Maggie on CCS

Introduction 

 Over the next few weeks I will move away from my view of CCS and take a wider look at how stakeholders such as policymakers, environmentalists and energy companies perceive the role of CCS.

 This week I invoke the spirit of the late (Great? Evil? - I suppose that splits opinion) Margaret Thatcher....

Maggie on CCS

 Contrary to what your perceptions of me may be, I was one of the first politicians to bring the threat of climate change into the public eye. Here is my 1988 speech to The Royal Society, in which I discussed the threat of rising CO2 emissions.

 Since I was ousted from power the threat level from climate change has increased exponentially. So what is the solution? This blog is all about securing our climate future - i.e. working towards a world in which the impacts of climate change are nullified. As a policymaker, I believe a solution to climate change must comply with two key principles:

• Meeting the aim of the Paris Agreement in that it limits dangerous global warming to <2 degrees.
• Allow continued economic prosperity in the western world, achieve sustainable development in the developing world and, most importantly, not become a vehicle by which government can regulate the competitiveness of the private sector.

Complying with the Paris Agreement

 Azar et al., (2010) used three global energy system models to investigate the likelihood of a 2 degree warming cap. The study found negative emissions would significantly increase the likelihood of attaining such a target. The authors discuss that, at present, BECCS (biomass energy with carbon capture and storage) is the only method by which negative emissions can be attained. For me, this is why CCS holds the cards compared to renewable energies in securing our climate future.

Economic Prosperity

 I am more sceptical of CCS from an economic perspective. I am a free-marketeer, famed with developing the neoliberal economic ideology in Britain. I detest any and all government intervention in the private sector. For me, as well as many other right-wing politicians, this is what makes us fear mitigating climate change. 

 Scott et al., (2013) suggest CCS is failing to get off the ground globally due to the high capital investment required. Around the world private companies are not investing in CCS, and why should they, it is completely uneconomical according to Scott et al., (2013). The study goes on to suggest that market regulation is required to get CCS off the ground - this I utterly deplore.

 Scruggs (2012) discusses how concern over climate change has significantly declined since 2008 in the USA, citing concerns over living standards and economic growth that trump (get it...) concerns over climate change. 

 Bushnell et al., (2013) studied the effect of increasing cap-and-trade regulation in the EU during 2006 upon 552 stocks from the EUROSTOX index. Scott et al., (2013) suggest that cap-and-trade regulation must be further rolled out in order to make CCS profitable. Bushnell et al., (2013) found that companies operating in energy and electricity intensive industries suffered with heavy losses in the value of their stocks. So the bureaucratic, non-democratic EU profits whilst the pension pots of ordinary people decline - that doesn't seem like a fair deal to me!

Conclusion

 Environmentally, CCS makes sense. But, to me, it is simply a vehicle by which the socialist ideology of regulation, taxation and subsidy can be implemented. Studies show people place economic growth over climate concerns. Climate change must be fought,  but not at the detriment of economic stability. An economy that promotes CCS would represent everything I fought against. Securing our climate future lies elsewhere.