Renewables set to save UK £45bn
Yes, you read that correctly... A report published by the Climate Change Commission (CCC) and presented to Government ministers estimates a saving of £45bn if the UK electricity supply moves away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewables. Put another way this represents a saving of £1600 for every UK household.
This of course is quite contrary to the propaganda spread by climate change deniers and 'big oil' lobbyists that opting for the renewables route will cost everyone an arm-and-a-leg.
The report indicates that between 2010 and 2020 the switch to low carbon forms of energy would add around £100 per year to annual fuel bills. Of course that's not to say the cost of fossil fuels will not also be increasing and the overall increases in energy costs must not be blames purely on renewables. UK gas prices are expected to jump significantly next year as long term supply contracts for LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) from Qatar are due to be renegotiated in light of increased demand from Europe and Japan following the Fukushima incident.
As noted by energy minister Ed Davey this week
“The real reason for high energy bills is high global gas prices. I can’t control global gas prices but I can put a cushion between the high global gas price that people face and the bills consumers pay,”
So if anything the report probably underestimates the long term prices for oil and gas. The CCC’s £45bn estimate represents the value of savings in today’s money that British households would collectively make between 2020 and 2050. It is based on expected changes in the price of gas and the penalties big companies will face for their carbon emissions and could potentially rise as high £100bn – or more than £3,000 per household – if those figures have been substantially underestimated.
The report will likely increase tensions between George Osborne’s dash-for-gas Treasury and the Department of Energy and Climate Change secretary Ed Davey. Davey insists a decarbonisation target should be included in the Energy Bill and to apply from next year, while Osborne is pushing to defer a decision on whether to introduce a decarbonisation target until 2016.
To provide some balance it is good to note that at least some Conservative MPs support the CCC report such as Tim Yeo:
“There has clearly been quite a big attempt to portray decarbonisation as a huge burden to the consumer. But this report provides a robust rebuttal to that argument on anything but a short-term basis.”
Top Government scientist says 2degC limit "out the window"
There are widespread reports today that the UKs most senior scientific advisor to HM Gov, Professor Sir Robert Watson has said limiting global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius is no longer possible. Instead he predicts rises could be as high as 5 degrees which will have dire consequences for the planet.
"To be quite candid the idea of a 2C target is largely out of the window... I wouldn't rule out a 5 degree world and that would be quite serious for the people of the world especially the poorest. We need more political will than we currently have"
The UK Government, under pressure from back-bench Tories, are currently cutting renewable energy subsidies, by 50% in some cases, and embarking on another "dash for gas".
Winning the battle for the next election clearly trumps fighting the battle to save the planet.
Tory "think tank" urges U-turn on Climate
Today's Telegraph reports that the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute of Economic Affairs have urged the Government to “stop building wind-farms and repeal (or suspend) the Climate Change Act”.
Instead they say the UK should pollute its way to economic recovery with another dash-for-gas combined with fracking and nuclear.
This is blatant short-termism at the expense of reducing CO2 emissions, increasing energy security and doing something about Climate Change.
Only last week investment into new wind turbine R&D and manufacturing facilities from Siemens and Doosan was put on hold pending the result of on-going reviews of the renewable subsidy policy. This on top of Vestas recent announcement to not proceed with their planned blade factory in Kent.
The Green Revolution has the same, if not greater potential, to create wealth as the .com era. Sadly if certain people get their way the UK will be relegated to nothing more than a reluctant customer.
The science of denial
Watching Horizon on BBC2 last night it became clear why the Climate Change deniers have such an easy time of things, compared say to the scientists struggling to warn us of impending peril.
In the programme entitled Out of Control, cutting edge research into how our behaviour is largely dictated by the sub-concious included an intriguing experiment. Participants were given a set of 80 questions asking them to predict the chances of them suffering everything from a broken arm to cancer. After each question the participant was given the actual statistical probability which in some cases was higher and in others lower. Finally the entire set of questions were repeated and the participant allowed to adjust their previous answers.
The results were stunning... overwhelmingly participants would revise down their answers where they had overestimated, but NOT where they had underestimated. The conclusion being that we sub-consciously filter out information we do not like.
Further proof that we are less in control of our minds that perhaps we would like came from an experiment where individuals were asked to simply chase and catch a small remotely operated helicopter darting around in a random flight pattern while wearing a head-mounted video camera. Each was asked to describe the strategy they had adopted and unsurprisingly each sounded very different. Until that is, the recorded videos were analysed and it became evident that despite the strategy each participant thought they had used... they had all done exactly the same thing: moving about to keep the helicopters flight path appear straight relative to their own position.
Of course none of this should be any surprise. We eat food that we know is unhealthy, drink alcohol, smoke, drive fast cars and... well you know the rest.
So even after being presented with evidence as compelling as Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth which predicts a fairly bleak future unless we make radical changes, most completely normal people will simply choose to carry on as normal. This not because they do not care, or do not take the subject very seriously.. but because sub-consciously deciding to change your life to save the planet is a mental leap that few are able to make. Add to this the tendency for herd behaviour and you arrive at where we are today with any trivial doubt, piece of misinformation or junk science that the deniers can throw in the public domain re-enforcing the sub-concious desire to ignore bad news, not to stand out and stick to what has worked previously.
And this is the other non-surprise; for as long as we've understood herd behaviour, others have become skilled shepherds. Take for the example, the junk science published for decades on behalf of the tobacco industries. By spreading just enough F.U.D (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) it was possible for the sub-concious to discard the bad news that smoking does, indeed kill. This made a lot of money, but sadly continues to kill around 100,000 people in the UK every year.
Perhaps the debate needs to be reversed, turn Climate Change into a good news story.... after-all, a good many properties that are currently 5-10 miles inland could become prime seafront real estate by the end of this century.
Somehow we think this approach is not likely to work. So we will have to wait for a seismic shift in the public sub-concious before any serious attempts to tackle Climate Change can begin. Let's hope it doesn't come too late.
NPPF Update
Towards the end of December 2011 the House of Commons Select Committee for Communities and Local Government published their report on the Draft National Planning Policy Framework or NPPF.
While their findings may not be quite as rosy as the interpretation chosen by minister Greg Clarke they are none the less far from damning. For the most part the debate seems to have evolved around the definition of Sustainable Development - because, says the NPPF, planning authorities should have a default presumption in favour of them.
Just about everyone has commented on the definition of Sustainable Development, but the one proposed by the committee seems to address many of the concerns of both sides:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs. It is central to the economic, environmental and social success of the country both that these three aspects of development are addressed positively and equally and that planning both serves to protect and to enhance and add value to the environment. This is the core principle underpinning planning.
Policies in plans and decisions on development should be assessed against the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits; should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.
The achievement of sustainable development through planning should be based on the responsible use of a sound evidence base and developed through an open and democratic system
Naturally we believe there is a very strong case that renewable energy projects, and in particular onshore wind projects, are sustainable development not least because they:
- Reduce CO2 emissions and therefore help mitigate the effects of Climate Change
- Reduce the increasing dependence on imported fossil fuels
- Reduce the cost of household electricity bills as fossil fuel costs continue to rise and eventually surpass those of renewable sources
- Provide valuable local income via extra employment and community reward schemes
- Promote the development of community owned schemes where local residents benefit financially from decentralised energy generation