Fast forward to the End of the Earth?

I enjoyed reading an article by Martin Wolf in the FT (Wednesday 22/5/2013) entitled 'Climate sceptics have already won'.

Not content with just complaining about it Mr Wolf went so far as to offer a number of solutions with a view to buying time so that humanity can get its act together and so avoid catastrophe.

So far so good.

The solutions proposed were, in a nutshell:

• Tax carbon emissions
• Go nuclear
• Impose really tough emissions standards on cars
• Create secure global trading regime in lower-carbon fuels
• Develop ways to finance technology transfer
• Invest in research
• Invest in adaptation
• Think through geo-engineering.

You can be for or against any of these proposals, each of which has its merits.

Cars makers are already doing a lot to reduce emissions from their vehicles, for example. Geo-engineering seems a bit risky to me. Well-managed nuclear energy goes a long way to decarbonising the economy. Etcetera.

Many, or in fact all of the solutions, involve government action, not just regionally but globally. This is no doubt the greatest obstacle to any meaningful action being possible.

Our governments do not appear to be capable of formulating effective policies liable to affect GHG emissions, let alone habitat loss, mass extinction and other threats to the Earth System, Gaia or however you wish to call or planetary home.

The feeble way in which they are managing the depression/recession illustrates how incapable they seem to be.

The mantra of our leaders sounds like 'markets and the economy cannot be managed or controlled, we are helpless and will just have to wait for growth or whatever to come along'.

Woe betide us if climate change is viewed in the same way.

You can do only so much on a personal level (live an a low energy home, use public transport or stay put, grow your own food, recycle everything, only acquire things which have been recycled, support local businesses and produce etc).

What does it take for a governments to do something similar on a national, regional, global level?

The stark fact remains that it may already be far too late to avoid cataclysmic climate change induced by human activity. The only solution will be the sort of adaptation proposed by James Lovelock in order to preserve what can be preserved.

Things, such as Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets, are moving faster than we can imagine.

Nuclear subs (2)

The recent news (BBC and elsewhere 29th March) that two large energy companies RWE npower and E.ON have withdrawn plans to build new nuclear power stations comes as no surprise. There is not enough money in it for private investors. The enormous risks involved are clearly putting them off.

The only organisation which can possibly undertake this type of very long term nuclear power investment is the state. No private company will ever make sufficient returns for it to be viable for them and they may not be in existence long enough either (some states appear to be a bit shaky too). They will wait until the government decides to make the initial investment and allow them to make the returns from the captive customer base of the energy consumer (similar pattern to the railways, water and even more favourable than the current privatised energy supply industry).

These companies can clearly see more profits and less risk in oil, gas and coal. I would expect that gas obtained via fracking will soon be the next big thing, as this country appear to have large reserves of it. The government appears to be intent on burning fossil fuels for as long as they are available and are offering £1bn to anyone who can come up with a viable carbon capture scheme (3rd April in case you were thinking April Fool)).

There is already a viable carbon capture scheme in existence: is it known as the Earth system, Gaia, Nature or whatever you care to call it. It has been doing this free of charge for billions of years, but we seem to be intent on destroying it.

Nuclear subs

Full marks to Private Eye ( Keeping the lights on - No 1308) for exposing the current administration's total incompetence in all things related to energy, particularly the 'greenest' form of energy, that is, energy saving.

Using analysis carried out by the Association for the Conservation of Energy (ACE) 'Old Sparky' shows how the government prefers to squander money on subsidising PV and nuclear power stations totally ignoring its own data on the cost-effectiveness of conserving energy and the expense of nuclear power. The early promises by this government it would be the 'greenest' ever have not, and never will be, delivered.

It can only be supposed that all this talk was only old flannel designed to woo vaguely environmentally aware voters. A classic greenwash ploy.

Nuclear subs(idies) are revealed to be the leaky buckets they truly are, demanding vast quantities of public funds which disappear into a black hole for no tangible benefit to anyone but the recipients of the said funds.

Wind or Hot Air

Photovoltaic cells top left at our house 

Read an article in the Financial Times weekend edition about electricity generation from wind power and nuclear subsidies, keeping lights on etc. That offshore wind is horrendously expensive to build and unreliable is well known. Of course our government is allowing our beloved power companies to spend vast amounts on this so it must be worthwhile after all. This article was good at condemning this misuse of resources but also breathtakingly absurd because it called for the construction of nuclear power to be subsidised instead, forgetting that it already would be if any private companies could bother to build any plants. However they will never do so because they realise that no subsidy could ever be high enough for them to make money considering the risks involved and the extremely long time they would last. They would much prefer taxpayers to finance all of this construction, safety, de commissioning etc; all they want is to sell us the electricity at inflated prices. Nuclear energy is safe enough, only as long as no one makes a mistake, there are no floods, earthquakes, terrorists etc.

The author chose to ignore completely that the cheapest and most effective way to keep the lights on etc is not to use energy in the first place. He indignantly announces that electricity in Denmark for example is 4 times more expensive than here because of the proportion of renewable energy in it but forgets conveniently that the average new house in Denmark in 1983 was already as efficient as 2002 new build standards in the UK. Builders here will happily state that it is impossible to build a well insulated efficient home for a reasonable price, preferring to use building methods unchanged since the reign of Victoria. If they took the trouble to look at modern construction techniques they might realise buildings could be made many times as energy efficient for little extra cost. Our energy crisis might be solved almost at a stroke, particularly if government committed enough funding along the lines of a Marshall Plan for energy efficiency. The economy would boom while buildings were retrofitted and people would never again die of cold in badly built houses in our relatively mild winters.

Nor do energy companies rejoice in the fact that people who generate their own electricity or use less of it (or less gas or heating oil etc) are less dependent on them and will not be swelling their subsidy gorged coffers. These big companies do not like this and nor do I suspect do our governing classes who would much prefer to see people depending on their chums in finance, energy etc who in turn donate large sums to their parties. There is more hot air in wind power than meets the eye. I would urge people to free themselves from energy tyranny or vote for governments who would make this happen.