You are here: Home » Comment »

The Tories aren’t even pretending to greenwash any more

February 14, 2012 3:31 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

It is amazing that the place where green politics has real publicity at the moment is in the US Republican primaries – and for all the wrong reasons, as the candidates compete with each other in climate change denial-ism. The reasons are understandable – from recession to mis-steps by some climate scientists. But the reason I devoted my FT column yesterday to the issue is that the global imperative to limit emissions has not gone away, and the global economic and social opportunity arising out of low carbon development is massive.

A global legally binding deal to be signed in 2015 is now conceivable thanks to the underreported deal in Durban at the end of last year. This should be a call to arms, not a cause for complacency. In the run-up to the Budget and beyond there is a real opportunity not just to expose the Tories but also to develop our own agenda.

Caroline Flint has been exposing the truth about the Tories’ claim to be the “greenest government ever”. On solar power tariffs, wind energy or the gerrymandering of zero-carbon housing targets, the Tories aren’t even pretending to greenwash any more.

The fundamental problem is the mindset revealed by George Osborne’s assertion to Tory conference: “we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower, but also no faster, than our fellow countries in Europe.”  This is so misguided – because it insists that economic and environmental concerns are traded off against each other, in a zero sum game. Tell that to the first movers in Germany or Denmark who dominate large sections of the wind power market – and whose goods we now import.  Or tell it to the Chinese who now dominate 45% of the world solar market.

Vince Cable has claimed he understands in part the need for a longer-term industrial strategy than the current vision shown by the government. As the pendulum is swinging towards action globally, so we need to do so too.  Ed’s call for ‘responsible capitalism’ has this agenda for the sustainable use of resources at its heart.

Labour Councils can also make a difference – and hopefully a Labour win in London will mean Ken Livingstone can bring his genuine passion on this issue to bear on a national and international scale. And the party can reach out to many who were tempted by the Tories or the Lib Dems and now feel burnt.  There is an important policy agenda here – from new jobs to energy efficiency that cuts energy bills (especially at a time when our energy infrastructure needs upgrading anyway) – and a good political message too.

David Miliband is the Labour MP for South Shields

  • jaime taurosangastre candelas

    What we need is a grown up debate about the long term energy needs of the country, in which every technology from renewables to hydrocarbons to nuclear is given consideration, all as part of a sustainable (as in, we can afford to keep it going, and it works) mix.  That mix can change as well, as technologies mature or resources deplete.

    Instead what we get are a range of short-term thinking mostly focussed on one sector with momentary political sex-appeal, the green sector.  I don’t doubt that we need to get greener, but I do doubt the scare stories sometimes put forward.  The reality is probably less apocalyptic than some forecast, but more urgent than deniers claim.  Like everything in life, it will be complex.

    I believe there will not be intellectual clarity, or disaster on the green front in the next twenty years, because climate does not change that quickly, nor R&D produce mature technologies in such timeframes.  What will happen is that our energy needs incrementally increase, the hydrocarbon resources we draw upon incrementally decrease, and our existing nuclear power stations gradually go offline.  The market reacts in an instant to supply and demand, so you can be sure that hydrocarbon-based energy is not going to get any cheaper.

    The real question is what are we going to do for affordable energy in 10-20 years?  Windmills, solar, biomass, wave etc won’t put out enough.  A few more nuclear stations are probably the most cost-efficient mature technology.  We can look again in 50 years, when renewables may be able to take the load.

    • derek

      @Jaime, I’m opposed to nuclear because of the active waste issue but agree with most other points you make. I’m keen of carbon capture and coal powered stations plus the scientific research into engineered fuels, I’d also like to see us developing appliances that require less energy needs.

      • jaime taurosangastre candelas

        Derek,

        if you’d care to temporarily rejoin the real world, in the absence of nuclear which you dislike, what other sources of energy do you propose for the inconvenient (to the green lobby) period in between now and renewables, clean coal, engineered fuels and so on actually being viable?  You are keen on several things which are not going to solve the looming problem.  So what do you propose?  There’s more global money in R&D into all sorts of technologies than we could afford right now, so saying more R&D is not the answer.  There is not a single green technology, worldwide, that is going to sort out Britain’s mid-term energy needs.

        Of course, if you’d like to pay £2500 a quarter for your electricity bill in ten years from now feel free.  I don’t want to.

        I’m also going to be very interested how your beloved SNP answer this question.  Bullshit figures about Scottish renewables and pie in the sky job and apprentices don’t work.

        • derek

          Mr Map say’s it’s pretty popular even in England? 

          http://www.renewables-map.co.uk/ 

          @Jaime, if your going to be critical, then you must have a clear theory to adhere to? Europe seems to be heading on the renewable path also?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Derek,

            have you noticed, it is not always blowing like a storm?   Wind energy is not guaranteed, there is no cost-effective way to store the energy, and without incentives which are nothing more than a cost, there would be many fewer turbines built.

            I want the country to have a sustainable source of energy.  From my perspective, sustainable means we can afford it.  I see nothing wrong in another generation of nuclear power stations which would take us to 2050.

            You are against nuclear.  Renewables are not enough and are not available all of the time for many technologies (e.g. wind and solar).  What are you in favour of?

          • Anonymous

            Energy storage feels like one of the areas we are failing to really chase up. Hydrogen for example could provide clean transport, if we could find sources of renewables that we could then convert to hydrogen, there are many parts of the world, where solar energy could perform this role, or HEP or many other forms of energy, including wind. The problem with hydrogen is it difficult to store and transport. Fossil fuels and nuclear obviously have the advantage of being about getting the power from a prestored energy form. Nuclear is going to ahve to be the solution because we have just not made enough effort over the last 40 years to sort alternatives out. However it should be seen as s stop gap but not the final solution. The issue of waste being the biggest problem, I’ve just bought ‘Edge of darkness’ on dvd and its all coming back to me!

          • Anonymous

            The issue there is not producing hydrogen, it is producing enough renewable energy.

            We don’t have enough zero-carbon electricity generation to replace existing fossil fuel generation, at current rates of growth it is going to be a long time until we have enough of a surplus to start using it to generate hydrogen.

            Worth bearing in mind that producing hydrogen by electrolysis is not very efficient – you lose energy making hydrogen, then lose energy converting the hydrogen back to something useful – like electricity from fuel cells to drive vehicles.

          • Anonymous

            Agreed. Which is why we should be looking for other storage mediums. Hydrogen seems to be as far as we have got so far. In terms of elec generation my suggestion is that there are parts of the world which could tap into a lot of potential renewable energy sources. It is  getting it to where it is needed that is an issue.

          • derek

            @Jaime 
            , Hydroelectric (kinetic) Tidal, Solar, Wave, Wind, coal (carbon capture)                                                                                   Geothermal energyWhat is geothermal energy?Geothermal energy is the natural heat of the Earth’s crust. The temperature at the Earth’s core is over 70,000�C. The rocks not too far below the surface are also quite hot, perhaps 500�C about 1 km down. 

            In some areas there are ‘hotspots’ where the temperature below the surface is higher. This is usually near where the earth’s tectonic plates meet. The existence of hot springs, geysers and volcanoes point to evidence of hot rocks below the surface.How is geothermal energy collected?

            In some places there are reservoirs of hot water below the surface that can be tapped to provide energy. The water is pumped to the surface and used to heat buildings.Where can geothermal energy be collected?There are not many places that can currently exploit geothermal energy cost effectively. In Tuscany, Italy, a geothermal plant has been operating since the early 1900s. There are also geothermal power stations in the USA, New Zealand and Iceland.

            In Southampton (UK) there is a district heating scheme based on geothermal energy. Hot water is pumped up from about 1,800 metres below ground. The water is about 700�C and is used to heat a number of nearby offices and civic buildings.AdvantagesGeothermal energy will not run out. It is renewable. The running costs can be very low. It can be non-polluting (as in Southampton) and RD, These are my favour energy needs.

          • derek

            May as well fling this in as well. Have you noticed the circular object in the sky!  (moon) (don’t stare to long now! LoL) well it has it’s usefulness.
             . . . , and . . .  . . . ,   what a law eh!!!!!

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Are you seriously suggesting that renewable energy can power the UK, even at current rates of usage?  Or have you been looking at the moon for a little too long?

            Don’t keep parroting and copy pasting bits of greenshine, answer a very specific question.  Can renewables, given current technology, power the UK?  Or do they fall short by 70% at the most optimistic scenario?

          • derek

            It’s definitely a growing industry but it needs more RD and investment, all the evidence from the experts suggest that the potential to create 80% of Scottish needs by renewable is achievable, England, Wales and N.Ireland have the potential onshore and offshore to harness well over 60% of their needs.

            Are you seriously trying to lock horns with me Jaime? Here’s one bull that wont duck under the flag……Now Doctor, calm down, slow breathes and lets try and be scientific about tomorrows energy needs, bearing in mind you need to plan a nuclear plant 15 years in advance and then deal with the time scale for decommissioning?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            “Our ambition extends beyond 2020. Recent independent advice from the
            Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has made clear the long term role for
            renewable energy. The CCC concluded that there is scope for the penetration
            of renewable energy to reach 30 – 45% of all energy consumed in the UK by
            2030.”

            See http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/renewable-energy/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf

            The Government, with all of the scientific advice available to them, do not believe that more than 30-45% of energy needs can be met by renewables before 2030.  What do you propose for the majority of energy needs?

            (If you then look into the small print, those figures are predicated on continuing subsidies. Without those subsidies, the figures will be much lower)

          • derek

            I think you and your government are proposing nuclear energy, without examining the real research and development of renewable’s.

            Here another link for you coolant system.

             http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100470/UK-weather-Severe-drought-blight-Britain-summer-driest-winter-record.html 

            Is the mail right? is the link relevant! yep! for sure it is.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Posting a link to the Daily Mail about rainfall is not really the same as answering a question on what other sources of energy will make up the majority of need, is it Derek?

            I’m not going to respond again if you choose to become trite and irrelevant.

          • derek

            OK then, I’ll leave all our future woes to you and your massive ego and I’ll just Kipp out of here and never the twain shall meet.

        • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

          Don’t forget, there are a lot of long term costs associated with the nuclear industry. 
          Calder Hall opened in 1956, but there’s no chance of waste resulting from its very first watts of electricity being buried before 2040 at the earliest.

          And the later Magnox reactors will not be fully decommissioned until 150 years after they were conceived.

          Given that the energy industry is now privatised; if the costs of nuclear are to be covered then I think you’ll be paying at least £2,500 a quarter for you electricity bill.

          Or are you proposing we raise taxes in order to lavish gigantic subsidies on the energy corporations?

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            That’s why we need a grown up scientifically-driven conversation.  Maybe nuclear is not the best answer with its’ long term decommissioning costs, but what IS the answer?

            There’s 3 sources of energy, all with pros and cons.  Hydrocarbons, renewables and nuclear.  There’s a totally predictable usage forecast.  Renewables with everything in their favour cannot possibly sustain the usage forecast in the next 20 years, not by about 70%.  

            We can reduce consumption through technology and behaviour, but not by 70%.  So, we have a choice.  Hydrocarbons, or nuclear, or both.  Given that hydrocarbons are a depleting resource, is it not wise to look at nuclear?

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            Sorry Jaime, when you wrote: ”I see nothing wrong in another generation of nuclear power stations” I assumed you’d made your mind up.

            Now you’re asking “what IS the answer?” 

            Research is the answer.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Nothing wrong with research.  But current technologies, and their predicted maturities still don’t provide answers to even flat usage demand.  There’s a huge gap between renewables and usage for at least the next 30 years.  How do we fill it?  I’m not necessarily a fan of nuclear, but it is proven technology and available.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            You’ll want to defend the Tories, or excuse their incompetence, but if you want to see how the situation could be addressed in the UK you should check what’s happening in Germany.

            As David says in the above post: “the global economic and social opportunity arising out of low carbon development is massive.”

            Sadly it looks like the anti-industry Tory government will miss the boat. I get the feeling Tory policy is intended to produce a U.K. that resembles a Downton Abbey set populated by a small number of aristocrats and a large number of servile a**-wipers desperate to work for less than the minimum wage.

          • Anonymous

            I think a lot of the environmental solutions are already identified – where research is needed is on how to gain democratic control of government decision making affecting powerful international capitalist interests.

    • Anonymous

      Nuclear power is the answer.  It has been for years, but the last government ducked it and sold off British Westinghouse.

      As for Mr David Miliband, maybe he should be limiting his emissions?

  • Pingback: Don’t let the age of austerity be the age of inaction on climate and resources - David Miliband MP – Official website

  • Anonymous

    I think the worrying thing about Green energy policies is the lack of focus on cost effectiveness.

    The fundamental consideration for any Green investment should be how much carbon dioxide emission can be saved for each £ spent. Government should be directing funding and subsidy support to squeeze every bit of carbon reduction it can get for its £. This is particularly important given that everyone, even those on low incomes are paying for these policies.

    Yet the policies so far have been in the opposite direction, the domestic solar FiT is a great example, paying householders £430/MWh (43p/kWh) which in carbon terms is paying over £800 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved.

    There’s lots of energy reduction, renewable or carbon-free conventional technologies which can reduce emissions at a fraction of the cost per tonne.

    We need a green energy policy where reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the primary focus.

  • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

    Nothing reveals the Tories’ incompetence more than the Osborne’s statement:  “we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower, but also no faster, than our fellow countries in Europe.”

    And thanks to David for pointing this out.

    While countries like Germany meet the energy challenge with an attitude of enterprise and determination Osborne surrenders responsibility and falls before even reaching the initiative hurdle.

    In the whole history of human enterprise I doubt if there’s ever been a more idiotic excuse for inaction.

    Osborne’s last proper job as a towel folder in a department store doesn’t seem to have furnished him with the experience and know-how required for leadership.

  • Pingback: Feet Problems – 9 Tips for Feet Problems

Latest

  • Comment Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    Housing upheaval can be traced back to Thatcher

    By Chris Williamson

    If further evidence was needed that the Government is destroying our communities then it came by the bucket load with proposals to relocate hundreds of housing benefit claimants. Councils across London desperately searched for a solution to the housing benefit cap that made it impossible for some of the capital’s poorest residents to stay in their homes. First we heard of plans to move residents to Darlington, Stoke, Hull and parts of Yorkshire. But the revelation that Westminster Council planned [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The austerity consensus has collapsed

    The austerity consensus has collapsed

    By Owen Jones

    There is no alternative: the only way out of Britain’s current economic plight is massive cuts to public spending. Taxes on the wealthiest must be slashed: they are blocks on aspiration and economically counterproductive. Austerity is the only game in town. Or so we have been told ever since the Coalition was formed in the rose gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. The overwhelming majority of the media has gladly reinforced the Government line, and those voices calling for an [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Should Labour go further on football reform?

    Should Labour go further on football reform?

    By Ben Shave

    “As a party, Labour should take great pride in the fact that we initiated Supporters Direct, but now is the time to go further.” These sentiments, expressed in a recent article for Progress by Steve Rotheram MP, hark back to a time where the landscape was somewhat different for the Labour party, but similar in many ways to that faced by football supporters in 2012. The Football Taskforce was established soon after Labour came to power in 1997, with the [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    Making Labour Policy: Who calls the tune?

    By Ann Black

    Excellent election results and rising polls have brought a mood of unity and created space and time for serious work on policy. Francois Hollande’s victory shows that austerity is not the only option, and Labour must start to develop an alternative agenda, rejecting the Tory politics of resentment and division in favour of policies which are fair, principled and credible: on housing, crime, transport, health, schools, higher education, manufacturing, tax, defence, social care, equality, employment rights and the environment. We [...]

    Read more →
  • News It’s the budget what won it…

    It’s the budget what won it…

    Why did Labour win the 2010 local elections so convincingly? It’s the budget right? This graph of polling from TNS BMRB certainly suggests that. Labour’s slim lead extends rapidly following the budget (highlighted) – and current stands at 12 points (42/30). And as for why Labour did better in 2012 compared to the 2011 elections – just compare May and May 2012. A year is a long time in politics…

    Read more →