Greening up 25 million homes

[ilikecobwebs]

Have a look at this proposed policy from the Shadow Housing Minister, Grant Shapps....and make of it what you will, but be sure to read the full report. It isnt all roses.
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/11/Conservatives_will_green_up_25_million_homes.aspx
More opportunities for the plastic DG brigade? And other similar? All in the name of fighting mythical global warming.

 

[Moo]

I was dutifully ploughing through the speech and then I hit this bit of purple prose :

Now ... you're gonna love the Green Deal.

I may read the rest of it tomorrow, but right now I'm not in the mood for that sort of patronising codswallop.

 

[Flyfisher]

Call me an old cynic but . . .

Utilities companies... charities... social landlords will improve your home at no cost to you, recouping the money through the difference in energy bills.

If the body that improves your home at no cost to you recoups their money through the lowered energy bills, does that imply that you don't see any savings until they've recouped their money? Isn't this almost the same as splashing out for a new boiler or DG yourself?

* Healthy competition in retro-fits will create 70,000 new jobs and a £2.5bn marketplace.
* Consumers save money.
* And most importantly; 9.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions are avoided.

So everyone gains by improving energy efficiency and lowering bills.

Can a £2.5bn market really be created in which everyone saves money? The money has to come from somewhere; who pays for 70,000 salaries? who pays for all those new windows and boilers and insulation? If it comes from the money saved on energy bills then we're not really saving any money are we?

This type of scheme - which allows the work to be paid for from energy bill savings - is a no-brainer.

Quite possibly. :roll:

I wonder how the utility companies will react as their income falls but their costs remain the same? Anyone care to guess which way energy costs are going to move once we all start using less? I reckon we'll end up paying much the same as ever, we'll just be using less energy. That may be a good thing for the environment, of course, but it's not really a way to save money.

There's nothing to pay, now or even later. Your home will be retrofitted and all you'll notice is that it costs you less to heat and power it.

What's that old saying about things sounding too good to be true?

I reckon we'll read a lot of this sort of guff during the 'Copenhagen season'.

Anyway, I've got a better idea to save energy - scrap public transport and make everyone drive private cars. Think of all the money and energy to be saved by not maintaining all that public transport infrastructure, plus it would re-vitalise the car industry at a stroke. Genius. :wink:
But don't take my word for it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/why_cars_are_greener_than_buses.html

 

[biffvernon]

Have a look at

If you want to see what a politician thinks, this speech from Ed Miliband at the LSE is much more interesting. All in all I think it a very important speech: http://is.gd/50tPV One doesn't often find a serving senior politician actually telling us what we need to hear rather than what we want to here.

 

[biffvernon]

Meanwhile, Greg Clar MP for Tonbridge and Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary said that "immediate action" was required to cut fuel bills, create jobs, make Britain an industrial leader again and safeguard our planet by cutting CO2.
Under Conservative plans:
We will immediately authorise 5 GW of clean coal capacity.
We will publish the planning guidance essential for new nuclear power.
We will mandate the National Grid to extend its network out to sea.
We will build marine energy parks, to be world centres in harnessing the power of the sea.
We will provide incentives for biodigestion in towns and on farms.
We will allow communities that choose to host onshore wind farms to keep all of the business rates they generate for six years.
We will upgrade our 50 year old national grid into a smart grid for the 21st Century.
We will make sure that every electric car has an overnight charging point.
We will require every bill to disclose the cheapest possible tariff and how to move it.
We will replace electricity and gas meters with smart meters.
We will require complete transparency in wholesale and retail energy prices.
And we will give every household in Britain a Green Deal, the right to have any efficiency works that will save money on the bill, without delay.

(source:http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2009/10/A_21st_Century_policy_for_energy_and_climate_change.aspx)
So there you have it - top of the Tories list is immediate 5GW from coal. They just don't get it.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not sure he told us very much though, just that there will be a lot of hard choices but without really going into the consequences. I liked the bit about the 'Make Poverty History' campaign though. With Brown on the way out I guess he doesn't feel the need to be quite so reticent about some obvious truths anymore.

I'm also a bit wary about the new 'trick' of solving problems through legislation; "That is why we have legislated for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050". How, exactly is this going to work? Will I be able to sue the government if they 'break' this new law and fail to hit the target? Why not go the whole hog and legislate for against global warming altogether? I don't really want to belittle the underlying issues, but I do wonder how such things are received across the population.

As for "5GW from coal", I think you missed out the word "clean". I realise you're sceptical about such technology but I suggest we all start praying it can be made to deliver because there is no way that any government is going to let the lights go out while we're sitting on enough coal to keep us going for a few hundred years. Not only is energy supply going to become a big issue but energy security will even bigger. Our coal reserves will become a national defence issue in the face of being otherwise dependent on potentially unstable international supplies of oil and gas.

 

[biffvernon]

There is no 'clean' in 'coal'. Oxymoron. Carbon capture and storage is never going to make more than a marginal difference.

We are not 'sitting on enough coal to keep us going for a few hundred years'. Peak coal follows hard on peak gas and oil. Either we learn to use less electricity or the lights go out (which teaches us to use less the hard way). Whatever the government might wish.

 

[Flyfisher]

http://www.ukcoal.com/coal-around-the-world states there is enough coal globally for 200 years. UK mining reserves are good for 20 years, although new technologies such as underground coal gasification can extract energy from previously un-mineable reserves, giving the potential for 200 years energy supply at the 2006 consumption rate, according to a 2002 british Geological Survey study. http://www.coal.gov.uk/media/860AD/Response%20to%20Energy%20Review%20-%20Appendix%202.pdf

BCG Energy Ltd have started a project to exploit this technology after being granted a Government licence in Scotland earlier this year. They estimate the UK potential to be 300 years.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Just heard Melanie Phillips on Question Time state that there is no evidence at all for global warming. The world is getting colder, and the ice is increasing along with polar bear populations. The usual Daily Mail standards of accuracy. Perhaps more worrying is the lack of interest in this topic amongst the young people I have the pleasure of working with. Global warming is the theme for newspaper articles which need to be studied for their mock exams, and I have had to start by explaining the meaning of terms such as climate change, to even larger yawns than usual.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I saw QT and thought it very indicative of the real problem; not climate change itself but getting the public to accept it. Regardless of any scientific evidence, the fact remains that the climate change message is not getting across. At least David Davies had the sense to state how stupid it is to say the scientific debate is over - but even if it was, the audience response to Melanie Phillips' rather surprising assessment of climate change suggests that the public debate is far from over, indeed it may hardly have begun given the apparent cynicism about the whole thing. And, of course, the UEA email saga is a gift to the sceptics.

 

[biffvernon]

I had never heard of Melanie Philipps, but it only took a couple of mouse clicks to learn all I need. She is one of the people who is actively endangering the existence of most life forms on the planet. Unfortunately that is not an indictable crime.

>David Davies had the sense to state how stupid it is to say the scientific debate is over
That's not sense. What he is referring to is the arguement between science and non-science.

There is no scientific evidence that god exists, yet billion of peopel believe in god, albeit not all the same god. This is mostly harmless as belief in god has done no more harm than triggered major wars and genocide. It has not threatened the survival of the species. Belief that AGW is not real does just that.

Daily Mail

The tweets on Melanie Phillips are, er, entertaining: http://twitter.com/search?q=melanie phillips#search?q=melanie phillips

 

[Flyfisher]

You may be missing my point Biff. I'm not supporting the views expressed on QT, I'm saying it showed how the climate change message is not being taken seriously by the general public. The message is not getting across. You can ridicule the likes of Melanie Phillips all you like but she represents your real challenge.

There is no scientific evidence that god exists, yet billion of peopel believe in god, albeit not all the same god.

Then, presumably, you must understand humanity's general scepticism of science compared with the power of faith. The corollary of your statement is that there is scientific evidence that AGW exists, yet billions of people do not believe it.

Thus, facts are not the issue and would seem to be of little use in the climate change debate. Milliband hinted at the same thing in that speech you linked to when he referred to needing to change the politics of now. I reckon changing politics or views about AGW is probably more difficult than tackling AGW itself. Scientists may be frustrated with irrationality but they need to recognise and deal with it if they wish to make their work count, not just rubbish anyone who won't believe them.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Perhaps more worrying is the lack of interest in this topic amongst the young people I have the pleasure of working with.

Not true of all young people. My 14 year old follows my wife and me round the house turning off lights and turning down thermostats. He also reads the gas and electricity meters every week, converts the readings into kg of CO2, plots them on a graph and ticks us off when the trend is in the wrong direction.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Perhaps more worrying is the lack of interest in this topic amongst the young people I have the pleasure of working with.

Not true of all young people. My 14 year old follows my wife and me round the house turning off lights and turning down thermostats (to the fury of wife who was brought up in Bombay and feels the cold). He also reads the gas and electricity meters every week, converts the readings into kg of CO2, plots them on a graph and ticks us off when the trend is in the wrong direction.

 

[Flyfisher]

Here's an taster for all the forthcoming Copenhagen spin:

"China has unveiled its first firm target for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, two weeks before a global summit on climate change in Copenhagen."

At last. The world's biggest polluter is finally onboard so we can all relax. We're saved.

Er, except that 'limiting' actually means 'still increasing for the next 20 years'.

'Carbon Intensity' is the new buzz phrase and relates carbon output to GDP. So, a rapidly growing Chinese economy can significantly reduce its 'carbon intensity' (almost halving it by 2020) - complete with reassuring, 'easy to understand' graphics - without hindering its continued economic growth, which remains the continued aspiration of all governments. It's just like buying a more efficient car that does twice the mpg as the old one, but then driving four times further each year, comfortable in the knowledge that you're driving a more efficient car.

So, cue the photographs of massed, smiling politicians at the end of the Copenhagen love-in complete with graphics showing a reassuring downward trend and claiming Copenhagen to be a complete success - just like Kyoto and the 13 other similar conferences.

Meanwhile, actual carbon emissions will continue to rise. I hope the planet understands that the continued increase in carbon emissions is actually a reduction in carbon intensity and gives us all a break.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8380106.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/11/a_fair_bit_of_the.html

 

[biffvernon]

Thus, facts are not the issue and would seem to be of little use in the climate change debate. Milliband hinted at the same thing in that speech you linked to when he referred to needing to change the politics of now. I reckon changing politics or views about AGW is probably more difficult than tackling AGW itself.

Exactly so.
So we need to ignore Melanie Phillips and her ilk and get on with tackling AGW itself. It's just that vast numbers of people's opinions have to be overidden, which is a political problem in a democracy.

 

[christianb]

David Davies was right to promote the continuation of research on QT. After all, mankind is busy, busy throwing all sorts of pollutants hither and thither and yet the earth's surface temperature is actually either cooling ot flatlining.

That's what you call a BIG paradox.

 

[biffvernon]

the earth's surface temperature is actually either cooling ot flatlining.

No it isn't. That is not true. It is a lie. It is a dangerous lie. It has to be challenged on every occassion. The people who repeat it must realize that the are putting our survival in jepordy.

christianb, please read The Copenhagen Diagnosis before responding. It was published earlier this week, just a few days ago. It was written by twenty six of the world's leading climate scienists, all of whom contributed to IPPC AR4 published two years ago. This document is the most up to date summation of the state of the science.

Also pubished this week is this joint statement from the Met Office, Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society. It is signed off by Prof. Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist, Met Office
Prof. Alan Thorpe, Chief Executive, Natural Environment Research Council and Lord Rees, President, the Royal Society.

You don't have to take my word for it, but it would save you the trouble if you did.

 

[christianb]

Lower troposphere global temperatures have followed a slight cooling trend since the middle part of this decade. Fact.

Both North America and China have experienced lower than average winter tempertaures over recent years. Fact.

 

[biffvernon]

Lower troposphere global temperatures have followed a slight cooling trend since the middle part of this decade. Fact.

My back garden temperatures have followed a slight coolng trend since the middle part of August. Fact. And about as significant.

Go learn some science or shut up.