Letters - 05 April 2013
From decarbonisation to Alice Wheeler
Decarbonisation targets
As someone who works in the electricity industry, I am concerned about unquestioning support for the 2030 target proposed by Tim Yeo and backed by Quakers (8 March).
There are numerous dimensions to consider: sectoral, geographical, emissions level, timing. The idea that we decarbonise electricity initially and transport and heating can follow later is unsound: we should address CO2 emissions throughout the economy, otherwise we risk unnecessary delay and expense. There are unintended consequences in ‘going it alone’, the best known being ‘carbon leakage’ to other countries. It is questionable whether 50g of CO2 per kWh is the right level: I know from advising the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) that they assume 20-30 GW of new nuclear (are Friends happy about that?), which is likely to be much more expensive than their estimates. Is now the right time to be spending large sums on nuclear, offshore wind, back-up capacity and the grid, given the parlous state of the UK economy?
The suggestion that we boost the economy with ‘green jobs’ finds few friends when push comes to shove. Throughout Europe, governments are now cutting support for renewables because of the high costs and concerns about budget deficits. And the claim that green energy reduces fuel poverty is unjustified and far from obvious. Quakers should admit that renewable energy requires support and lifestyle trade-offs may be inevitable.
The ‘broad alliance’ in favour of this target includes myriad vested interests. It is safer to champion broad social policy than to pick a fight on the specific details of proposed legislation.
Andrew Nind
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.