healthier, happier and richer

Anyone who cares about the survival of human civilisation should read this book. It is packed with facts and statistics about solutions, and shows that we must stop arguing about which is cheapest or best, because we need all of them.

Last week, I went to Chile to take part in a conference about energy policy – mainly about whether Chile should build nuclear power stations. The current Chilean government has been discussing nuclear energy for the last three years, but has not said yes or no.

The world faces an urgent climate crisis. There is no time to lose. However, the UK general election has produced no winner and, at the time of writing, it is still not clear who will form the next government.

This month, the UK’s energy regulator, the Office of Gas and Electricity markets, has published Project Discovery. This grandiose title accurately reflects the fact that Ofgem has finally ‘discovered’ that its previous approach – leaving as much as possible to the market – has not worked and will not enable the UK to meet the challenges of climate change and energy security, while also protecting consumers.

Last week, I went to Rome to talk to Chicco Testa, who used to be chairman of Enel, Italy’s largest energy utility (and the third largest in Europe). He has now set up an organisation called NewClear to press Italy and other European countries to build new nuclear power stations.

On 9 November Ed Miliband, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, published National Policy Statements outlining the government policy on energy. These are intended as guidance to the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which, from next March, is due to grant or refuse planning permission on major energy and transport infrastructure projects. The statements are good on renewables, nuclear and electricity networks, but less good on coal.

The UK has a new government and the prospects for climate policy are mixed. The promised policies on aviation and coal are stronger than those of the former Labour government. The approach to renewables is similar to that of Labour. However, the approach on nuclear power looks like a recipe for muddle and delay.

The danger of nuclear weapons proliferation is the strongest argument against using nuclear power generation as a low carbon bridge technology.

On Monday, 13 July 2009, Ed Miliband, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, opened the Little Cheyne Court wind farm in Kent. With a capacity of just under 60Mw, this is the largest wind farm in South East England.

Robert Watson, the Chief Scientist at the UK Department of Environment, has been prominent in the media defending climate science. He accepts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was wrong to include, in its Fourth Assessment Report, the prediction that Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. However, he points out that, in other respects, the report was also cautious – some say over-cautious.

On Saturday, I was on a panel at the World Science Festival in New York, with James Hansen of NASA and three others. Hansen’s position on nuclear can be summarised simply: it’s better than coal.

On Saturday, I was in Naples to talk at a seminar on the case for nuclear power. The most striking – and worrying – thing for me was that one of the other speakers argued that nuclear power was desirable, but not for climate reasons.

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.

In November 2009, 3% of OECD electricity was generated by renewables other than hydro. 14% came from hydro. And this was only 17% of what electricity was then used, not total energy used.

Sweden has taken over the six-month presidency of the EU. It was also president when Bush withdrew the US from the Kyoto Protocol and was central in rescuing this treaty. Therefore, the arrival of Swedes is good news for the Copenhagen Conference later this year.

The Saudi Arabian government has announced that it will pursue nuclear and renewable electricity to meet the country’s rising demand for energy, driven by a rapidly expanding population and industrial base, and a growing need for desalinated water. It is not unusual for a government to announce support for nuclear or renewables, but it is quite striking for the country with the world’s largest known oil reserves, and the fifth largest gas reserves, to be planning to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

Opponents of nuclear power often claim that supporting nuclear will inevitably mean that renewables will suffer. However, the evidence from France shows this need not be the case.

Later this week, a new Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, will be inaugurated. The word “Ukraine” means borderland and, to most outsiders, that is exactly how the country is regarded – The place between the EU and Russia or the place through which Russian gas travels to the EU – unless the Russians turn off the taps, as they did in 2006 and 2009. However, it is more important than that, and not only to Ukrainians.

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.

Last night, I went to hear the UK’s shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, give a speech about what a UK Conservative government would do about diplomacy and climate change. This is one of a series of speeches on climate from the shadow cabinet this week, which is encouraging.

The new UK government has now announced its legislative programme for the next 18 months and there is to be another energy bill. This is a good Bill and should be supported. The government has also announced how it will begin to reduce the deficit.

The lack of substantial progress at Copenhagen, though not unexpected, has left many people close to despondency on climate change. There is now a serious danger that they will lose interest. More worrying is the danger that the media will lose interest, leading to politicians doing likewise.

Today, the general election campaign will almost certainly begin formally, though, in practice, it has been well underway all year.

Low carbon energy sources – renewables, CCS and nuclear – all require public financial support. In the UK, the new government has said that there will be no subsidy for new nuclear power stations. Before the general election, the Conservatives said that there would be no subsidy and the Liberal Democrats remain anti-nuclear. Without financial support, no new nuclear stations will be built. Nor will any renewables or CCS – offshore wind and CCS are, in the view of many, going to be even more expensive than nuclear.

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, today gave his pre-budget report to parliament. This included some good climate measures.

Agriculture is only directly responsible for a small percentage of carbon emissions, but it is responsible for a higher percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions due to emissions of methane (particularly from cows) and nitrous oxide (from the use of manure and artificial fertilizers). As far as forests are concerned, as well as being beautiful, vital for biodiversity and home to millions of people, they are crucial carbon sinks.

Our website, Climateanswers.info, is broadly split up into three: technological answers, political answers and behavioural answers.

Why have we done this?

Well, this site is really about actions and not prohibitions – what we can do, rather than just what we shouldn’t. We do not wear hair shirts at Climate Answers and we are born optimists!

The Labour Party came to power in 1997 committed to devolving powers to Scotland and Wales, and re-creating a London-wide government. It was also determined to improve the political situation in Northern Ireland and was willing to use devolution to achieve this. Therefore, the last 12 years have seen considerable change to the constitution of the UK. Climate change was not a driving force behind any of this, but, nevertheless, the new tiers of government have had significant impact on what the UK is doing.

In my opinion, electric vehicles should be strongly supported. Those concerned about climate change too often take an overly anti-car position.

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.

No form of electricity generation is entirely free of carbon emissions. So just how carbon free are the main types?

There are several myths or misunderstandings that have grown up surrounding climate change and renewable energy. Both sides of the debate can be at fault. This article tries to debunk some of nonsense that is often cited as fact.

Climate change is a contentious topic in Canada, largely due to the nation’s long-standing ties to the fossil fuel industry. At the forefront of Canadian discourse on this topic is the Province of Alberta’s famous “dirty” tar sands oil production. This is followed closely by the coal-fired electricity industry. From a high-level perspective, these two well-established, carbon-intensive industries, combined with the provincial and federal governments’ reluctance to limit their emissions in a meaningful way, form the basis upon which Canada has historically failed to engage in climate change discussions and continues to fail to significantly address climate change.

I agree that wind and nuclear energy are not intrinsically opposed to each other. However, France only has wind power because it’s forced to by the European Union.

David Walters

Will it be possible to build all the necessary nuclear power stations in time, what emission savings can be made and will the nuclear industry close them down when and if they are not needed?

Shaun Bernie

Have you ever looked at “alternative” nuclear technologies, for example molten salt reactors (or liquid fluorides as today are termed)?

Allessandro De Maida

How are you going to persuade people like me to accept new nuclear power plants when no-one seems to have a strategy for dealing with the radioactive waste from the old installations?

Caroline Westgate

I am writing a book, with Prashant Vaze and Peter Meyer on the role that local, regional and state governments should play in increasing energy efficiency and promoting low carbon energy. This will be published by Earthscan in 2011.

The ANC government has connected 80% of all South Africans to the electricity grid – one of its greatest successes. However, this mass electrification programme, combined with strong economic growth and rapid industrialisation, meant that demand for power outstripped supply in early 2008.

In my opinion, everyone should support the construction of new nuclear power stations in the UK.

I have spent the last two decades arguing and campaigning against nuclear power, working for NGOS, think tanks and the government. However, the climate crisis is now so great that we must do everything we can – whatever the economic cost – to control it.

Yesterday (9 November 2008), the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, published National Policy Statements (NPS) outlining the government policy on energy. They consist of guidance to the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which, from next March, is due to grant or refuse planning permission on major energy and transport infrastructure projects. The statements are area a mixed bag – good on renewables, nuclear and electricity networks, but less good on coal.