world energy council logo


The speech on Tuesday by Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board is a game changer for climate change. Whatever you thought about the politics or economics of climate change yesterday is now outdated. The world really did change, not because of what was said, but because of who said it.

Scientists and environmental policy makers have been talking about the risks to prosperity and security of a failure to meet the goal of keeping the rise in global temperature below 2°C for some time. Recently they have been joined by a growing number of voices from within the military in the United States, Britain and elsewhere.

But the addition of the voice of one of the world’s most prominent central bankers adds a different dimension to the conversation. The Financial Stability Board was set up in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. Its task is to advise the governments of the G20 group of countries, the world’s largest economies, of threats to the stability of the world’s financial system.

Essentially, what Mr Carney said in his speech was that a failure to keep the global temperature rise below 2°C was a threat to financial stability. He went on to say that the more the temperature rises, the greater that threat. He also pointed out the nature of the problem was such that if we waited for instability to occur before we acted it would be too late to do so.

This speech will have many consequences for the politics of climate change as we run up to Paris and beyond. Two that immediately strike me as important are the shift it will make in the locus of climate policy within governments and the impact if will have on investor perceptions.

After maintaining external and internal security maintaining financial stability is one of the top priorities for any government. If, as Mr Carney is saying, climate change is a growing threat to financial stability then finance ministries rather than environment ministries will be the key influence on policy formation. This will lift the profile and the political weight of the issue and thus, over time, add to the already growing pressure of governments to act effectively.

The Carbon Tracker Initiative has already had a significant impact on investor perceptions of the fossil fuel industries, especially coal. Its claim that there was a risk of significant fossil fuel assets becoming stranded was explicitly endorsed by Mr Carney. Over time this will lead to the cost of capital for fossil fuel projects rising and that for low carbon technologies falling.

The political risk equation of climate change for governments has been changing slowly for some time. As the rising temperature has generated more extreme weather events and other impacts so the political risk of inaction has grown. Meanwhile, the falling cost of low carbon technologies has lowered the political risk of timely action. Mr Carney’s intervention has accelerated the rate at which this equation is changing.



Tom  Burke


October 2nd 2015



Posted in Business, Cities, Climate Change, Domestic, Economics, Economics, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Energy Security, Environment, European, Finance, International, Oil and Gas, People, Politics, Speeches, Sustainability, The Human Cost | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Energy Transition Commission – some considerations


Shell and McKinsey have just launched a global initiative called the Energy Transition Commission. Doubts have been raised about whether the Commission as currently constructed has the integrity to make a positive contribution to the debate on how to keep the climate safe. There is a risk that this initiative will come to be seen as nothing more than a fossil industry public relations exercise. Below, I explain my doubts and explain what could be done to buttress the Commission’s integrity.













‘I’m just a soul whose intentions are good, please don’t let me be misunderstood’ THE ANIMALS


The Energy Transition Commission was launched in Houston, Texas on Monday 28th September 2015. It is an initiative put together by Shell and McKinsey. I was quoted online in the Financial Times on the Friday before the launch, describing the initiative as ‘ill-advised’. Let me explain why.

The purpose of the Commission is ‘to support energy decision-makers to meet the twin objectives of economic development and climate change mitigation.’ No-one could quarrel with the importance of this task, though one might wonder why this was only a matter for ‘energy decision-makers’. Energy is central to all our lives. Making a transition from high to low carbon energy has implications that go far wider than energy policy.

The world’s governments have accepted an obligation under the UNFCCC to keep the climate within the 2°C threshold of danger. Should they fail then economic development will be delayed, damaged or destroyed for us all. Clearly, the world’s fossil fuel companies have a part to play, along with everyone else, in meeting this challenge. There is no doubting the value of creating a better informed public debate on how to do so.

Shell has been among the first of the fossil companies to respond to the urgency and gravity of limiting climate change to 2°C. It has a better understanding than most of its peers about what is at stake. No-one should doubt the importance of identifying whether there are pathways for fossil fuel companies to remain viable within this constraint. Why then my reservations about this initiative?

There are two principal reasons why it is ill-advised. Neither the model used to create the Commission, nor the process it has adopted to develop its findings command confidence. This would have been true prior to the recent revelations about Volkswagen. It is even more true now.

Large corporations are not trusted by the public or civil society. They are perceived to, and often do, put their commercial interests above the public interest. Keeping the climate safe by eliminating carbon pollution is patently a direct threat to the future of fossil fuel companies. Faced with such a threat, any initiative primarily funded by the industry starts with a considerable credibility problem.

This is a difficult, but not insurmountable, problem. Unfortunately, the founders of this Commission have made no effort to solve it. Rather, we are asked to take on trust the choice by Shell and McKinsey of how, on what terms and with whom to establish the Commission. I have no doubt the organisers mean well but that is not enough for confidence.

The ‘wise men’ model, and indeed all but one of this Commission are men of a certain age, of establishing authority is a throwback to the 20th Century. The Brandt Commission on the global economy from 1977 and the Brundtland Commission on environment and development a decade later both helped start important global debates.

But times have moved on. Authority of any kind is much less readily accepted. In a connected world a more informed and better educated citizenry expects to participate directly in global debates about its future. Through a vast array of civil society bodies it is well organised to do so.

There is no reason for anyone to doubt the independence or the integrity of the individual Commissioners. They are all people with long track records, predominantly in the established energy sector. As a group they are remarkably alike. This creates an inevitable risk of group-think as their mutual respect for each other softens the edges of the acute debate between them necessary to tackle such a difficult set of problems.

This places a particular burden on the secretariat of the Commission. The Commissioners are busy people. The amount of time they will be able to devote to following the detail of the Commission’s work is, inevitably, limited.

Many of the Commissioners will, of course, have staff to support them personally. Even so, the scope of the Commission’s programme is so large – effectively advising nearly 200 nations on how best to build a carbon neutral energy system by the middle of the century – that much will depend on the knowledge and judgement of the secretariat.

It will be provided by McKinsey. This is a company with a great deal of experience in advising global corporations. It has been a significant thought leader in meeting the energy challenges of the 21st Century. It will undoubtedly bring a group of able and informed people to the task.

But, and this is a big but, McKinsey has an extensive set of other commercial relationships on a wide range of corporate issues with many of the companies represented on the Commission. Fair minded people with any experience of the realities of the corporate world will find it difficult to take on trust that these relationships do not compromise McKinsey’s ability to provide the ‘trusted, authoritative fact-base on key debates’ to which the Commission aspires.

This is a very heavily contested space. The ‘facts’ are elusive and not widely agreed. Much of the debate is conducted on the basis of projections whose assumptions are unclear and whose significance is capable of a wide range of interpretation. The stakes are very high for the large, powerful companies involved. Trust is in short supply.

Nevertheless, the huge task of keeping the climate safe does require an informed and sustained engagement between the fossil fuel companies and the rest of society. Tackling a problem of this magnitude needs all of us to play a part – not just ‘energy decision-makers’. Indeed, since we are all energy consumers we are all, in an increasingly important sense, energy decision-makers. An energy system compatible with a safe climate will not command the necessary investment if it does not also command wide public confidence.

Creating a group of like-minded Commissioner’s, selected by an obscure process, supported by a compromised secretariat is not obviously the best way to command public confidence. A difficult dilemma must first be resolved.

Only corporations or governments can afford the required level of funding to pay for any such initiative on a global scale. But if they pay for it, understandably few civil society organisations will readily accept the findings. If they do not pay for it, then it will not happen and the current dysfunctional debate will continue. This is a true dilemma. If the funding is accepted the value of the findings is lost. If the funding is not accepted there are no findings and so the value is lost anyway.

We have been here before. In the late nineties the global mining industry was widely considered to be dirty, dumb and dangerous. If faced widespread opposition to its activities across the world. Demand for its products was growing but its efforts to meet that demand were increasingly impeded by opposition. It had no answer to the question ‘How can mining be sustainable?’

This was a far less difficult problem than the one currently faced by the fossil fuel companies as the world works to keep the climate safe. Nevertheless, lessons were learned that are relevant to the challenges the Commission intends to address but which its founders have overlooked.

I was asked by Rio Tinto to advise the mining industry on how to meet this challenge. The result was the Global Mining Initiative which I created and helped to lead. The centrepiece of the GMI was a shared analysis[1] of the issues facing the industry as it tried to define its contribution to sustainable development. Its purpose, much the same as the Commission’s, was to identify an agenda for action around which industry, government, international institutions and civil society could align their efforts.

This project faced the same dilemma as the Commission. If the mining industry paid for the analysis its findings would be compromised. If industry did not pay for the analysis there would be no findings. Resolving this dilemma, as with all true dilemmas, required innovation and imagination. The result was the creation of an elaborate, and expensive, governance structure to safeguard the integrity of the analysis.

The willingness of the global mining industry to invest in these safeguards was a token both of its good faith and the seriousness it attached to the findings. The project dispensed with ‘wise men’ recognising that to be credible its findings needed to flow from direct dialogues between industry leaders and other social partners.

A dedicated secretariat was created supervised by a global assurance group with 25 members. Written charters governed the activities of the secretariat, the assurance group and the industry sponsors[2]. The dialogue ran for two years, involved four regional processes and a large number of workshops involving over 750 participants.

Elaborate and expensive though it was the results justified the effort. A tenth anniversary review of the project’s report found that it was exerting a continuing and beneficial influence on the activities of the mining industry and its relationship with society.

I know from experience what it takes to build trust in a global industry regarded with suspicion or even hostility. The fossil fuel industry comes into the climate change debate with a reputation at least as badly damaged as the mining industry.

Hence my conclusion that the establishment of the Energy Transition Commission in its current form is ill-advised. It faces a far more difficult challenge than the mining industry. The fossil fuel industry is already seen by many as working to minimise the collision between its future and the maintenance of a safe climate.

Without the kind of integrity safeguards described above, or some equally credible alternative, the findings of the Commission will not, and should not, command public confidence. This will reduce their impact on the wide range of decision makers involved in bringing about the energy transition.

The Commissioners have invested their personal reputations in this project. If it fails the integrity test those reputations will be damaged. Furthermore, there is a risk that the Commission’s work will be seen as an industry public relations campaign rather than a serious effort to play a part in tackling the most urgent problem facing the whole of humanity.

It is not too late to redeem the Commission. The magnitude and urgency of keeping the climate safe to permit development badly needs initiatives of this ambition. As now constructed it lacks sufficient integrity to make a positive contribution. Indeed, there is a real risk that it will be widely seen as an industry inspired effort to muddy the waters. The first meeting of the Commission will be an opportunity to remedy its defects. Whether it is taken will say much about the founders intent.



[1] This was the Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development Project whose report, Breaking New Ground, and further details of how the project was organised can be found on the IIED website at

[2] The details of how the governance structure was established and worked can be found in the website cited in the above footnote.



Posted in Blog, Business, Campaigning, Changing the Politics, Climate Change, E3G, Economics, Economics, Energy, Energy Security, Environment, Finance, Oil and Gas, People, Politics, The Human Cost | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Discussing climate change on LBC Radio – 14/09/15









Last year was the hottest year on record, and this year is going to be hotter still. What the Met Office is saying is that next year will be even hotter again. People thought there had been a pause in global warming, and that confusion is because the way that increasing greenhouse gases change the temperature isn’t straight forward, it interacts with all kinds of other things like El Niño’s, and La Niña’s which are the opposite. That sometimes gives people the impression that the temperature hasn’t gone on rising, but actually it has gone on rising. The earth is getting increasingly warm and having increasing effects of our lives.

The thing about science being precise is that it can sometimes give a misleading impression. [The 0.68 degree rise in average temperature the Met Office describes]. That is the global average increase, but that actually means that in some places it’s gone up a lot more. Particularly in the Arctic, which is why President Obama was up in Alaska the other week, to point out just what the effects are there, and you’re seeing the temperature there going up at about three times the speed that it’s going up here.

Conferences on climate change are treated a bit like they are cup finals, and that’s really the wrong way to look at them. They are a very slow process of getting people to agree basically to co-ordinate their energy policies, and that’s going to be very difficult. I think what we are seeing is people, where they can, in their own lives, doing what they can. Doing a bit more themselves to make their energy more efficiently used, or to install solar panels. But at the end of the day governments have got to act on this problem, and they’ve not only got to act Nationally they’ve got to act Internationally and that’s a difficult thing to do.







Posted in Campaigning, Climate Change, Domestic, Economics, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Energy Security, European, Finance, In the media, International, LBC, Oil and Gas, Politics, Radio, renewables | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment







John Hutton is Chairman of the Nuclear Industries Association. On August 24th he told the Radio 4 Today audience that  “The nuclear programme is going to be built without any state funding at all”. Sitting next to him in the studio I nearly fell off my chair.

I am used to politicians being casual with the truth. Even so, this surprised me. Was Lord Hutton really telling an outrageous lie, had he made a slip of the tongue or was it possible that he really believed what he was saying?

He is an experienced man. As well as serving in Labour Cabinets, he was the MP for Sellafield and served on the board of an American nuclear company. He is clearly familiar with the economics of nuclear power. A slip of the tongue is unlikely.

Furthermore, his Association’s Chief Executive, Keith Parker took a similar view in a letter to the Independent the same week. He wrote “It [Hinkley Point] will be built without taxpayer funding”. It is clearly good for the Chairman and Chief Executive of any organisation to agree with each other.

It is, however, not so good for both of them to repeat the same falsehood. It is possible that they were both doing so deliberately. But the risk to their industry of its leading figures being caught telling a lie in public is significant. It is more likely that they really do believe what they are saying.

So how did they manage to delude themselves. The answer lies in their use of two words: ’state’ and ‘taxpayer’.

What exactly constitutes ‘state’ funding? If it means taking £16 billion out of the budget and buying Hinkley from EDF then Hutton’s statement is correct. This is not what the Government is proposing.

If however it means the state is giving EDF a guaranteed price for all of its electricity for 35 years, a guarantee on the loans to finance the construction of Hinkley as well as capping both its insurance and waste management liabilities then it is wrong. This is exactly what the Government is proposing.

You must decide for yourself whether Lord Hutton’s statement was self-deluding or deliberate.

The truthfulness of Keith Parker’s letter turns on exactly what you think is meant by a ‘taxpayer’. If you mean that Hinkley will not be funded by money raised from general taxation and paid out directly to EDF by the Treasury then the statement is correct. This is not what the Government is doing.

If, however, you mean that the funding for Hinkley will come from a levy on all electricity consumers that will finance the index linked guarantee of £92.50/MWh for 35 years then there is a little wiggle room. Not all electricity consumers pay income tax, though clearly the overwhelming majority do.

So, technically, only some taxpayers will be funding Hinkley by being forced to pay for it through their electricity bill. However, even that wiggle room is smaller than first appears. The Office of National Statistics ( ONS ) has ruled that levies such as this count as taxes for accounting purposes. In other words, even consumers who pay no income tax are, for this purpose, tax payers.

It is possible that Keith Parker really believes what he wrote. If so, he needs a conversation with the ONS who will explain to him why levies like this are taxes, and thus why levy payers are indeed taxpayers.

For my part it matters little whether these falsehoods are deliberate or delusional. They are part of a familiar pattern from the nuclear industry and its supporters as they try to justify the unjustifiable costs of their technology.

Remember the promises by the last Government that Hinkley would be built without ‘public subsidy’. Chris Huhne, when Energy Secretary, shamefully morphed that clear commitment into ‘no public subsidy not available to other technologies’. Amber Rudd has shredded that fig leaf with her wanton destruction of renewable subsidies.

The future of Hinkley now rests on whether or not it is being subsidised illegally by the British Government. When the European Commission ruled the funding for Hinkley was allowable under the state aids rules, the first point it made was that the Government’s proposals for funding Hinkley were unequivocally public subsidies. The Commission ruling permitting them is now being challenged in the European Court by the Austrian Government.

It is of course possible that neither Lord Hutton nor Keith Parker have read the Commission’s state aids decision. But, do you think that it is likely?



Tom Burke


September 8th 2015



Posted in Blog, Business, Domestic, Economics, Economics, Energy, Energy Security, European, Finance, In the media, Nuclear, People, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

BBC Radio 4 Today Program – Nuclear, Hinkley Point and Renewables


today program logo









I am impressed by EDF’s ability to have a nuclear power station that is six years late before they have even started constructing it.

The head of EDF promised us, in one of the many announcements about this actually going ahead, that we would be cooking our Christmas turkeys with electricity from Hinkley by 2017. Well they are unlikely to actually start construction before 2018, supposing they actually make the decision to go ahead.

There are a huge variety of things that can replace the supply from nuclear, we have a lot of wind and a lot of solar. We are already meeting more of our current electricity demand from renewables than we are from nuclear. The percentage of our energy needs that renewables can meet could go up to 45%, add in efficiency and the percentage gets bigger.

Offshore electricity costs are coming down to about the cost of nuclear, the costs are coming down now, and they will continue going down. Nuclear costs typically go up by 7% per year, everywhere all the time, and that’s because of constraints in the supply chain, and because of the difficulty of the engineering and so on.

Even David Howell who was the minister who introduced the big nuclear program in Margaret Thatcher’s government has started to express doubts about whether going ahead with Hinkley makes any sort of economic sense. It is rather odd to think that someone knows what the wholesale price of electricity is going to be in 2065, when we don’t really know what it is going to be next year.








Posted in Energy | Leave a comment

Sky News – Climate change and Obama’s trip to the Arctic

sky news logo


I think giving people a picture of what’s happening now on the planet is really important, and remember what Obama is talking about is what’s happening in Alaska, but it’s also happening in the glaciers in the Himalayas, in the Alps here in Europe, in Antarctica in Greenland, and all over the Andes, so giving you some idea of the scale of the change that’s going on right now.

We have a real problem with water rising, of course it’s not rising the same amount at the same time everywhere, so in some places it is rising higher than others, but on average around the world by the end of this century it will have gone up by about three feet, which will put lots of property in Cities like Miami under real pressure.

There’s definitely a contradiction, but we shouldn’t expect the American president to be any more consistent than our own politicians. And in the scale of hypocrisy it’s nothing like as great as the prime minister saying that he wants to be the greenest government ever and then taking a wrecking ball to all of his green policies. So there are contradictions undoubtedly, and he has upset a lot of environmentalists and he has to some extent undermined his authority and his credibility on the issue, but you must remember that he is doing a lot more even than the cuts in emissions, he is also promoting the alternative energy source that we need, the low carbon sources, so on the over all scale of hypocrisy it’s not the biggest earthquake that we’ve ever seen.

[It is absolutely right that America has more do do than most in term of emissions reduction] but it’s really important to focus on the upside of what Obama’s doing rather than the downside, because without the kind of leadership that he is giving then our expectations of what would come out of Paris would go back a long way, and remember hat his predecessor in the White House was really dragging America out of doing things, and at least Obama is pushing things forward, but as the figures show there is a still a long way to go to catch up to Europe.





Posted in Campaigning, Changing the Politics, Cities, Climate Change, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Environment, European, In the media, International, Interviews, Oil and Gas, People, Politics, renewables, Sky News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sky News – Obama gives Shell the go ahead for Arctic drilling


sky news logo



Obama is going to Alaska because Alaska is on the front line of climate change, and it is where we are seeing the impacts of a changing climate on human beings really dramatically already, right now. Obama wants to draw attention to the fact that it is a climate that is changing right now.

We are seeing coastal villages having to move because the absence of ice means that there is a lot of erosion on their shore. We are beginning to see changes in the patterns of fish moving as the temperature of the waters change. We are seeing animals being affected, we are seeing 100,000 walruses on a beach in Alaska for instance because they can’t find any ice that’s near enough. So we are beginning to see some dramatic changes, and that is a sign of what’s going to go on in the rest of the world if we go on allowing the climate to change.

Obama in giving the go ahead for Shell to drill in the Arctic has clearly upset a lot of environmentalists, and has caused some people to question whether he is serious in his attempts to deal with climate change. I think the rest of the evidence suggests that there is no question about his seriousness and his willingness to put himself out. I think expecting politicians in any area to be completely consistent is pretty optimistic. What really matters is the overall direction of travel, and in that sense Obama has been more clear and more consistent than probably any other politician in the world.





Posted in Campaigning, Climate Change, Economics, Energy, Energy Security, Environment, In the media, International, Interviews, Oil and Gas, Politics, SKY NEWS, Sky News, The Human Cost | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment



This piece first appeared in Business Green.





Environmentalists have long been vulnerable to their own passions. At times this can make us sound shrill and self-righteous. On other occasions it can blind us to political traps. The oil industry is now busy setting a big one for us. It is camouflaged under a call by the industry’s leaders for ‘clear, stable, long-term, ambitious policy frameworks’ to tackle climate change.

Who could quarrel? This call was set out in a letter to Christiana Figueres, head of the UNFCCC, at the end of May. In case you missed it, it was repeated in a letter to the Financial Times on June 1st. They were specific about what they wanted. Governments should, ‘introduce carbon pricing systems……[and] ….create an international framework that could eventually connect national systems.’

Let me summarise. They want a global carbon price.

Environmentalists have long been beguiled by the pollution syllogism. It runs like this: pollution is sinful; sin must be punished; taxes are punishment, ergo, tax pollution. There is no joy in heaven like that at a sinner repenting.

It would be easy to confuse oil companies calling for a carbon price with sinners repenting. They are not. They are up to something altogether more subtle. The European companies who signed the letter, their American peers declined, have woken up to the existential threat to them posed by climate change.

A brutal combination of rapid technology development and unusual global weather events is reshaping the politics of climate change. The weather events ramp up the pressure on governments to act. Rapidly falling costs for low carbon technologies lower the political risk of doing so.

To have a good chance of avoiding dangerous climate change the world must get to net zero carbon emissions by 2100. That is for emissions from all sources including agriculture and deforestation. For the global energy system it means getting to carbon neutrality much earlier – at or soon after 2050. This goal collides directly with the oil companies’ business model.

Three beliefs define the oil companies current comfort zone. The world needs their product. Governments are on their side. Energy technology change takes decades. The accelerating surge of investment in renewables and storage as prices collapse undermines two of them. Obama and Clinton choosing to pick a fight over climate change, with the Pope’s blessing, in an election year is sawing away at the third.

Changing your business model is no simple task even for a small company. For behemoths like the oil companies writing to the UNFCCC it may be impossible. I cannot think of an example in corporate history of companies this large doing so voluntarily. In recent months a more alarmed conversation has begun within the oil companies’ leadership.

Its first product is a decision to buy time to think about how to deal with the collision between their business model and a safe climate. Hence the call for a carbon price. The intent is to create the impression of an industry in favour of urgent action whilst actually slowing that action down.

It is a tenet of economic dogma that putting a price on carbon is the most efficient way of dealing with climate change. The oil companies are counting on the weight of orthodox economic opinion supporting them.

The call for a carbon price is a shield with which to defend themselves from calls for faster change. If we are not decarbonising fast enough, they will argue, it is not their fault. If only governments were brave enough to put the carbon price up higher and faster, they will lament,  we would get there sooner.

This is hocus-pocus. They know full well governments will be deeply reluctant to put up consumers bills. Ask Amber Rudd. This is simply a stratagem to re-balance the political equation. Politicians are to be caught between the pressure to protect the climate and the pain of doing it with a carbon price. You do not have to be a cynic to believe that faced with this kind of dilemma most politicians will do very little.

There is a further subtlety to this plan. Calling for a global carbon price will mobilise hostile, if covert, opposition from every finance ministry on the planet. Few national prerogatives are as fiercely protected as the right to raise (or lower) taxes. Sixty years of building a Single Market have not persuaded the nations of the EU to surrender any taxation prerogatives to Brussels.

Keeping the climate safe means persuading 190 nations to coordinate their energy policies. After thirty years of trying we are still someway from succeeding. Yet, by comparison with coordinating their tax policies this is straightforward. There is no chance that the world will agree on a global price for carbon in the forty years we have to keep the climate safe.

Oil company CEOs lack neither intelligence nor experience. They have not overlooked the political problems of calling for a global price on carbon. They are counting on them. Their purpose is clear, to set a trap for unwary policy makers and environmentalists. Shame on those who fall into it.


Tom Burke


August 10th 2015


‘Something is happening here/But you don’t know what it is/ Do you, Mr Jones?’ is a line from ‘Ballad of a Thin Man’ by Bob Dylan



Posted in Business, Business Green, Campaigning, Climate Change, Corporate Governance, Domestic, Economics, Energy, Energy Security, Environment, European, International, Oil and Gas, Politics, renewables, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blue Sky Thinking – BBC Radio 5 Live


radio 5 live





I think that government has got far too centralised, it started under Thatcher, was taken further forward by Labour, and the level of centralisation has now really got quite ridiculous.

I would want to push a lot more power and authority, certainly over finance, out to cities and communities, so that they can determine things for themselves, and so that we can have some real accountability for the decisions that politicians make.

I would certainly want to keep a Department of Energy and Climate Change. The idea that somehow the free market is going to solve the problem of climate change and still leave us with civilisation, is a bit more optimistic than I could be.

I am much more concerned that we make sure we insulate every building in Britain, for instance, to a very high degree, and giving every single home and community in this country the right and ability to generate their own electricity from renewable sources, I think if we did those sort of things we would be helping enormously to lower bills for people, reduce fuel poverty, increase the competitiveness of our industry, and help with reducing the burden on the NHS. We would do all that and get reductions in carbon emissions as well.

The problem is that you get rid of a lot of bureaucrats telling you what you need to do to deal with the climate, and you have one bureaucrat deciding what the level of tax should be, and the truth is that no one has any idea what level of tax gets you to a safe climate. If you don’t believe in climate change, then you can come up with an idea that has no chance of success.

We should let every city, community and home in Britain decide for itself, to do that you have to set up the right regulatory framework, and you have to set up the right energy system. That’s something that government has to do, because nobody else will.






Posted in BBC, Cities, Climate Change, Domestic, Economics, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Energy Security, Environment, People, Politics, Radio, renewables, Sustainability | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s climate plan on Sky News – 03/08/15



sky news logo



It is really important that America has now set itself out to lead on climate, and to demonstrate leading by taking action. It has been a laggard, and therefore other countries have been able to hide behind it, that shield has now been removed.

I suspect the America will find out what we found out in Europe. It is actually a lot easier to get these apparently big targets than you think at first. I suspect what we will see if Hilary Clinton succeeds Obama is we will see their standards ratcheted up, and they will discover that actually once you get going things tend to flow.

I think that is is very important that Obama is doing this without the consent of Congress, as Congress has made it clear that they would stop him from doing anything. I think that he has set a trap for the Republicans, the public in America are quite clearly behind more rigorous action on climate change, as they are here in the UK.

I don’t think that it’s a accident that three days before all of these Republicans who have been deniers are going to stand up and try to outbid each other into being even bigger deniers.





Posted in Business, Campaigning, Climate Change, Economics, Energy, Energy Efficiency, Energy Security, European, In the media, International, Interviews, Oil and Gas, Sky News | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment