asking for the same barriers to be implemented. Only 6% of people oppose onshore wind developments, and it’s important that these projects are never forced on communities. Opening up the CfD process does not mean undermining local consent; it empowers communities with greater choice over what projects they want to see in their area, by ensuring that onshore wind can compete. That choice has been denied by the policies in place at present.

Lastly, it’s hard to talk up wind energy and ignore the recent blackout, with the news that it was likely caused by a lightning strike and associated technical faults at an offshore wind farm and a small gas-fired station. At the time of the fault, wind power was providing over 30% of demand, an impressive amount now, but likely to be far higher in the next decade. However, National Grid have been clear that the blackout was not due to renewables, their variability or their generation that day. 

We should investigate what caused this fault, and rectify it, but it should not halt our progress, or scare a nation of innovators away from pursuing the future energy system that is good for our planet and for consumer bills too. That future system is decentralised, smart, responsive, and full of wind (hopefully onshore and offshore), batteries, solar and other forms of renewable tech too. The UK continues to have one of the most reliable and fastest decarbonising grids in the world, and I’m sure that National Grid will take up any lessons to be learnt from this in order to keep building on that record to reach net zero.

There are many things the Prime Minister can do to tackle climate change – he has already acknowledged many of them, not least investing in innovative battery technology. But there is an easy win in bringing back onshore wind. It’s cheap, it’s popular, and it can contribute towards meeting our ambitious climate targets. That’s why the Prime Minister should bring back onshore wind.

Megan Trethewey is Senior Programmes Manager at the Conservative Environment Network. The views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue. Image licensed under the Open Government Licence v1.0.