Quote of the day

“I find economics increasingly satisfactory, and I think I am rather good at it.”– John Maynard Keynes

Saturday 11 September 2021

Coal in Cumbria vs long term goals

 Log in to the paper and read the comments section; consider how hard it can be to have effective strategies when resistance is strong:


The Cumbrian coal mine is careless diplomacy and economic idiocy

Whitehaven Colliery plan is a dark stain on the UK’s green ambitions and it will soon be obsolete

Demonstrators hold placards outside the proposed Whitehaven Colliery
As long as it entertains creating a brand new coal mine at Whitehaven Colliery, the Government is undermining its position on decarbonisation CREDIT: PA

Britain has sold its climate credibility for a mess of brown pottage. The proposed Whitehaven coal mine in Cumbria has no commercial rationale and will be obsolescent before it ever opens.

One can only sympathise with Alok Sharma. The president of Glasgow’s Cop26 “summit to save the world” is entering the last critical phase of talks with China, India and Russia, only to be undercut at home by well-meaning Tory colleagues living in an economic time-warp, and deaf to the higher notes of global statecraft.

Over coming weeks, Mr Sharma will strive to conjure some sort of G20 consensus on the hardest of the hard issues: a timetable for the total phase-out of “unabated coal power”, the bedrock requirement for a 1.5-degree world.

While he does so, his own country will be debating a brand new mine at Whitehaven Colliery, intended to produce coking coal until the middle of the 21st century. The public inquiry began this week and will run for four weeks, a ghastly torment for Mr Sharma’s negotiating team.

British Steel worker in Scunthorpe
Coking coal in British steel “could be displaced completely by 2035” CREDIT: PA

Documents submitted by owners West Cumbria Mining now suggest that 83pc of the 2.8m-ton production will be exported to Europe, some of it to Turkey. Europe? Really?

Presumably the Australian private equity group backing the mine – EMR Capital – is aware of the near unstoppable political moves in Brussels to extend the EU’s carbon trading scheme to steel producers, which account for 6pc of the EU’s total CO2 emissions.

Carbon futures prices in Europe have tripled in a year to €63 (£54) a ton. They will hit €100 a ton by the mid-to-late 2020s almost automatically because the European Commission is dialling down the permits. By that point coking coal will be caught in a hostile scissor-action of moving variables, ever less able to compete with exempted “green” steel made from hydrogen via electrolysis.

Chris Goodall, from Carbon Commentary, has crunched the figures: a ton of coal-based steel typically is responsible for 1.9 tons of CO2. Ergo, a carbon fee of €100 will add nearly €200 a ton to the final cost. That would raise the price of European steel by a third.

Turkey will have to shadow the EU carbon price, and so will others such as Ukraine. If they resist, they will be shut out of Europe’s market or forced to pay a “level playing field” charge. We are moving to a new world trading system of carbon border tariffs.

ArcelorMittal, the world’s biggest steel producer outside China, can see the writing on the wall. It is building a commercial-scale plant at Gijon in Spain, aiming for 2.6 tons a year of green steel from 2025 onwards. It will use hydrogen in a “direct reduction” process, drawing on the solar parks of the Spanish meseta where costs are near £25 MWh – getting close to free energy.

There will be costs replacing old steel with green steel infrastructure but governments are stepping in with blanket subsidies because none wish to miss the hydrogen boat. Berlin has promised to spend whatever it takes to help ThyssenKrupp and other German steelmakers to make the switch. Mirabile dictu, Big Steel is switching.

Lord Deben, chairman of the Climate Change Committee, says the coking coal in British steel “could be displaced completely by 2035”, the date set for net-zero steel emissions in this country. The Cumbrian coal would be obsolete, sellable only to a diminishing group of climate pariah states.

The CCC is being cautious. It will happen sooner than that. One thing we have learnt in the lightning-fast field of renewable energy is that the advances keep coming earlier than almost anybody expected, making a mockery of forecasts by status quo bureaucracies such as the UK Treasury or the International Energy Agency.

Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, says green steel will have reached sufficient global scale by 2030 to undermine the market for coking coal. The game will be over by 2040.

He thinks the UK authorities should set three conditions for Whitehaven: no subsidy, no bailout; and a bond for decommissioning. “If they can still raise money under those terms, it is hard to see why they should not be allowed to lose it,” he said.

A land yacht sails along the beach past an offshore wind farm
The Cumbrian colliery is supposed to create 500 jobs, but if employment is the objective it might better be met by creating engineering and technical support jobs for the offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea CREDIT: Getty

The mystery is why mining veteran Owen Hegarty, from EMR Capital, is bothering with such a nonsensical venture. “There are technical challenges digging under the sea off Cumbria. 

It is far less expensive to mine coking coal in other parts of the world,” said Dave Jones from Ember. Mr Hegarty’s swashbuckling fellow Australian, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, is making the opposite bet after his Damascene conversion. The ex-Fortescue tycoon and epic carbon emitter aims to produce gargantuan quantities of green hydrogen from arrays of wind and solar across the outback of north-west Australia.

Twiggy calls it a “clear cut economic choice” regardless of climate science. There is nowhere cheaper on the planet to make power and therefore to make clean steel in situ. He thinks Australia can corner a large chunk of the $12 trillion (£8.7 trillion) hydrogen market worldwide, rendering the country’s current coal industry trivial to the point of irrelevance.

For starters, he plans an annual output of 15m tons of green hydrogen by 2030, with 50m later. Green steel, here we come.

The Cumbrian colliery is supposed to create 500 jobs, if workers can be found for underground toil in a region facing a labour shortage. If employment is the objective it might better be met by engineering and technical support jobs for the offshore wind farms in the Irish Sea. Each new gigawatt requires 1,500 workers.

The service hub for BP’s three gigawatt joint venture off Anglesey will probably go to Wales but there will be plenty more coastal jobs as the UK leads the world with 40 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030.

While this wind power will never be as cheap as Spanish or Australian solar, it will be very cheap and effectively free for large chunks of each 24-hour cycle, nicely adapted for green hydrogen production at prices that will outcompete Cumbrian coking coal.

The Whitehaven Colliery is never going to happen. But the fiasco has dragged on long enough to leave Britain with an excruciating diplomatic embarrassment. Worse yet – unless you are a climate denialist – it has intruded on the delicate chemistry of Cop26. One weeps at the ineptitude.

Tax - a simple concept eh?

 

So much for simplification – we now have four types of income tax

There's no silver bullet to this muddle of complexity, and workers, savers and shareholders are all paying the price

You’ve got to pity the poor souls at the Office of Tax Simplification. Quite possibly the least sexy quango of all, the Government’s tax adviser is tasked with coming up with ways to streamline Britain’s ever more bloated taxation rulebook. Removing duplication, aligning rates and simplifying guidance is the aim of the game.

Picture the scene in the OTS on Tuesday, then, when the Prime Minister delivered a slew of tweaks and fiddles to National Insurance and dividend levies as well as a brand new health and social care tax. Their heads must have exploded. Or maybe accountants live for this stuff, the more complex and impenetrable the better.

All of which means that, despite appearances, there are now effectively four separate levies on earnings, only one of which has the word “income” in it. To add to income tax we have National Insurance, student loan repayments (better called a graduate earnings tax) and the new 1.25pc health and social care levy.

From April 2023 state pensioners with earned PAYE income (excluding pensions, rental income and so on) will also pay the new levy, though only the 1.25pc surcharge, not the full NI whack. Though technically not National Insurance, this will mark the first time those in receipt of the state pension have made a contribution towards benefits via a levy. 

When NI was introduced in 1911 far fewer people lived much beyond the state pension age. Today the opposite is true, and tax experts have been pointing out for years how pensioners’ exemption from NI is baffling when you consider the enormous cost of the state pension, which works on a pay-as-you-go basis, with younger workers paying today’s pensions. 

So why was the 1.25pc figure chosen? Presumably it was the result of a tussle between the Prime Minister and Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor. More strange is that the same figure has also been used to increase taxes on dividends, adding yet more muddle.

Shareholders already pay tax on company payouts at a rate determined by their income tax bracket less a £2,000 annual allowance. Now investors have to contend with rates to two decimal places. It’s almost like someone at the Treasury saw the social care levy at five minutes to midnight before the announcement and suggested tacking the same figure on to dividends too, surmising (correctly) that no one would understand it anyway. 

Politicians claim to want to simplify the system but there is little incentive to do so. When he set up the OTS in 2010, the then chancellor George Osborne pinned the blame on Tony Blair’s administration, for taking a “complex tax system and making it worse”.

He was quite right to say that a decade of “meddling and intervening” had turned the tax affairs of millions of families into a “mess”. He had six years to turn it around but instead made it a whole lot worse.

Mr Osborne clearly realised that complexity is pretty handy when you want to raise cash without people noticing. The interaction of those four income taxes combined with the means-testing of various allowances creates an array of different marginal rates far higher than the official 45pc top rate of tax. 

Well over 300,000 people effectively pay income tax at 60pc, for instance. This quirk is caused by the removal of the personal allowance, the amount you can earn tax-free, once you earn more than £100,000. For every £1 earned over £100,000, the allowance drops by 50p. The result is that each additional £1 of income effectively incurs 60p of income tax. Once National Insurance is factored in, the true rate is even higher.

The same thing occurs with the withdrawal of child benefit when one parent earns more than £50,000. The benefit is clawed back via tax charges until it is entirely wiped out once income tops £60,000. Again the result is that on that portion of income the effective tax rate is 60pc. Most bizarre of all is the marriage allowance, a perk afforded only to couples with one non-taxpayer and one basic-rate payer. As soon as one partner’s income breaches the higher-rate threshold, now £50,271, the couple lose the tax break entirely. That means £1 of income costs £252.

Aside from giving everyone a migraine, there are serious consequences of such a convoluted system. Firstly, the public don’t fully understand how the Government is milking them, and so are powerless to fight back. There is an economic cost, too. Individuals are forced to pay ever growing sums to tax advisers to help them comply with the rulebook, now far north of 10 million words long, 48 times the length of Hong Kong’s tax code. Investment is also hampered, as foreign firms spend gargantuan sums navigating corporate tax law or give up.

What to do? There’s no silver bullet to a muddle of this complexity but one place to start would be to make it a statutory duty of ministers to follow the OTS’s advice or explain why they refuse. The OTS was a great idea; we just need to give it some clout.