Media bullsh**t on green energy deal
The Telegraph today boldly proclaims:
"WIND FARMS TO INCREASE ENERGY BILLS BY £178 A YEAR"
Err, hang on a minute....
The Government has agreed to invest £7.6 billion pounds a year towards meeting our 2020 targets.. by investing in new nuclear, renewables and carbon capture and storage. The Telegraph article goes on to say:
"Bills will go up over the next two decades by an estimated £178 a year under all the Government’s green and fuel poverty policies, with the contribution to nuclear and renewables making up £95 by 2020."
So of the £178 headline figure claimed to be solely because of wind farms...actually only £95 is from renewables at all - and even that figure includes expensive new nuclear power stations.
Many followers of the nuclear debate will already know that much of the UK's ageing nuclear infrastructure is at or beyond its life expectancy and companies such as EDF have been asking for huge subsidies to roll out new stations.
In fact DECC (the Department of Energy & Climate Change) say that 20% of the UKs entire current generation capacity of 82 gigawatts requires replacement this decade. DECC also point out that 250,000 new jobs will be created and that an over-dependence on gas would lead to higher annual energy bills - perhaps as much as £250.
So really, just how much of the £95 figure will go to nuclear verses all other forms of renewables, of which wind is just a single component? In September the Telegraph reported that new nuclear would add £70 to annual energy bills.
Even a dumbed-down 16 year old with GCSE maths can calculate that 95 - 70 = 25.
So the likely increase in annual bills (by 2020) resulting from all forms of non-nuclear renewable energy is £25.
Wind turbines DO reduce CO2 - FACT!
But of course, we wouldn't expect you to take our word for it.... Read the excellent report in the Guardian.
The assertion that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions is a myth, according to conclusive statistical data obtained from National Grid and analysed here in the Guardian for the first time. With a new wind generation record of 4,131 megawatts set on 14 September, the question of how far the UK's wind generation fleet can help in meeting our climate targets is increasingly controversial. Now it can be shown that the sceptics who lobby against wind simply have their facts wrong.
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.
Germany hits 25% renewable energy target
Germany has announced that it's managed to hit an ambitious target for power generation.. producing 25% of the country's energy from renewables, up from 21 percent in 2011.
The country produced 67.9 billion kilowatt hours of clean energy in the first half of 2012.. an increase of 19.5 percent from the same period the year before.
Wind energy is the largest contributor, accounting for 9.2 percent of energy output, and biomass accounted for 5.7 percent. Solar power comprised 5.3 percent of the total, and also saw the biggest increase -- rising 47 percent. That makes Germany the biggest market globally for solar power, with its installed capacity accounting for more than a third of the total capacity of the entire world. The rest of the 25 percent total was made up of contributions from hydroelectric power and waste incineration plants.
The country's energy industry association, BDEW, said in a statement that the milestone reinforced Germany's position as a leader in green technology.
However, the country remains ten percent short of its primary target of achieving 35 percent of its total energy needs from renewables by 2035.
Meanwhile... back in the UK, it's been leaked that Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne's father-in-law just happens to head a pro-gas lobby group funded by Shell and BP. Of course, we wouldnt suggest this has anything to do with Treasury desires to slash renewable subsidies by 25%... but Greenpeace seem to think it might...
"We'd hate to think that the UK's direction of travel on energy policy was being decided over claret and duck chez Osborne. But Lord Howell's links with big oil and gas special interests are well established. Questions must surely be asked about whether he has been bending the ear of his son-in-law to help his friends in the fossil fuel lobby."
Louise Hutchins, senior energy campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said yesterday:
Hypocrisy Mucho?
Within the space of just two days we see these two headlines reported by The Independent:
MPs urge a 30% cut in emissions:
"Europe should commit to a tougher target for reducing greenhouse gases by 2020 to show global leadership on tackling climate change, MPs will urge today."
Wind Farm subsidies to fall by 10%:
"Reports had suggested the Chancellor, backed by pressure from 100 Tory backbenchers to reduce support for onshore wind power, was demanding cuts to subsidies for the technology of 25%."
In fact if you further consider that on-shore wind funded by the Feed In Tariff (FIT) is about to receive a 15% drop this December and Solar PV funding has been slashed and burnt.. it might lead to you wonder if the Coalition Government is, in fact, broken. Should MPs therefore be lecturing Europe on cutting emissions when, in fact, many European nations are leagues ahead of the UK? In 2009 the UK was second only to Germany in Europe and 10th highest in the world!
Time and again independent and Government reports have confirmed that on-shore wind is bar far and away the cheapest form of renewable energy available TODAY and some 3 to 4 times cheaper than off shore wind.
The UK needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Less than 5% of our energy comes from renewables and we are committed (morally as well as legally) to reduce our CO2 emissions massively if we are to have any chance of saving our planet.
Let's put our own house in order before lecturing others.
The bounty of tar sands
When you read statements to the effect that "there is enough oil to last for hundreds of years" combined with demands to remove subsidy payments from renewable energy sources, don't be fooled.
The reality of oil from tar sands is a toxic wasteland in which oil is blasted from the ground using high pressure steam. For wildlife and residents it is an ecological disaster on an apocalyptic scale. Indeed often referred to as a vision of Dante's Hell the once pristine Alberta wilderness is now a wasteland.
Such energy intensive oil extraction has of course, only been made economically feasible because of the current high cost of energy. What does this say about where energy prices are expected to go from here?
If we do see an economic recovery it will undoubtedly result in increased energy demands which in turn will force prices yet higher. The higher the price of oil, the more dirty and expensive resources become "attractive" and the more fragile the whole system becomes.
This is exactly why renewable energy subsidies are needed TODAY. To bring in the investment so that the UK is ready when conventional fossil fuel prices spike when economic recovery eventually happens. Aftertall, the £400 million renewable subsidy currently paid out will pale compared to the cost of living with, let along reversing, the effects of climate change.
This is why fossil fuels may appear cheaper, but they come with the biggest subsidy of all.
Open letter to PM from Caroline Lucas
by Caroline Lucas MP
Dear prime minister,
I welcome the fact that, after almost two years in power, you used the recent Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) event to finally indicate the level of your commitment to creating an urgently needed green economy.
It was encouraging to hear you acknowledge that the main cause of recent energy bill hikes has been rising gas prices – not green policies, as many in your party and your government seem intent on claiming.
Indeed, since you were elected as prime minister, a yawning gulf has emerged in the government over key energy and climate change policies and, as you will know, there is widespread concern that this is proving disastrous both for our economy and our environment.
I share these concerns.
Since the CEM was a high-level ministerial event, attended by energy ministers from 23 different countries, I would have expected the prime minister of what aspires to be the "greenest government ever" to make far more of this opportunity.
It was an ideal chance to show real ambition for our trailblazing renewables sector and champion the potential for building a resilient economy through investment in tackling climate change, as well as addressing fuel poverty.
Instead your remarks were short on real content and commitment. They revealed poor leadership, poor understanding of the risks of climate change and a poor grasp of the opportunities afforded by renewables and energy efficiency.
You have confirmed that your government believes the UK should remain addicted to gas and fossil fuels. Given the huge potential of our national renewables and energy efficiency sectors to provide secure and home grown clean energy for the future, and in particular our potential to become a world leader in marine renewables, this lack of vision is bad for the economy and bad for consumers.
I agree that renewables need to become financially sustainable. That is the purpose of providing public subsidies to new industries. But it is disingenuous to demand that renewables suddenly become financially sustainable at the same time as your government is indirectly subsidising the dirty fossil fuel industry to a tune of six times more than renewables.
Your weak position on our long term energy mix is ill-informed, will be costly to householders in future, and won't put our country on track to exploit the employment opportunities of a truly thriving renewables industry. Nor does your position recognise the need to cut carbon emissions in line with the science.
The Climate Change Act commits the UK to cutting carbon emissions reductions by 80% by 2050, but these are the wrong targets. They only give us a 50-50 chance of keeping climate change to below 2C.
Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy Agency, warns that "under current policies we estimate energy use and CO2 emissions will increase by a third by 2020, and almost double by 2050. This would probably send global temperatures at least 6C higher within this century."
Achieving a more secure, sustainable energy system, in line with the goal of limiting the rise in global temperatures to under 2C, is still possible but requires urgent action by the world's governments. And it requires honesty with the public about the risks of inaction to the economy, for example, to health, agriculture, food production, water resources, coastal flooding, and extreme weather events.
As prime minister, you can begin to make a real difference if you attend the Earth summit in Rio in June. Governments are currently failing to avert the prospect of catastrophic climate change, so the UK has an opportunity to lead by example on the world stage, starting by giving its backing to an EU target of at least 30% greenhouse gas reductions by 2020.
The scale and urgency of the threat of climate change demands national and international leadership of extraordinary boldness. It's time for you, who rebranded the Conservative party on the environment, to step up.
Yet we clearly need some better policies than those you are offering at the moment. Your government's nuclear policy is tatters – you pledged not to spend public money on subsidising new nuclear, yet it's clear that it cannot be built without state aid. The huge costs and liabilities involved in nuclear make it completely uneconomical, and it certainly won't deliver energy security or emission reductions in the timescales required. Meanwhile, carbon capture and storage remains little more than a pipe dream, and the era of cheap fossil fuels is over.
So here are five measures that would help, and should have been in your speech:
Instead of saying yes to shale gas exploration, the government must declare a ban on all fracking. Serious questions remain over the impacts on groundwater pollution, health, air pollution, whilst the evidence indicates that the exploitation of shale gas is incompatible with tackling climate change. Moreover, since shale gas extraction will also divert investment away from renewables, the UK's potential reserves must be left in the ground.
A commitment that electricity market reform (EMR) legislation will be designed specifically to enable the development of various renewable energy technologies, rather than being written by and for the nuclear industry. Nuclear power has no place in a green energy future.
We need a road map to demonstrate how the UK's electricity sector will be virtually zero carbon by 2030, as recommended by the UK's own independent advisers on the Committee on Climate Change, and required to meet existing climate targets.
An end to subsidies to fossil fuels, and for the UK to show leadership on this internationally. The UK and other G20 leaders committed to this in 2009 and have done little since. The UK fossil fuel subsidy is estimated at £3.63bn in 2010, mostly in the form of VAT breaks and considerably more than the £1.4bn subsidy for renewable energy in the same year.
Reducing energy demand should be made a priority, both in the proposals for EMR and elsewhere across government policy making. Energy efficiency is the best way of keeping bills down, addressing fuel poverty and reducing the need for new energy supply of any kind, yet your speech yesterday was silent on the subject
These polices don't just make economic and environmental sense, they have public support too. A recent poll by YouGov revealed that 64% of people want their electricity 10 years from now to be sourced from renewable energy, while just 2% want more gas.
The climate crisis is real – so too is the economic one. That's why I am urging you to use the Queen's speech to announce legislative proposals that will help us overcome both, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, eliminating fuel poverty and reducing climate emissions – and sending a clear message to your party, to detractors in your government and to other leaders internationally.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Caroline Lucas MP
Brighton Pavilion, Green party
Published 30 April 2012
Top climate scientist warns on "climate denial"
by Michael Mann
As a climate scientist, I have seen my integrity perniciously attacked, politicians have demanded I be fired from my job, and I’ve been subject to congressional and criminal investigations. I’ve even had death threats made against me. And why? Because I study climate science and some people don’t like what my colleagues and I have discovered. Their attacks on scientists are part of a destructive public-relations campaign being waged in a cynical effort to discredit climate science.
My work first appeared on the world stage in the late 1990s with the publication of the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which featured what is now popularly known as the hockey-stick graph. Using what we call proxy data – information gathered from records in nature, like tree rings, corals, and ice cores – my co-authors and I pieced together the puzzle of climate variability over the past 1,000 years. What we found was that the recent warming, which coincides with the burning of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution, sticks out like the blade of an upturned hockey stick.
By itself, this finding didn’t indicate that humans were solely responsible for the warming, but it was a compelling demonstration that something unusual was happening and, by inference, that it was probably related to human activity. Over the last few decades, the evidence, based on work from thousands of studies, has become much more robust and conclusive.
Nevertheless, our graph depicting the anomalous warming trend became an icon in the climate-change debate. Since then, I’ve found myself a reluctant, and almost accidental, public figure in the larger discussion about human-caused climate change.
Being caught in the middle of this “debate” has given me an opportunity to talk about the stark reality and dimensions of the problem. As the staid scientific journal Nature put it, climate researchers are in a street fight with those who seek to discredit the accepted scientific evidence, and we must fight back against the disinformation that denies this real and present danger to the planet.
Make no mistake: Skepticism is fundamental to good science. Whenever a conclusion is drawn or a proposition is made, the demand that it stand up to scrutiny is the self-correcting machinery that drives us towards a better understanding of the way the world works. In this sense, every scientist should be a skeptic. Good science responds to good faith challenges, and to contradictory evidence that is presented, and climate-change science should be no different.
Unfortunately, many of the people who call themselves climate skeptics and have attacked my work and the work of my colleagues are not really skeptics at all, but climate contrarians or climate deniers. Their skepticism only runs one way – against studies that point to the reality of a changing climate. They dispute evidence with the flimsiest of arguments, which don’t stand up to the least bit of scientific scrutiny. A recent attack on NASA’s climate scientists by people, including some astronauts, with little to no expertise in climate scienceis a powerful case in point.
With the help of well-oiled politicians, ill-equipped and often complicit media outlets, and vested interests like the fossil-fuel industry, climate deniers have tried to portray the evidence for human-caused climate change as some house of cards – a hoax that’s teetering on a single hockey-stick graph. In reality, the evidence for human-caused climate change is more like a vast puzzle, a few pieces of which come from paleoclimate data like what my colleagues and I studied in our hockey-stick paper.
The climate-change policy debate is often framed purely as a question of science. Science is a necessary part of the debate, but the question of when, how, and if we adapt to climate change and reduce the emissions that drive it is also a necessary part of the debate, and must be informed by economics, politics, and ethics.
By digging up and burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing much of the carbon that had been buried in the earth over the eons into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide and other gases. Those gases are acting like a heat-trapping blanket around the planet.
If we continue down this path, we will be leaving our children and grandchildren a different planet – one with more widespread drought and flooding, greater competition for diminishing water and food resources, and national-security challenges arising from that competition.
As a father of a six-year-old daughter, I believe we have an ethical responsibility to make sure that she doesn’t look back and ask why we left her generation a fundamentally degraded planet relative to the one we started with.
There’s a tendency for people to be so overwhelmed by the challenge and the threat of climate change that they go from concern to despair. They shouldn’t. While some warming is already locked in, there’s still time to turn the ship around. We can still limit our emissions in the decades to come in a way that prevents some of the most serious impacts of climate change from occurring.
The worst thing we can do is bury our heads in the sand and pretend that climate change doesn’t exist. We can, and should, have the worthy debate regarding what to do about it –a discussion that is sorely needed – from Washington to Beijing and back again.
Michael E. Mann is a member of the Pennsylvania State University faculty, holding joint positions in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI). He shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He recently published a book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” describing his experiences at the center of the climate change debate.
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.
Oil from tar sands = eco disaster
As the world moves inexorably closer to the end of the oil age, new and environmentally disastrous forms of oil extraction that were previously unthinkable... are now reality.
Garth Lenz speaks passionately about the risks to the one of the worlds largest carbon sinks in Alberta, Canada. What happens there will have direct affects on the rest of the world.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM]