Miliband's manifesto to make Britain a low-carbon economy
The national strategy to cut emissions published yesterday comes at a price. But are we willing to pay it?
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
More pictures
Thousands more wind turbines, millions of "smart" electricity meters for homes and new cars emitting 40 per cent less pollution than they do now all are on the way in the next decade under ambitious plans to slash CO2 emissions from every sector of the economy.
They form part of the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, a national government strategy for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the fight against climate change, which was launched by the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, yesterday.
Although the detail may sound familiar – many of these projects are already on the drawing board – it is the bringing them together into an all-inclusive society-wide plan which is new, as the Government faces up to its legally-binding target of cutting UK carbon emissions to 34 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Under last year's Climate Change Act, ministers have bound themselves to hit the target with a system of rolling five-year "carbon budgets", and the strategy shows in detail for the first time how they intend to do this.
Its central component is a seven-fold increase – in just a decade – in the amount of Britain's energy for power generation, transport and home heating supplied from renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power (from just over 2 per cent to 15 per cent).
This leap will mean that by 2020 about 30 per cent of electricity alone will come from renewables (up from 5.5 per cent today) and this huge expansion will derive principally from much more wind power. Although no precise figure was given yesterday, this will involve, Mr Miliband said, "thousands" of new wind turbines, both onshore and offshore (one current estimate is about 7,000).
By the 2020 date another 10 per cent of electricity will come from non-renewable low-carbon energy sources, principally the new nuclear power stations whose construction the Government is backing, and the infant technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS), which takes the CO2 emissions from power stations and buries them underground. Demonstration power plants fitted with CCS should be coming onstream by 2020.
The Government accepts that low-carbon energy will be more expensive for consumers and yesterday gave two sets of estimated increases on power bills. Just paying for the new system might add £77 to electricity and £172 to gas bills each year but when all climate change measures are taken into account – such as home insulation which will save consumers money – the total addition is likely to be between £75 and £92 by 2020, the Government said. On the other hand, the White Paper foresees a substantial increase in employment from the changes, with as many as 400,000 new green jobs being created.
The Low Carbon Transition Plan: Major cuts in five sectors of society
Energy Generation (responsible for 35 per cent of UK emissions)
The plan envisages 40 per cent of UK electricity coming from low-carbon sources by 2020 – 30 per cent from renewable energy sources and 10 per cent from nuclear and clean coal. Later this year there will be a national Policy Statement on Nuclear Power which will assess potential sites for new atomic power stations. The Government has already said that any new coal-fired power stations will have to be fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage technology. Later this year plans will be published for a "smart" version of the National Grid which will be more flexible.
Workplaces: Industry and Business (20 per cent of emissions)
High-carbon industries will be included in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme which will save around 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year by 2020. There will be financial incentives to save energy and invest in low-carbon technologies. The Government will seek to boost green industries with £405m for new technologies, up to £120m of investment in offshore wind, and £60m for marine energy and to help develop the South-west as the UK's first Low Carbon Economic Area.
Homes and Communities (13 per cent of emissions)
Emissions will be cut from homes by 29 per cent on 2020 levels by much greater energy efficiency achieved through the wider use of insulation. Smart meters, which enable people to understand exactly how much energy they are using in real time, and maximise their energy saving opportunities, will be rolled out to every home – 26 million – by 2020. The obligation on energy suppliers to help households save energy will be extended. From 2016 all new homes will have to be zero-carbon and rental properties may have to have Energy Performance Certificates.
Farming, Land Use and Waste (11 per cent of emissions)
Farmers will be encouraged to cut emissions by 6 per cent by 2020 through more efficient use of fertiliser and better management of livestock and manure. Although the UK now recycles or composts a third of its waste, more must be done. There will be support for anaerobic digestion (a technology which turns waste and manure into renewable energy) and there will be a push to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills, and also for better capture of landfill emissions.
Transport (20 per cent of emissions)
By 2020 transport emissions will be cut by 14 per cent on 2008 levels, and the first step will be to improve the fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles : C02 emissions from new cars will have to fall by 40 per on current levels across the EU by 2015, to 95 grams per kilometre. British government vehicles will comply with this by 2011. £30m will be invested to deliver several hundred low-carbon buses and there will be more support for new technology for low-carbon cars. £140m is being invested to promote cycling and £5m is being spent on new cycle storage at rail stations.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Even focusing on electricity generation, they are doing little to support micro-generation. They have organized a buy back scheme but even with a generous buy back scheme the capital cost and payback times make such system only for the better off and determined. Provide subsidy to the cost of installation t shorten the pay back time and many more would install such systems.
What about heating. Aero thermal, Geo thermal, even just wood burning stoves all have a massive impact on consumption. Again the capital costs makes pay back very very long and prohibits take-up.
E.g. France where installing such low carbon systems gives you a tax credit. Install a wood burning stove and you get half the costs of the stove as a tax credit. Micro generation attract similar (or greater) credits. And the scheme operation is really simple. submit your invoice with your tax return and the credit is just deducted from your tax bill (invoice has to say, "Conforms with ..." - so no expensive bureaucracy to set-up, no "apply for" admin, etc. Things like this would have a rapid and effective impact rather than providing vast sums to pay for wind farms (and corporate profits).
And then there is cutting use. OK, they have decided that they will leave aircraft alone (corporate interests there) but other than home insulation for the elderly, they are spending little to encourage people to reduce their energy consumption. After all, if we don't consume it, we don't have to generate/mine/extract it - which has the added benefits that limited resources will last is much longer.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/200
I think this is also addressed in David MacKay's online book 'Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air'. I'm also not aware that Britain has subsantial opportunities for geothermal power.
And then harnass the incredible energy of the sun in some way. Maybe not just here (although the latest technology grasps every ray of light!), but also in the deserts?
However, I don't know about any technology that uses every ray of light from the sun. Even experimental photovoltaic panels are only reaching efficiencies of 20%, and the cheaper solar thermal has an efficiency of under 4%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_effic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_ther
Solar thermal in the Mojave desert for the US and the Sahara for Europe is a large potential source of power. There is the political problem though that the Sahara desert isn't actually in Europe, and the plants would have to be pretty big as well. Personally I would say that a big part of the answer, for the next several decades, is nuclear.
We are a London based company, that is able to provide a clear solution regarding Global Warming, and energy independence. If the government really is into green energy, then they should open their eyes.
Solar Botanic can not only deliver a aesthetic solution, we can employ up to 20 to 30.000 people the next 5 years - deliver jobs in management, sales, marketing, production, assembly, logistics and distribution, installation and service. We can install our trees along highways and motorways - no need to occupy more natural landscapes! We can supply green roof energy systems, based on natures design, at half the cost of solar roof panels - and creates an instant green ambiance.
Alex
Let's start planting fruit trees and nut trees and shrubs to prevent food miles at the same time!
And there is no such thing as 'clean coal'.
Propaganda and nonsense, as usual, from the politician and no critical analysis from the journalist who reported it.
There are simply not 7,000 wind turbines waiting to be installed, the permitting system xouldn't cope with the applications (average time for an offshore wind farm from the idea to commissioning is over 12 years) and the output (20-30% of nameplate rating) only achievable when the wind is blowing so you have to provide other capacity for the other 70-80% of the time.
If only the minister would concentrate on the substance and not the hot air . . .
Then we come to the practicalities of this daft plan. Where exactly does he think he can put 7000 wind turbines, when they are opposed by the nimbies at every turn? The main British maker of these devices has just gone bust, and it seems the manufacturing capability is just not there. If they ever do get put up, they will only ever provide a third of their rated capacity, and often at the wrong time. That will make electricity too expensive and unreliable, causing major manufacturers to move out of Britain, and extreme fuel poverty to the mainly unemployed Brits. That is already happening in Spain where they have already gone down this route, resulting in 2.2 jobs being lost for every one "green" job created.
Then, of course, there is the junk science behind this plan. There is absolutely no scientific proof that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures. I know a lot of people think there is, but try to find it and you will draw a blank. There has been no significant global warming since 1995, and the Earth has been cooling since 2002, despite a 5% increase in CO2. Is this cooling the climate change that the eco-warrior Ed Miliband wishes to fight?
I am not privy to anything, because all the evidence is out there available to anyone who has not got a closed mind. To get you started I suggest you go to this URL which contains a graph compiled at UAH Alabama of NASA satellite measurements of global temperatures, which clearly shows the cooling trend since 2002. The website belongs to Dr. Roy Spencer, and if you click on the "About Dr. Roy Spencer" button you will see that he is eminently qualified.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-glob
Of course, there is much more, but I will let you exercise your searching skills to find it. However, as I suspect you have a faith based belief in AGW, I don't suppose you will.
The usual deniers' claim is that global warming stopped in 1998. That is rebutted at http://www.grist.org/article/global-war
I also checked your Grist link, and it appears to be the Watchtower of the green movement, so obviously not biased then. The article you refer to seems reasonable, pointing out that a small cherry picked sample of slight cooling can not be taken seriously. The problem with it is that it was posted on Nov. 7th. 2006. That was before the much accelerated cooling that happened in 2007 and 2008, and is now shown to be continuing up to the end of June 2009. If you now draw a trend line from 1995 up to now, but not taking into account the El Nino year of 1998, it then appears that global warming has stopped, and the latest trend is downwards. 13.5 years does not look so cherry picked. According to the AGW theory that can not happen, because those years saw a substantial increase in CO2 levels. Could that mean the theory is wrong, or at least needs revising. However, the AGW adherents refuse to consider this possibility, but instead just trot out the consensus argument, and point to a computer model which is now shown to be fatally flawed. That is why there is no consensus, because many real climate scientists now question the theory and form a new rival consensus.
I directed the responder to Dr. Roy Spencer because he is one of the world's foremost climate scientists. While on that subject, did you know that the chairman of the IPCC is a fully qualified railway engineer?
What do you mean by 'supposed' to get warmer? Do you mean that the Earth will get warmer irregardless of our 'acticities' (interesting typo there) in a natural way? In which case the word 'supposed' hardly comes into it.
With all the people declaiming evidence that we are affecting the climate (on largely ideological/economical levels, rather than scientific) - I'd like to turn the argument around and ask you: where is the evidence that we are not affecting the climate? Aside from the oft-trotted out 'it's happened before; look at the dinosaurs' argument, which doesn't take into account the rather telling synchronicity between mining out carbon deposits and the arrival of large amounts of carbon in the atmosphere. I'd like conclusive proof that we are NOT affecting the climate, before I sit on my hands and criticise positive environmental policy.
maybe it will just get warmer naturally and lawfully
idon't know, but I gather that many scientists and, in particular , geologists, think that AGW is tosh but few dare to challenge the powerful AGW industry
Atheist- "you can't prove there is a god"
Christian- "but you can't prove there is not"
However, I will give you something to grapple with. Try this link, a peer reviewed paper from a top physicist:-
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/070
- Er, because we have no alternative?
I'm actually quite frightened by the comments I've been reading on this article. I read the Independent and Guardian websites mainly because I'm looking for articles with less subjective spin or political bias.
Anthropogenic climate change is entirely possible. Every animal alters the environment in which it lives. A fungus is capable of wiping out 25 million Elm trees in Britain alone. The introduction of grey squirrels to Britain has rendered the red squirrel population defunct. We are not different from any other species except in the extent and variety of ways in which we affect our environment. And thanks to our ingenuity, our immediate environment isn't restricted to an island or a continent - it has now become the entire world. The people who claim that accepting responsibility for large-scale environmental damage is 'human arrogance' are simply trying to avoid the issue.
I'm entertained by the idea that the world is 'meant' to heat up. 'Meant' to heat up according to whom?
If there was some grand conspiracy to make us all pay through the nose and fund government mistakes through a veil of Green talk, I'd like to know why it's taken so long for any government or business to latch on to the idea. If saving the environment was that lucrative, would someone explain to me why we haven't started doing it already? Isolated voices have been speaking out on environmental issues for decades.
In fact, if it's so lucrative, why are oil and fossil fuel magnates still holding the purse strings? Why is their propaganda so much more endemic and (apparently) effective? I don't know about you, but I see far more people buying new cars than better loft insulation, and I think that has more to do with shiny new TV adverts and keeping up with Mr and Mrs Jones than it owes to independent thinking.
In addition, if there is a grand conspiracy, why is it that the scientists have reached their conclusion that Anthropogenic climate change is more than likely before the government started singing a different song? If there was a 'conspiracy', surely it would be the other way around.
The long and short of it is this: even if there is a chance that it's all hot air and waffle (which I think is unlikely, and downright dangerous to argue), this is a move we need to make, because Climate Change or no Climate Change, we are coming to the point of peak consumption of fossil fuels. There need to be viable alternatives, and there need to be measures taken to reduce consumption. The sooner we do it, the more effective and less painful the move will be.
I find it strange that people get up in arms about spending to protect the area in which they live, but have no qualms about giving over their income to their Internet provider, mobile phone company and Sky network.
As for whether Climate Change is real or not - well, I really don't want to take the chance. If it's between spending a few bob and surviving, then I know which I'm going to do, and it won't involve keeping my purse closed.
The idea that there is a big conspiracy is dealt with at http://www.grist.org/article/consen
"Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer."
700+ Scientists have signed a Petition to the US Congress to refute AGW in whole or part. Several Scientists have written to the Newspapers (The latest one who gave details of their disagreement was Professor Philip Stott in The Economist 27/09/2008). More and more people are posting refutations of AGW that they have read (three years ago that hardly ever happened). So, if there is a consensus, it seems to me to be unravelling.
Notwithstanding the above, I agree with rhian-w that there are many changes that we could make which are a good in their own right. However, we should make them on that basis and not on the basis of AGW until we have more proof that the IPCC Models are accurate - else we will spend resources incorrectly.
I wonder, if the same amount of CO2 had been emitted by a few extra vulcanos and scientists would say 'climate change will happen because of these eruptions', would we even doubt them for a moment? I feel many of us absolutely don't accept to be challenged on our current lifestyles. To me it's a matter of maturing as a species, of taking responsibility and using that superbe brain of ours to come up with true sustainable solutions. Will be very rewarding and fun too! :-)
Your intelligence may lead you to believe that CO2 causes AGW but, before I believe it, I would like to see some proof. The Models seem to give a good agreement with the CO2 hypothesis from the 40s until the late 90s but there are grounds for thinking that they do not give a good fit for the last 11 or 12 years.
There are many things that we should do to conserve resources and reduce pollution but we should do them for that reason and not because of a Hypothesis that may be wholly or partially incorrect.
Why is the UK govt not pushing for more Solar Panels ?
Only the other day there was an article,that 800,000 building workers in the UK
would be out of work by the end of the year.
If a large grant program for Solar Panels,was introduced,there would be work
for 1,000's of building workers.
Small engineering companies could easily start to make Solar Panels,
they would not be able to start bulding Wind turbines as easy.
Solar panels are very good even on dull,cloudy days.
Millions of Solar Panels could be instaled much faster & cheaper than
subsidised Wind Power.
Also Hydrogen gas on demand from water,could help all the older vehicles in the UK.
There is a 30 year old land rover getting 70 miles per gallon.
A 7 year old automatic taxi,with 190,000 miles on the speedo gets up to 60 MPG.
at steady 70MPH.Also 35% less pollution. for more info.
http://savefueluk.net