The government's bold commitment to new sources of power is welcome. But we must not botch it this time.
This week, our leaders are expected to commit Britain to a civic overhaul that no other nation has had the courage – or recklessness, depending on your viewpoint – to contemplate. On Tuesday, the cabinet is set to approve measures that will lead to a revolution in power generation, transport, house construction, planning, manufacturing and farming in Britain over the next 20 years. The aim is to mitigate the worst ravages of global warming.
The proposals form the basis of the fourth budget of the Committee on Climate Change and will be presented for cabinet consideration this week so they can be made law by the end of June. Initial hostility from business secretary Vince Cable and from Treasury officials, who fear funds needed for economic recovery are being wasted on projects of no immediate benefit, has been swept aside. Soon, we will be committed to the basic, radical goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to around 390m tonnes a year by 2027.
To put those figures in perspective, current emissions stand at 550m tonnes while subsequent measures could produce even greater reductions – to around 200m – by the middle of the century. Thus the cabinet will trigger moves that will bring about the virtual decarbonisation of our society. The fossil fuels – coal, gas and oil – which powered Britain to industrial and imperial might will be outlawed. In their place, wind farms, nuclear power stations, electric cars and underground dumps of carbon dioxide will provide the bedrock for future economic growth in this country. Britain's basic infrastructure is facing a radical rebuilding.
Other nations have made emission commitments, but most have planned no further than the end of this decade. The Committee on Climate Change's budget takes Britain 10 years further down the line. As its chief executive, David Kennedy, says: "We have moved into uncharted territory and we are going to be watched, carefully, by other countries. No one else has a target like this."
The budget is therefore not just one of domestic importance, it is of international significance. Hence the support of foreign secretary William Hague, who has made plain his backing for the budget. "If our domestic resolve is seen to be weakening, we will lose traction elsewhere," he said last month. But what kind of nation will Britain be once we start investing those billions, raised from taxes and increased electricity costs, in new hardware? How will we move around the country and how will we power our homes and businesses? Very differently, it is clear. According to the committee, by 2027, we should be generating 40% of our electricity from renewable sources (currently only a few per cent) and 40% from nuclear plants (roughly double its present level). The remainder will come from coal, gas and oil plants, with the crucial caveat that most will be connected to carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems that will trap their carbon dioxide emissions and pump them underground for safe storage.
With that kind of kit, Britain can free itself from its dependence on fossil fuels and seriously cut back on harmful heating carbon emissions, says the committee. The obvious point is that most of this hardware does not exist yet. Carbon capture and storage is still only a gleam in the eyes of the odd, enthusiastic geologist, for example. Only one or two pilot plants are in operation at present. This is unproven technology.
Similarly, it is clear that the goal of generating 40% of our electricity from renewables cannot be met through our current obsession with building onshore wind farms. There is not enough land on the British Isles to provide homes for them. We will need other sources of renewable power. Tidal power plants and wave energy generators are two particularly promising candidates, though again the technologies involved are unproved.
And that might seem remiss. Relying on power sources that have still to be developed looks naive, an apparent oversight that will certainly be pounced on by those who deny that fossil fuels are dangerous and that we need to wean ourselves off their use. We are taxing ourselves to sustain an unrealistic ecological dream, they argue.
The argument is disingenuous, however. The very fact that many of these technologies are still in development offers us a key advantage. Over the past four decades, Britain has amassed a great deal of marine engineering experience following the exploitation of North Sea oil, for example. That expertise is precisely the kind needed to build up a strong offshore wind turbine industry in the UK.
The same is true for both tidal and wave power plants. The seas around Britain have some of the strongest tides in the world and are ripe for exploitation. Generating devices are still at a relatively primitive development stage, though plans have been announced for trials of tidal devices in Islay and Orkney. These are reckoned to have considerable promise. They will need careful and costly nurture, however.
The same goes for carbon capture and storage. We not only have North Sea oil experience, we have the depleted gas and oil fields that will make ideal stores for the carbon dioxide we extract from fossil plants. In total, it's quite a package.
The crucial point is that by acting in a timely manner in facing up to climate change, Britain has given itself a chance to take pole position in the development of a range of renewable technologies which could then be sold round the world. For that, the government deserves congratulations. Passing the carbon budget is just the start, however, for it is equally clear that if we want to exploit these opportunities we will need to adopt a far more realistic attitude to the generation of power than we have in the past.
In the 20th century, Britain was given crucial leads that we should have used to build up other types of energy generation. We squandered them instead. Calder Hall, in Cumbria, was the first atom plant to supply power to a national grid, for example. However, development of the next generation of UK nuclear stations – the advanced gas-cooled reactor – was botched. As a result, Britain's tranche of atom plants will be either French or American.
Similarly, we should have taken a lead in wind turbine development, given the gusty meteorological conditions of these islands but again we fluffed the chance. As a result, the wind farms that dot the countryside consist of turbines that are made in Denmark or Germany.
The new carbon budget gives Britain a chance to cut its emissions bill, establish energy security for the nation for the next century – and develop a range of new industries. The last on this list is arguably the most important – and the most vulnerable.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
This week, our leaders are expected to commit Britain to a civic overhaul that no other nation has had the courage – or recklessness, depending on your viewpoint – to contemplate. On Tuesday, the cabinet is set to approve measures that will lead to a revolution in power generation, transport, house construction, planning, manufacturing and farming in Britain over the next 20 years. The aim is to mitigate the worst ravages of global warming.
The proposals form the basis of the fourth budget of the Committee on Climate Change and will be presented for cabinet consideration this week so they can be made law by the end of June. Initial hostility from business secretary Vince Cable and from Treasury officials, who fear funds needed for economic recovery are being wasted on projects of no immediate benefit, has been swept aside. Soon, we will be committed to the basic, radical goal of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to around 390m tonnes a year by 2027.
To put those figures in perspective, current emissions stand at 550m tonnes while subsequent measures could produce even greater reductions – to around 200m – by the middle of the century. Thus the cabinet will trigger moves that will bring about the virtual decarbonisation of our society. The fossil fuels – coal, gas and oil – which powered Britain to industrial and imperial might will be outlawed. In their place, wind farms, nuclear power stations, electric cars and underground dumps of carbon dioxide will provide the bedrock for future economic growth in this country. Britain's basic infrastructure is facing a radical rebuilding.
Other nations have made emission commitments, but most have planned no further than the end of this decade. The Committee on Climate Change's budget takes Britain 10 years further down the line. As its chief executive, David Kennedy, says: "We have moved into uncharted territory and we are going to be watched, carefully, by other countries. No one else has a target like this."
The budget is therefore not just one of domestic importance, it is of international significance. Hence the support of foreign secretary William Hague, who has made plain his backing for the budget. "If our domestic resolve is seen to be weakening, we will lose traction elsewhere," he said last month. But what kind of nation will Britain be once we start investing those billions, raised from taxes and increased electricity costs, in new hardware? How will we move around the country and how will we power our homes and businesses? Very differently, it is clear. According to the committee, by 2027, we should be generating 40% of our electricity from renewable sources (currently only a few per cent) and 40% from nuclear plants (roughly double its present level). The remainder will come from coal, gas and oil plants, with the crucial caveat that most will be connected to carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems that will trap their carbon dioxide emissions and pump them underground for safe storage.
With that kind of kit, Britain can free itself from its dependence on fossil fuels and seriously cut back on harmful heating carbon emissions, says the committee. The obvious point is that most of this hardware does not exist yet. Carbon capture and storage is still only a gleam in the eyes of the odd, enthusiastic geologist, for example. Only one or two pilot plants are in operation at present. This is unproven technology.
Similarly, it is clear that the goal of generating 40% of our electricity from renewables cannot be met through our current obsession with building onshore wind farms. There is not enough land on the British Isles to provide homes for them. We will need other sources of renewable power. Tidal power plants and wave energy generators are two particularly promising candidates, though again the technologies involved are unproved.
And that might seem remiss. Relying on power sources that have still to be developed looks naive, an apparent oversight that will certainly be pounced on by those who deny that fossil fuels are dangerous and that we need to wean ourselves off their use. We are taxing ourselves to sustain an unrealistic ecological dream, they argue.
The argument is disingenuous, however. The very fact that many of these technologies are still in development offers us a key advantage. Over the past four decades, Britain has amassed a great deal of marine engineering experience following the exploitation of North Sea oil, for example. That expertise is precisely the kind needed to build up a strong offshore wind turbine industry in the UK.
The same is true for both tidal and wave power plants. The seas around Britain have some of the strongest tides in the world and are ripe for exploitation. Generating devices are still at a relatively primitive development stage, though plans have been announced for trials of tidal devices in Islay and Orkney. These are reckoned to have considerable promise. They will need careful and costly nurture, however.
The same goes for carbon capture and storage. We not only have North Sea oil experience, we have the depleted gas and oil fields that will make ideal stores for the carbon dioxide we extract from fossil plants. In total, it's quite a package.
The crucial point is that by acting in a timely manner in facing up to climate change, Britain has given itself a chance to take pole position in the development of a range of renewable technologies which could then be sold round the world. For that, the government deserves congratulations. Passing the carbon budget is just the start, however, for it is equally clear that if we want to exploit these opportunities we will need to adopt a far more realistic attitude to the generation of power than we have in the past.
In the 20th century, Britain was given crucial leads that we should have used to build up other types of energy generation. We squandered them instead. Calder Hall, in Cumbria, was the first atom plant to supply power to a national grid, for example. However, development of the next generation of UK nuclear stations – the advanced gas-cooled reactor – was botched. As a result, Britain's tranche of atom plants will be either French or American.
Similarly, we should have taken a lead in wind turbine development, given the gusty meteorological conditions of these islands but again we fluffed the chance. As a result, the wind farms that dot the countryside consist of turbines that are made in Denmark or Germany.
The new carbon budget gives Britain a chance to cut its emissions bill, establish energy security for the nation for the next century – and develop a range of new industries. The last on this list is arguably the most important – and the most vulnerable.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment