Good news Monday: US emission projections drop for a fifth year running

Maybe we won't all die?

Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal highlights some good news to start the week. Projections of US CO2 emissions in 2030 at the lowest they've been in five years, according to the 2013 Annual Energy Outlook, the long-term predictions of the US Energy Information Administration.

This chart, from the EIA, shows the changes:

The administration gives five reasons for the decline in expected CO2 emissions between 2009 and 2013:

  1. Downward revisions in the economic growth outlook, which dampens energy demand growth;
  2. Lower transportation sector consumption of conventional fuels based on updated fuel economy standards, increased penetration of alternative fuels, and more modest growth in light-duty vehicle miles traveled;
  3. Generally higher energy prices, with the notable exception of natural gas, where recent and projected prices reflect the development of shale gas resources;
  4. Slower growth in electricity demand and increased use of low-carbon fuels for generation;
  5. Increased use of natural gas

Sober Look ties the news to the continued failure of the US to enact a successful cap-and-trade programme, writing:

One of the reasons for the failure of the so-called cap & trade program in the US (other than political), has to do with the fact that carbon emissions have declined on their own - without any caps. And why would a company pay for an emissions "allowance" if it can stay under the cap without it. Of course politically it made no sense to force companies to pay at the time when they were emitting materially less carbon on their own. Furthermore, there was no incentive for investors to hold these contracts because each year the long-term projections for carbon emissions in the US have declined.

That analysis is undoubtedly correct; the US cap and trade system was predicated on limiting the growth in emissions, and if they are naturally falling then clearly that limit will be moot.

That said, all it really does is highlight the appalling lack of ambition of the American climate programmes – not that the European cap-and-trade programme is doing much better. This is another argument in favour of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade programmes; if you get the cap wrong on cap-and-trade, your programme is useless, but no matter what the value of a carbon tax, it will always have some effect.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.