healthier, happier and richer

It will be cheaper to control climate change than not to control it, as the Stern Review memorably said. However, that does not mean that it will be cheap.

This month, the US Department of Energy has announced a Sustainable Energy Resources for Consumers (SERC) programme. This will offer grants totalling up to $109 million.

The manifestos of the three main UK political parties, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat, all agree that climate change is an extremely serious issue and that tackling it can be done in ways which enhance energy security and strengthen the UK economy.

Burning coal is an extremely damaging way to generate electricity. Coal has a very high carbon content, so is a major source of greenhouse gasses. Burning it also results in pollutants that are directly damaging to human health, such as sulphur dioxide.

On 24 June 2009, the UK government announced that the UK aims to have installed 33Gw of offshore wind by 2020, generating a quarter of the UK electricity needs. But it won’t be cheap.

This morning I attended an event called ‘Ask a Climate Question’ organised by a coalition of environment and development groups. The most striking aspect of the discussion was that, with the exception of nuclear power, there was broad consensus among the four parties.

On Wednesday and Thursday, I attended a conference on renewable energy in Scotland, on the stunningly beautiful island Skye. I talked about how to dispel myths about climate change and renewables.

This week, I attended a conference in Brussels organised by the King Baudouin Foundation. It was about how to control climate change while also increasing social justice. Therefore, the issue of making existing homes more energy efficient was central to the discussion.

Scotland has immense potential to expand renewables, particularly wind and the Scottish National Party (SNP), when it took over the Scottish government in 2007, set a target that half of all Scotland’s electricity should come from renewables by 2020.

The US budget deficit has more than tripled to a record $1.4trn (£877bn, €948bn) in the year to 30 September 2009, due to increased government spending and a big drop in tax revenues. So, how is the US going to pay for a transition to a low-carbon economy?

Coal has a very high carbon content, so is a major source of greenhouse gasses and the economic costs of polluting the atmosphere are not borne by the polluter, In economic jargon, ‘the externalities are not internalised’.

Over six million households in the UK currently need to spend more than 10% of their income on keeping warm – a figure that many predict to increase with the likely rise in fuel price over the next few years.

All three main UK parties take climate seriously and promise to reduce emissions and expand low-carbon energy. They all recognise the energy security and employment benefits. This article includes direct quotations from the relevant parts of the manifestos of the three main parties on general climate policies, covering investment, taxation, land-use planning, adaptation, the EU, the developing world and forests.

All three main UK parties take climate seriously and promise to reduce emissions and expand low-carbon energy. They all recognise the energy security and employment benefits. This article includes quotations from the relevant parts of the manifestos of the three main parties on heat and electricity – energy efficiency, fuel poverty and energy production.