We're in the middle of a severe financial crisis and a full blown recession; people are fearful about their jobs and what's around the corner. Green issues are not exactly high on most people's list. So, I think the budget was rather good for green issues. The Greens will disagree, but that's why I vote for them: we need radicals to help change the world.
Lets get a few things straight from the ludicrous hype about the budget. First, debt: we're in so much debt that the government bonds are going to be downgraded and how will we pay for it? First of all, the size of national debt is less than Japan (who have borrowed the equivalent of 171% of their economy); Italy (113%); France (72.5%); and, Germany (64%). It will grow, but will STILL be less than those countries and there is unlikely to be a downgrading of our credit rating! Secondly, tax rates. 50% top rate of tax is not unusual or that high; in fact, the tax burden (the amount of tax paid as % of the economy) will still be LESS than under the tax cuttin' govt spending hatin' Thatcher governments of the 1980s. Anyway, how many people earn over £150,000? Less than 2%. What's the average household income? Around £20,000. Lets get a sense of perspective.
Given the financial mess, the fear was no money or initiatives for low carbon. In fact, there were some significant gains: support for the wind industry; a reversal on policy re: coal fired stations; and, a carbon budget where cuts in emissions were announced. Even the scrappage scheme has some merit as newer cars do emit less CO2and despite what critics say, most of the life cycle emissions of cars come from driving not manufacturing.
OK, it's not enough. Consider South Korea: 81% of it's stimulus package is geared to reducing carbon emissions. But, look closely and you'll find eco groups complaining it's all spin and not enough substance. We need our Monbiots, Goodalls and Green Party to pull us away from complacency, but sometimes we need to look at has happened and give credit where it's due.
Sunday 26 April 2009
Thursday 16 April 2009
Electric Dreams
Sometimes you get gloomy when studying this Carbon MBA. How on earth are we going to meet these emissions reductions? But, then you get this government initiative on electric cars: here's 5K - go buy one. Has the government finally got it or is this another cynical gimmick?
Transport is the largest user of energy and accounts for 36% of our primary energy. According to zerocarbon britain, if all transport was replaced by electric vehicles this would amount to a reduction of energy usage in personal road transport by 87% if there are no extra cars on the road and we travel the same distance in our cars.
Well, the first thing to remember is that electric cars are not low carbon; they are lower carbon than petrol cars, but the electricity will ultimately come from power stations. Given that renewables will only account for 40% of our energy needs by 2050 and if you want no nuclear and you are unsure about the unproven carbon capture and storage, then that means up to 50% fossil fuels resulting in CO2 emissions.
Electric cars are more energy efficient - they have less moving parts than non-electric cars making them more reliable, and they use less energy for longer distances. The problem is that we don't enough charging points or much choice of cars. We do have one charging point in Norwich at Chaperfield car park, but have you ever seen an electric car in the city?
There are alternatives. We could ration cars or car use - in Paris they have banned SUVs and many cities only allow you to use your cars on alternate days. Bio-fuels are touted as another solution, but if the fuel is produced in Indonesia chopping down rain forests then shipped to the UK, emissions aren't reduced at all. Interestingly, some argue that increasing investment in public transport is another red herring. In the Netherlands, where there is a superb transport network - trams, buses and trains all integrated and run on time - the Dutch actually use their cars more. I didn't believe it either.
Electric cars are the solution and we need the government to push the development of charging points across the country and to offer more than £250million. Will they do it?
Transport is the largest user of energy and accounts for 36% of our primary energy. According to zerocarbon britain, if all transport was replaced by electric vehicles this would amount to a reduction of energy usage in personal road transport by 87% if there are no extra cars on the road and we travel the same distance in our cars.
Well, the first thing to remember is that electric cars are not low carbon; they are lower carbon than petrol cars, but the electricity will ultimately come from power stations. Given that renewables will only account for 40% of our energy needs by 2050 and if you want no nuclear and you are unsure about the unproven carbon capture and storage, then that means up to 50% fossil fuels resulting in CO2 emissions.
Electric cars are more energy efficient - they have less moving parts than non-electric cars making them more reliable, and they use less energy for longer distances. The problem is that we don't enough charging points or much choice of cars. We do have one charging point in Norwich at Chaperfield car park, but have you ever seen an electric car in the city?
There are alternatives. We could ration cars or car use - in Paris they have banned SUVs and many cities only allow you to use your cars on alternate days. Bio-fuels are touted as another solution, but if the fuel is produced in Indonesia chopping down rain forests then shipped to the UK, emissions aren't reduced at all. Interestingly, some argue that increasing investment in public transport is another red herring. In the Netherlands, where there is a superb transport network - trams, buses and trains all integrated and run on time - the Dutch actually use their cars more. I didn't believe it either.
Electric cars are the solution and we need the government to push the development of charging points across the country and to offer more than £250million. Will they do it?
Thursday 9 April 2009
Is it possible to get an 80% cut in emissions?
One of the questions I wanted to answer was how renewables could meet our energy demand. Last week our class had to complete a report on energy demand for the UK.
One scenario envisaged restricted government expenditure on renewables combined with reductions in demand for energy whereas the other assumed a large increase in government expenditure in renewables, but with no restrictions in demand.
Combined Heat and Power (not strictly renewable, but an alternative energy source that captures the heat from power stations and uses it to warm our homes) Biomass (the burning of biofuels), Wind and Tidal were considered to have the greatest energy output for the least cost and the lowest emissions. Our report assumed the continued decommissioning of nuclear power, but, perhaps surprisingly, that fossil fuels will still contribute at least half of the UK’s energy requirements by 2030. Renewables and alternative energy would contribute about 40% of energy requirements by 2030. This is compared to 5% right now.
The bad news is that unless there is a significant change in policy we will miss the 2020 CO2 emissions target of a 26% reduction set by the Climate Change Act 2008. The good news is that the 2050 target of a decrease of 80% will be met. So what does this mean in real life? Well, it depends in part on your faith in people, governments and markets. If the private sector does not sharply increase investment in renewable energy, then the public will have to cut their demand for energy by a lot. That means reducing air travel, use cars less and improving energy efficiency at home. Alternatively, the government could spend billions on renewables - that means higher taxes, but you might be able to fly and drive a lot more if you have the money.
Either way: a reduction in energy demand or an increase in government expenditure on renewables we will have to pay. The alternative is faith in the unproven Carbon Capture and Storage or in the unpalatable Nuclear option. Give me wind any day...
One scenario envisaged restricted government expenditure on renewables combined with reductions in demand for energy whereas the other assumed a large increase in government expenditure in renewables, but with no restrictions in demand.
Combined Heat and Power (not strictly renewable, but an alternative energy source that captures the heat from power stations and uses it to warm our homes) Biomass (the burning of biofuels), Wind and Tidal were considered to have the greatest energy output for the least cost and the lowest emissions. Our report assumed the continued decommissioning of nuclear power, but, perhaps surprisingly, that fossil fuels will still contribute at least half of the UK’s energy requirements by 2030. Renewables and alternative energy would contribute about 40% of energy requirements by 2030. This is compared to 5% right now.
The bad news is that unless there is a significant change in policy we will miss the 2020 CO2 emissions target of a 26% reduction set by the Climate Change Act 2008. The good news is that the 2050 target of a decrease of 80% will be met. So what does this mean in real life? Well, it depends in part on your faith in people, governments and markets. If the private sector does not sharply increase investment in renewable energy, then the public will have to cut their demand for energy by a lot. That means reducing air travel, use cars less and improving energy efficiency at home. Alternatively, the government could spend billions on renewables - that means higher taxes, but you might be able to fly and drive a lot more if you have the money.
Either way: a reduction in energy demand or an increase in government expenditure on renewables we will have to pay. The alternative is faith in the unproven Carbon Capture and Storage or in the unpalatable Nuclear option. Give me wind any day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
