Here is a statement from Lucy Frazer is the UK Conservative MP for South East Cambridgeshire, who holds the government post of Financial Secretary (HM Treasury).
KEY SECTION: The Government is “exploring a range of policies that could potentially mitigate future carbon leakage risk. These include policies to grow the market for low emissions industrial products, on which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently undertook a Call for Evidence. Today, we are announcing that it is our intention to consult later in the year on a range of carbon leakage mitigation options, including on whether measures such as product standards and a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) could be appropriate tools in the UK’s policy mix. A CBAM applies a carbon price to specified imports, in order to mitigate differences in carbon pricing between jurisdictions, and therefore reduce the risk of carbon leakage.”
The EU is already considering a CBAM for implementation around 2026, and a lawmaker committee is set to vote on the measure on May 17, 2022. There is a zoom meeting by a lead lawmaker 7pm Brussels time (Monday May 16).
UK Statement
The Government is taking ambitious domestic action to tackle climate change and recently opened a consultation on developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), so the UK can become the world’s first net zero carbon cap and trade market[1].
While domestic action is critical, climate change is a global issue. When the UK took on the COP26 Presidency, only 30% of the world was covered by net zero targets – now over 90% of the global economy is committed to net zero. In 2021, the UK placed climate change and nature at the top of the international agenda during its G7 and COP26 presidencies, presiding over the agreement of the Glasgow Climate Pact, to speed up the pace of climate action.
The Government also wants to see other countries do more to drive down their own emissions and we continue to work on the global stage to support more ambitious international action. Recent global events and the resulting increase in energy prices reinforce the importance of transitioning to clean energy to ensure energy security and reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels.
In parallel, Government is considering domestic action to continue to ensure the integrity of UK action to reduce its carbon emissions against carbon leakage, as our existing carbon leakage protection measures, including free allowances under the UK ETS, evolve to achieve our net zero objectives. This will also ensure that UK businesses are not disadvantaged. Carbon leakage is the displacement of production, and associated emissions, from one jurisdiction to another, due to different levels of carbon pricing and climate regulation across those jurisdictions.
The best way to prevent carbon leakage would be for all countries to move together in pricing, regulating, and therefore reducing carbon emissions. We are strongly committed to working with our international partners to develop a common global approach to carbon leakage. Multilateral solutions can take time to develop, however, and while we will continue to work on international solutions with partners, options for domestic action must be considered in parallel.
The Government is therefore exploring a range of policies that could potentially mitigate future carbon leakage risk. These include policies to grow the market for low emissions industrial products, on which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently undertook a Call for Evidence. Today, we are announcing that it is our intention to consult later in the year on a range of carbon leakage mitigation options, including on whether measures such as product standards and a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) could be appropriate tools in the UK’s policy mix.
A CBAM applies a carbon price to specified imports, in order to mitigate differences in carbon pricing between jurisdictions, and therefore reduce the risk of carbon leakage.
The Government is clear that any policy or policies would need to carefully balance a range of priorities for the UK, both domestically and internationally, including compliance with WTO rules and our staunch commitment to free and open trade, alongside taking into account the needs of developing countries. As we determine our approach to carbon leakage, we will continue our ongoing engagement with our domestic and international partners.
[1] : Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Intelligent, well educated people who lead our societies throughout the western economies are obviously without even the slightest understanding of how things are made and what it takes to build and operate machinery. All this ‘Carbon Mitigation, and this new phrase ‘Carbon Leakage’ as pure and utter nonsense when studied from behind the screen of refined words when the Science is revealed.
This paper today is Soo well written that almost anybody would come away with a sense that they knew what they were talking about . . . It ALL Hyperbole . . . Not a scratch of a profound understanding of how things are made . . . Just a bunch of words without knowledge . . . without meaning . . . without definition . . . .Just words.
I have been Building things my whole life . . . I was a shop teacher . . . I have a deep understanding of How things work, how they are made and what it takes to build them. Solar Panels, wind turbines and biofuels ALL take more energy, fossil fuels to produce than they will ever replace in their entire productive lifespans. But if you are a believer in ‘Clean Green’ Energy . . . It is almost a religion . . . If you believe . . . it must be true . . .
Please . . . add another lie to the list . . . Electric Cars . . . Electric Cars in the United States produce more CO2 per kilometer or Mile than internal combustion vehicles . . . Honest . . . you just need to get a grip on Science . . . OHM’s Law . . . then you will have the Oh My God moment . . . Why were we not told ??
For those of us who are getting all excited about Electric Cars and the ‘Green Revolution’, We must ALL take a much closer look at Batteries and Wind Turbines and Solar Panels and EV’s. These technologies all share environmentally destructive ‘Embedded Costs’, that rarely ever get discussed. Everything manufactured has two costs associated with them, ‘Embedded Costs’ and ‘Operating Costs’ . . . both must be examined by their merits . . . and by their failures . . .
One Lithium-Ion battery in one Electric Car weighs about 1,000 lbs. They each contain at least 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and about 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. In those batteries there are about 6,800 individual lithium-ion cells.
This should concern us all ! These toxic components all come from mining. While manufacturing each Electric Car battery, we process about 25,000 pounds of brine to make the lithium. 30,000 pounds of cobalt ore. 5,000 pounds of nickel ore, and 25,000 pounds of copper ore. All told, we dig up 85,000 Lbs of the earth’s crust . . . 42 ½ Tons . . . for just . . . ONE . . . Electric Car Battery . . . To store 100 kwh of Electricity that required more than 128 kwh of production . . . 28 kwh was lost heating the planet . . . OHM’s Law.
Let that one sink in . . . Oh, did we mention toxicity, disease or child labor. 68% of the world’s Cobalt, a very important part of every EV battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls. Furthermore, they employ children who often get sick and even die from handling this toxic material. Should we take these diseased children into account as part of the cost of driving an electric car? . . . Dam straight . . . we must!
The ‘Embedded Costs’ come from Energy use producing those components as well. Embedded Costs also come from environmental destruction, pollution, radiation, disease, child labor, and the inability to recycle those Used Batteries or Wind Turbine Blades or Solar Panels. No Excuses!
Solar Panels, the main problem with them is the Heat and the chemicals needed during processing using the ‘Czochralski Method’ turning all that silicate into the silicon used to make these panels. Producing pure Silicon requires the processing of raw silicate. Including the 1,425o C Heat required to melt the quartz crystals, usually by burning coking coal or gas. The Glass covers are made by heating sand, soda ash and limestone to the incredibly high temperature of 1,700o C with gas. Then they are Re-Heated to 450o for tempering. What about the CO2 going up the chimneys where that quartz or that glass was melted? Then, silica, we use hydrochloric acid, Sulfuric Acid, Nitric Acid, Hydrogen Fluoride, Trichloroethane, and Acetone. Do we recycle that waste? What happens to all the ‘left-overs’ from using these highly toxic chemicals? Solar Panels need gallium-arsenide, copper-indium, gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride. All of which are highly toxic even radioactive. Furthermore, Silicon dust is a hazard to workers where silicone is made and where it used. Oh, and last, the Silicone infused Solar Panels cannot, as yet, be recycled. What happens to all the by-products from making and processing all these chemicals? Furthermore, it has been suggested that the energy input to build solar panels exceeds their energy output in their productive lifetime . . .
Wind Turbines, these are The Ultimate in Embedded Costs and Environmental Destruction. Each one weighs about 1,688 tons (equivalent to 23 houses) and they contain 1,300 tons of concrete and 295 tons of steel for the masts (Concrete and Steel = 15% Global CO2). 3.5 tons of copper, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass Then there are the rare earth minerals . . . 800 lbs. of neodymium-boron per turbine, praseodymium, and dysprosium. The leaching into the environment from tailings ponds, the radiation released into the environment and the mining of these minerals are all Embedded Costs. Where are all the calculations for all of these in The Environmental reports? Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last about 15 to 20 years, then, it must be replaced. Oh, we cannot recycle used blades yet either! That is why we see them lying on the ground at wind farms after they have been replaced. What about the coal burned and electricity used at all the production facilities processing these essential components and the CO2 generated during their production? Somehow is this ‘Green Magic’ without pollution, because it will be used to produce Green Energy? Not likely! It all gets brushed under the ‘Big Green Rug’ and seems irrelevant because ‘It’s for a Good Cause’ . . . Absolutely NOT !!
There may be a place for these technologies in our economy, but first we must look beyond the myth and The Propaganda of the ‘Zero Emissions’ Lies, long before we declare them ’Emissions Free’. EV’s, Wind Farms and Solar Farms will be abandoned, once the full story of ALL the Embedded Environmental Costs for processing, manufacturing, building infrastructure, replacing components and recycling become part of the up-front analysis. We ALL should take a good hard look at what we are being Told is . . . ‘Green Technology’ . . . What are ‘The Embedded Costs’ of Going Green? . . . Sadly, no one ever seems to ask! . . . Why Not? . . .
Where are the governments in all of this? . . . Where is the Media? . . . Where is the Public Outrage?
https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids