It’s time for an update on progress with the Green Investment Bank (GIB). I have been working with Vince Cable on bringing together the Advisory Group, and I hope an announcement will be made soon. When the Advisory Group has its first meeting in September, it will have the opportunity to review the work to date
The Environmental Audit Committee has published the Government’s response to its report. While it is great to see so much agreement between MPs and Government on what needs to be done to realise the GIB, there is still a lot to do.
Let me also take this opportunity to reply to the posted blog entries from Chris Moore, Paul Auston and Andrew Haslam-Jones. It is too early to give a definitive answer, to these questions but there are two key preliminary points to note:
- First, it is enormously valuable to have direct feedback from people at the sharp end of project development because you have first hand experience of what’s working and what’s not as regards the financing of renewable projects, and
- Secondly, even though the GIB’s remit is going to be focused on a few limited, priority areas, at least at the outset, it needs to keep its ear to the ground generally to monitor the progress of renewable initiatives across a broader spectrum.
Ministers have indicated areas where there appears to be a case for intervention. The whole GIB initiative needs State Aid consent from Brussels and so, at this stage, everything’s a little tentative. While we wait for this clearance the Government wants to get things going now by making a few selected investments that are compatible with State Aid rules, but we will have to lay the groundwork carefully first.
So the early work in fleshing out the GIB proposition will focus on investment policy, what sort of products might it put forward to address cases of market failure (credit enhancement products, and aggregating loans for small projects are two possibilities), and what processes will ensure that GIB investments are policy-driven, can demonstrate value-for-money and to ensure high standards of professional execution.
More on all of this later in the year.
Subscribe to this blog:
Dear Sir Adrian
I can not conceive of a more foolhardy exercise than the GIB. Putting aside the emerging new evidence that AGW (man-made climate change) is actually more to do with natural variation in a choatic system (see work by Svensmark, Spencer, Lindzen etc or read comments at Sir John Beddington’s BIS Blog) and very little to do with CO2 output from human activity. I’m sure you will be familiar with the recent report by Verso Economics where they estimate that for every “green job” created some 3.7 jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy. Similar results have been seen in Spain who also looked to decarbonise their economy. The GIB is no more than a slush fund for economically non viable projects, probably based around so called green energy. The kicker is that we the public will end up funding this folly as we are now with rapidly rising energy bills to subsidise inefficient wind turbines.
Do you think the BRICS nations are considering a “green economy” ? I think not. The UK is really the only nation worldwide that has implemented such drastic climate change legislation. I’m afraid Huhne, Beddington, Cable, Cameron et al will not be satisfied until we are returned to the dark ages while our economic competitors (even within the EU now that Germany has declared a new found love of Gas and Coal) march on.
Sincerely
A MacIntyre
Pingback: Good progress towards green investment | BIS Blogs
The views expressed by Andrew MacIntyre above seem to be, shall we say, based on poor information. So much so, in fact, that they’ve inspired a pretty thorough rebuttal here:
http://www.isonomia.co.uk/?p=680
I’m afraid Peter, its you that has drunk the ” AGW coolaid”. Do some research of your own and read some of the papers from the many scientists who disagree with the AGW propoganda. As a starter read Andrew Montfords “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and prepare to be shamed at some of the “climate” academics within our university system.
Dear Mr Theknife,
I’m not sure that my comment above can really be seen as an advert for a particular brand of “coolaid”. I highlighted Dom Hogg’s article because it tackles the two very specific claims made by A MacIntyre:
(1) Every “green job” costs 3.7 other jobs in the economy. This appears to be an overinterpretation of Verso’s work, which regardless of your view on its credibility was limited to renewable energy, and has nothing to say about the wider green economy.
(2) BRICS nations are not considering a “green econony”. India, at least, is doing just that, and investing pretty heavily in reducing CO2 emissions.
I don’t believe that you need to be heavily committed one way or the other on the hypothesis that human activity is affecting the climate in order for these points to stand.