Nov 06 2009
Good and bad environmentalism
I have always seen myself as a keen advocate of green strategies in business and politics. To me it is commonsense to seek to cut fuel use and energy cost at every opportunity. I have helped lead teams in business in the past to develop greener technologies. I believe in lean manufacture where the aim is to minimse the use of all resources including energy to make ever better quality product. I have been campaigning for years to get the UK public sector to be less profligate in its energy use to save taxpayers money. It must make sense to move away from too much dependence on fossil fuels, when their supply is limited, the long term price is rising, and much of the supply comes from very unstable parts of the world.
It makes this government’s failure to licence and plan for a new generation of electricity plants most worrying. It is disappointing to see how little progress they have made in cutting energy use in the public sector. They have not incentivised people and manufacturers to shift to lower energy technologies sufficiently. They have failed to work with the grain of human nature. People will respond to encouragement if its makes sense for them to do so, if there is a win for them.
Bad environmentalism is the old policies of higher taxes and more regulation dressed up in new moral exhortation using climate change theory. It leads to posturing on a worldwide scale, with all the predictable humbug we have seen with the election of President Obama and the run up to Copenhagen. On the election of the President we are told in messianic terms the planet can now be saved. Democrats in Congress then decide they do not wish to back a bill for the higher taxes and regulations Mr Obama has in mind. Mr Obama loses political credibility over the war, the economy and his health proposals, and seems to demote his anti climate change proposals to a poor fourth place. Gordon Brown springs into the rhetorical breach and promises us a deal to save the world, only to back off a few days later with warnings that there may not be one after all.
It would make sense for both the US and the UK to pursue strong energy policies to limit imports of fossil fuels. This can be done by encouragement to domestic energy production, to non fossil fuel production, and to energy conservation. The sooner we can remove our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the sooner the world will be a happier place. That would be a crusade worth leading, and one which a practical US and UK government could undertake successfully.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
New Labour have not got a good record when it comes to energy policy in this country. They seem unable to make strategic decisions to ensure our energy supply for the future.
I predict that, in 10-15 years, we will have an energy crisis in this country with blackouts becoming the norm.
The government at the time will be blamed by the electorate. The people who should be blamed are these spineless New Labour ministers who have not had the courage to make the big decisions.
Reply
Efficiency is everything. If you spend less money to run your house, business or country, you need to earn less money to be prosperous.
Unfortunately the encumbent Government has always equated extra action on any subject with more taxation. As a result, any rhetoric on the environment is treated with suspicion that it’s just another excuse for a raid on our hard-earned cash.
It’s only when Government leads by example that we can trust what they tell us. The sad thing is that we have already seen some silly things from Mr Cameron, such as his domestic windmill, and flying around the Arctic to “see the problems for himself”. Riding a bicycle around London is all very well, but when there is a car following behind it all looks rather absurd!
Reply
Exactly.
Efficiency is great – any engineer will always try to do the most with the least input, but they can also see the current bunkum about climate change is not about that and is making matters and generally living worse.
And even makes some people waste energy just so they don’t get labelled as an envirofascist.
Reply
[Registration of interest: I am an Energy Assessor]
I agree that the key issue we face is not (the new religion of) ‘Global Warming’ but the dimishing reserves, and consequent cost increase, of fossil fuels.
We need to use them more sparingly by improving the efficiency of all our fuel-burners. After vehicles, the next largest consuming groups are domestic and commercial heating, cooling & lighting systems.
The current systems of domestic and commercial property energy performance assessment have been driven by EU directive. Implementation by the current government has been consitently hopeless and it seems that the Conservative Party has little interest in the process.
Your colleagues need to understand that the process of assessment of existing property energy efficiency, and identification of methods to improve, is an essential starting point to cutting energy use. At the moment, the delivery of energy performance certificates (EPCs) at the point of marketing for sale or let, as legislation demands, is not being enforced. As a result the EPC is not gaining ceredibility as an essential and useful document, and therefore not initiating the improvements in energy efficiency.
When credibility is achieved, families and businesses will make the connection between energy efficiency assessment and reduced energy bills. Having done so they will want to make the changes to their properties that will reduce energy demand.
This is the point where the government needs to put away the stick and offer the carrots. Current grants for cavity wall and loft insulation, and for installation of renewable technologies (Solar panels for water heating & power generation, wind generators, high efficiency heating, cooling & lighting systems) are totally inadequate for bothe domestic and commercial sectors.
Financial incentives need to be offered for all energy efficiency improvement works – the simplest starting point is to zero VAT rate all high energy efficiency products – condensing heating boilers, air/ground source heat exchange boilers and chillers, and the renewable technologies.
This would be good environmentalism in action.
Reply
John understand your argument, and would agree that private business and individuals are usually looking for ways to cut the cost of energy, but that is because they have to find the money to pay the bills. Saving money also gives them a competitive edge.
The Public sector do not have to generate profits from which energy costs have to be paid, indeed they are given money from the public purse to operate, so no real incentive (at the moment) exists.
The sham of Government policy of taxing energy, transport, fuel and anything else which can be taxed, under the green taxes label, when as I understand it none of the income is spent on anything which even researches energy saving, just adds to the con trick and the cost to private individuals.
Yes we seem to have wasted 12 years of preparation during which time we could have put in place all sorts of energy generation policies, but have done nothing.
As I understand it the Seven Barrier has now been shelved as well. All we ever seem to do is pay millions for public enquires which take forever to reach stalemate.
All of this indecision will come back and bite us in 15 years time, if not before.
Methinks the next two Parliaments are going to have to invent a magic wand to cope with the unmitigated disasters of the last 12 years of folly.
Reply
Greens showed the true face of environmentalism to Norman Borlaug, who died recently. When he suggested that tractors might help African farmers, they bewailed the pollution that would cause. The Optimum Population Trust recently summed up their eugenics-tinged madness for them: “Fewer polluters, less pollution”.
Reply
Green policies. Meaningless garbage. Energy policy. Nonsense.
When will politicians learn to leave it to the market.
Rising prices will reduce use and if a few wish to reduce their use further as a homage to global warming then so be it.
We are where we are as a result of politicians interfering in market processes and it is not a comfortable place to be.
Reply
Please do not confuse efficiency and sensible and practical living with Environmentalism – and its numerous sects – which is a money generating, political, if not religious, ideology.
Environmentalists are interested in control; Nature conservency is merely a worthy cause, a means to an end, which they neither care about nor understand.
Humans are enemies of the Planet. Environmentalists are prepared to cause great misery and sacrifice Human life in order to get their way.
Reply
John C – I think it will happen earlier than 10-15 years ! and a few blackouts will concentrate the government’s attention remarkably.
IMO the problem is that NuLabour is leaving it all to the market – it is now not HMG’s responsibility to provide the energy capacity we will need – the “hidden hand” is supposed to provide it. Yet the market mechanism inherently favours easily despatchable options – coal and gas. Oh dear – fossil fuels are bad. So then they try and interfere with this market with the renewables obligation, which is then heartily abused by all concerned. It was an experiment in free-marketeering that has been left to run rather reviewing whether it is fit for purpose. And if it fails, the lights will go out.
Meanwhile public sector buildings are hopeless energy wasters – they don’t care because taxpayers are paying the bills… and HMG bottled out of applying high building insulation standards…
Add this to DC’s stunts on energy and one gets the impression that both major parties are just playing at energy policy. Why don’t they listen to someone like David Mackay (http://www.withouthotair.com/) ?
I predict that within 5-10 years this will become THE most important area of goverment policy.
Reply
The “strong energy policy which would most successfully limit energy imports” is simply letting the free market build as many nuclear power stations as there is demand for. Since its natural price is about a quarter of what we currently pay for electricity I think there would be considerable demand.
For that reason I am less enthused about energy saving – saving only makes sense if there is a shortage of the thing being saved & the shortage of energy currently restraining our national wealth is an entirely artificial political one.
Reply
Several strands here –
Climate change has only been measured with any accuracy over a period of 50 years or so, although a long time in human terms, is pretty short in geological (Or Earth history terms)
It may be that human activity forms a major or a minor part, of climate change, but I maybe we are at the hypothesis rather than the proof stage.
There are large terraces just south of Hadrian’s wall near Corbridge where the Romans grew vines, those vines I presume, wouldn’t now stand up to a Northumbrian winter.
If indeed carbon is indeed the major factor driving climate change, then I can’t believe that fiddling on the edges with initiatives such as cycling to work one day a week or changing light bulbs will solve. Or be solved putting green taxes onto budget airlines and denying less well off families the chance to have holidays overseas.
All of our best efforts in the UK would only amount to a fraction of 1% and would be globally insignificant just as things are now.
If in 20 years time most Chinese and Indian citizens own a car then that will be a big deal, if only in terms of the finite nature of fossil based energy
If there is a saviour to the energy crisis, and climate change then I think it will come about through technological advancement.
At Copenhagen instead of pledging limits and more turbines, it may be an idea to agree on an international research centre, on the lines of the CERN project where nations pool expertise and resources, with the aim of developing new energy sources such as cold fusion.
Reply
waramess – if we left it all to the market we’d never build another nuclear power station would we? The market won’t insure the risks, and there is a 10-15 year lead-time for a new one. Historically nukes have had and continue to get humungous public subsidies (bailouts and NDA for example – thats £70-odd billion).
So we will just use the cheapest and dirtiest coal then, and risky Russian gas when we can get it? Shame we didn’t do something useful energy-wise with 25 years of North Sea Oil revenues innit?
Reply
“Please do not confuse efficiency and sensible and practical living with Environmentalism – and its numerous sects – which is a money generating, political, if not religious, ideology. ”
Lets be very careful not to stamp on the toes of “real people” who hold a strong conviction based on real holy books. Yes the sects are very bad indeed as are the numerous examples of missleading that I could point out if I had the clear instruction to. What is unacceptable in my eyes is …… damming God. Its not as if they even directed it at the Goddess. Such an attack is unexcepatable and yet another example of why our nations press are incompatable with good goverance. If we accept that all people of good will are equal in the sight of God, then any attack on religon is an attack on us all. Thank God we do not live in the US, seems that they are far less civilised than we are.
Reply
Common sense from a politician about fossile fuels, energy and climate change at last. Can we have much more please?
Why is our PM and the motor industry flogging the electric car as the answer to every question ever thought of?
One million electric cars will increase our national energy consumption by 15-20%. (On the basis of 36Kw battery packs).
Given that even on current predictions, we are facing power cuts because of a shortfall in generating capacity, where is all the electricity for electric cars going to come from and at what cost?
When the temperature drops below freezing and I turn on the heater and demister, how much range will be left in my electric car?
How many people will die of exposure when trapped in a snowfall in their electric car with a flat battery, no heat and no lights?
Reply
Please can we deal in facts? The UK is NOT dependent on ME oil, as this excellent summary of historical trends on oil imports and production shows:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43846.pdf
Oil supply became much more localised as freight rates soared, and we are heavily dependent on Norwegian oil to supplement our own production, with Russia as the second largest source of imports by a large margin over the next ranking sources. We have lost self sufficiency in refinery capacity, and now rely on imports of aviation and motor fuels in particular to meet demand. Refinery closures (and our lack of import of higher sulphur ME crudes) have in part been motivated by environmental laws. Our dependence on foreign oil is now becoming real and fast increasing simply because our North Sea production is falling rapidly, so we no longer produce enough to trade for the crudes and products we need. Oil is at least freely traded on international markets, and unless we become an embargoed destination (picking silly arguments with Russia over minor issues doesn’t seem like a smart idea, whatever Miliband thinks), we will be able to maintain supply.
The situation for gas is very uncertain. Our North Sea production is falling rapidly, and we will depend increasingly on imports. This document
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn230.pdf
gives some indication of the problems the UK faces with gas supply. Only our Norwegian imports by dedicated pipeline are secure. We are tail end Charlie on the pipelines that feed continental Europe, dependent on the goodwill of Europeans to keep us supplied when Miliband’s Lord High Poo-Bah antics as EU High Representative or similar cause the Russians to cut supply as they periodically do already.
The development of the LNG market is crucial to maintaining any kind of gas supply security. Unfortunately, that DOES leave us dependent on ME sourcing since world gas reserves are much more concentrated than oil, dominated by Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi. While there are suggestions from the industry (BP’s Tony Hayward in particular) that gas supply is improving globally – particularly for the US (deep offshore USG, Canadian shale) which will be a big LNG buyer, there is much work to be done to bring these supplies into commission, with the very real prospect of a supply squeeze in the next few years. Meantime, having just two enormous ports (Milford Haven and Isle of Grain) that handle LNG imports is a risk of itself. The lack of (distributed) storage capacity leaves us vulnerable to supply shocks. A further dash for gas in power generation may seem superficially attractive from a perceived energy efficiency point of view, but not from a risk diversification angle.
Turning to power generation itself the economics of wind are becoming clearer, and are less attractive than once they seemed. Firstly, there is the need for 100% reserve capacity to cover for when the wind conditions prevent generation. Secondly, the engineering experience gained by the Danes suggests that offshore turbine life is rather shorter than originally assumed, and maintenance cost is higher. Don’t break too much wind – it really isn’t the panacea that greens claim.
That leaves coal – where we have several hundred years’ reserves securely beneath our feet, nuclear, and conservation (since solar is not practical for anything other than heat top up at our latitudes and given our weather).
It is a nice paradox that we ignore the secure supply we have because we are being “good environmentalists” while China builds one new coal fired generating station EVERY WEEK. Here is a similar picture for coal to that for oil:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43926.pdf
Once again, we can see that we are dependent on imports, which are dominated by supplies from Russia (AGAIN!) and South Africa. Our domestic production remains muted. A previous generation of UK coal miners literally fought battles which you will remember all too well. That should not determine policy today, 25 years later. Modern coal generating plant is not too far behind gas in efficiency, albeit slow fire-up means that it is best suited to a baseload role rather than meeting daily demand peaks. A reminder that wind paragon of virtue Denmark consumes 7 times as much coal energy generating electricity as the total output of its wind farms. It is likely that we will need to secure a derogation from the EU on closing coal fired capacity if the lights are not to go out. Plan on it, and plan a more coal friendly future (preferably without econut carbon capture at ridiculous expense unless the Chinese retrofit all their stations).
Likewise with nuclear capacity we are going to need derogations to keep stations on stream. We need to reinforce our engineering expertise in nuclear: abandoning to the French is not smart. There are those who argue that uranium supplies may become scarce in future. These arguments ignore the workings of geologists and markets in exploration and production. They also ignore the potential for breeder reactors to stretch uranium supply by a factor of around 40 – albeit with the nasty problem of plutonium as a side product and secondary energy source. Here is another take on the issue:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
Longer term we may be able to supplant fission and fossil fuel by fusion, but the earliest estimated date for commercial fusion has remained 2030 for 40 years (when JET at Culham was started), and may will slip back: ITER won’t meet that target, but perhaps the US research at Lawrence Livermore on laser based methods will be successful sooner.
Official attitudes to conservation are often based on poor science that fails to recognise economics or full energy budgets. Thus we see more fuel efficient cars being favoured by taxation that encourages scrappage of vehicles with useful life remaining, with the result that more energy is required to build the new vehicles than is saved by the early scrappage of the older ones. We are told that low speed limits increase fuel efficiency, which flies in the face of the experience of drivers who get their best fuel consumption when allowed to drive at a steady speed. We build ecohomes miles and miles from jobs instead of bringing jobs to where people live. The ecobulbs we are supposed to use have much shortened lives if we switch them on and off regularly, changing the economics and energy budget compared with the propaganda that relies on continuous burn lifetimes. The nonsense and value judgements need sorting from the realities. The market is probably more efficient than regulation in doing just that, judging from current experience.
Reply
Darling wants price controls:-
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a7vKb1ENRhM0
Great, they print a shed full of money then DEMAND price controls!!!!
Just Like Peter Schiff said they would.
Mike
Reply
May I draw attention to Professor Ian Plimer’s book ‘Heaven and Earth, global warming, the missing science’ (ISBN 978-1-58979-472-6) which comprehensively rebuts the nonsense of the IPCC reports and the anthropogenic carbon driven balony? It’s a bit heavy going but is a must read for those who adhere to JR’s Range Rovers on Mars analogy. (usual disclaimers)
Reply
John
You need to read this:-
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/11/06/81731/gilty-opportunism/
BOE to Move the Goal posts?
Reply
To focus on domestic sources of energy, as an island we need to invest more in tidal energy. Wind energy is intermittent. The tides are there all the time. Nuclear energy has to play a part, although we have to acknowledge the costs, which will include the costs of keeping out terrorism. Natural gas is clean and cheap, and easy to tap into. However, it is increasingly imported, so will have use it as a stop gap.
I hope that, with regard to transport, we must stop using road travel as a whipping boy. Tax fuel for all transport modes. That means the taxation of aviation fuel and a revision to international agreements. In the case of electrified rail, the incremental emissions at power stations should be taxed. Let us apply “the polluter pays” principle in a manner that creates a level playing field. And we should always remember that travel by sea has the lowest fuel consumption rate per tonne-km.
We are going to be very short of central government cash for the next 5 years, so the stick will have to be used more than the carrot. Perhaps householders should be obliged to install, at their own expense, cavity wall insulation and solar panels over a ten year period – always assuming that the houses were suitable. Regulations could be applied to new build houses.
Agricultural production: If you don’t like fertilisers and GM crops, you have to acknowledge that yields will be limited, which necessitates limiting the world’s population soon. (words left out ed)
Finally, let us suppose that there has to be a steady reduction in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere – i.e. negative NET emissions of CO2. Does anybody know a better way than planting more trees?
Reply
I have just read all through the comments above.
What strikes me is the sheer knowledge and enthusiasm, and, yes, expertise they show.
Compared with the ministers who have supervised our energy policy over the past few years, they really do shine. So why did we get it so wrong?
Reply
Check out Prof. Plimer and his book on Wikipedia first – he’s not exactly uncontroversial !
I’ve often wondered if Maggie did the right thing in the 80’s – i.e. leaving our coal in the ground for future generations when it will be worth a lot more. Don’t think thats what she was thinking of at the time though
Reply
I am delighted to hear you ‘have always seen myself as a keen advocate of green strategies in business and politics.’
I have often commented on your blog before on your green policies, I recall you don’t like public transport, preferring Jags. How efficient are they? 15-25 MPG? Some cars get 70 mpg!
Renewables and energy saving are the answer, but we have seen very little action from Lab or Cons on this. What happened to ‘vote blue, go green’?
Reply
Plimer may be controversial but so was Galileo. He does not deny the climate is changing, just that is carbon driven or at any faster rate than has happened a huge numbers of times over millennia.
Anyway humans, and flora, thrive in warm conditions and retreat in the face of cold. And he points out glasshouse growers use levels of CO2 three times that in the wider atmosphere to encourage growth. CO2 is the basis of life, not a poison.
It is just risible to think that anything we can do would globally alter the weather. Canute proved that to his vainglorious courtiers over a thousand years ago. Read Plimer on the awesome power of sub-ocean volcanoes and what they emit – and by us not keeping warm or feeding our ever-growing population (sorry Malthus) all will be well. In the present argot: Pleeease!
Reply
Professor Plimer is only controversial because he has upset the warmers, such as the Real Climate crew. Real Climate also write and edit most of the climate material on Wikipedia.
CO2 is not a pollutant, there is peer reviewed challenge to the main plank of the AGW theory, that CO2 emitted now will warm the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Residence Time Of CO2 Is About 5 Years, (5 Aug 2009)
In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air.
He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is about 5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is about 16 years.
Coal is cleaner now than it has ever been because of particle and gaseous filtration, (NoX and SoX). Its CO2 content is not driving global temperatures which are currently in a cooling cycle in spite of still rising CO2 from ocean outgassing resulting from earlier warming.
Carbon capture and storage is a nonsense. It was captured and stored for free, millions of years ago. Why do we need to waste energy and resources on the highly questionable process of injecting it back underground.
Controlling CO2 emissions will have almost zero effect on global temperatures. It will have a massively detrimental effect on domestic and industrial electricity users.
Reply
If I interpret you correctly there are two parts to your “conservative” environmental opinions. First is the strategic reasons – so that we are not dependent on politically unstable sources of energy supply. The second is economic. Invest in those areas which have net benefits now , as well as those which will (most probably) have long term net benefits.
May I say that you by-pass the central issue of the environmental movement – that we need action now, whatever the cost, or the planet is going to heat up rapidly, with disastrous consequences for the planet and the people upon it. The answer to this is where some conservatism is required. For instance
- To only intervene where there is a clear, independently audited, net benefit, whether taxes or regulation.
- To recognize that large-scale government projects, with no clear objectives (e.g. IT projects or “saving” banks) tend to massively overrun on costs, and to massively under-perform on forecast benefits. An inter-governmental compromise on the biggest project of all time is likely to achieve few benefits, but will cost humanity dear.
- Taxes work effectively reduce consumption where there is a close substitute. Where there is no close substitute (cost-wise), they work through creating hardship and are regressive.
- That there can be unintended consequences to well-intentioned policies. Wind farm investment also needs comparable investment in fossil fuel plants for those cold, still, frosty nights. Investing in bio-fuels has lead to increased food prices and the chopping down of rain forests. Giving large amounts of state aid to unproven technologies can lead to waste, but also mis-direct resources away from finding the optimal and most innovative solutions through the market.
- Before adopting climate-science as policy, it should be put through an evaluation process. Along the lines of validating and checking new drugs, but, possibly, with less rigor.
Reply
Letting the market build as many nuclear power stations as possible to meet power demands will result in private companies being paid to run them on the cheap. They will of course be decommissioned using taxpayers money as this is the most expensive part. Design faults, leakages and accidents will also be paid for by the taxpayer. On top of this they will be built using foreign labour and foreign companies. There is no profit in nuclear power it is the most expensive and complicated way to boil a litre of water man has ever devised. Plenty of jobs for the chaps though, and the banks will have a field day.
Coal could be made to be clean and cheap. With a long term supply right here combined with energy conservation which is another source of energy, is the answer over nuclear power. The problem of coal is that it requires skilled labour over a long periods of time and skilled labour does not work for national minimum wage. If only some way round this could be found…. Work camps paid for by private companies using cheap foreign labour. Safety could then be set at an economic level like when coal mining safety was exported in the 1980’s. Like nuclear power any social cost like a mass riot would of course be paid for by the taxpayer. Injured or dead miners who could not be secretly flown out would be dealt with by the NHS. All would be still cheaper than nuclear.
Alternatively the market could be left to its own devices like banking and anyone who cannot afford the prices can burn their furniture or buy a wood burning Aga Range. The money could be then spent on the police.
All methods will work if you chuck enough taxpayer money at it and lets face it, if you are rich enough tax and utility bills are not a problem in hated Southern Europe. You see Socialism does work! It helps many private and state employee chaps avoid harsh Capitalist realities, especially hard work that gets in the way of life for bothersome long periods. If you can become rich enough you can even become a member of the ‘party’ and avoid all taxes, at least not tell if you choose to pay any.
Reply
“Please do not confuse efficiency and sensible and practical living with Environmentalism – and its numerous sects – which is a money generating, political, if not religious, ideology. ”
Yes the sects are very bad indeed and are full of numerous examples of misleading that I could point out. What is unacceptable in my eyes is (a newspaper article ed) damming God. Such an attack is unacceptable and yet another example of why our nations press are currently incompatible with good governance. If we accept that all people of good will are equal in the sight of God, then any attack on religion is an attack on us all. Sadly intolerance leads as we have seen to blood shed in the US. Lets be better than that here. So I would ask (any writer-ed) to think carefully before damming God again after all it is very offensive to many different people.
Reply
“carbon driven baloney? ”
I agree, it is nonsense and doesn’t hold water. Frankly I would look to the sun for the answer. Did we imagine that this Star was immune to cyclic warming? We only need a very small brightening of the sun to produce a big effect here. Don’t worry the sun is not going to expand to red giant size just yet. The truth is we do not yet no the causes of the warming. The RMCS would be the best institution to charge with getting an independent answer in my opinion. The Earth has been warming since the mini-ice age, man may be adding to an effect that is natural in origin.
Thanks John for your article and the good work on holding back the tide of errors.
Reply
To Marl at 1:04.
Nicely put Mark, there are a couple of technical points we could argue over a beer. 100% back-up for wind, NGC stats are showing it can be a bit less than that. But, your wind argument is fundamentally correct. Even the Danes are admitting they actually save very little CO2. Anyway, a ROC and a half for offshore megawatt hours is a very nice little earner.
If Redwoodians want to see where your gas and electric are coming from have a look at the following.
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Gas/Data/EFD/
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
You will see from the graphs that coal is now doing what we old hands call “two shifting” through the night. It was the heavy oil plants a decade or so back.
You will see the very small contribution wind is making; but these are grid connected / metered wind farms; there are a lot more connected to lower voltage systems.
I think Mark would agree. You should start worrying about what you see on these sites.
Reply
Sign an deal with Russia for the next fifty years to buy oil/gas nuclear expertise. Saved the world, got the girl, Champagne on ice.
Reply
As we see with the M&S bag charging policy that Big Government is not needed to improve the environment. By charging 5p for cake & carrier bags usage has declined by about 80% while £100,000 a month in profits from that charge goes to the green charity Groundwork UK. That cuts Co2 down as fewer bags need producing,lessens litter as a blight and helps stop marine life being killed.The £100,000 a month to that fine green charity helps improve deprived areas by regenerating them in an environmentally sound way.
Did Marks & Spencer need government regulation to do that sound green thing ? No it did not !
This proves that you can help the environment without dictates from the man in Whitehall.In fact a poll done by M&S asked its customers whether or not they should take action on matters on issues of social justice & environmental importance.The result was overwhelmingly positive and so Plan A was launched !
Plan A chimes with the kind of common-sense Green Capitalism that John is trumpeting on this well written and first class blog.This is a progressive way of ensuring future prosperity is kinder to the planet.
This is the sound approach of David Cameron and proves that if you want Britain to go Green then you have to vote Blue !
Reply
I’m sorry, I’m with Gordon and Al Gore on this one, the best way to reduce emmissions is through mass mass mass immigration then tax the lot of em till the pips squeek.
Heaven help us.
I keep trying to find new ways to let people know what is really going on, here’s my latest.
Imagine yourself in 16th century Britain riding through the countryside in a coach, when your coach is suddenly stopped by that Famous highwayman, Dick McTurpin…..hand over your money he demands, why should we you shout in response to which he replies….well it’s to help combat global warming, to save poor african children and to save the lives of baby polar bears who have nowhere to live because the north pole has melted.
If CO2 levels were a problem, would a better ploy be to shut the borders and plant Billions of trees to soak it all up.
But no, they want the UK’s population to go up to 100 Million, it’s a Tax scam, it’s simple theft….The emperor really is naked.
Reply
A Green global migration policy would only permit migration from higher per capita energy consuming countries to lower consumers. Thus, only Qataris would be permitted to migrate to the country of their choice. The perverse influence would be that a country would have an incentive to increase energy consumption to stem migration inflows and give its citizens a wider choice of migration destinations (i.e. to develop their economies), while low energy consumers would only be popular destination with true Greens who prefer a Stone Age existence. Now that sounds strangely appealing…
Reply
BillyB what a great idea. No more Nuclear would be best because we still have no definitive idea of what we might do with spent fuel.
Coal should be our future but politicians have now commited themselves to the flawed science of global warming and so we mess up yet again
Reply