Connect with us

Economy

Green ISAs: it’s not too late to resurrect an inspired idea

Published

on

It’s been six years since the then-shadow chancellor George Osborne proposed the idea of green ISAs to encourage public engagement with, and inject capital into, the green economy.

At the time Osborne said, “Green ISAs will engage the public in a new way in the issues around climate change and show them very clearly the economic benefits of green investment.”

He was right. They very likely would have, while raising significant funds for investment in sustainable enterprise. Except in 2011 the once key Tory policy was dropped, never to make it into the chancellor’s budget box.

Fast forward to March this year, and the House of Commons environmental audit committee highlighted a significant green investment gap in its report on green finance. The report stated, “The current level of green investment is running at less than half of the level needed to deliver the decarbonisation implicit in national and international targets. A significant scale-up is needed.”

The gap is estimated to be between £10-12 billon a year, a ‘green deficit’ which grows every year insufficient investment is made into low-carbon generating assets and infrastructure. Green ISAs, if resurrected, could help fill that hole.

More than £57 billion was invested in ISAs in the last tax year alone, by 14.6 million subscribers. It’s not inconceivable that with the right incentives, in excess of £12 billion could be redirected into the green economy, each and every year.

Osborne’s original proposal was to extend the ISA allowance, which is currently £11,520, by £1,000–3,000 if invested in green ISAs. But it could be that an even lower increase could still boost investment in the green economy, with a few provisos.

To maximise the money injected into the sustainable economy, while minimising the cost of the tax relief to the exchequer, all money invested in a green ISA should be ring-fenced to green projects, not just the uplift.

The latest figures, from 2010/11, showed that 31% of cash ISA and 36% of stocks and shares ISA subscribers saved or invested the maximum amount possible. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that should the limit be raised even a relatively small amount, many of these would opt for putting the higher amount in a green ISA rather than less in its conventional equivalent.

All banks and building societies would have to be able to offer green ISAs, as long as they’re then able to use the funds to productively contribute to the green economy.

For a while, green ISAs were proposed as a way of funding the Green Investment Bank, which would put all the money raised with a single institution and create a bottleneck in terms of their capacity to distribute the funds. By enabling all banks to offer green ISAs, they become a mass market product with mass appeal. And banks would start to find that a significant, and growing, proportion of the money in their ISAs is ring-fenced to the green economy.

Finally, banks would have to be bound to using the money raised through green ISAs to finance new sustainable assets and infrastructure. Otherwise we’re likely to see banks going through their portfolios and retrospectively finding projects that fit the criteria, rather than getting the new money out and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The reality is that when green and tax do get a mention together in the budget on Wednesday, it will be in the context of the easing back of environmental taxes (whatever you choose to call them), sacrificed for the sake of growth and a more ‘resilient economy’.

The real shame is that green ISAs could help to provide both of these with little or no cost to the exchequer. And throw in a populist tax break for good measure.

Will Ferguson is head of communications at Triodos Bank.

Further reading:

Green businesses call for sustainable ISA incentives

2014 could be ‘perfect time’ to invest in an ISA

Treasury looks to extend ISA reach to peer-to-peer finance and crowdfunding

Consider sustainability and ethics when investing in ISAs this year

First UK Islamic ISA gives consumers ethical tax-free way to save

Economy

Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?

Published

on

self-driving cars for green environment
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Zapp2Photo | https://www.shutterstock.com/g/zapp2photo

Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?

But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?

The Big Picture

The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.

That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.

Driver Reduction?

One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.

There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.

As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.

Deadheading

Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.

Make and Model of Car

Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.

On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.

The Bottom Line

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?

Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.

Continue Reading

Economy

New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035

Published

on

renewable energy policy
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Eviart / https://www.shutterstock.com/g/adrian825

New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.

New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.

Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.

Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”

The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.

Zero net emissions by 2050

Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.

Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.

She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.

Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”

A worldwide shift to renewable energy

Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.

Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.

Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.

Sources: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/green-dream-risks-energy-security-as-kiwis-aim-for-zero-carbon

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-hydrocarbons/france-plans-to-end-oil-and-gas-production-by-2040-idUSKCN1BH1AQ

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Trending