What would be the most powerful positive message the European Union could use to promote how low-carbon technologies can improve quality of life?
Our poll last week asked what messages the European Union might put forward to promote the positive side of meeting climate change targets, rather than relying on the ‘gloom and doom’ message of what would happen if businesses and individuals did nothing. The responses seem to indicate that our readers believe that appealing to people’s wallets was likely to be the most effective. A shade over 50 per cent of respondents said that the most powerful message would be that low carbon technologies improve energy efficiency and therefore reduce fuel bills. The next largest group, 25 per cent, said that developing green technologies would create jobs and businesses, while 19 per cent said that people would be swayed by the reduction of pollution and improvement in air quality. The smallest group, just 5 per cent, thought that the health benefits of cycling or walking rather than using cars would be the most powerful positive.
What do you think of these results? Should the EU be looking for positive messages? What else can be done to encourage the development of energy-efficient, non-polluting technologies? Let us know below.
Tax breaks for shale gas? Let me echo the anti-renewables movement. Get rid of the subsidies let them stand on their own feet.
Shale gas would be so expensive and close to using a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil equivalent out of the ground as to not be worth it.
Leave it where it as and treat it as carbon sequestration. Instead invest in renewables which will be our only hope in the future.
We must encourage the development of all UK resources that could be used for electrical generation
But the big issue, is how we apply them on a ” horses for courses” basis
Wind generated electricity for localised manufacturing plants makes more sense than trying to use wind generation for base load demand. Like wise Nuclear generation for bulk power production on a 24/7 annual demand also makes sense.
Shale gas would be best used for local power needs. A synergy that reflects the long history and associations of siting, industrial activity near coal mines, ore sites and water.
Surely, Smart power is about just that.
We must move the power generation issue off personal preferences, to tailoring the solutions to the need.
This makes for the best engineering solutions, resulting the best economic results.
We will run into power shortages if we don’t start building base load stations with base load solutions.
Power cuts are just around the corner in a few years as system control is strangled by lack of resources and choices.
“We must encourage the development of all UK resources that could be used for electrical generation”
I would argue that the list of resources should EXCLUDE shale gas, coal bed methane and underground coal gasification, not to mention imported biomass.
UK reserves of CBM and UCG are much greater than shale gas, but are equally damaging in terms of carbon emissions.
Conversion of coal power stations to biomass is now firmly part of UK energy policy. Such as Drax, Tilbury and Eggborough. About 6GW of generating capacity will be on-line in 2020, consuming around 60million tonnes of imported wood fuel per year, mostly wood pellets from N. and S. America.
Biomass smokestack emissions are at least equal to coal, maybe worse. Proponents will argue that these emissions are ‘biogenic’ and don’t count since they are from recent growth and will be absorbed by future growth of trees. But they still add to atmospheric carbon in teh immediate term – even if they are sequestered by future new growth, that takes years/decades and for the accounting to be correct, the new growth would have to be additional to what would have happened anyway.
To put the 60 million tonnes into context: the UK consumed 52 million tonnes of coal in 2011, 33 million tonnes of which were imported; UK production of crude oil in 2011 was around 50 million tonnes, matching imports; UK consumers purchased 100 million tonnes of food for home consumption in 2011; UK household disposed of 32 million tonnes of waste in 2008.
Burning 60 million tonnes of oven dry wood will put around 110 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually as smokestack emissions, assuming the wood is 50% carbon and all the carbon is converted to CO2. (any Carbon Monoxide that is emitted is soon oxidised in the atmosphere to CO2).
110 million tonnes of CO2 is a huge increment. In 2010 using DECC’s provisional figures at http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/climate_change/1515-statrelease-ghg-emissions-31032011.pdf , the UK total net carbon emissions were 491 million tonnes, and energy supply sector emissions were 191 mt.
Money savings from energy savings would be an excellent message. But then care must be taken by the regulator that the energy companies don’t increase the meter charge to cancel the fuel savings out.
“A shade over 50 per cent of respondents said that the most powerful message would be that low carbon technologies improve energy efficiency and therefore reduce fuel bills.”
Where is the evidence for this belief? And what do they mean by “energy efficiency”. How energy efficient anything is is a simple E(out)/E(in) calculation. Over what system are they measuring this efficiency? The electrical efficiency of my fridge doesn’t change because it’s using wind derived electricity rather than coal-derived. And wind derived is *more* expensive…
Buying equiment that uses less power would help reduce fuel bills, of course.
Did anyone else see the very small item of news 16/10/12 that the British Meterological Office released saying that global temperatures stopped rising in the mid 1990s, according to the latest analysis of the data?
And is this really the third most commented story? with 4 comments?
How about restoring integrity to education? Proponents of a position who financially benefit from instilling ‘fear’ are skewing data and interpretations. The press also is mixing issues. Biomass burning for example ultimately reduces total global warming gas potential by bypassing methane production. And methane is 28X worse than CO2 as a global warming gas.
Personally, with 124 acres of timber, I like having more CO2. I believe the focus should be on reducing the other pollutants: soot, aerosols, CFCs, etc.
Start-building-more-Sizewell-B-type-nuclear-reactors-before-our-lights-go-out.