Energy and climate change
The Government believes that climate change is one of the gravest threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is required. We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy.
- We will push for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020.
- We will seek to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the Climate Change Committee.
- We will continue public sector investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology for four coal-fired power stations.
- We will establish a smart grid and roll out smart meters.
- We will establish a full system of feed-in tariffs in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded Renewables Obligation Certificates.
- We will introduce measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
- We will create a green investment bank.
- We will retain energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs.
- We will introduce measures to encourage marine energy.
- We will establish an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient carbon capture and storage to meet the emissions performance standard.
- We will cancel the third runway at Heathrow.
- We will refuse permission for additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
- We will replace Air Passenger Duty with a per-flight duty.
- We will introduce a floor price for carbon, and make efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
- Through our ‘Green Deal’, we will encourage home energy efficiency improvements paid for by savings from energy bills. We will also take measures to improve energy efficiency in businesses and public sector buildings. We will reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within 12 months.
- We will reform energy markets to deliver security of supply and investment in low carbon energy, and ensure fair competition including a review of the role of Ofgem.
- We will instruct Ofgem to establish a security guarantee of energy supplies.
- We will give an Annual Energy Statement to Parliament to set strategic energy policy and guide investment.
- We will deliver an offshore electricity grid in order to support the development of a new generation of offshore wind power.
- We will encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes where local people benefit from the power produced. We will also allow communities that host renewable energy projects to keep the additional business rates they generate.
- As part of the creation of a green investment bank, we will create green financial products to provide individuals with opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy.
- We will work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for the purpose of climate change adaptation and mitigation.
- Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new National Planning Statement), and also provided that they receive no public subsidy.
- We will implement a process allowing the Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the Government to bring forward the National Planning Statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible. This process will involve: – the Government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament; – specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesperson will speak against the Planning Statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and – clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.
Does anyone seriously still believe in “man made global warming”? At best the measures proposed are an excuse to tax people. At worst they are another step towards Global Government.
The last ice age is not yet over, so, yes, the earth is warming.
So get use to it and enjoy.
Or go mad and tax the air we breath.
Number 1 priority is to get the economy back into a sustainable position. With our current levels of debt none of the changes needed to make the move to less environmentally damaging energy sources will be possible. The climate problem is not as imminent as previously thought and even Dr Jones of the CRU claims there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years, despite large rises in the level of CO2.
In view of this, the coalition needs to avoid the UK losing it’s competitive edge through energy taxation and only move at the same time as other global economies, such as India, China and Russia, who ave a massive impact on global anthropomorphic CO2.
Hydro power, wind power, solar power, wave power, water turbine power. We need to invest in this and not have sites put forward to a planning committee. Just build them. Once they’re there, they’re there.
All those that demonstrate against alternative renewable energy won’t complain when they’re energy bills are reduced.
1. I am assuming that ‘feed-in tariffs in electricity’, mean a reduction in electricity bills when the consumer generates some of their own power by using solar, wind or geothermal equipment. The electricity providers and the companies which purvey and install these equipments, must be obliged to make quite clear what the economic benefits are likely to be before the consumer makes any investment.
2. Nepal, one of the poorest countries in the world, has benefited to a great extent by the use of local anaerobic digestion plants over the last 30 years. The primary use is to produce methane for heating thus obviating the use of scarce timber resources but the generation of electricity by burning methane is now being actively considered as a high priority.
‘Kyanjin Gompa, the highest settlement in Langtang Valley at 3,850m, is where no biogas plant has gone before. At first, the plant at Hotel Yala Peak just looks like a pile of rubbish, but beneath the heap of steaming compost is the underground dome digester that supplies methane to the kitchen even in winter.’
For more, please see The Nepali Times at:
http://nepalitimes.com/issue/2010/06/10/June5EnvironmentDay/17134
If these plants can work using yak and human waste at an altitude of 3,850 metres in winter and also produce good organic fertiliser as a bye product, what are we waiting for?
3. Unlike other ‘white goods’, it is extremely difficult to find accurate information on the energy efficiency of new boilers. Claims for condensing boilers such as ‘30% more efficient than conventional boilers’ are common, but that is as close to clarity as it gets. Much as I would like to avoid the proliferation of laws that were foisted on us by the last administration, this seems to be an omission that requires rectification.
4. We are aware of the unreliability of the wind as a source of power. The recent news from Denmark should be noted by all. However, why can’t electricity from wind farms be used to electrolyse water to produce hydrogen and oxygen? These could be stored and burned in a conventional gas fired power station with the only ‘pollution’ produced being water.
Transport is a key contributor to climate change and it is encouraging that this is being taken seriously by government. However my concern on the issue of transport is that policy seems to be looking for a silver bullet solution; first there was hydrogen and now electric vehicles. Inorder to effectively tackly the issue, policy should reflect and encourage the use of all possible solutions; the sum total of which could significantly reduce, not only, carbon emission in the UK but also particulates which adversley affect local air quality and contribute to global warming.
Policy should better refelct all the possibilities available to the UK such as LPG (liquified petroleum gas) that is available now and other alternative fuels in the market place that could help the UK meet its 2020 targets.
We support the emphasis that the Government has put on growing a green economy, we believe this will bring benefits not only in terms of climate change but also for the UK economy and employment. The measures proposed by the Government largely require a shift to citizen-led decisions driving this positive change eg. Green Deal loans to householders, smart-meter roll out, community owned renewables, FiTs, Big Society etc. We support these community and household focused initiatives but as an environmental charity with over 16 years experience in behaviour change and community support, we realise that these policies will need to be supported by effective community and individual engagement in order to activate this citizen-led change. We understand that for people to take up these incentives they will need to be empowered and engaged by removing barriers that stop us acting and providing motivation. Information alone is not enough to inspire action, which has been the previous focus of Government environment campaigns.
Increasing energy efficiency is a cost effective way of reducing carbon emissions and we are pleased to see that this is a focus of the Green Deal loans and smart-meter roll out. However, energy efficiency is very dependent on consumer behaviour and we believe that without expert community engagement and behaviour change engagement, large carbon saving opportunities will be lost, or technical fixes will fail. Just fitting smart meters does not mean that people will change their energy use at home. Behaviour change engagement also allows an opportunity for big wins across other areas of sustainability eg. waste, over consumption, travel habits and water efficiency. We encourage DECC to work with other Government Departments to ensure that the Green Deal, CERT, CESP and other policies impacting on householders don’t miss out on the double or triple wins on offer (eg. water retrofitting) and we believe behaviour change initiatives would facilitate this integrated approach to sustainability. We believe that all of this can be achieved in a positive way, with communities motivated to actively contribute to the UK’s Big Society. We do not want to go backwards, but live in a cleaner and greener world where people have more time for their community, live in smarter, less energy consumptive homes and lead more sustainable lifestyles.
There should be no nuclear subsidies, these in the past have been in the form of ‘green’ subsidies, where the nuclear industry has taken subsidies intended for really green energy sources. Even if these are withheld from the nuclear industry the biggest subsidy of all is the question of insurance. In the case of nuclear the government undertakes to pick up the tag in the event of a major accident. There is no other industry with that kind of protection. Is BP going to claim from the government? Any industry that is uninsurable is too dangerous to be permitted. And it is one that is not necessary economically. There is much evidence to highlight this.
Having read Christopher Booker’s book, “The Real Global Warming Disaster”, and surfed the net, read articles for and against climate change, there is no doubt that many of the promoters, including such well known names as Al Gore (former Vice President of the USA), members of the IPCC, and the UN, of climate change have misled many.
Many of the proposed solutions have been shown to cost billions without resolving the questions relating to excessive uses of energy, including the UK pushing for wind farms when some countries have shown the wasted energy, inability to produce the necessary power and high costs. We are surrounded by the sea, surely shown as capable of helping produce greater amounts of energy, for example, than the super expensive wind farms, which are a blight on the landscape, dangerous to birds, etc., etc.
David Williams (above) has some very good suggestions. More real thinking needs to be done, better information gleaned, before jumping on ideas without sound foundations.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to voice our opinions. There are many clever people out there, without a financial axe to grind, with some excellent suggestions. Please do listen!
The National Energy Foundation, as a well-established Third Sector organisation working on energy and climate change since 1990 we would like to take up the challenge you have laid down for our sector to play a bigger part in delivering the solutions we need for tackling climate change. We believe most of the policy drivers are in place and we can work in partnership with DECC to provide a greater emphasis on delivery against the existing targets, and proposed programmes such as the “Green Deal”. Just a few of the areas where we would like to add our experience of action on the ground to the work of your team are:
1. Refurbishment of existing homes: The national network of over 50 “Old Homes SuperHomes” that have shown how it is readily achievable to deliver over 60% carbon savings in refurbishment of existing homes. We want to work with you to “mainstream” this level of action. This is delivered in partnership with another Third Sector organisation, The Sustainable Energy Academy (www.sustainable-energyacademy.org.uk) illustrating our approach to partnership in all our key activities. We will work with your team to deliver programmes for energy upgrading of the older housing stock so that this reaches millions of people per year compared to thousands in the new build sector. By involving the householder in the process, rather than the focus of existing CERT and CESP programmes purely on “kit”, we will ensure your programmes deliver long-term sustained carbon savings at the same time as creating 100,000 new jobs in the sector.
2. Financial incentives linked to carbon savings: We would like to work with your team to bring the real world evidence of carbon savings that can be achieved through a combination of existing technologies and behaviour change. As an example, we welcome the Renewables Heat Incentive (RHI) as the first of its kind in the world to focus on direct incentives in increasing the generation of renewable heat, although we consider it imperative that the RHI work only as a package of incentives which support the energy hierarchy of: conserve energy, energy efficiency and then renewable energy generation. We can add our knowledge and experience from NEF and from the trade associations we support (The Solar Trade Association and the Ground Source Heat Pump Association) to ensure that these. Our ground truth information on the carbon savings that different systems can deliver in operation can also help you to ensure that the RHI delivers carbon savings cost effectively. For example, avoiding the over-incentivisation relative to carbon savings for the installation of Air Source Heat Pump Systems in the initial consultation document. But even more important is ensuring the mechanism explicitly rewards the installation of insulation measures that reduce the heat demand in the first place.
3. Unleashing the power of the Third Sector and Communities as change agents: We are one of the driving forces around the nationwide network of 12 Third Sector organisations in England, Scotland and Wales, The Community Energy Practitioners’ Forum (CEPF). The not-for-profit CEPF member organisations already have strong links with individual communities (particularly 20 of the most active community organisations at present) and community networks such as the Transition Network and Low Carbon Communities Network that are ready to catalyse the pent-up enthusiasm for action. We believe that there is the potential for communities to be “change agents” in increasing the rate and depth of cuts in carbon emissions. We would like to explore with you the potential role the newly emerging “Communities and Climate Action” sector can play in delivering your climate change targets through programmes such as the Green Deal.
The approach to subsidy seems irrational. If energy generation is to have no subsidy, then apply it across the board. No feed-in tarriffs. As said above; better insulation, reduced consumption etc has to be the priority, but it is not obvious that the government does anything other than distort the market. simplify planning ( the ridiculous council charges for putting solar water heating on your roof etc.).
Start to get some realistic (’sceptical’) science base rather than the alarmism that has had its day politically (and never had a day scientifically). We need to prepare for a lot more cold winters.
Most of what you are proposing to do would be better not done or left to the market to pick up as it makes sense. Do a lot less.
The smart meters need real libertarian scrutiny; they need the ‘off switch’ disabled.
Plant food is your friend.
Government should concentrate on improving the efficient use of energy, minimising waste, reducing pollution wherever possible, but please do not dress it up under meaningless ‘climate change’ rhetoric, do not tax energy use and do not concentrate solely on carbon emissions. Also the sooner we are no longer reliant on the Middle East for our energy supply the better.
Most of what is laid out here is liberal inspired crazy ideas that have no basis, global warming is based on flawed science that it’s experts deemed it necessary to falsify and lie about, if the planet is getting warmer it is doing so in it’s on going cycle that sees it warm up and cool, carbon credits what are they funny money who owns them or issues them who makes a profit from them oh! I forgot Al Gore and he does it for nothing don’t make me laugh, flight tax is another excuse for raising revenue instead of all the other that have been done to death trouble is like council tax and PAYE it is grossly unfair, the tax is not paid by the ten of thousands of private flights that leave our private and national airports neither is is paid by the thousands of commercial cargo flights, if planes are responsible for polution then they all are so tax them all.
We need more nuclear power. It’s ridiculously safe now.
Remember: Chernobyl was a military facility and poorly designed. Three Mile Island didn’t harm anyone at all. There have never been any deaths from civil nuclear power.
Those who are keen to build small-scale hydro schemes eligible for FiTs cannot do so right now without risking being disqualified for not using MCS-certified products and installers (because none exist!). Not only are there none, there is currently no process for hydro products and installers to get themselves MCS-certified, and there is no standard defined for them to achieve. So none can even apply. A policy that is supposed to encourage green generation is, in the case of small-scale hydro, actually preventing it. Please either take small-scale hydro out of the MCS scheme or quickly issue a policy that says that generally accepted quality standards are sufficient to qualify hydro schemes for MCS and FiTs. Only when you do that can we make the investment in installing systems in the certain knowledge that the financial returns are available to us. Thank you.
The case for man-made global warming has been blown to pieces by Team Skeptic several times over now, and public belief in the spectre of climate change has fallen through the floor as the lies have been uncovered.
Any new legislation based around the idea of climate change should be scrapped, torn up, burnt, and mixed with cattle feed.
Enough of this garbage. Any new laws, regulations and taxes will only make us less free and constrain the private economy from lifting us out recession.
Those who are keen to build small-scale hydro schemes eligible for FiTs cannot do so right now without risking being disqualified for not using MCS-certified products and installers (because none exist!). Not only are there none, there is currently no process for hydro products and installers to get themselves MCS-certified, and there is no standard defined for them to achieve. So none can even apply. A policy that is supposed to encourage green generation is, in the case of small-scale hydro, actually preventing it. Please either take small-scale hydro out of the MCS scheme or quickly issue a policy that says that generally accepted quality standards are sufficient to qualify hydro schemes for MCS and FiTs. Only when you do that can we make the investment in installing systems in the certain knowledge that the financial returns are available to us. Thank you.
Before committing many more billions of taxpayers money to this theory, is their any chance that a review of the evidence is conducted – in which both sides of the argument are given equal weight. Having spent some of my life in the scientific community, the use of rhetoric and failure to confirm theories in this matter is an absolute disgrace.
We hope that future policy development and implementation will recognise the impact that women have on energy and climate change.
In Wales, we have contributed to Equality Impact Assessments and are involved in Third Sector discussions on this subject.
The experience around the world shows that tarrifs are an easy relatively low cost method of making renewable technologies a reality. the feed in tarrif has made it possible for customers to find finance in order to be able to afford the cost of the installations. The RHI should be able to do this and more providing it is implemented in a manner close to the consultation document, however if this dosn’t materialise in this form we will be forced to make job cuts to our staff as without grant assistance or tariffs the Heat technologies will not be able to compete against cheap fuel until our fuel starts to run out and becomes much more expensive by which time it will be far too late. The Carbon savings from implementing the RHI are considerably more than for the Feed in tariff and therefore the RHI presents a very achievable method of reaching the Carbon emission reduction targets of 2012. We need confirmation on this now in order to maintain the momentum we have built up over the last 10 years. Solving Carbon emmisions at domestic level is a win win goal as it will generate many semi skilled jobs to install the proven renewable technologies, force homeowners to look at their insulation levels, significantly reduce fuel use and preserve our dwindling stocks for eco problems that can’t be solved to easily.
Simply – lets get our heads straioght on this, there is no man-made climate change! Yes man polutes and mis-uses, but does not cause climate change per se. Scrap plans for a rape of our economy in ‘climate taxes’. We need to provide for our future through adequite lectricity production
Kindly ensure that your programme is working with clear, and meaningful terminology. The terms: climate, climate change, and climate system, as used by science nowadays do not belong to this category. Science defines climate as average weather, but does not define weather in the first place. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, defines neither climate nor weather but stipulates a useless tautology: “Climate Change means the change of climate which is… “, and that “Climate System” means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions. Any explanation of the system of nature or the weather would go the same way.
Although CLIMATE is a layman’s term and does not mean anything more than average or statistical weather, IPCC and other, want to make one believe that there are important differences by very questionable considerations. In a FAQ 1.2 (WG1-2007, p. 96: ‘What is the Relationship between Climate Change and Weather?’ IPCC says:
____“A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now.”
Although the FAQ 1.2 starts with the sentence that
___”Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined”, they offer as distinction:
____“As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialized countries is about 75. “
In contrast to the life expectation of human beings, the life-span of “climate” is, according IPCC, WMO, and others:
___”…… the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”, which render the analogy as little enlightening, as climate can not die. More reading about the unscientific term “climate” at: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
The Glossary of the American Meteorological Society shows what goes wrong when claiming that weather and climate are different issues, when saying about “weather”:
· The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions,
· with 10 possibilities for “past weather”, while
· popularly, weather is thought of in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.
In the understanding of IPCC and other scientific organisations it seems possible to assume that weather is not necessarily weather, but which can be distinguished between big, or small weather, on reduced to one, 3, 10, or 80 weather items, which one may call CLIMATE just as it pleases. “Climate” has become a prominent issue and the scientific terminology used in this respect should be clear, useful, and meet academic standards. The current terminology does not meet minimum scientific standards.
The RHI must be implemented by the Government in order to come anywhere close to achieving the targets for reduced emissions. Since the average householder will use two thirds of their total energy in heat production for the home, the backing of the RHI is imperative. This encourages home owners to adopt this technology and slash their carbon impact. Should the Government drop the RHI the effect on the solar industry will be catastrophic. 90% of home owners will choose thermal technology above PV based on the more affordable capital outlay. There are a lot of good systems on the market as well as a lot of bad systems. The public should be rewarded by following the good technology which can be provided. The demise of the RHI would cause the demise of 90% of the solar industry in the UK and would be a giant step backward in the fight against global warming. I fail to understand why the government are even considering dropping this highly sought after incentive???
The climate will change one way or another. The evidence may point one way but Earth might have its own ideas. For the Atlantic Isles a lurch in either direction is bad news and raises serious issues about our food, water and energy resources. We could be close to and soon be at a point of no return when any change is potentially catastrophic. It has happened before.
The Salvation Army call on the Government to commit to cutting UK carbon emissions by 40% by 2020 and by more than 80% by 2050 without resorting to offsets, and in addition
supporting developing countries towards low-carbon development and green economies and providing these countries with additional funds for climate adaptation. We would also urge the UK Government to take a lead in the EU to agree to at least equal (to the UK) cuts in emissions and to provide sufficient and verifiable new funding and technology transfer to the developing world. The EU should be responsible for at least one third of the minimum £150 billion needed annually by developing countries by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation.
We are a Renewable energy installer, In the last two years we have consistantly installed LESS renewable energy that we did previous. Why? well it is because of to many Government steering grooups making it really difficult to access the grant scheme. This lateset round makes us as a small company complete a quality managment scheme. Now with the collapse of the grant scheme the RHI is also in no mans land. Make a descion quick!. Want we want is marketing help that leads to sales so renewables can be installed, simple. Stop trying to earn a living from this and let us do that, its why weve spent our own personal money investing in the business.
LET ME MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR, WE HAVE INSTALLED LESS RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAN THE TWO PREVIOUS. LISTEN TO US PLEASE
Members of solar trade association.
Government should launch a “green” national savings bond – that would be used to fund renewable energy projects, solar / wind, etc. This could be operated via NS&I , a good rate of return provided (tax free) , monies collected would used to reduce carbon emissions and also if the scheme was for householder improvements provide valuable employment opportunities.
How about a commitment to transparency on data for scientific publications which will be cited for policy making.
How about having a complete rethink on the approach that is being used against the normal chap in the street.
For someone like me just trying to get by in life,Climate change policy is a never ending campaign of scaremongering, threats,penalties and fines.
I need to use my own vehicle for work because of the pathetic state of public transportation in general and public transport is of no use at all for my work because of the hours,locations and equipment I need to carry…..and because I have to use an off-road vehicle for work, some of the more rabid members of climate change belief assume I am on about the same moral standing as Hitler.
Yes it is very noble of the UK to be at the spearhead of environmental policy change, however what that means to me is that yet another raft of financial impacting rules are coming my way. More expensive fuels and fuel tax, proposed road charging, increased taxing of certain vehicles,recycling tax etc. Nice to see that the entire Government policy is in fact just to tax you more.
To be honest, I simply am not interested in glaciers melting on the other side of the world, or the Sahara growing in size or the Red Sea shrinking as the world has been happily changing its climate for several billion years without our involvement at all…and will continue to do so.
I am interested however in some pompous,over educated, under worked and financially secure buffon…..or more often than not a student who has yet to try working for a living….preaching to me to constantly to accept all the climate change mantras without question while hitting me in the wallet for the audacity of actually living in a modern world,Instead of their perceived nirvana of hugging spider monkeys and wearing recycled hemp.
There is no mention of RHI – I hope this is not going to be abandoned as it is probably the only way there will be mass interest in take up of energy saving heat sources. It was one of only a few good decisions the last goverment made – I know we’re in trouble financially in the Uk, but this should be one of the last things to ditch.
The Northwest Climate Change Partnership welcomes the Coalition Government’s priorities for energy & climate change and is supportive of the measures outlined. If Government is to meet its ambitious plans for renewable energy, waste and carbon reduction, collaborative working will be vital to achieve the necessary green growth for a low carbon and eco-friendly UK economy.
In addition to the stated priorities, the Northwest Climate Change Partnership advocates the introduction of the following measures:
- Fully define and support the growth of the Low Carbon and Environmental Goods and
Services Sector, to ensure the UK realises the economic benefit from carbon reduction
and renewable energy targets.
- Address the emerging skills and headcount gaps in the UK energy sector, and ensure
that underlying STEM skills are taken-up by students within schools and universities
- Effectively support R&D in UK universities and businesses (especially SMEs) and
encourage the innovation and commercialisation of new technologies
- Target financial incentives towards innovative, high-tech, low carbon companies.
- Ensure adequate provision for issues specific to rural areas, especially surrounding
low carbon transport, domestic retrofit and microgeneration
The Northwest Climate Change Partnership has identified an urgent need for the Government to confirm the adjustments made to the Feed-In Tariff system and to provide clarity as to the future of the Renewable Heat Incentive, given the need to quickly accelerate support in this area.
In terms of delivery structure, we believe that it makes logical sense to build upon on existing local public-private networks and partnerships already established to provide the support required to meet the scale and timeframes of the UK’s commitment to a 34% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Local and intermediary networks such as the Northwest Climate Change Partnership, have demonstrated significant expertise in supporting and facilitating the development of low carbon technologies through research, innovation, infrastructure development, brokerage, supply chain support and skills development, as well as through securing energy efficiency and carbon reduction across the sectors.
We believe that such partnerships provide good examples of existing collaborative networks which can quickly identify and prioritise local strengths and opportunities, to align national policy with local delivery and tailor support to the development of opportunities with the greatest potential return on investment.
http://www.climatechangenorthwest.co.uk
If a private company were to invest vast sums of money to ward off impending disaster based on evidence as shaky as the current evidence for “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, the directors could face jail for wrongful trading and the shareholders would dismiss them.
I am a shareholder in UK plc and I am not happy at my money being used to chase the chimera of climate control. In particular, I am very unhappy about the huge amounts of electricity customers’ money being exported in order to support the foreign owners of the plethora of wind farms that are increasingly despoiling my country. Any other method of generating electricity, including nuclear, would be preferable on grounds of environmental damage, reliability, predictability and economy.
Please stop participating in this hysteria now.
The climate will do what it wants to do, without any help from us – read the Plimer book “Heaven and Earth”! That Iceland volcano has underlined this, for eyes that will see – it negates _all_ the efforts you lot have made “to save the world”! Get some nuclear power stations built, as quickly as possible, bu British firms and keep those profits here.
Forget the whole thing – the very concept of “climate change” (remember when it was “global warming” ?) is so awry. Climate changes continuously, and has done so since the dawn of time.
Right now, there is no ‘warming’ – or if there is, it’s negligible as actually measured (computer models not required on voyage). Even if there was warming (or cooling), there is ZERO evidence that mankind is contributing to it in any significant way whatsoever.
Warmer times would actually be better for mankind ! – but, unfortunately I don’t see any warming. What about the medieval wam period ? – was it all those peasants and their livestock that caused that ? – and then what about the later period, when there were ice fairs on the river Thames (and even more people) ?
STOP wasting the Taxpayer’s money – it’s time for some dynamic inaction.
Let’s face it, the market will decide. You can make all the targets you want but unless you want to either beggar the country or tell people that electricity is going to be rationed (and the first will lead to the second, so either way you’re looking at blackouts) then this will go the way of the global cooling fad of the 60’s and 70’s.
I’d be worried about this lunacy if I wasn’t absolutely certain it won’t lead anywhere.
RHI?? We need clarity on the Renewable Heat Incentive as domestic installations plumet whilst home owners wait for a government committment. We all know that the UK needs a more sustainable future, we are years behind other countries and we know that Solar Thermal, PV and Heat Pumps create green energy.
We need the clarity on the RHI and a green backing from our new government to keep our jobs.
Efficient condensation in “condensing” boilers, both domestic and commercial, is essential to reduce carbon emissions and gas bills. Most people with detailed knowledge of these boilers know this does not occur. Plumes of hot moist vapour which issue from the flues of new condensing boilers give the proof of this statement and show that they cannot be 90% efficient. By the use of a secondary condenser, defined by the Building Research Establishment at Watford, as a Passive Flue Gas Heat Recovery Device (PFGHRD), some 20% additional savings of CO2 emissions and gas costs can be made.
In my opinion, not many boiler purchasers realise that their new A rated boiler will not give 90% efficiency in actual use, although many government bodies such as DEFRA, boiler manufacturers and installers do know this.
In the next ten years the PFGHRD could well be the most cost effective investment with an annual Return on Investment (ROI) of 20% – 30%, – much better than our banks. 6000 boilers are installed in the UK each working day, with a PFGHRD installed the savings start the same day.
Recent impartial and robust scientific analyses of temperature proxies, CO2 trends and sunspot activity indicate the popularly-held assumption of a direct link between human activity (heat & CO2 release) is no longer correct. In fact, there is a possibility the globe is heading actually for a sustained period of cooling, not warming. Therefore it would be premature to make policy changes based on the IPCC’s reports.
The Nation-State would be a sight better off if all the plans for the ‘Greening” of Britain were rolled up into a thick tube and set on fire.
The gullible clowns who masquerade as politicians have swallowed the global warming scenario wholesale, and it will surely cost this nation a fortune, without altering the temperature of the planet one iota.
We should be concentrating on the building of nuclear power stations now, and forgetting all about the turbines which only produce power when the wind blows!
Oil is a natural renewable resource. Please read the scientific paper:
http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm.
Basically oil is NOT a fossil fuel. It will replenish naturally, and is a renewable resource. The Russians have known for years – and have even found oil at 13km deep!
We should not worry about wind turbines and wave power, when oil is in plenitful supply. It will be far in the future before oil runs out, and by then we may even have developed microfusion generators!
Quote:
“The results of the theoretical analysis clearly establish that the evolution of the molecular components of natural petroleum occur at depth at least as great as those of the mantle of the Earth, which are represented the thermal and pressure lapse rates in the depths of the Earth.
The theoretical calculations for the evolution of hydrocarbons posited the presence of methane, the genesis of which must itself be demonstrated in the depths of the Earth consistent with the pressures required for the evolution of heavier hydrocarbons. Furthermore, the multicomponent system analyzed theoretically included no oxidizing reagents which would compete with hydrogen for both the carbon and any free hydrogen. The theoretical analysis assumed also the possibility of at least a metastable presence of hydrogen. Therefore, the theoretical results must be considered as the determination of minimum boundary conditions for the genesis of hydrocarbons. In short, the genesis of natural petroleum must occur at depths not less than approximately 100 km, – well into the mantle of the Earth. The experimental observations reported confirm theoretical predictions, and demonstrate how the iron compounds interact under high pressures to reduce water, of which the hydrogen combines with available carbon to produce heavy hydrocarbon compounds.
Notwithstanding the generality and first-principles rigor with which the present theoretical analysis has used, the results of the theoretical analyses here reported are robustly independent of the details of any reasonable mathematical model. The results of this theoretical analysis are strongly consistent with those developed previously by Chekaliuk, Stefanik, and Kenney, using less accurate formal tools. The analysis of the H-C system at high pressures and temperatures has previously been impeded by the absence of reliable equations of state which could describe a chemically-reactive, multicomponent system at densities higher than such of its normal liquid state in ordinary laboratory conditions, and at high temperatures. The first analyses employed the (plainly inadequate) Tait equation; later was used the quantum mechanical Law of Corresponding States; more recently has been applied the single-fluid model of the SPHCT. Nonetheless, all analyses of the chemical stability of the H-C system have shown results which are qualitatively identical and quantitatively very similar: all show that hydrocarbons heavier than methane cannot evolve spontaneously at pressures below 20-30 kbar.
The H-C system does not spontaneously evolve heavy hydrocarbons at pressures less than approximately 30 kbar, even in the most favorable thermodynamic environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth, and at temperatures consistent with that environment.
Significantly, these theoretical results are consistent with, and complement, the analysis of the genesis of the phenomenon of optical activity in abiotic fluids (including natural petroleum) previously reported. In the past, observation of optical activity in natural petroleum had been spuriously claimed as evidence of a biological connection. Resolution of the problem of the intrinsic component of optical activity in natural petroleum has established that the imbalance of enantiomers which produces the effect is simply an inevitable manifestation of the complex behavior of multi-component systems composed of “closely-similar” molecules at high pressures.
In 1951, the Russian geologist Nikolai Kudryavtsev enunciated what has become the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, a fundamental tenet of which is that natural petroleum is a primordial, abiotic material, erupted from great depth. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by many prominent Russian geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers who together developed the extensive body of knowledge which now forms modern petroleum science.
Modern petroleum science has heretofore been a geologists’ theory, supported by many observations, drawn into a comprehensive pattern, and argued by persuasion. By contrast, a physicist’s theory uses only a minimum of data, applies fundamental physical laws, using the formalism of mathematics, and argues by compulsion. The theoretical results here reported, use only the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics, and establish the provenance of modern petroleum science in the rigorous mainstream of modern physics and chemistry. The experimental results here reported, confirm unequivocally those theoretical conclusions, which may now be taken as foundations of the modern theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.”
Local Government Association – from the publication “Kyoto to Kettering – local government’s manifesto for building low carbon communities”.
How do we meet the ambitious national targets to cut carbon emissions and help householders cut their fuel and energy costs?
Many of the most forward thinking councils are leading the way – helping householders cut journey times using public transport and enjoy healthier lifestyles through walking and cycling, promoting new ways of generating energy and by transforming the energy efficiency of our homes, cutting household fuel bills.
This local action is cost-effective, coordinated and comprehensive. It is done with communities, co-ordinated by the councils that they elect and trust, and saves them money. It is built on the day-to-day connections councils have with householders – connections that will be essential as we scale up and replicate this activity across the country.
At the national level, government is putting in place new policies to meet its carbon reduction targets and transform our housing stock. These policies need to be brought together and resources used more effectively.
We are calling on government to do just that and bring together the multiplicity of funding streams to reduce carbon emissions and improve home energy efficiency into a single Fund into which councils , businesses, social enterprises, the third sector and local partners, including Energy Saving Trust Advice Centres, can bid to undertake systematic area-based programmes to cut household fuel bills by £300 per household each year and carbon footprints by 20 per cent.
The challenges are huge. On insulation alone, around 10 million homes still require basic insulation and 7 million hard-to-treat homes will need measures like solid wall insulation. The total cost of the investment required for solid wall insulation alone is estimated at £35 billion. Householders need advice on how to make their homes energy efficient and how to finance the refurbishment. For poorer households, these measures need to be heavily subsidised or provided for free.
Some councils have developed innovative programmes – in Kirklees, 40,000 households will benefit from a free insulation offer, saving each one £300 each and every year off their fuel bills. We need a framework that promotes the development of these schemes.
Councils can deliver:
• economies of scale through area-based programmes that enable installation street by
street;
• community engagement, bringing people together to take action;
• consumer protection, helping people navigate the financial, technical and lifestyle challenges.
Councils are uniquely placed, having a democratic mandate to deliver, and are accountable to and trusted by their householders. Residents will need a clear and trusted package of support – tailored to their needs.
Such large-scale changes must also be delivered in a way that ensures fairness and social equity. To help those suffering fuel poverty, our efforts will need to start with the most vulnerable people in society.
So many voices, so many narrow interest groups crowding to be heard! My two-centworth:
The reasons for reducing our usage of petroleum products are (i) to reduce our dependency upon a substance produced in areas subject to political unrest and uncertainty, and (ii) because we are simply burning an important feedstock for plastics.
Good luck squaring this circle!
I welcome the overall aims and direction of the statement. It is, however, still very focused on the supply side and there is much more than can still be done, cost effectively, on reducing demand through better energy efficiency and demand side management measures. Key areas that would benefit from a renewed Government focus include the tertiary sector (shops, offices and public buildings) and SMEs, where inertia is often a major barrier to taking up initiatives, as well as the terms of typical commercial leases, which provide no incentive to either landlord or tenant to make improvements. More work can also be done on standards and labelling schemes, especially in the area of “brown goods” and in by providing incentives (such as tiered stamp duty rates) for making energy efficiency improvements at the time a property changes occupants, building on the useful work introduced with EPCs. Independent consumer advice about sustainable energy should also continue to be supported.
The Government should also seek to balance investment and incentives in a way that maximises carbon savings, while not penalising long-term or innovative technologies. In particular it should look at the rules around Feed-in tariffs and the (proposed) Renewable Heat Incentive, to ensure that certain technologies are not unduly favoured. It should also seek to apply a long term view to larger scale energy generation, including an appropriate cost of carbon and estimates of decommissioning costs for all technologies, including fossil fuels, nuclear and large scale renewables.
No low carbon future can ignore the effect of transport. It should encourage investment not just into high speed rail but also into improving (and where necessary expanding the capacity) for normal rail, and – in cities – for light rail schemes (modern tramways), including ensuring the best integration of public transport. Cycling and walking schemes should continue to be supported, especially as they often have significant health benefits for participants. Relatively low cost measures include better cycle routes in urban areas and provision of more secure cycle parking facilities at rail stations and in shopping centres. And although electric vehicles are likely to be important in a low carbon Britain, they should not be seen as a panacea, leading to the exclusion of other low carbon modes of transport, although the Government should also look again at some of the side effects of the widespread use of biofuels. Finally, measures need to be taken to discourage the growth of air travel, and consideration given to the way low cost operations have helped cause the loss of ferry services between the UK and Scandinavia, for example.
Ian Byrne is Deputy Director of the National Energy Foundation, but this response is provided in a personal capacity.
Build nuclear power stations NOW! we need power before it runs out, we should at the same time do as much as possible to encourage wind farms, wave power, and every other green power initiative. Give free loans to every household to invest in solar panels for electricity. Make more effort, and use Holland as an example of building a proper cycle networks. Stop councils building shopping centres with out this infrastructure.
I believe that the Feed in Tariffs are the best iniative that we have seen in the UK – folllowing a massively successful programme in other countries such as Germany. The Feed in Tariffs work because they stimulate our natural instincts to act for ourselves rather than relying on government handouts – the mindset with grants.
It is essential in our fight against climate change and to create a green energy industry that we can be proud of – providing thousands of jobs and bringing wealth to the UK – that the government continues with the Feed in Tariffs.
However we also need the recently announced Renewable Heat Incentive – the Feed in Tariff for heat.
Now that the grants are gone we need to continue with the momentum that we have built up!
No mention of the renewable heat incentive which is a little dissapointing and leaves many people who have made the financial commitment to help the government meet its CO2 emission targets deflated, inspite all the build up and hype built around the renewables industry people still lack the confidence in this sector due to continued changes in the way it is regulated although things are starting to move in the right direction due to the Microgeneration Certification Scheme which has been evident in the Solar PV market with the FIT’s, the Renewable Heat Incentive has been left in the dark and this could have very serious repercussions for a lot of companies in an already difficult market which has seen a large decline in its market and will lead to further Job losses within the industry partcularly within the Solar Thermal markets.
Its worth noting that Solar Thermal to generate heat can be applied to a large proportion of housholds in a retro fit situation often upgrading there current water heating to a more efficient system at an affordable cost to the customer who has incidently already insulated the home, changed the light bulbs and turned the stand by off.
Feed back from our customers and another way to encourage people to invest in this market would be interest free loan schemes as a lot of people want to do something but lack the immediate funds.
Unless we have some strong decisive leadership in this sector the market will collapse leading to more job losses and this and any future government will struggle to meet its carbon emission targets.
Prove global warming first.
1. Get rid of the corrupt scientists that manipulate and hide data.
2. Install independent scientists who do not require to prove global warming to keep their jobs.
3. Once we have a theory, test it to check it is correct.
4. Act on the data accordingly.
Global warming is a religion, not science, as can be seen from the way anyone who speaks against it is treated.
I would like to request the transfer of responsibility for energy production in Wales to the Welsh Assembly. Unfortunately energy production over 50MW remains the responsibility of Westminster and many of us here feel that our opinions have been overlooked and disregarded in this area. A good example is the new ‘Wylfa B’ nuclear powerstation on Anglesey which many of us in North Wales oppose but have been ignored. The Welsh Assembly could work more effectively with Westminster in this area if it was able to create policy.
With thanks and appreciation for your interest in public opinion.
Donyatt Village Hall
We have installed 24 PV panels and expect to generate over 4,000 Kwh per annum. In common with many other village halls the array was funded by LCBP Phase 2 and CSEP grants.
While in general terms we are happy with the change from Capital funding to FITS payments, we are dismayed by the way the changeover affects us and other village halls that installedd between 15th July 2009 (the date of the earlier consultation and 1st April 2010 when FITS starts). (We were unaware of the significance of 15th July 2009 until February 2010, so this seems to us, a retrospective decision.) In order to be registered for the FITS rate for installations between 4-10 Kw we must pay back the LCBP grant but to do this we must take out a loan which we cannot do without a written guarantee that we will get the 36.1p tariff. In addition, we are told we may have to repay back the CSEP grant as well. This would be quite impossible and impractical. The FITS payments would only be enough to enable us to pay back LCBP. It is ‘catch 22′.
The other solution would be to allow us to receive the tariff for ‘existing microgenerators transferred from the RO’ without requiring any grant repayment. As things stand we can receive nothing even for our exports, whereas a hall just down the road with the same size installation and the same grants, but installed a few days before 15th July, at least gets the 9p tariff without any repayment of grants. It is unreasonable and an ill thought out system. In Europe, needless to say, they have fair workable procedures to deal with this.
We have appealed to DECC as have our MP, David Laws and ACRE on our behalf, but the responses are inconsistent and show that you do not grasp why we feel unfairly treated. DECC and grant awarding bodies need to get their act together and make it feasible for small organisations like us to be as green as possible.
Finally we have tried several times to send this over the past few days but your site has always been too busy. I hope, therefore, you accept this submission.
The list of policies above is – taken as a whole – frankly terrifying. Not just clueless, but incredibly costly and likely to be the finishing stroke for this country.
I wonder how many of the government ministers pontificating on this matter actually even comprehend the nature of the alarmist case? Many people who adopt a knee-jerk (brainwashed) defense of the alarmist picture do not actually know what the alarmist’s case is.
The theory of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change rests not on levels of man-made CO2 itself, but on the climate’s sensitivity to rapid increases. The alarmists postulate that the climate has “positive feedbacks” that will lead to a “runaway” effect. 1-5 degrees rise in temperature of the 2-6 degrees postulated in the various catastrophe scenarios is directly attributable to these “positive feedbacks”, not to rises in CO2 itself.
So far observations indicate that the climate system is in fact dominated by “negative feedbacks” – meaning, within long cycles of natural variation, the system maintains a relative state of homeostasis. If the system was actually as sensitive as the alarmists claim, it would have destroyed itself thousands of years ago. All it would take is a slight increase in vulcanicity (dumping CO2), or a slight increase in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere (displacing a relatively weak greenhouse gas – CO2, with a much more powerful one – H2O) and that’s it – runaway warming if the alarmists are to be believed.
And this is not to mention much of the other complete nonsense that is peddled by these misanthropic peddlers of fear, such as the idea that a tiny change in the temperature of the atmosphere could drive temperature change in the oceans. Given that a litre of ocean water is approximately 3300 times denser than a litre of air, I’d really like to know what parallel universe physics are at work here, especially given that the oceans take decades to change in temperature and are only sensitive to direct sunlight (and thus, cloud cover, one of the great missing links in climate models, becomes crucial), the oceans are not sensitive to IR radiation reflected back by GHGs.
And whilst so many dupes are completely distracted by this, allowing a number of callous individuals to profit substantially from green taxes, feed in tariffs, carbon taxes and even further restrictions on our liberty, many very real and very serious environmental issues are completely ignored. And as if that were not bad enough, how seriously do you think these issues will be taken in future when the bulk of the population realises they were duped over Anthropogenic Global Warming?