Guess what? Yes, they’re picking losers again
Just to remind of the basics of dealing with climate change from the Stern Review. Do not try to plan something as complex as an economy, simply set a price for emissions and watch the market sort things out. Further, do not try to pick technological winners nor prescribe technologies. Anything that reduces emissions is good so leave be to see which emissions reducing technology actually works.
At which point the European Union:
‘This is real progress’: airlines on sustainable aviation fuels and the chances of net zero flying
The EU and UK have imposed mandates, and investors see its value – but the industry has mixed views
Mandantes, d’ye see? Micromanagement of the economy.
Current UK and EU mandates can be met entirely with HEFA (hydrotreated esters and fatty acid) based SAF, made from sources such as recycled cooking oil – though its provenance has been questioned. The bigger hurdles come as governments demand second generation (2G) SAF, made of feedstocks such as household rubbish.
Picking technologies. Exactly what we’re all abjured from doing.
As we’ve pointed out several times there’s an alternative. Solar or wind electricity through water to hydrogen, Fischer Tropsch that up to jet fuel. Porsche at least claims this can be done for $2 a litre all in. Might work globally, might not work globally, it’s one of those things that has to be done to find out, see? Yes, there was that Royal Academy report that said it couldn’t be done as Britain doesn’t produce enough electricity to do that. Which is an insane worry - we don’t produce all our own oil currently either. So do it where it can be done then ship the fuel, why not?
But the EU will not allow this freedom to find out. For H2 to jet fuel is “e-fuel” and the definition of “sustainable fuel” doesn’t include e-fuel. So something that - could, potentially - work can’t be used to meet the targets and mandate for what should be done. Despite it actually solving the problem if it does in fact work. The bureaucrats have decided upon chip fat and that’s that.
Sure, sure, we can all shout about whether climate change is real, or not, or it’s a civilisation ending event or moves wine country 50 miles north. But what is undoubtedly true is that the bureaucracy is going about trying to deal with it the wrong way. Because it’s the bureaucracy trying to deal with it when it should be markets. Try everything, do more of what works, less of what doesn’t. It’s how every other technological change in history has come about but we’re apparently ruled by those with the insane insistence that this time is different.
Largely, we suspect, because which bureaucracy would willingly give up the chance to misplan everything?
Tim Worstall