With the UN climate talks in Paris now less than two weeks away, I read with interest the Government’s latest plans, out today, for the UK’s energy future (see here) . The Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd, has announced her intention to close the UK’s coal fire power stations by 2025. This is welcome news and certainly a step in the right direction. Removing this carbon-intensive fuel from our energy mix marks welcome progress towards a low carbon economy. Indeed, supporters of environment and development NGOs (including the RSPB shown below at the London Wave demonstration in 2009) have campaigned tirelessly for an end to coal and we are celebrating the announcement of plans for its demise today.
But do the Government’s new plans go far enough? The RSPB’s major new report published just this week (see Monday's blog) highlights the extent to which Europe's wildlife is already suffering as a result of climate change and how the impacts are expected to intensify over the course of this century. It makes sobering reading and in this context, I believe we need to be going further and faster in the transition away from fossil fuels.
The planned shift from coal to gas announced today does not solve the problem. Instead it locks us in to reliance on another fossil fuel. While gas may be less carbon-intensive than coal, the Government’s independent climate change advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) warn we should not depend on it. The CCC states that there is a potentially important role for gas with carbon capture and storage, if this can be shown to be viable, and a limited role for gas to balance the energy system alongside renewables. However, they warn that, “A second dash for gas, resulting in a higher share of unabated gas in 2030, would neither be economically sensible nor compatible with our legislated carbon budgets” (see here).
If we're to limit climate change to safe levels, Government should re-think current proposals to reduce support for renewable energy. In particular, policies and support for renewable energy that expired or were cut this summer urgently need replacing and renewing. The UK should be increasing support and investment in clean technologies, such as solar panels and onshore wind farms, together with a new package to encourage the uptake of energy-efficiency measures.
The RSPB is acutely aware that while new renewable energy is urgently needed, it must be deployed sustainably and without harm to nature. We are currently developing an important piece of research and analysis to establishing how the UK could roll out the required levels of renewable energy to meet our climate targets in a way that does not damage wildlife. I look forward to telling you more about this exciting new project when it reports next year.
As world leaders gather to agree a new global deal on climate change at the end of this month, the RSPB is calling on the Government to go beyond a shift from coal to gas. We’re calling for much greater support for renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency whilst also seeking the investment to help wildlife adapt to a changing climate. This is what it will take to avert dangerous climate change for the benefit of humankind, the global economy and, of course, wildlife. And this is the strong signal we should be sending to the international climate negotiations in Paris.
If you agree, please do come and make your voice heard by joining me and my RSPB colleagues at the march in Edinburgh on 28 November or in London on 29th November.
Since this blog was posted, I've caught up with Radio 4's 'The Life Scientific' and this week's interview with Paul Younger. He talks about geothermal energy, the need for hydrocarbons to make stuff not just to burn and the qualities of llama poo. It's well-worth listening to: www.bbc.co.uk/.../b06pb54j
I may be cynical but individuals and communities were more likely to profit from solar or wind projects whereas big business will get the profits from gas power stations.
Gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel and 49% of the energy we use is for heat, little of which comes from electricity which to many commentators seems to = energy. This Government (and the coalition) have done a spectacular job in destabilising the future of renewables - personally, I thought the original 46p subsidy for solar was outrageous, but with hindsight looks much more sensible - it had reduced subsidy to only 12p as the industry developed and a further drop to say 8p would have saved more money and allowed further development - to simply cut it off altogether, claiming it is for us, the consumer's, benefit is crazy and does far more damage than the 20,000 jobs it is estimated could go - it should make anyone nervous of investing in any government subsidised renewable. I increasingly feel we are living in the 'lost decade' when we should be taking radical action but in fact are drifting gently backwards, towards the rocks.