Over the past 18 months I have been working in near-stealth mode on a mobile app called Pearlshare. This week sees its friends and family launch for iPhone. What is Pearlshare, and why am I convinced the world needs it?
Welcome to Liebreich.com!
Years ago – over a decade now, before blogging was called blogging – the voices told me I had to have my own website, so I built one. But then I got busy, and for the longest time I didn’t post anything. Now, finally, I have got round to relaunching Liebreich.com. I hope you like it!
In the energy sphere, the UK should be looking for three things as part of the renegotiation of its relationship with Europe: for the EU to complete the single market; for the EU to stop meddling in decisions better taken at UK level; and for root-and-branch reform of the EU-ETS carbon trading scheme.
In September 2015 the UN is due to adopt a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to replace the successful Millennium Development Goals and govern its development work over the next 15 years. What is being proposed is a smorgasbord of good intentions, with 17 goals and 169 sub-goals, which will serve almost no useful purpose. Whilst some influential voices have spoken out about this absurdity, it seems impossible to stop.
For too long the left has been allowed to claim ownership of the environment. The right has implicitly accepted that protecting the environment is in opposition to a prosperous and free society. Now, as clean energy becomes competitive with fossil fuels, a new battlefield opens up. The solutions offered by the left are stifling competition and slowing down the uptake of clean energy. Only by releasing a maelstrom of entrepreneurial and competitive activity will the world be able to build a high-performing clean energy system without driving costs to unacceptable levels. And only by leading the process will the right find its natural voice on energy and the environment.
This is a white paper I published in December 2005 – seven years ago – in which I branded the Kyoto Protocol a failure and described an alternative approach for bringing countries into an accession-based system for emission controls, similar to the largeyly successful Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under “Accession to GDP Less X%”, all countries would have the same goal: emissions to undershoot GDP growth by the same percentage. With the UNFCCC having essentially run into the sand, we need to look again at new approaches.
“I am Arthur, King of the Guardian Readers. I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in building my Clean Energy Camelot. Will you join me?” Musings on UK energy policy, with acknowledgements to Monty Python.
On my last trip through London Heathrow Terminal 5 BAA was (un)wise enough to ask me for feedback on the experience. I so much enjoyed writing down my thoughts that I decided to replicate them here.
Five years ago this week, I published a white paper entitled “How to Save the Planet: Be Nice, Retaliatory, Forgiving and Clear”. In it, I postulated that climate is a prisoner’s dilemma, but one one which will be played repeatedly, not just once. The difference is critical: instead of shooting for an unachievable top-down climate deal, we should focus on accelerating the inevitable emergence of domestic action on climate change. Since then we have seen the failure of Copenhagen, and the emergence of strong national responses. Is it time to look again at the game theory behind climate change?
On 8 September the Mail Online carried an article entitled “Are wind farms saving or killing us? A provocative investigation claims thousands of people are falling sick because they live near them”, by well-known seeker of truth, James Delingpole, known to be “right about everything”. So why did he use a faked photo of a wind farm to make his point?
“Look, matey, I know a dead Protocol when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.” “No, no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable bird, the Copenhagen Blue, innit, eh? Beautiful plumage!”. Musings on the Kyoto Protocol, with acknowledgements to Monty Python.