UKC

About time!

From BBC Website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7650013.stm
A new department is being created to deal with the pressing challenges of energy security and climate change. It will combine the energy responsibilities of the business department and the climate focus of the environment ministry. It is not clear who will be heading the department yet but he or she will have a seat at the cabinet table.

In reply to DougG: has anyone counted how many ministries and departments NuLab has created since 1997? big government or what

In reply to DougG:

makes sense, but could maybe do with a wee bit more as well - I quite like the remit of TICC (transport, infrastructure and climate change) at Holyrood.

In reply to johnSD:

Now official.

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

Made up of bits of Energy Group (the bits that used to be Department of Energy before 1989...) from BERR (formerly DTI) and the bits of DEFRA dealing with Climate Change.

SoS is Ed Miliband.

In reply to DougG: Not sure about this. Yesterday we could deal with one Department when discussing CC and environmental conservation, now we will have to talk to two, never a good thing.

In reply to ring ouzel:

There'll be a few circles to square.

Bits of BERR Energy Group were involved with promoting the exploitation of the remaining fossil fuel reserves in the UK. How that chimes with being part of this new body I don't know.

In reply to ring ouzel:

This occured to me as well. Good to see CC getting cabinet level recognition, but Defra were getting there and it seemed like a lot of people at Natural England were only just getting their feet under the table folllowing the last coc..err Shake up.

In reply to toad: Morale at NE has never been so low and the expertise of staff has never been so low either. Expect lots more staff to leave either through redundancy or disgruntlement. I was at Birdfair this year and lots of my ex-colleagues were moaning about NE.

In reply to ring ouzel:

I think its pretty positive. From a government point of view action on climate change isn't really an environmental matter. If you look at the draft Climate Change bill and related initiatives they were always a bit out of place in DEFRA, with much more in common with BERR. Emission targets, mitigation, trading, etc. are more closely related to energy, industry, and the rest.

But you're right - climate change is relevant to so many departments that while this will simplify things for some areas, it will by consequence complicate them for others... But I don't think there is any way we could ever fit all interests together.

In reply to ring ouzel: It has always been inevitable that for most things of any large-ish scale you have to speak to more than one dept eg for some renewables you needed to talk to Defra, BERR and HMT.

In reply to johnSD:

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme was administered by DEFRA (except the bits related to offshore oil & gas, which was BERR). That'll will probably all be under the one umbrella now.

In reply to DougG:

...and by SEPA in Scotland. But the policy development both at UK level (CRC, UKETS) and especially at EU level is dominated by business interests, so in many ways it makes sense for it to be closer to BERR. But saying that, SEPA or the EA are the obvious people to regulate and administer the schemes, which I think brings me back to thinking that you'll always have some cross-departmental work where this is involved....

I think one of the key things is tying up the climate change bill and energy, as energy policy - electricity generation specifically - will probably (?) have the largest impact on the legally binding emission targets, and this way will both be under the responsibility of the same minister.

In reply to johnSD:

Not at EU level it isn't - all the policy development is done by DG Environment and it is really only relatively late on that other DG's have any input. DG Environment whilst willing to listen to industry and lobbied heavily by industry is hardly dominated by industry.


Power generation only makes up about 25% of all emissions and is already fairly tightly regulated. Power generation is an easy target, but some Govt is going to have take the bull by the horns and get individuals and particularly transport to reduce emissions...

In reply to MJH:
>

I know, but keeping half an eye on the progress of Phase 3, business interests (separate to energy, so I suppose I've sent this down a tangent...) certainly seem to dominate the debate and make all the headlines, or at least that's the way it seems to me...

In reply to johnSD:

That is because they are all pooing themselves at how much it is going to cost...

In reply to DougG:

It would be worth it if the office is between the Foreign Office and Defence as our foreign policy and defence spending appear symbiotic in 'safeguarding' out future energy supplies.

In reply to Cerulean:


Not sure about that. Our future overseas energy (as opposed to transport) needs are largely gas-related, and so largely depend on Norway and (indirectly) Russia. There's also LNG from Qatar and Algeria.

Oil is quite another matter of course.

In reply to DougG:
Well yes, there's a lot of indirectness around energy. Georgia are/ were favourites for being rushed into NATO so (amongst other reasons) the Russians wouldn't threaten the European pipeline from Baku - which is now a little bit shafted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7561466.stm