Jo Abbess » Cost Effective

Carbon Detox 2012

Jo — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:02:12 +0000

PRESS RELEASE

Carbon Detox 2012 : Shed Unwanted Pounds With Our Unique Formulation

George Marshall, well-known sustainable living guru, will be asking us to challenge ourselves, our routines and bad habits, and make a 2012 all-year resolution to shed the excess carbon from our lives.

On 21st January 2012 at a convenient central London location, he will ask us to take action to get control of our personal energy, and add vitality to our lives with new aims and goals.

The aim of the event is to help us acquire the psychological tools we need to lead slimmer, healthier and more ethically satisfying lifestyles.

Speaking from the experience gained from his decades of research and practice in the field, and giving tips and tricks from his bestseller “Carbon Detox“, George will be guiding us expertly through the carbon counting maze.

One of our leaner life activities group said : “Cutting down has been hard work, but has become much more fun now I am involved in my local group. I am looking forward to meeting my buddies on Saturday.”

Tony Emerson, the coordinator for the ecocell 2 programme said : “In three years our household has managed to halve the amount of greenhouse gases we produce – by topping up loft insulation, converting to double glazing, installing a wood stove and learning how to best use it, new heavier curtains, wall insulation, changing to a green electricity supplier, continued monitoring of timings and temperature of the central heating – and of course taking part in the ecocell 2 programme. However we still have further to go and I am looking forward to hear what George Marshall has to say. One way we are encouraging people in ecocell 2 is to have a buddy system, whereby people pair up, or group up, by phone, so that people with similar houses can support each other.”

To register for this free, all day event, including a selection of facilitated workshops and to receive your take-home worksheet pack, please email Tony at ecocell@christian-ecology.org.uk

For photographs of the day’s events, and feedback from the workshops, please contact Jo on 0845 45 98 46 0

ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

a. Climate change activist and author George Marshall will be addressing green Christians during an all-day conference on Saturday 21st January 2012 in Central London.

b. The Christian Ecology Link ecocell project team will facilitate workshops on “living the truly sustainable life” at the Magdalen Centre, St Mary’s Church, Eversholt Street near Euston train station between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm [1]

c. George Marshall, author of the easy-to-read book “Carbon Detox : Your step-by-step guide to getting real about climate change” will be offering his fact-packed and lighthearted insights into action on climate change, drawn from his experience of over a decade of community and policy work. [2]

d. The event will be suitable for anybody already taking part in the ecocell project, or anybody interested in starting. The workshops on the day will be pitched at several levels.

e. The ecocell-1 workshop group will look at the introductory programme to help your family or church group take their first steps to reducing their impact on the environment. [3]

f. The ecocell-2 workshop will look at the more in-depth project, to provide mutual support for those who want to reduce their carbon emissions to sustainable levels within five years. [4]

REFERENCES

[1] The Magdalen Centre, St Mary’s Church, Eversholt Street, London NW1 1BN is located about 7 minutes’ walk north of Euston train station.

[2] http://www.carbondetox.org/

[3] http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell
http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell/ecocell-1

[4] http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell
http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell/ecocell-2
http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/ecocell/ecocell2-materials

[5] http://www.greenchristian.org.uk/archives/1537
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/ecocell-day-21-jan-2012.htm

CONTACT

For details of Christian Ecology Link, please phone Jo on 0845 45 98 46 0 or email info@christian-ecology.org.uk

Wind Powers #1 : Civitas Fictitious ?

Jo — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:14:40 +0000

[ An extract from the online Christian Ecology Link discussion forum : 11th January 2012 ]

The Civitas report on wind farms.

A couple of days ago, Civitas published a report entitled, “Electricity costs: the folly of wind-power” : http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prleaelectricityprices.htm [ Download report PDF ]

This report was produced by the Civitas economist, Ruth Lea. The report attracted a fair bit of publicity and even more antagonism from those within the renewables industry. Sadly, as usual the media have done rather less research than they should have; in particular they failed to check the background of the authorities quoted, though the Guardian did point to Lea’s views on climate change.

The following YouTube link leads to Ruth Lea denying the significance of anthropogenic climate change and the ‘flaws’ in Britain’s expensive climate change legislation. She uses all the same sad old errors and, in so doing, limits her credibility as an effective researcher : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvmgUYGgqwU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcFfxUIRbyo

Her comments seem to be straight out of the Chicago School mythology that economics overrides nature – the view of many scientifically illiterates.

But it gets better, she quotes, as an authority, Dr Kees le Pair, but fails to mention that he is a member of the ‘Committee of Recommendation’ of the Fusion Energy Foundation. The development of nuclear fusion, if it happens, will require very significant investment, investment that could, perhaps, otherwise be made in wind farms and other renewables so there is an important conflict of interest that has been wholly ignored : http://www.fusionenergyfoundation.org/about-us

This matters to all of us because it shows the dangerous level of uncritical evaluation that is made of so called scientific reports and information sources. I still remember the days past when research involved trips to libraries and hours of reading and, unless, the library had an academic connection, new information would not have been easily available.

Perhaps it was the more difficult nature of research that made the media, and much of its audience, that much more careful. The advent of the Internet has provided for rapid transmission of information, straight to your computer or even your smartphone, but apparently at the cost of critical evaluation. So much information is available that even report writers seem to fail to check the background of their sources or the veracity of the information given by that source. Yet, that same Internet provides the means of checking and it’s far less tedious than back in the days of library visits.

Careful use of a search engine can throw up evidence of partiality and YouTube can often confirm background beliefs that have overridden scientific evidence if not common sense. It’s not just
in reports such as this one from Civitas but also within so many anti this, that and the other environmental groups that plague the Internet.

Look carefully at Occupy, for example, and dig deeply enough, you will find some truly amazing YouTube material on the way in which the City of London is a part of worldwide Zionism that is somehow linked with the Vatican and Knights Templar ! Did you know that the Bank of England is owned by the Rothschilds ? The Internet, as well as giving freer voice to information also gives voice to conspiracy theorists and to the murk of prejudice. Just as it is both wrong and dangerous to spread unfounded rumours so it is to spread disinformation, so please use your search engine, take a little time and then critically assess whether this information that you have been given is likely to be both accurate and honest.

Biomassacre : Agrofuels Aggro

Jo — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:56:56 +0000

Stop Biomassacre Subsidies from You and I Films on Vimeo.

The UK Government has a neat plan – meet a considerable proportion of the nation’s electricity needs by burning biomass and biofuels : wood, waste wood, agricultural residues, palm oil, maize ethanol and such-like.

They are even considering setting up a generous subsidy, the kind of subsidy that would encourage massive imports of biomass and bioliquids.

Without care and regulatory checks and balances, the net effect will almost certainly be rainforest deforestation, land grabbing in under-developed nations, and economic problems for the growing biomass heat movement in the UK.

Most people probably think burning wood, wood waste and plant-derived fuels to make power sounds like a good energy idea – stop burning coal and start burning trees – has to be better for the planet, surely ?

There are a number of really deep problems with this agenda. Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch told me this weekend that burning biomass for electricity generation is incredibly inefficient.

She said the UK Government has apparently heard concerns about the burning of bioliquids such as the biofuel bioethanol for power generation, and it shouldn’t be included in the subsidy arrangement.

However, biomass-fired power generation is still set to receive support – although it is still being depicted as making use of agroforestry residues, and all sourced within the country – judging by a recent permission for a biomass burning plant in Yorkshire.

Generous subsidies for burning biofuels to generate electricity will encourage the combustion of food-quality oils, imported from across the world, exacerbating the existing problems with the destruction of tropical rainforest for commercial gain.

Offering significant subsidies for burning biomass for power generation will most probably trigger further logging of virgin rainforest, as it would be cheap to produce and export to Britain.

Even if biomass were sourced in the United Kingdom – with restrictions on imports from areas of the world where there is extensive land grabbing and deforestation occurring – the subsidy would encourage the burning of wood products for generating power instead of being used in the most efficient way – to heat homes.

Almuth Ernsting said, “the big energy companies are going to burn that much wood, small heat providers won’t be able to compete.” The same would be true of street-scale biomass combined heat and power (CHP) proposals.

Almuth Ernsting and others have pointed out that the UK Government public consultation on the subsidy ends on 12th January 2012, but that even after that date, people are being encouraged to write to their Member of Parliament to express views.

Another group, nope, is also calling for citizen action :-

http://nope.org.uk/

In an e-mail to joabbess.com, Almuth Ernsting offered extra resources :-

“All the materials related to our campaign against subsidies for biomass and biofuel electricity can be found here :-”

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/uk-campaign/rocs_overview/”

“A briefing about the impacts of ROCs for biomass, biofuels and waste incineration :-”
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2011/rocs_impacts/

“A briefing to hand or send to MPs :-”
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2011/rocs_mps/

“A guide to lobbying MPs on this :-” http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2011/mp_guidance_rocs/

“We have got two email alerts on one page just now (http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2011/rocs-alerts/), though we will take down the one to respond to the DECC Consultation when that closes next Thursday, while keeping the one to MPs. However, we very much encourage people to write personal letters or, even better, visit their MPs, which will have much more impact than taking part in a standard email alert.”

Eco-Socialism #1 : Public Service, Private Profit

Jo — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 13:45:24 +0000

Public infrastructure and utilities are the skeleton of the national economy; the spokes of the wheel; the walls of the house.

Private corporations can in many cases put muscle on the body, a tyre on the bike, and furnish the rooms, but without the basic public provision, private enterprise cannot thrive.

Without taxes being raised – asking everybody for their appropriate contribution – there would be no guaranteed health service, education system, roads, water supplies, power networks.

Federal or central government spending is essential, and often goes without question or inspection – including subsidies, cheap government loans, tax breaks and even rule-bending and regulatory exemption for specific sectors of the economy. This policy lenience also applies to private companies that take on the provision of public utilities.

This explicit, but often glossed-over, support for public services means that private business can rely on this national infrastructure. Small businesses can rely on a power supply and waste disposal services, for example. Large businesses can rely on a functioning postal service and road network.

It is questionable whether for-profit enterprise would be able to survive without the basic taxation-funded provision of public services and utilities.

I can understand why governments feel the need to get public spending off the balance sheet, and outsource public utilities to the private sector.

There is a lingering belief that private enterprise makes public services more efficient; makes manufacturing more reliable; makes construction better quality.

In some cases, this belief in privatisation is justified. Where companies can genuinely compete with each other, there can be efficiencies at scale. However, the success of privatisation is not universal.

Many parts of a developed economy are monolithic – there is no real competition possible. You get electricity through your power socket from a variety of production companies – you cannot choose. The road between your house and your office is always the same road – you don’t choose between different tarmac suppliers. Your local hospital is your local hospital, regardless of who owns and runs it – you have no choice about who that is – and the government contract tendering process is not something open to a public vote.

Added to this lack of competition, in some cases, it is impossible to make a profit by operating a public service by a private concern.

There should be no rock under which private business can hide when it claims to be operating profitable train and bus services – without public subsidies, public transport cannot be run at a profit.

Liability for daily operations may have been outsourced to the British private train companies, but not the full cost of the services. Costs for locally-sourced services cannot be driven down because they cannot be made fully open to global competition.

By contrast, the globalisation of labour has been making manufacturing industry significantly cheaper for decades.

In order for globalised trade to work, finance has to be liberated from its nation-bound shackles, and so along with the globalisation of labour to nations where it’s cheapest, there has been the globalisation of finance, to the tax regimes less punitive.

The globalisation of trade is a two-way bargain between those that want to see the development of primitive economies and those who want to create wealth for their companies and their shareholders.

Globalisation has created a booming China, for example, and filled the pockets of any Western company that imports from China.

However, the tide of globalisation has reached the shore, and the power of the waves is being stilled by solid earth realities. Labour costs in previously under-developed economies are starting to rise significantly, as those economies start to operate internal markets as well as maintain export-led growth.

It could soon be cheaper to have manufacturing labour in the United States of America than China. But when that happens a curious problem will arise. Manufacturing industry has been closed down in the so-called industrialised countries – as companies have taken their factories to the places with the cheapest labour and the most lax tax.

Wealth creation potential in developed countries has been destroyed. And it is for this reason that Western governments feel the urgent need to privatise everything, because their economies are collapsing internally, and public budgets may no longer be able to sustain current government spending.

However, privatisation doesn’t work for everything. It doesn’t work for health, education, water, public transport. The European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a vehicle to compensate for agricultural sectors than cannot make a profit. I would contend privatisation doesn’t work for the energy supply and distribution sector either – but for a special reason.

Normally, it is possible to run energy stations at a profit. The privatised sector inherited power stations and grid networks that were fully functioning, and the sales of power and Natural Gas were almost pure profit.

However, much energy plant needs to be lifecycled after decades of use – replacements are in order, and this demands heavy public investment, in the form of subsidies, or pricing controls, or tax breaks or some such financial aid, in order to avoid crippling the private companies.

Like the rail network, there is direct public investment in the power grids. This is to support new access for new energy plant. However, I think this doesn’t go far enough. I would argue that much more public tax-and-spend is required in the energy sector.

In future, most electricity generation needs to become low carbon and indigenous. The primary reason for this is the volatility of the globalised economy – it will no longer be possible to assume that imports of coal, Natural Gas and oil for power station combustion can be afforded – especially in economies like the United Kingdom, where much wealth creation has been destroyed by de-industrialisation.

It used to be easy to ignore this – as the North Sea was so productive in oil and Natural Gas that the UK was a net energy exporter. This is no longer the case.

To avoid the risk of national impoverishment, energy independence is dictated, spelled out by a deflating British economy and by the depleting North Sea reserves.

The easiest and fastest way to a power supply that is low carbon is by healthy investment in wind power and solar power. Yet with the turbulence in the global economy, spending on renewable energy has also been rocky.

Now is the time for the UK Government to stop tickling corporate underbellies to get them to invest in British energy, and to start collected tax revenues to spend explicitly on the energy revival.

It can be “matched” funding – the Renewables Obligation, for example, has drawn in massive levels of private investment into wind power. And the feed-in tariff scheme for solar photovoltaics had, until recently, been pulling in high levels of personal individual and private company investment.

This is the kind of public-private financing that works – create a slightly tilted playing field to tip the flow of money towards new energy investment, and watch the river flow.

Without public money ploughed into public infrastructure in non-profitable areas such as public transport and energy, private enterprise will not be able to make a contribution – they would quickly bankrupt themselves.

The result of capping public subsidies for renewable energy is a halt to renewable energy deployment. Those who resist wind farms are in effect destroying the country. Those who cap public subsidies for solar power want to break the nation.

We need socalist financing of new energy technology deployment, for the future wealth of our country.

Whittling away at energy consumption

Jo — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:10:08 +0000

Throughout 2011, I changed a number of things in my domestic arrangements in order to reduce energy consumption at home.

I have been working with an ecocell small study and action group in North London – each member of whom has an interesting story to tell of their own eco-pilgrimage.

What I found was that in order to make progress I needed to measure more things and be more organised. I also needed to acquire more equipment.

This is rather ironic, since there are embedded emissions in all manufactured products. However, with careful use and maintenance, they should last a long time.

The daily electricity and gas consumption I was personally responsible for at home dropped fairly significantly (approximate figures) :-

	Natural Gas use per day (Btu)	Electricity use per day (kWh)
January 2011	5.00	3.00
February 2011	4.21	2.94
March 2011	3.65	3.15
April 2011	1.93	3.11
May 2011	1.69	2.98
June 2011	1.60	2.95
July 2011	1.42	2.84
August 2011	1.26	2.82
September 2011	1.14	2.81
October 2011	1.04	2.76
November 2011	1.07	2.84
December 2011	1.18	2.83

Based on the average of the monthly daily averages, I should have consumed 766 Btu (8,094 kWh) of Natural Gas over the whole year, and 1,065 kWh of electricity for 2011. However, due to dropping demand, I actually used only 433 Btu (4,572 kWh) of Natural Gas and 1,034 kWh of electricity.

This compares to Ofgem’s analysis of medium household consumption figures of 16,500 kWh of Natural Gas and 3,300 kWh of electricity.

This puts my consumption at 28% of the medium in Natural Gas and 31% in electricity. It’s going to be hard to reduce both of these figures.

I came up with a number of personal solutions for reducing space heating in 2011, which enabled the use of Natural Gas to drop.

I had already come up with a number of changes in power consumption in 2010, which explains why the electricity use did not drop so fast or so far in 2011.

However, I’m still working on cutting my domestic power consumption.

One of those ways is trying to adopt a more vegetarian diet. You see, when you eat vegan or virtually vegan, you don’t need so much refrigeration. Frequently over the last year the only things in the fridge have been milk, spread, yoghurt and green vegetables (plus a couple of half-used jars of pesto or mayonnaise, the regulation bottle of lemon juice and a jar of Marmite). The freezer has been off for months.

So I thought to myself, after checking the power consumption of the fridge – does the house need a smaller fridge ? I mean, the large fridge is useful when there are guests or someone throws a party, but it’s not fully used all the time. I could keep the green vegetables in the coldest, unheated room of the house, and buy fresh more regularly. What if I get hold of a mini fridge to use on a day-to-day basis ? And so, into my life has come the Mobicool W35.

Technically, it’s not a refrigerator – it’s a “cooler box”. A thermolectric one. And despite the E energy rating on the packaging – at 290 kWh a year, it will have less than half the power consumption of the Big Fridge. Plus, since I don’t need to run it all the time, I can cut power use further by only having it on 18 hours a day (or less, as dictated by the weather), controlled by a timer.

The next adaptations to my energy use will entail significant expense. Here are some options :-

a. Upgrading the windows
b. Installing a biomass burner (and optionally a boiler)
c. Cladding the external walls

I will need to save up to replace the windows completely, so I am looking for intermediate solutions.

For the biomass option, I have found a tree surgeon in North East London with whom a win-win arrangement could be developed – with me offering to take unseasoned wood from the loads of sawn waste that otherwise would cost money to dispose of.

In the meantime, I need to address draughtproofing. The sudden cold spell has shown me that there are still opportunities in this regard.

Dances With Energy Bills

Jo — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:04:17 +0000

After the recent notorious Panorama programme on energy prices, and yesterday evening’s debate on renewable energy and the costs of green energy policy, in the House of Commons, a number of people have commented that Members of Parliament and Ministers of the UK Government appear to know very few facts – and those they can remember they seem to quote in the wrong context.

This state of affairs is disgraceful, and allows mendacious narratives to persist in the mainstream media.

RenewableUK contacted me and asked me to embed a YouTube offering some corrective information. I was very pleased to do so. I can assure my readers that I have not and will not be paid for doing so.

The key problem is not the cost to energy bill payers from direct subsidies such as the solar photovoltaic feed in tariff. The contribution from this is minor. The largest effect on energy bills is likely to come from two sources – the Energy Company Obligation and the plans for Carbon Pricing and other measures in the Electricity Market Reform.

The Energy Company Obligation, or ECO, is essentially a bailout for the big energy supply companies. They are being told to make sure that their customers can buy not only energy, but energy conservation services. These companies will end up selling less energy overall, and may suffer profit penalties. They have demanded compensation for this loss of earnings. After all, they have shareholders, and pension funds who are shareholders, and nobody should be deprived of their dividends, should they ? So the energy companies will be permitted to charge their customers extra to fund the ECO

“The ECO is in effect a levy on everybody’s energy bills. There is an amount collected by energy suppliers and then used to fund energy efficiency programmes. Current programmes such as Warm Front are being wound down and will be replaced by Green Deal Finance and the new ECO. The Government’s intention is that ECO should be used to supplement Green Deal Finance to pay for energy efficiency improvements in hard to treat properties (e.g. where there is no cavity wall insulation) and/or for those in fuel poverty.”

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/consultation/green-deal/3607-green-deal-energy-company-ob-cons.pdf
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/supporting%20consumers/green_deal/1732-extra-help-where-it-is-needed-a-new-energy-compan.pdf
http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2010/12/Green-Deal-ECO-v1.pdf
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2127605/treasury-confirms-gbp200m-introductory-green-deal-offer

The second major factor in rising energy bills in future will come from carbon pricing and other energy market manipulation. There have been a number of measures considered in the Electricity Market Reform, but the key contenders include a “carbon floor price” (making sure that carbon charges have a minimum price below which they cannot fall), “contracts for difference” (where electricity sale contracts would be written to guarantee supply companies a fixed profit) and “capacity payments” (where power stations will be paid to remain on standby as backup to low carbon alternatives). A carbon price would benefit nuclear power generators, as nuclear power is considered low carbon. It won’t create an incentive to build new nuclear power stations, however, whereas the promise of guaranteed profits from the “contracts for difference” arrangement could persuade EdF and other nuclear power construction companies to invest.

The Electricity Market Reform and the Energy Company Obligation, considered in addition to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, could cost each household energy bill payer something of the order of £170.00 per year :-

This is far, far larger than the feed-in tariff budget.

Personally, I think carbon pricing is a dangerous waste of time, and will not and cannot displace carbon dioxide emissions. There are always carbon-intensive industries and companies who will make the case for special treatment and avoid paying. And the end consumers will always shoulder the added cost burden. After all, we can’t have the profits and share price of our major energy companies dented, can we ?

Much education needs to take place – the debating chamber of the British Parliament is only one place. We also need to get proper energy reporting from the mainstream media. It’s wrong to continue to blame solar panels and wind farms for future energy bill price rises.

Everyone’s Entitled to their Opinion

Jo — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:26:16 +0000

Yes, indeed they are. Everyone is entitled to hold their own particular opinion. In this democracy of ideas, every longshot, wingnut, bonehead, rogue, charlatan, conspiracy theorist, crank, crony and astroturfer should be permitted access to the microphone on the stage. If we hold a public meeting about immigration, we should, of course, invite a white supremicist, a member of the British National Party, and a Daily Mail journalist to offer us their wise words. If we hold a sociological symposium on the Second World War, we should of course invite a Holocaust-denier. If an engineering conference, a cold fusion-in-a-test-tube enthusiast. Of course we should provide balance, as much balance as possible, and offer wisdom, insight and rant from all ends of all spectra. It’s only reasonable.

It therefore goes without question that somebody from the Global Warming Policy Foundation “think tank”, so copiously and generously sponsored by a person or persons unknown, should be invited to speak on the platform, or in a panel, at a well-funded quasi-establishment meeting on Climate Change. Regardless of a complete lack of training in atmospheric physics, or even knowledge of the span of the last five years in the science of global warming, naturally, a GWPF man must be invited by GovToday to a presitigious conference to be held on 29th November 2011 in the City of London grandly entitled “2011 Carbon Reduction : The Transition to a Low Carbon Economy”.

Jennifer Elson telephoned me on 18th November 2011, to proudly inform me that she could offer a funded place at this conference, and that GovToday was keen to reach senior decision makers in my network. GovToday, she assured me, has access to the Carbon Trust (cue the name-dropping), the UK Government Department of Energy and Climate Cange and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She excitedly offered the GovToday strategy – to build long-term strategic relationships, from Ministerial level right through to the Third Sector. My goodness, in the last few days, literally, she had been talking to organisations about hydropower, local produce, timber framing – a third of the cost of building with brick. Was I not impressed ?

Yes, on 29th November, 2011 Carbon Reduction would be chaired and ably facilitated by Krishnan Guru Murthy. “Ah”, I said, “Channel 4″, realising finally that this was to be a media-friendly event. Stefaan Vergote, she said, would be there – big in Europe he is, and they would also have Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“What gives him the right to speak at this event ?”, I asked, incredulous. “He has no relevant academic expertise”. The young thing on the other end of the phone was a tad flummoxed. “I’m relatively new to this organisation”, she rushed, “his view is controversial. There are a minority who share his opinion. We want to get everyone’s perspective.”

“You’re putting him on a platform”, I said. “Everyone’s entitled to their view”, she reasoned. “You need research to back it up”, I replied.

“He’s very passionate”, she claimed. “But does he know anything ?”, I countered. “The GWPF do not have the credentials, according to a large number of experts. I find it absolutely astonishing that you should invite him.”

“We’re putting him on the panel to question the policymakers”, she offered, “…cause a bit of controversy. Without someone posing these sorts of questions [there would be no debate]. He’s the voice of the sceptics.”

“Why should he be there ?” I asked. “It’s important that all views be represented”, she responded. I started to pick up my voluminous carpet bag of umbrage, “Not all views are important. Not all views are relevant. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. Opinions are different from academic [and practical] expertise…”

She sounded miffed, “We have many people attending with expertise.” “But apparently he doesn’t”, I asserted, “why do you need to offer a balance when it’s a minority view and he doesn’t possess a relevant academic or professional qualification ? I mean, would you have to invite a member of the English Defence League to a public debate on border controls ?”

At this, she put me on to her line manager, the ebullient Ron Pusey, Head of Delegates. He was truculent, “You haven’t got an argument.” Au contraire, Ronny boy, “The events we put forward are balanced. To balance the argument we must include climate change denial. The Global Warming Policy Foundation have a [track record]. The worst thing would be a political vacuum – where [there's only one point of view expressed]…”, he rattled on, probably not quite believing what he was spewing.

“You’re welcome to put forward who you like”, he offered, and I thought, my network doesn’t have the kind of funding and available staff to take on climate change deniers in public debate.

“Why do you respect that organisation ?” I asked. “I respect their right to get involved”, he replied, which would have actually been quite a fair argument, had the playing field been level, “I would restrict some people…[but it's] essential that people be able to express themselves.” Yeah, right, it would be great if more people could get to express themselves in public debate, but not everybody has the time, funding or presentational skills.

Ronny challenged me to come out from hiding behind the telephone. “You’ve got an opportunity to get engaged”, he raised. “I’m not going to waste my time”, I volunteered. I mean, if they are going to invite Benny Peiser to speak at a climate change meeting, they clearly have no idea about the issue.

The real frontline, the significant debates in climate change, are not about whether it’s happening (it is), or even how bad it’s going to get (it will). And the technologies to mitigate climate change are the same as they ever were – no debate required : energy conservation, carbon displacement and renewable energy. The central debate, in actual fact, is about whether policy sticks or policy carrots will have the greatest effect. Most people seem to think that carbon taxation, carbon pricing, carbon trading and carbon penalties are the way to go. Others think that paying for the things we want is more productive than charging for the things we don’t want.

“We’ve spent an extra quarter of a million pounds in putting on events”, he levelled. Clearly, the money has not been well-spent, when they cannot even collect the know-how together to work out who is best to invite to a climate change policy event.

I said I wasn’t interested in joining in with a fixed fight. He should know, but perhaps he doesn’t, that climate change deniers use public debating methods like the Gish Gallop, basically filibustering people with nonsense. “You can’t bring 200 years of science to a 15 minute debate”, I said. You can’t even properly present two “sides” in an hour-long panel discussion. “It’s an artificial debate that you have set up. Why should I get involved in your event when you invite Benny Peiser to the platform ? You’re on the wrong track.”

Ron tried one last fake conciliatory gesture, “It’s really lovely that you care enough…”. I interrupted, “If you knew more you wouldn’t invite unhelpful participants. You don’t care. Do you have a public relations background ?”

Ron did not. He said he had worked in media, and been a volunteer on a carbon project, building stuff out in Sri Lanka. Then he got huffy. “You’re an academic, right ? What do you know about actually doing stuff ?” and he threw the phone down.

Ron, Ron, Ron. Academics are the people who have been collecting your global warming and climate change data. They are the people who really know what’s happening, not some pseudo-experts with undeclared financing.

Cheering on the Occupation

Jo — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:00:32 +0000

I am deeply concerned about the ramping up in rhetoric about Iran’s imagined nuclear weapons programme. I say “imagined” because there is no evidence pointing towards Iran doing anything other than they say they are doing – following a civilian nuclear power programme.

In fact, this bluster has nothing at all to do with the power of atoms, peaceful or otherwise. From my point of view, it’s all about controlling the price of fuel.

Economic sanctions against Iran are being considered on the basis of the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions and activities, and this I would consider highly deceitful. The “international community” may well impose further trade embargoes on Iran, but the underlying reason for such action has nothing to do with nuclear suspicion. I believe that applying economic sanctions against Iran is all about forcing Iran to export more fossil fuel – principally Natural Gas – and to do so cheaply.

In fact, there is a two-pronged assault on Iran’s energy sovereignty taking place – not only are economic sanctions already in place, there are calls from the highest top table for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. People have been cheering this on because at first glance it looks like a carbon control policy, but in reality it will lead to Western economic occupation of Iranian hydrocarbons – an occupation, it is hoped, to be accomplished without finding some excuse for a military intervention.

Make that a three-pronged attack, perhaps – there is evidence to support the supposition that foreign involvement is rousing Iran’s anti-Government opposition – after a lull.

And why are we talking about Natural Gas and not petroleum oil ? Recent events suggest that the Middle East Natural Gas producers are looking to raise more revenue in future from gas instead of oil.

Here is part of an e-mail exchange I had recently with a member of the Claverton Energy Research Group forum :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Subject: ‘Eccentric’ nuclear plans threaten UK’s part in renewables revolution, expert warns
Date: 15 November 2011
From: Chris 3, Claverton Energy Research Group Forum

Jo, see comment below re. fossil fuel subsidies. You and I had this talk before. The alleged total $409bn fossil subsidy is a big surprise to me, I cannot relate to this number, I question its validity and where he got the data from (unspecified….maybe some individual campaigner’s web blog?). I suspect that, if it is real, a lot of it is actually general ‘consumer-end’ subsidies in ex-Communist states (inc’ China) + some Far Eastern countries to keep all energy cheap at point-of-use as part of Gov’t general social policy…

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Subject: ‘Eccentric’ nuclear plans threaten UK’s part in renewables revolution, expert warns
Date: 15 November 2011
From: jo abbess

Thanks for all the information and links and views.

I am only going to reply very briefly, on the subject of fossil fuel subsidies.

The figures quoted by Schellnhuber come from the International Energy Agency (OECD), G20 and other country groupings, who are making a big noise about fossil fuel (and nuclear) subsidies :-

http://www.iea.org/weo/subsidies.asp
http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3746,en_2649_37465_45233017_1_1_1_37465,00.html
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/apec-phase-out-inefficient-fossil-fuel-subsidies/5/107670
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/26/us-g20-energy-idUSTRE58O18U20090926
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/11/fossil-fuel_subsidies
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/research/fossil-fuel-subsidies
http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-solarpower/iea-chief-calls-bonfire-fossil-fuel-subsidies-news-508497
http://www.climateactionproject.com/docs/Larsen-FFsubs+C–2-941994.pdf

I agree with you – it’s not quite what it seems. Much of the accounted subsidies are end consumer subsidies within producer countries, to stimulate economic development. You only need to look at a list of the top fossil fuel subsidy countries to understand this :-

http://www.iea.org/work/2011/rewp/Session_1_Birol.pdf

Number 1 : Iran – a producer nation – clearly using subsidies for economic development at home
Number 2 : Saudi Arabia – a producer nation – subsidies used to keep population sweet
Number 3 : Russia
Number 4 : India
Number 5 : China
Number 6 : Egypt
Number 7 : Venezuela
Number 8 : Indonesia

What would the net result of cutting fossil fuel subsidies be ? That’s right – the countries would have to sell their oil and gas abroad because their own people could no longer afford it. And what would happen if all that fuel gets released to the global markets ? Why, the price will come down, of course.

So the policy to cut fossil fuel subsidies is ostensibly a carbon reduction policy but actually it’s a global fossil fuel price control policy.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Another link, again from a very prestigious organisation. The name Tony Blair springs to mind…I wonder what he’s got to do with this ? Ah yes – one of the former “architects” of the oil Occupation of Iraq :-

http://www.globe-net.com/articles/2011/october/26/iea-calls-for-end-to-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Solar FIT to Bust #5

Jo — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:11:58 +0000

Germany can do it, but not the British. The Collected Republic of the People can install solar power with great will and nerve, but not Johnny English.

Let’s be clear here – the people in Scotland have a vision for future Renewable Energy, and so do many people in Wales and Ireland, but it appears English governance listens to fuddy duddy landowners too readily, and remains wedded to the fossil fuel industry and major construction projects like nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage.

What precisely is wrong with the heads of policy travel in Westminster ? Do they not understand the inevitable future of “conventional” energy – of decline, decimation and fall ?

It really is of no use putting off investment in truly sustainable and renewable power and gas. There are only two paths we can take in the next few decades, and their destination is the same.

Here’s how it goes. Path A will take the United Kingdom into continued dodgy skirmishes in the Middle East and North Africa. Oil production will dance like a man with a stubbed toe, but then show its true gradient of decline. Once everybody gets over the panic of the impending lack of vehicle fuel, and the failure of alternatives like algal biodiesel, and the impacts of a vastly contracted liquid fuel supply on globalised trade, then we shall move on to the second phase – the exploitation of gas. At first, it will be Natural Gas. But that too will decline. And then it will be truly natural gases. As gas is exploited for vehicles, electricity will have to come from coal. But coal, too, is suffering a precipitous decline. So renewable energy will be our salvation. By the year 2100, the world will run on renewable electricity and renewable gas, or not at all.

Meanwhile we will have had wars, rumours of wars, and just plain bomb-dropping, and lots of ancient civilisations will have bit the uranium-laced dust, and Scotland will have long since made a break for economic and political freedom. And we will have locked ourselves into dangerous climate change through our wanton burning of fossil fuels.

Path B – the logical long-term option and where we’re headed anyway – is to bypass climate change, bypass warfare and bypass idiocy and go straight to renewables.

But can the English Government work this out ? Can they see beyond their Cost Benefit Analyses and their short-termism and the calls to cut regulation and targets ? Can they imagine what life will be like in 30 years – and can they be made to be accountable to the future citizens of this country ?

We need to stimulate the development of renewable energy in the United Kingdom. It will take tax breaks, direct funding, subsidies. The Feed-in Tariff for solar power is essential in the current economic environment, to build a long-lasting electricity generation asset. If the British Government truly takes the prosperity of this country seriously, they need to plan for a significant deployment of renewable energy. We don’t know what the price of fossil fuels will be in five years time, ten years time. But we know that sunshine will always be free.

The European Union Question

Jo — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:04:01 +0000

David Cameron was on one screen, and CBeebies was on another. I was on the treadmill at the gym, interval training, pacing at the same rhythm as the blaring RnB, and reading the teletext translation of the Parliamentary debate.

I smiled at Ed Miliband’s nasally-charged bluster. I rolled my eyes at the interventions from the Conservative dinosaurs.

The Tories are the living example of the Bad Apple Theory, I thought to myself. One bad apple, or in their case, a clutch of Eurosceptics, spoils the crop.

The Conservative Party of the United Kingdom harbours a number of corporatists and the stooge friends of corporatists, and this is their basic argument – deregulate and private companies will be more productive and save the economy from implosion. It’s the same argument that nursed the financial services market that went ahead and created derivatives of risk, and produced toxic credit progeny in abundance and caused the collapse of the banks which caused the current economic doldrums. Great job !

We’ve got the Coalition Government’s Red Tape (Cutting Of) initiative in full-swing, as well as the Eurosceptics. Their argument is – the European Union is a hyperquagmire and over-regulates and stifles business and innovation, so the United Kingdom should secede. What they fail to acknowledge is that European Union legislation and regulation have created excellent conditions for trade, unifying the standards of production across the Common Market, and drawing on skillsets and technologies from across the region, has advanced productivity and standards of living for all.

The United Kingdom is actually a major contributor to the development of the European Union, including social and economic progress, and it would be unhelpful to pull back from wielding that kind of influence – we could lost out if we don’t have a say in European-level policy development.

There’s no valid reason for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. Europe as a zone is the largest trade partner with the United Kingdom, for example. In, or out, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone depend on each other.

The die-hard Eurosceptics are also frequently against renewable energy. Their argument is that European Union rules on increasing the levels of renewable energy are putting a strain on energy companies, and ruining the economy. Actually, I think the casino banking ruined the economy. But renewable energy can only secure it.

Renewable energy is why we need Europe. With a pan-European supergrid, making use of all renewable electricity generation, the United Kingdom can both contribute and receive benefit. When our wind stops blowing, we will need Spain’s solar juice, for example.

But there’s another key reason why the United Kingdom needs Europe. Trees. Or more precisely, usable fuelwood, energy crops and agroforestry waste. Biomass is going to play an extremely important role in the future of energy, and that’s not because of the European Union renewable energy targets.

With North Sea oil and gas production taking a dive, and no clear picture on if this can be offset in any way, the United Kingdom will be forced to increase the proportion of renewable energy in our economy, target or no target. And that’s because of the cost of importing fossil fuels.

In the near future, there may well be global energy price controls placed on Natural Gas because it’s such an important fuel, particularly as we are at Peak Oil. But even if Natural Gas prices stay level, or even level-ish, since we will have to import progressively more Natural Gas, the country will start to feel a big fat pinch. We will start to feel penniless without a biomass energy strategy – and that means trade with Europe – because we haven’t been growing enough of our own trees lately.

It’s true that oil and gas companies and coal-burning power stations will lose out from increasing renewable energy penetration into the United Kingdom’s energy sector, but they are not the businesses of the future. If their shareholders are worried, they should jump ship to wind power and solar power investment.

Somebody has to tell the Conservative Eurosceptics to quit whingeing and accept the inevitable – European and renewable, or poor. And while we’re at it, we should join the Euro.