By Steve McCormack
Thursday, 16 July 2009
This year's Bosch Technology Horizons Award, in association with The Independent and the Royal Academy of Engineering, gave young people in two age groups the chance to answer the question, "How can technology and engineering provide innovative solutions to today's global challenges?"
A total of 545 entries were received, with writers grappling with issues such as renewable energy, the global water shortage, and medical solutions to new diseases. Their essays also addressed the philosophical and public relations side of the engineer's role. As one of the judges, I was impressed by the combination of scientific understanding and writing flair exhibited by all 14 essays that made the shortlist in both age groups. In the 14-18 age group, Leon Zhang from Urmston Grammar School in Manchester took the first prize of £700, while in the 19-24 age group, Gavin Harper, in the second year of a PhD at Cardiff University, netted the top award of £1,000.
The Technology Horizons Award, now in its fourth year, encourages students to think creatively about the changes and challenges facing the world. The award also seeks to highlight the importance of technology and engineering to young people, and inspire more of them to choose these subjects for study at A level and university.
The winners attended a presentation ceremony at The Royal Academy of Engineering in London, hosted by former Tomorrow's World presenter Kate Bellingham, now President of Young Engineers, and featuring presentations from Andy Green, the RAF pilot who drove the Thrust supersonic car to a world record 763 mph in 1997, and Peter Fouquet, President of Bosch UK.
Winner, 14-18: Leon Zhang
Take this time to think, for just a moment. In the past second, one and a half acres of rainforest were cut down, destroying the homes of many species of wildlife. In the past minute, the energy used in the UK was equal to 313 million tons of oil, which we can never get back. In the past hour, 160 children died from lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation.
Mother Earth is in deep trouble. And it is our duty to get her out.
The problems our Earth faces can affect us all. Melting polar ice caps, rising temperatures, the economic crisis – it seems we cannot escape them. The media has done its fair share emphasising the problem. Yet, there is a bright side. Our greatest strength as human beings is the ability to think. We can try to put a stop to these global dilemmas.
One prime example is finding solutions to water problems in developing countries such as Africa. In one of the hottest places on Earth, water is in scarce supply. Up to 250 million Africans could live in water-stressed areas by 2010, and more than 50 per cent of Africans suffer from water-related diseases such as cholera and infant diarrhoea. However, there are solutions. Engineering has already produced breakthroughs. By pressurising sea water to produce vapour jets and filtering them through carbon nanotubes, we can get clean drinking water from sea water – an almost inexhaustible resource. It may sound complex, but such engineering feats can save millions of lives, not just in Africa but all over the planet.
Japan has long been renowned for its mind-blowing technological advances that are often years ahead of the rest of the world. One of its most ambitious plans is to build a working space solar power system by 2030. By drawing on the colossal energy of the sun, it could meet the entire world's electricity requirements indefinitely without nuclear or GHG emissions. It sounds like a space-age dream, doesn't it? If successful, the impact on the world would be monumental. It would mean energy for schools, hospitals, and homes. It would mean another industrial revolution.
Every day, people everywhere are doing their bit, from recycling newspapers at home, to developing hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars in a lab. We are finally entering an era where engineering and technology are making the world a better place. Take the time to think, for just a moment. Now stop, and think towards the future.
The award winners
Aged 14-18
Winner: Leon Zhang, Urmston Grammar School, Manchester. Runner-up: Jonathan Morris, St Olave's Grammar School, Kent Highly Commended: Emily Cullis, Ounsdale Sixth Form College, Wolverhampton; Max Iles, Worcester Sixth Form College; Constance Mantle, Highgate School, London; Ben Richardson, Cults Academy, Aberdeen; Ethan Simpson, Hawick High School.
Aged 19-24
Winner: Gavin Harper, Cardiff University Runner Up: Alejandro Vicente-Grabovetsky, Cambridge University Highly Commended: Thomas Barker, Sheffield Hallam University; Mohammad bin Jalil Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College; Holly Ferrie, Brunel University; Su Sean Goh, LSE; Cole Soutter, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Winning Schools: (those submitting most entries)
St Olave's Grammar School, Kent; Westcliff High School for Girls, Essex.
Winner, 19-24: Gavin Harper
Bespoke pieces are always expensive. Whether it's a tailor-cut Savile Row suit, or a hand-made piece of furniture, there is a premium to be paid for exclusivity. That is why one-off's are never going to change the world. They're just too expensive. Make fewer than 100 of them, and the cost of R&D is prohibitive. Churn them out like bottletops, and the initial costs of development dwindle into insignificance.
While many would advocate a smattering of made-to-measure nuclear power stations, the real clean-tech solutions will borrow more from the high street than haute couture.
Once we take a design, engineer out the complexity, make it cheaply and stamp it out cookie-cutter style, the price of innovation falls. It makes engineering business sense, and the concept can just as easily be understood by the hordes of shoppers flocking to Primarni, who know that if you take leading edge design, simplify it and make a lot, you get a product that performs, at an acceptable price.
GE announced in November 2008 that it had shipped its 10,000th 1.5MW wind turbine – impressive, for a company that has only been in the market for just over half a decade: it shows that once mass production intervenes, it's possible to increase capacity quickly. Unlike Ford... these turbines are "only available in white".
Another company, SolFocus is fast becoming the IKEA of the Solar Industry. It knows that if you have an expensive material, whether silicon for a solar panel, or top-notch wood for a table, there are parts of the product where you can use a cheaper material, and where using the more expensive material is needless over-specification. So where IKEA uses quality wood as the facing veneer for its furniture, but makes the structure from cheaper recycled manufactured woods, so SolFocus is using a cheap mirror to concentrate the solar energy onto a small piece of high-quality silicon. It is using less of an expensive material to achieve a similar effect.
They are not the only people with this idea – Cool Earth Solar takes it further. While you can produce a precision-reflecting surface that will give high performance, how much cost can you engineer out of a parabolic reflector? Rather than trying to extract the most sunlight from a given area, why not turn the idea on its head and extract the most sunlight for a given amount of money?
The company feels anything but deflated about its idea to make parabolic reflectors out of metallised mylar – an exceptionally cheap material, but one that does not hold its form very well due to its flimsy nature... unless you make it into a balloon. Premium helium party balloons are made from two circular sheets of plastic fused together, so imagine a parabolic reflector formed from a clear sheet, and a shiny sheet. It's a lightweight solution, to a heavyweight problem. Best of all, the lack of weight means the mounting hardware can be commensurately lean.
Concentrating solar plants apply the same approach on a larger scale. eSolar is a company with bold ambitions – to churn out electricity from the sun at a price lower than you can make it from coal, with its associated carbon penalty. The concept is similar – rather than coating large areas of land with expensive silicon, make arrays of cheap mirror that can focus the energy on a single point. The US threw £266m into developing Solar One, a concentrating plant with a capacity of 64MW (since upgraded to Solar Two), but take this concept, and rather than making a one-off, break it down into modules that can be mass produced out of standard components, and you've got a recipe for cheap, clean power.
The challenge for engineers isn't generating complexity – throw sufficient money at a problem, and it's always possible to generate a sophisticated technical solution – but reducing the cost to a point where the technologies become ubiquitous.
An apocryphal tale, long proven to be fictitious, carries an important fable for clean-tech. The story goes that the Americans invested a small fortune in inventing a pressurised pen (that claim should rightfully be attributed to Dr Paul C Fisher) which could write in zero-G, while the Russians used a pencil.
Cheap and a lot is the answer.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
In Strategy Shift, Exxon Plans $600 Million Biofuels Venture
By RUSSELL GOLD
After years of snubbing alternative fuels as a bad investment, global energy giant Exxon Mobil Corp. said Tuesday it will sink $600 million into researching how to turn algae into a biofuel that would also help fight global warming.
Exxon's partner in the biofuels effort will be groundbreaking genomics scientist J. Craig Venter and his company Synthetic Genomics Inc. The companies will attempt to develop algae strains that excel at both sucking up greenhouse gases and secreting oil that can be fed into refineries alongside conventional crude oil.
Shares in the world's biggest oil and gas companies head higher, boosted by the August crude-futures contract's move back above $60 a barrel. Jim Jelter reports.
More
Environmental Capital: Biofuels Bonanza
If the companies are successful in developing cost-competitive barrels of algae-based oil on a large scale, the Texas energy company said it could invest billions of additional dollars to build production facilities in the future.
Exxon's embrace of biofuels represents a strategic turnaround for one of the world's biggest refiners of transportation fuel. Exxon grew into the world's largest publicly traded company by extracting fossil fuels from the earth and converting them into gasoline, diesel and chemicals. But as global supplies of oil become harder to find and growing concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions inspire new attempts at government regulation, the concept of domestically produced oil derived from algae has become an alluring enough prospect to catch Exxon's interest.
Mr. Venter, a well-known biologist who led an effort to map the human genome, said the leap into algae-based fuels wasn't going to be easy: "The challenges are not minor for any of us, but I think we have the combined teams, scientific and engineering talents, to give this the best chance of success."
The two companies said they would like to use genetic engineering to develop algae strains that consume significant amounts of carbon dioxide, a gas produced by fossil-fuel use that is contributing to climate change.
Exxon's head of research, Emil Jacobs, said it was possible the algae farms would be located near power plants and other industrial complexes to use the carbon dioxide generated in those places as feedstocks for the algae.
Algae farms could produce two streams of income for the venture: one from selling barrels of algae oil to refineries and the other from capturing and reusing carbon dioxide. "It is reasonable to say you have to look at all commercial elements," said Exxon spokesman Rob Young.
Greg Singleton, a senior analyst with Point Carbon, an energy and environment market-analysis firm, cited industry findings that 40% of carbon-dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant could be reused, but it would require an enormous 13.1-square-mile algae farm. "On paper it looks attractive," he said, but cautioned, "I haven't seen it done on a large scale."
The U.S. Senate is set to soon take up the Waxman-Markey energy bill, which would cap greenhouse-gas emissions and allow companies to sell credits for any emissions savings they produce. Though it isn't clear how the proposed law would treat a carbon-munching algae farm, said Mr. Singleton, "In a carbon-constrained environment, it is something that could be very profitable for Exxon in the long run."
Executives stressed that the partnership will be focused on research, and it could take up to a decade to produce commercial quantities of fuel from algae.
Exxon's investment follows years of criticism from environmentalists and some shareholders for the company's reluctance to invest significantly in
After years of snubbing alternative fuels as a bad investment, global energy giant Exxon Mobil Corp. said Tuesday it will sink $600 million into researching how to turn algae into a biofuel that would also help fight global warming.
Exxon's partner in the biofuels effort will be groundbreaking genomics scientist J. Craig Venter and his company Synthetic Genomics Inc. The companies will attempt to develop algae strains that excel at both sucking up greenhouse gases and secreting oil that can be fed into refineries alongside conventional crude oil.
Shares in the world's biggest oil and gas companies head higher, boosted by the August crude-futures contract's move back above $60 a barrel. Jim Jelter reports.
More
Environmental Capital: Biofuels Bonanza
If the companies are successful in developing cost-competitive barrels of algae-based oil on a large scale, the Texas energy company said it could invest billions of additional dollars to build production facilities in the future.
Exxon's embrace of biofuels represents a strategic turnaround for one of the world's biggest refiners of transportation fuel. Exxon grew into the world's largest publicly traded company by extracting fossil fuels from the earth and converting them into gasoline, diesel and chemicals. But as global supplies of oil become harder to find and growing concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions inspire new attempts at government regulation, the concept of domestically produced oil derived from algae has become an alluring enough prospect to catch Exxon's interest.
Mr. Venter, a well-known biologist who led an effort to map the human genome, said the leap into algae-based fuels wasn't going to be easy: "The challenges are not minor for any of us, but I think we have the combined teams, scientific and engineering talents, to give this the best chance of success."
The two companies said they would like to use genetic engineering to develop algae strains that consume significant amounts of carbon dioxide, a gas produced by fossil-fuel use that is contributing to climate change.
Exxon's head of research, Emil Jacobs, said it was possible the algae farms would be located near power plants and other industrial complexes to use the carbon dioxide generated in those places as feedstocks for the algae.
Algae farms could produce two streams of income for the venture: one from selling barrels of algae oil to refineries and the other from capturing and reusing carbon dioxide. "It is reasonable to say you have to look at all commercial elements," said Exxon spokesman Rob Young.
Greg Singleton, a senior analyst with Point Carbon, an energy and environment market-analysis firm, cited industry findings that 40% of carbon-dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant could be reused, but it would require an enormous 13.1-square-mile algae farm. "On paper it looks attractive," he said, but cautioned, "I haven't seen it done on a large scale."
The U.S. Senate is set to soon take up the Waxman-Markey energy bill, which would cap greenhouse-gas emissions and allow companies to sell credits for any emissions savings they produce. Though it isn't clear how the proposed law would treat a carbon-munching algae farm, said Mr. Singleton, "In a carbon-constrained environment, it is something that could be very profitable for Exxon in the long run."
Executives stressed that the partnership will be focused on research, and it could take up to a decade to produce commercial quantities of fuel from algae.
Exxon's investment follows years of criticism from environmentalists and some shareholders for the company's reluctance to invest significantly in
Gene scientist to create algae biofuel with Exxon Mobil
• New biofuel requires no car or plane engine modification• Carbon Trust says production will take 'many years'
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 July 2009 17.44 BST
Gene scientist Craig Venter has announced plans to develop next-generation biofuels from algae in a $600m (£370m) partnership with oil giant Exxon Mobil.
His company, Synthetic Genomics Incorporated (SGI), will develop fuels that can be used by cars or aeroplanes without the need for any modification of their engines. Exxon Mobil will provide $600m over five years with half going to SGI.
"Meeting the world's growing energy demands will require a multitude of technologies and energy sources," said Emil Jacobs, vice president of research and development at ExxonMobil. "We believe that biofuel produced by algae could be a meaningful part of the solution in the future if our efforts result in an economically viable, low-net carbon emission transportation fuel."
Transport accounts for one-quarter of the UK's carbon emissions and is the fastest growing sector. Finding carbon-neutral fuels will be crucial to the government meeting its target to reduce overall emissions by 80% by 2050.
Algae are an attractive way to harvest solar energy because they reproduce themselves, they can live in areas not useful for producing food and they do not need clean or even fresh water. In addition, they use far less space to grow than traditional biofuel crops such as corn or palm oil.
"Algae consumes carbon dioxide and sunlight in the presence of water, to make a kind of oil that has similar molecular structures to petroleum products we produce today," said Jacobs. "That means it could be possible to convert it into gasoline and diesel in existing refineries, transport it through existing pipelines, and sell it to consumers from existing service stations."
The Carbon Trust, a government-backed agency that promotes low-carbon technologies, has forecast that algae-based biofuels could replace more than 70bn litres of fossil fuels used every year around the world in road transport and aviation by 2030, equivalent to 12% of annual global jet fuel consumption or 6% of road transport diesel. In carbon terms, this equates to an annual saving of more than 160m tonnes of CO2 globally with a market value of more than £15bn.
Ben Graziano, research and development manager at the Carbon Trust, said that alge-based biofuels offered the potential for "major carbon savings". "Exxon Mobil is estimating that algae could yield just over 20,000
litres of fuel per hectare each year, which is in line with our own forecasts. However, producing biofuel from algae on such a massive commercial scale is a major challenge, which will require many years of research and development."
Venter, who is best known for his role in sequencing the human genome, said the new partnership was the largest single investment in trying to produce biofuels from algae but said the challenge to creating a viable next-generation fuel was the ability to produce it in large volumes. "This would not happen without the oil industry stepping up and taking part," he said. "The challenges are not minor for any of us but we have the combined teams and scientific and engineering talents to give this the best chance of success."
The research programme will begin with the construction of a new test facility in San Diego, where Venter says different techniques to grow and optimise algae will be tested. These will include open ponds as well as bioreactors, where the algae are grown in sealed tubes. "We will be trying out these different approaches … using newly-discovered natural algae to test the best approaches we can come up with to go into a scale-up mode."
Venter has spent several years trawling the world's oceans in search of environmentally-friendly microbes that could be used, in one way or another, to bring down the world's carbon emissions. The organisms he has found include those that can turn CO2 into methane, which could be used to make fuels from the exhaust gases of power stations, and another that turns coal into natural gas, speeding up a natural process and reducing both the energy needed to extract the fossil fuel and the amount of pollution caused when it is burned.
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 July 2009 17.44 BST
Gene scientist Craig Venter has announced plans to develop next-generation biofuels from algae in a $600m (£370m) partnership with oil giant Exxon Mobil.
His company, Synthetic Genomics Incorporated (SGI), will develop fuels that can be used by cars or aeroplanes without the need for any modification of their engines. Exxon Mobil will provide $600m over five years with half going to SGI.
"Meeting the world's growing energy demands will require a multitude of technologies and energy sources," said Emil Jacobs, vice president of research and development at ExxonMobil. "We believe that biofuel produced by algae could be a meaningful part of the solution in the future if our efforts result in an economically viable, low-net carbon emission transportation fuel."
Transport accounts for one-quarter of the UK's carbon emissions and is the fastest growing sector. Finding carbon-neutral fuels will be crucial to the government meeting its target to reduce overall emissions by 80% by 2050.
Algae are an attractive way to harvest solar energy because they reproduce themselves, they can live in areas not useful for producing food and they do not need clean or even fresh water. In addition, they use far less space to grow than traditional biofuel crops such as corn or palm oil.
"Algae consumes carbon dioxide and sunlight in the presence of water, to make a kind of oil that has similar molecular structures to petroleum products we produce today," said Jacobs. "That means it could be possible to convert it into gasoline and diesel in existing refineries, transport it through existing pipelines, and sell it to consumers from existing service stations."
The Carbon Trust, a government-backed agency that promotes low-carbon technologies, has forecast that algae-based biofuels could replace more than 70bn litres of fossil fuels used every year around the world in road transport and aviation by 2030, equivalent to 12% of annual global jet fuel consumption or 6% of road transport diesel. In carbon terms, this equates to an annual saving of more than 160m tonnes of CO2 globally with a market value of more than £15bn.
Ben Graziano, research and development manager at the Carbon Trust, said that alge-based biofuels offered the potential for "major carbon savings". "Exxon Mobil is estimating that algae could yield just over 20,000
litres of fuel per hectare each year, which is in line with our own forecasts. However, producing biofuel from algae on such a massive commercial scale is a major challenge, which will require many years of research and development."
Venter, who is best known for his role in sequencing the human genome, said the new partnership was the largest single investment in trying to produce biofuels from algae but said the challenge to creating a viable next-generation fuel was the ability to produce it in large volumes. "This would not happen without the oil industry stepping up and taking part," he said. "The challenges are not minor for any of us but we have the combined teams and scientific and engineering talents to give this the best chance of success."
The research programme will begin with the construction of a new test facility in San Diego, where Venter says different techniques to grow and optimise algae will be tested. These will include open ponds as well as bioreactors, where the algae are grown in sealed tubes. "We will be trying out these different approaches … using newly-discovered natural algae to test the best approaches we can come up with to go into a scale-up mode."
Venter has spent several years trawling the world's oceans in search of environmentally-friendly microbes that could be used, in one way or another, to bring down the world's carbon emissions. The organisms he has found include those that can turn CO2 into methane, which could be used to make fuels from the exhaust gases of power stations, and another that turns coal into natural gas, speeding up a natural process and reducing both the energy needed to extract the fossil fuel and the amount of pollution caused when it is burned.
Toyota considers building hybrid in UK
The car industry has received a boost after Toyota said it is considering building a hybrid model of its Auris car in the UK.
By Graham RuddickPublished: 7:33PM BST 14 Jul 2009
The Toyota Auris
The Japanese car maker has a car plant in Burnaston, Derbyshire, which employs roughly 4,000 people, and gaining production of the new model would go a long way to securing the site's long-term future.
Reports in Japanese newspaper Nikkan Jidosha Shinbun said the company would start making the Auris hybrid, a hatchback, in 2012.
A spokesman in the UK for Toyota said it was "investigating" options but could not confirm the location of manufacturing at this stage.
At present, Toyota manufactures the model in Japan and the US. However, at a press conference in June, the new Toyota president, Akio Toyoda, the grandson of the company's founder, said the car maker would look to increase production of the hybrid in Europe. He said: "As stricter environmental regulations come into place, we are gradually shifting our focus to the hybrid segment. We are confident that this will create a stronger position for Toyota in Europe."
Toyota has established itself as the world's largest car maker following the turmoil suffered by General Motors because of the sharp downturn in global sales. The Japanese company produces the world's best-selling hybrid, the Prius. However, it has cut staff, pay, and implemented production shutdowns because of the financial crisis.
By Graham RuddickPublished: 7:33PM BST 14 Jul 2009
The Toyota Auris
The Japanese car maker has a car plant in Burnaston, Derbyshire, which employs roughly 4,000 people, and gaining production of the new model would go a long way to securing the site's long-term future.
Reports in Japanese newspaper Nikkan Jidosha Shinbun said the company would start making the Auris hybrid, a hatchback, in 2012.
A spokesman in the UK for Toyota said it was "investigating" options but could not confirm the location of manufacturing at this stage.
At present, Toyota manufactures the model in Japan and the US. However, at a press conference in June, the new Toyota president, Akio Toyoda, the grandson of the company's founder, said the car maker would look to increase production of the hybrid in Europe. He said: "As stricter environmental regulations come into place, we are gradually shifting our focus to the hybrid segment. We are confident that this will create a stronger position for Toyota in Europe."
Toyota has established itself as the world's largest car maker following the turmoil suffered by General Motors because of the sharp downturn in global sales. The Japanese company produces the world's best-selling hybrid, the Prius. However, it has cut staff, pay, and implemented production shutdowns because of the financial crisis.
The dawn of carbon budgeting: now every tonne counts
The government's new climate change strategy should mean greater emphasis on emissions savings rather than trading and shared responsibility
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 July 2009 16.22 BST
The publication of the government's climate change strategy tomorrow should herald the beginning of a new era in the fight against climate change. While the public-facing, energy-saving policies may catch the headlines, what is going on behind the scenes is in reality more important.
In order to meet the requirement of the Climate Change Act, and the carbon budgets it created, the government has had to adopt a new approach to managing carbon. In this new regime every tonne counts and all government departments with an influence over policies affecting emissions will need to play their part in keeping reductions on track. The mechanics of how this will work are not yet clear but it is certain that climate change is now a shared responsibility across the entire government. Departments falling behind will need to take corrective action or face the consequences, which could mean finding money to pay for emissions reductions in other parts of the world. This should serve to focus the minds of ministers and permanent secretaries.
When Friends of the Earth wrote the first report advocating carbon budgets in 2005, which I co-authored, we were seeking to cause exactly this kind of change in the government's attitude to climate change policy. We wanted them to adopt a more holistic approach that took into account the effect of all policies, not just the limited climate-specific policies it had introduced, and also, importantly, the trends that were causing emissions to rise, where often there were no policies in place to counter them.
The principle behind carbon budgeting is simply that emissions must stay within a pre-determined limit or compensating actions, such as payment for emission reductions elsewhere, must be taken. This was meant to engender the feeling that every tonne counts, since allowing an emission to take place creates a liability against the budget, whereas, investing in emissions savings effectively creates an asset. This was intended to force the government to think long term and to break the deadlock that the Treasury then had on climate policy, by expressing the problem in a language they understood. In other areas of public life the principle of borrowing to invest in long-term projects was accepted but, when it came to climate, the mantra was keep it cheap, which led to an over-reliance on emissions trading to deliver the cheapest possible short-term solutions anywhere in the world.
With a clear framework dictating that emissions must, one way or another, go down, the smart minds in the Treasury can now apply themselves to working out how to uncover emissions savings in Britain for less than it would cost to keep buying them overseas. This shouldn't be difficult as we've really only just got started and there is still plenty of low-hanging fruit. They will also quickly work out that it is far more sensible to invest at home rather than allowing cash continually to flow overseas, at a time when we need all the inward investment we can get.
Increasing the efficiency with which we use energy and reduce wastage are both obvious candidates when it comes to low-cost solutions. Improving our building stock can also help to counteract rises in energy costs so it should be no surprise that these policies take centre stage in the government's strategy. Looking longer term it is clear that to get to a zero carbon Britain we will have to start by creating a zero carbon electricity system. Clean electricity, as opposed to the high-coal variety we currently use, can then be used to replace the fossil fuels we use to heat our homes and power our vehicles.
These are not radical new ideas – these aren't needed just yet – but they're not necessarily straightforward to achieve either. The government still needs to create a clear plan and to harness the power of the private sector to deliver its vision cost effectively. It also needs the buy-in of the public to do their part in embracing the changes we need to go through.
Tomorrow's publications should give us the first iteration of that plan – policies will not be written in stone and will no doubt flex and change as departments work out what works, and what doesn't, when it comes to staying within budget. But this could be the dawn of the first comprehensive, concerted attempt to tackle the problem of climate change – let's hope it works.
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 14 July 2009 16.22 BST
The publication of the government's climate change strategy tomorrow should herald the beginning of a new era in the fight against climate change. While the public-facing, energy-saving policies may catch the headlines, what is going on behind the scenes is in reality more important.
In order to meet the requirement of the Climate Change Act, and the carbon budgets it created, the government has had to adopt a new approach to managing carbon. In this new regime every tonne counts and all government departments with an influence over policies affecting emissions will need to play their part in keeping reductions on track. The mechanics of how this will work are not yet clear but it is certain that climate change is now a shared responsibility across the entire government. Departments falling behind will need to take corrective action or face the consequences, which could mean finding money to pay for emissions reductions in other parts of the world. This should serve to focus the minds of ministers and permanent secretaries.
When Friends of the Earth wrote the first report advocating carbon budgets in 2005, which I co-authored, we were seeking to cause exactly this kind of change in the government's attitude to climate change policy. We wanted them to adopt a more holistic approach that took into account the effect of all policies, not just the limited climate-specific policies it had introduced, and also, importantly, the trends that were causing emissions to rise, where often there were no policies in place to counter them.
The principle behind carbon budgeting is simply that emissions must stay within a pre-determined limit or compensating actions, such as payment for emission reductions elsewhere, must be taken. This was meant to engender the feeling that every tonne counts, since allowing an emission to take place creates a liability against the budget, whereas, investing in emissions savings effectively creates an asset. This was intended to force the government to think long term and to break the deadlock that the Treasury then had on climate policy, by expressing the problem in a language they understood. In other areas of public life the principle of borrowing to invest in long-term projects was accepted but, when it came to climate, the mantra was keep it cheap, which led to an over-reliance on emissions trading to deliver the cheapest possible short-term solutions anywhere in the world.
With a clear framework dictating that emissions must, one way or another, go down, the smart minds in the Treasury can now apply themselves to working out how to uncover emissions savings in Britain for less than it would cost to keep buying them overseas. This shouldn't be difficult as we've really only just got started and there is still plenty of low-hanging fruit. They will also quickly work out that it is far more sensible to invest at home rather than allowing cash continually to flow overseas, at a time when we need all the inward investment we can get.
Increasing the efficiency with which we use energy and reduce wastage are both obvious candidates when it comes to low-cost solutions. Improving our building stock can also help to counteract rises in energy costs so it should be no surprise that these policies take centre stage in the government's strategy. Looking longer term it is clear that to get to a zero carbon Britain we will have to start by creating a zero carbon electricity system. Clean electricity, as opposed to the high-coal variety we currently use, can then be used to replace the fossil fuels we use to heat our homes and power our vehicles.
These are not radical new ideas – these aren't needed just yet – but they're not necessarily straightforward to achieve either. The government still needs to create a clear plan and to harness the power of the private sector to deliver its vision cost effectively. It also needs the buy-in of the public to do their part in embracing the changes we need to go through.
Tomorrow's publications should give us the first iteration of that plan – policies will not be written in stone and will no doubt flex and change as departments work out what works, and what doesn't, when it comes to staying within budget. But this could be the dawn of the first comprehensive, concerted attempt to tackle the problem of climate change – let's hope it works.
Miliband promises more green jobs but Vestas wind turbine plant is closing
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
The Government aims to install 7,000 wind turbines in ten years, but they will be made abroad
One of Britain’s biggest employers in the green energy industry is to cease production within hours of a government announcement today pledging as many as 400,000 green jobs by 2015.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will claim that Britain will become a world leader in low-carbon technology and manufacturing. He will argue that raising household energy bills to pay for investment in wind, solar and tidal power is justified not only by the dangers of global warming but also the opportunity to build a new “green economy”.
However, tomorrow morning the Vestas factory in Newport, Isle of Wight, Britain’s only significant manufacturer of wind turbines, will produce its last batch of seven-tonne blades. More than 600 people employed at the plant, and a related facility in Southampton, will be made redundant at the end of the month. All 7,000 turbines that the Government will commit today to installing over the next decade will be manufactured overseas, mainly in Germany, Denmark and China.
Vestas managers and union leaders held meetings with Mr Miliband and officials to discuss the possibility of converting the factory — which supplies the US market — to produce a different type of blade suitable for British wind farms. The Government did not, however, offer any financial aid and was unable to give any assurances that it would break the planning logjam that has paralysed the British market for wind turbines.
In April, the Scottish government gave £10 million in grants to save 100 jobs and possibly create 200 more at a much smaller turbine factory in Argyll.
Wind power will be at the centre of today’s Renewable Energy Strategy and Low Carbon White Paper, which will set out how each sector of the economy will help to meet the overall target of a 34 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020.
Mr Miliband will say that more than £100 billion will be invested in raising the proportion of energy from renewable sources from 2 per cent at present to 15 per cent by 2020.
Workers at the Vestas plant, however, questioned whether the Government’s pledges could be taken seriously when ministers had done nothing to save their jobs. Peter Hunt, a safety administrator at the factory, said: “If the Government was as committed to wind power as it claims, why is it acting so slowly to improve the planning process? We need a central planning body to overcome the not-in-my-back-yard groups who are blocking British wind farms. But if it comes, it will be too late for us.”
Local groups opposing wind farms on the ground of visual intrusion have blocked almost half of the 93 applications made in the past three years and delayed the remainder for as long as two years. Several sites have been identified on the Isle of Wight but it has no turbines, partly because of a hate-mail campaign targeting landowners involved in applications.
Reg Barry, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: “Why are we subsidising foreign car factories with the scrappage scheme but doing nothing to protect jobs in our greenest industry? The factory closure will be devastating for the island. These are 600 well-paid jobs on which you could raise a family and pay a mortgage, not temporary tourism jobs.”
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Ultimately it was a commercial decision for Vestas. But the Renewable Energy Strategy is going to be a massive opportunity for manufacturers generally.”
Jack Dromey, deputy general-secretary of the union Unite, said: “It would be a bitter irony if there was a boom in British wind farms but the wind turbines were made on the Continent and in China.”
The Government aims to install 7,000 wind turbines in ten years, but they will be made abroad
One of Britain’s biggest employers in the green energy industry is to cease production within hours of a government announcement today pledging as many as 400,000 green jobs by 2015.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will claim that Britain will become a world leader in low-carbon technology and manufacturing. He will argue that raising household energy bills to pay for investment in wind, solar and tidal power is justified not only by the dangers of global warming but also the opportunity to build a new “green economy”.
However, tomorrow morning the Vestas factory in Newport, Isle of Wight, Britain’s only significant manufacturer of wind turbines, will produce its last batch of seven-tonne blades. More than 600 people employed at the plant, and a related facility in Southampton, will be made redundant at the end of the month. All 7,000 turbines that the Government will commit today to installing over the next decade will be manufactured overseas, mainly in Germany, Denmark and China.
Vestas managers and union leaders held meetings with Mr Miliband and officials to discuss the possibility of converting the factory — which supplies the US market — to produce a different type of blade suitable for British wind farms. The Government did not, however, offer any financial aid and was unable to give any assurances that it would break the planning logjam that has paralysed the British market for wind turbines.
In April, the Scottish government gave £10 million in grants to save 100 jobs and possibly create 200 more at a much smaller turbine factory in Argyll.
Wind power will be at the centre of today’s Renewable Energy Strategy and Low Carbon White Paper, which will set out how each sector of the economy will help to meet the overall target of a 34 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020.
Mr Miliband will say that more than £100 billion will be invested in raising the proportion of energy from renewable sources from 2 per cent at present to 15 per cent by 2020.
Workers at the Vestas plant, however, questioned whether the Government’s pledges could be taken seriously when ministers had done nothing to save their jobs. Peter Hunt, a safety administrator at the factory, said: “If the Government was as committed to wind power as it claims, why is it acting so slowly to improve the planning process? We need a central planning body to overcome the not-in-my-back-yard groups who are blocking British wind farms. But if it comes, it will be too late for us.”
Local groups opposing wind farms on the ground of visual intrusion have blocked almost half of the 93 applications made in the past three years and delayed the remainder for as long as two years. Several sites have been identified on the Isle of Wight but it has no turbines, partly because of a hate-mail campaign targeting landowners involved in applications.
Reg Barry, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: “Why are we subsidising foreign car factories with the scrappage scheme but doing nothing to protect jobs in our greenest industry? The factory closure will be devastating for the island. These are 600 well-paid jobs on which you could raise a family and pay a mortgage, not temporary tourism jobs.”
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Ultimately it was a commercial decision for Vestas. But the Renewable Energy Strategy is going to be a massive opportunity for manufacturers generally.”
Jack Dromey, deputy general-secretary of the union Unite, said: “It would be a bitter irony if there was a boom in British wind farms but the wind turbines were made on the Continent and in China.”
Renewable energy 'can provide all of Scotland's electricity'
Published Date: 15 July 2009
By Joe Quinn
SCOTLAND can meet all of its electricity needs from green energy alone by 2030, a report claimed yesterday.
The country's energy security will not be seriously harmed by the scheduled decommissioning of the Cockenzie and Longannet coal power stations or the Hunterston B nuclear station, said the report.Renewable energy can meet between 60 per cent and 143 per cent of electricity demand by 2030, said the energy analysts' report commissioned by environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth Scotland and WWF Scotland.If Scotland also met official targets for energy saving, ending all fossil fuel generation by 2030 is "feasible", it said. And even a "business as usual" Scotland will not need any new fossil or nuclear capacity.Instead, security of supply can be maintained by investment in grid upgrades and infrastructure such as storage capacity and "interconnectors" for importing and exporting power.Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, said: "Scotland has the best renewable energy potential of any country in Europe and we should be aiming high. This report provides us with a clear description of how to set ourselves on the path to 100 per cent renewable power."The message is clear: Scotland's renewable potential has to be fully realised and that means harnessing the considerable wave and tidal power of our seas and continuing the expansion of both onshore and offshore wind."A Scottish Government spokeswoman said the report vindicated the administration's drive to make Scotland the "green energy powerhouse" of Europe
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Climate Bill Splits Industry Coalition
By STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON -- As Congress writes legislation to fight climate change, a prominent coalition in the debate is divided over the fine print.
The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad group of businesses and environmental organizations, was instrumental in building support for capping U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases. Legislation to accomplish that goal recently passed the House and is now before the Senate.
But as lawmakers add provisions to win over colleagues, some USCAP members are withholding their support. They say the bill is too burdensome and contains provisions that have little to do with fighting climate change.
Caterpillar Inc., the Peoria, Ill., heavy-equipment maker and a founding member of USCAP, said it doesn't support the House legislation, citing several "problematic" provisions.
One calls for emissions standards on off-road machines like bulldozers. Others would impose tariffs on goods from countries that don't match U.S. efforts to combat climate change, and require contractors on some energy-related projects to pay employees at least the locally "prevailing wage."
Despite its criticisms of the House bill, Caterpillar said it supports "an environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair climate-change program."
General Motors Co. also has problems with a number of the House bill's provisions, although spokesman Greg Martin said the auto maker supports the legislation's "general direction." Among the provisions it doesn't like is one authorizing the Transportation Department to require auto makers to produce vehicles that can run on methanol, or wood alcohol, a fuel not widely available.
Ford Motor Co. spokesman Mike Moran called that provision "troubling." He declined to take a position on the House bill, but said Ford would continue pushing for legislation "good for both the environment and the economy."
At least two other USCAP members -- ConocoPhillips and the U.S. unit of BP PLC -- said they don't support the House bill, on the grounds that it doesn't treat energy producers equally. The measure would initially give electric utilities roughly 30% of the government's emissions permits, while oil refiners would get 2%.
Although USCAP hasn't officially endorsed the legislation, it hailed the House vote as a "historic action" that puts the nation "on a clear path toward a long-awaited climate-change policy." Exelon Corp., Duke Energy Corp. and DuPont Co., among other USCAP members, supported the House's approval of the bill.
Jeff Sterba, chief executive of PNM Resources Inc., a New Mexico utility, said it is natural for companies to object to individual provisions and emphasized that USCAP's mission has been to build support for policy principles, not specific legislation.
Even USCAP members that have criticized the bill recently remain in the coalition, which has recommended that the U.S. limit greenhouse-gas emissions while giving away, at least initially, some permits to emit greenhouse gases.
Some lawmakers said the added provisions reflect priorities beyond simply cutting emissions.
If the methanol provision wasn't in the bill, "I wouldn't have supported it," said New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel. The legislation is "not just about reducing emissions" but also curbing dependence on foreign oil, he said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said that "when the federal government helps fund new energy projects, it is only right that we ensure that the workers building them get fair wages."
Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said the tariff measure helps ensure that U.S. industries "are not placed at a competitive disadvantage" to foreign rivals.
What's significant is that USCAP has demonstrated that industry and environmentalists can agree on a framework for addressing climate change, said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
"It's very unusual for big corporations to raise their hands and say, 'We want to be regulated for something that we're not regulated for now,'" Mr. Krupp said. "When the history...is written, it will show USCAP to have played a very constructive role."—Ben Casselman in Dallas contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
WASHINGTON -- As Congress writes legislation to fight climate change, a prominent coalition in the debate is divided over the fine print.
The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad group of businesses and environmental organizations, was instrumental in building support for capping U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases. Legislation to accomplish that goal recently passed the House and is now before the Senate.
But as lawmakers add provisions to win over colleagues, some USCAP members are withholding their support. They say the bill is too burdensome and contains provisions that have little to do with fighting climate change.
Caterpillar Inc., the Peoria, Ill., heavy-equipment maker and a founding member of USCAP, said it doesn't support the House legislation, citing several "problematic" provisions.
One calls for emissions standards on off-road machines like bulldozers. Others would impose tariffs on goods from countries that don't match U.S. efforts to combat climate change, and require contractors on some energy-related projects to pay employees at least the locally "prevailing wage."
Despite its criticisms of the House bill, Caterpillar said it supports "an environmentally effective, economically sustainable and fair climate-change program."
General Motors Co. also has problems with a number of the House bill's provisions, although spokesman Greg Martin said the auto maker supports the legislation's "general direction." Among the provisions it doesn't like is one authorizing the Transportation Department to require auto makers to produce vehicles that can run on methanol, or wood alcohol, a fuel not widely available.
Ford Motor Co. spokesman Mike Moran called that provision "troubling." He declined to take a position on the House bill, but said Ford would continue pushing for legislation "good for both the environment and the economy."
At least two other USCAP members -- ConocoPhillips and the U.S. unit of BP PLC -- said they don't support the House bill, on the grounds that it doesn't treat energy producers equally. The measure would initially give electric utilities roughly 30% of the government's emissions permits, while oil refiners would get 2%.
Although USCAP hasn't officially endorsed the legislation, it hailed the House vote as a "historic action" that puts the nation "on a clear path toward a long-awaited climate-change policy." Exelon Corp., Duke Energy Corp. and DuPont Co., among other USCAP members, supported the House's approval of the bill.
Jeff Sterba, chief executive of PNM Resources Inc., a New Mexico utility, said it is natural for companies to object to individual provisions and emphasized that USCAP's mission has been to build support for policy principles, not specific legislation.
Even USCAP members that have criticized the bill recently remain in the coalition, which has recommended that the U.S. limit greenhouse-gas emissions while giving away, at least initially, some permits to emit greenhouse gases.
Some lawmakers said the added provisions reflect priorities beyond simply cutting emissions.
If the methanol provision wasn't in the bill, "I wouldn't have supported it," said New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel. The legislation is "not just about reducing emissions" but also curbing dependence on foreign oil, he said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said that "when the federal government helps fund new energy projects, it is only right that we ensure that the workers building them get fair wages."
Rep. Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said the tariff measure helps ensure that U.S. industries "are not placed at a competitive disadvantage" to foreign rivals.
What's significant is that USCAP has demonstrated that industry and environmentalists can agree on a framework for addressing climate change, said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
"It's very unusual for big corporations to raise their hands and say, 'We want to be regulated for something that we're not regulated for now,'" Mr. Krupp said. "When the history...is written, it will show USCAP to have played a very constructive role."—Ben Casselman in Dallas contributed to this article.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Britain accused of 'double counting' over climate aid to Bangladesh
£60m fund promised for sea defences and farmland protection will not be new money but come from existing aid budgets
David Adam and John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 July 2009 12.14 BST
A flagship British government fund to help victims of global warming in Bangladesh will break a pledge to supply climate funds on top of existing overseas aid, the Guardian has learned.
The £60m promised by the government to help the country protect its people from rising sea levels will have to be found from existing budgets inside the Department for International Development (Dfid).
The Guardian has also discovered that several million pounds will never reach its intended recipients; instead it will go to the World Bank, which will administer the fund. Leaked documents show that $8m (£4.9m) will be "executed by the World Bank, as administrator". The bank needs the money to cover the costs of administration, project appraisal and capacity building, as well as a management team in the bank's office in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, says the document.
The disclosure comes after a speech last month by Gordon Brown in which he called on rich countries to hand over up to $100bn each year to help the developing world cope with climate change. Brown stressed that such funding should be on top of development spending. He said the UK would contribute its "fair share to climate financing separately from and additional to our promises on aid". Green and development campaigners had praised the commitment to provide extra funds. Separately, Britain and other rich countries have pledged to raise overseas development aid (ODA) to 0.7% of GDP.
The issue of climate finance is key to the chances of a new global treaty on global warming being agreed at crucial UN talks in Copenhagen in December. China and other developing nations have asked for 1% of GDP from rich countries in the form of climate aid, in exchange for their involvement in such a deal. British officials privately dismiss the figure as unrealistic.
Sources in the Bangladesh government said they were "concerned" by Britain's move on the so-called Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Climate Change (MDTF) because they had expected the cash to be additional. "We expected this [climate change aid] to be free of the commitments the UK has already made," one said.
"The UK is very good at double counting. Although the money is new in the sense that this is the first time that money has been allocated for climate change, it's not new aid money," said Saleemul Huq, senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
Development charities said they were unhappy about the role of the World Bank in the multi-donor fund. Daleep Mukarji, director of Christian Aid, said he was "appalled by the prospect of the World Bank diverting more than $8m from a fund created to help Bangladesh". He said: "The money is urgently needed by poor people struggling with devastating cyclones, flooding and rising sea levels. For it to be devoted to the expensive administration services of the World Bank, even in Dhaka, would be scandalous."
A group of 30 British and Bangladeshi campaign groups has suggested an alternative mechanism, under which Bangladesh would distribute all of the money through a national board.
A Dfid spokesman confirmed that the £60m Britain would pay into the fund was from existing aid budgets. He said: "I can't see that this contradicts anything that the prime minister said." Brown said that, while the bulk of climate finance should be additional money, some 10% could come from within existing commitments.
David Adam and John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 July 2009 12.14 BST
A flagship British government fund to help victims of global warming in Bangladesh will break a pledge to supply climate funds on top of existing overseas aid, the Guardian has learned.
The £60m promised by the government to help the country protect its people from rising sea levels will have to be found from existing budgets inside the Department for International Development (Dfid).
The Guardian has also discovered that several million pounds will never reach its intended recipients; instead it will go to the World Bank, which will administer the fund. Leaked documents show that $8m (£4.9m) will be "executed by the World Bank, as administrator". The bank needs the money to cover the costs of administration, project appraisal and capacity building, as well as a management team in the bank's office in the Bangladeshi capital, Dhaka, says the document.
The disclosure comes after a speech last month by Gordon Brown in which he called on rich countries to hand over up to $100bn each year to help the developing world cope with climate change. Brown stressed that such funding should be on top of development spending. He said the UK would contribute its "fair share to climate financing separately from and additional to our promises on aid". Green and development campaigners had praised the commitment to provide extra funds. Separately, Britain and other rich countries have pledged to raise overseas development aid (ODA) to 0.7% of GDP.
The issue of climate finance is key to the chances of a new global treaty on global warming being agreed at crucial UN talks in Copenhagen in December. China and other developing nations have asked for 1% of GDP from rich countries in the form of climate aid, in exchange for their involvement in such a deal. British officials privately dismiss the figure as unrealistic.
Sources in the Bangladesh government said they were "concerned" by Britain's move on the so-called Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Climate Change (MDTF) because they had expected the cash to be additional. "We expected this [climate change aid] to be free of the commitments the UK has already made," one said.
"The UK is very good at double counting. Although the money is new in the sense that this is the first time that money has been allocated for climate change, it's not new aid money," said Saleemul Huq, senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
Development charities said they were unhappy about the role of the World Bank in the multi-donor fund. Daleep Mukarji, director of Christian Aid, said he was "appalled by the prospect of the World Bank diverting more than $8m from a fund created to help Bangladesh". He said: "The money is urgently needed by poor people struggling with devastating cyclones, flooding and rising sea levels. For it to be devoted to the expensive administration services of the World Bank, even in Dhaka, would be scandalous."
A group of 30 British and Bangladeshi campaign groups has suggested an alternative mechanism, under which Bangladesh would distribute all of the money through a national board.
A Dfid spokesman confirmed that the £60m Britain would pay into the fund was from existing aid budgets. He said: "I can't see that this contradicts anything that the prime minister said." Brown said that, while the bulk of climate finance should be additional money, some 10% could come from within existing commitments.
A new climate of honesty
Monday, 13 July 2009
At last week's G8 meeting, the leaders of the world's wealthiest economies pledged to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century. But they neglected to provide any detail of how that ambitious target is to be achieved. So we should be pleased that at least part of the route map is likely to be provided this week when our government publishes its renewable energy strategy.
We are told that this will include provisions allowing households which generate surplus renewable energy for their own needs to sell it on to the national grid. This would be a step forward. Such "feed-in tariffs" have played a significant role in encouraging the domestic renewables sector in Germany, a country far ahead of Britain when it comes to zero-carbon energy production. The expected measures to boost industrial-scale UK wind-power generation should also be welcome. A windy island such as Britain has a huge renewable energy resource on its doorstep waiting to be tapped.
We shall, of course, have to wait until we see the detail to learn precisely how ambitious this strategy is. But the Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband gave cause for optimism about the Government's seriousness yesterday when he spoke of "upward pressure on energy prices" and remarked that "the price of flying will go up over time". The threat of climate change, he argued, necessitates "big changes in people's lives". It is rare to hear a government minister talking about the costs that responding to global warming will impose on people's pockets and the lifestyle changes it will demand of them. In the past, politicians have been reluctant to spell out these costs for fear of alienating the electorate. They have attempted to present the measures needed as pain-free.
Mr Miliband is right to adopt a more candid approach, spelling out the long-term benefits, as well as the short-term costs. Unless the public are ready for the impact entailed in programmes such as subsidies for renewables and taxes on carbon emissions, public support for those programmes is at risk of dissipating when they are implemented. When it comes to climate change, honesty is, in every sense, the best policy.
At last week's G8 meeting, the leaders of the world's wealthiest economies pledged to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century. But they neglected to provide any detail of how that ambitious target is to be achieved. So we should be pleased that at least part of the route map is likely to be provided this week when our government publishes its renewable energy strategy.
We are told that this will include provisions allowing households which generate surplus renewable energy for their own needs to sell it on to the national grid. This would be a step forward. Such "feed-in tariffs" have played a significant role in encouraging the domestic renewables sector in Germany, a country far ahead of Britain when it comes to zero-carbon energy production. The expected measures to boost industrial-scale UK wind-power generation should also be welcome. A windy island such as Britain has a huge renewable energy resource on its doorstep waiting to be tapped.
We shall, of course, have to wait until we see the detail to learn precisely how ambitious this strategy is. But the Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband gave cause for optimism about the Government's seriousness yesterday when he spoke of "upward pressure on energy prices" and remarked that "the price of flying will go up over time". The threat of climate change, he argued, necessitates "big changes in people's lives". It is rare to hear a government minister talking about the costs that responding to global warming will impose on people's pockets and the lifestyle changes it will demand of them. In the past, politicians have been reluctant to spell out these costs for fear of alienating the electorate. They have attempted to present the measures needed as pain-free.
Mr Miliband is right to adopt a more candid approach, spelling out the long-term benefits, as well as the short-term costs. Unless the public are ready for the impact entailed in programmes such as subsidies for renewables and taxes on carbon emissions, public support for those programmes is at risk of dissipating when they are implemented. When it comes to climate change, honesty is, in every sense, the best policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
