As ever there's an interesting debate taking place on the Normal Mouth blog about how Wales should respond to the threat of climate change.
He argues that more developed parts of the UK should bear a greater burden for delivering carbon reductions than Wales, and because of our relative poverty we should be given "greater latitude to balance environmental, social and political objectives". Further, he advocates allowing Wales some intensive development to 'catch-up', while still meeting "overall reduction targets".
It is an attractive argument and one I have heard time and again: we need 'a balanced approach' which, in effect, means 'business as usual'. Yes of course climate change is a terrible thing, and we all agree something must be done. But it is not for us to do it first - lets get the by-pass built, sort out poverty and then we can be Green.
No doubt I am simplifying an altogether more sophisticated argument. But I say, bugger balance.
Of course the wealthiest parts of the world need to take a lead. But our Structural Funding status aside, we are one of the wealthiest parts of the world. As the International Institute for Environment and Development reminds us it is the world's poor who are on the frontline of climate change, yet they have done the least to contribute to the problem.
The UN - hardly a front organization for radical Environmentalists - says that we have less than 10 years to stop the planet's life support systems from shutting down. And Nicholas Stern (an economist) warns us that unless we act now we face an economic shock equivalent to a 5% drop in GDP - a bigger slump that the combined effects of both World Wars and the Great depression.
So in the face of such threats talk of balance, or waiting for Surrey to do something first, is a bit daft.
And if we accept that then a whole series of consequences flow. We need to move to a low-carbon (or even a zero-carbon?) economy pretty damn quick. If we are ahead of the curve there are economic opportunities for Wales in being a leader.
But we do love our by-passes...
E-mails from Kurdistan
6 hours ago
Posts
4 comments:
t's a good post, but you malign me slightly.
I do not say that Wales can somehow develop more intensively and meet her per capita share of the UK's emissions reductions targets. That would be impossible
What I'm suggesting is that the principle of Kyoto - that less developed countries meet less stringent reductions targets - is one that could usefully be extended within the UK.
Overall, the UK would still be expected to meets its CO2 reductions targets (60% of 1990 levels by 2050 - but I'm sure you will say this needs to be at least 80%), but while the South East might have to hit 70%, Wales could get to only 50% (assuming that made an overall net reduction of 60% - this is illustrative only). In that extra 10% would live activities that could increase Welsh prosperity relative to the UK average but which would be hard to do if the same reductions targets were required uniformly throughout the UK. Additional road building for hilly, sparsely populated areas might be one such activity. The precise targets would be measured according to per capital GVA, not just per capita.
So a balanced approach is neither business as usual, nor is it a case of sorting poverty first then going green. It is an attempt to do two things at once - meet the emissions reductions targets that you rightly say are so vital and pressing AND giving the poorer parts of the UK a little wiggle room to catch up if they need it. That is the balance - meeting social, economic and environmental goals simultaneously.
As you say, in global terms Wales is a very rich country. So she should still be expected to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It's just even richer parts of the UK should do more still, such that the UK overall hits the necessary target, be that 60% or 80%.
That's not waiting for Surrey to do something first - it's expecting Surrey to do something more. After all, Surrey almost certainly emits more in the first place.
WIND ENERGY is Kinetic. Mass(weight) of Wind(air) molecules multiplied by velocity (speed) going in to the circumference of turbine blades - minus the mass multiplied by velocity of it going out the other side. Air is very light and speeds are even low in a storm - the energy available is thus very tiny. Some is lost as friction; transformer heat; noise energy and line voltage drops. Water is a thousand times heavier, thus a Wind Turbine blade has to be a thousand times bigger than a water turbine. The only plus point is it is clean and free, but in real energy terms it is basically so low it’s farcical. A 400 ft tall Wind Turbine is rated at Maximum at TWO MEGAWATT or two thousand kilowatt. As Wind is so erratic it only averages 24% of 2MgW cutting output down to 480 kilowatts – or 480 single bar electric fires. In a year this sounds a lot :- 480 kw X 24 hrs X 365 days = 4,204,800 kwhrs. Seems big. In a year the UK uses 340,000,000,000 kw hrs. The concept of big numbers is difficult for the brain to wrap itself around – imagine writing 340,000,000,000 and each figure “0” to be drawn ten times the size of its preceding “0” – try it on paper – after a few it gets so huge you can’t write it even on a large wall let alone paper. So 340,000,000,000 is a truly immense figure and by comparison 4,204,800 is really insignificant. To power the UK we would in theory need 81,000 giant Wind Turbines desecrating the windy West of Wales and Scotland on land and sea. (Peak winter demand would mean over 100,000).Yet all the UK learned Institutes of Engineers have told the UK Government (which is not listening) that not more than 20% of erratic power could supply the National Grid without power surges causing black outs, and 20% would mean 16,200 giant wind turbines. Even these would need all the existing Power stations (unless new Gas ones are built) running and burning uneconomically on standby “spinning reserve” - all consuming fuel and still emitting Carbon Dioxide, whether Coal; Gas or Oil, ready to swing in to full output when the wind dies down or simply gusts unsteadily. Meteorological weather records clearly show we get many such periods and even weeks of relatively calm especially on still frosty nights every year. If we build new Gas Power stations to replace dirty coal we still have to run the main trans-continental gas pipeline gauntlet through the problem fraught Balkans or Middle East to satisfy the equation of Wind supported by Gas. Then there’s crippling costs – currently Carbon (coal) fired power as at Aberthaw (capacity 1,500 megawatt) sells its electricity at about £18 per megawatt in to the Grid. We buy it at approx £71 per megawatt (7.08p per unit), yet Wind Power sells in to the Grid at £68 per megawatt which is 400% more than coal power via a massive SUBSIDY – although the politicians call it a number of names such as “Carbon levy” or “renewable obligation” etc but at the end of the day Wind Power is the highest ever subsidised commodity since the industrial revolution. Currently over ONE THOUSAND Wind Turbines in UK supply less than 0.3% of UK electricity – in other words next to nothing – yet if that figure rises significantly the cost of energy will go through the roof, and ruin our economy – and without subsidy there would be no Wind Turbines – it’s as simple as that. Also remember that electricity generation only accounts for one third of our carbon emissions – ONE THOUSAND GIANT WIND TURBINES only save 0.09% of our Carbon emissions and pollution is a global issue. The bulk of Carbon emissions come from vehicle exhausts; aircraft; domestic heating; factory and basic industrial processes. UK Government claims we could save 30% of our electricity by careful energy saving schemes. We could cut down dramatically on vehicle exhausts if we really penalised heavy cars and the 90% of unnecessary 4X4 vehicles we see on school runs! These should be the easy immediate targets, while we are achieving these we need to urgently pursue other technologies – clean coal; tidal and even carbon sequestration – being anti wind desecration does not mean pro nuclear although Tony Blair’s New Labour Government was clearly pro nuclear. Now Gordon Brown’s regime is gung ho for SEVEN THOUSAND offshore Wind Turbines plus the ones on land! What is an interesting thought provoking FACT is that if the UK reaches all its ambitious Carbon Emission reduction targets in the future it will reduce global Carbon emissions by only four ten thousandths! Does anyone really think that that tiny fraction will alter climate changes in this vast planetary system? If so, what planet are you on? The whole Energy Policies of the UK and its devolved Assemblies are all as barmy as Al Gore in their deep belief in Junk Science and their mission to mislead the public by gross scaremongering!
The peerless Ceredig has added to this excellent debate.
His contribution can be found here.
Please please Welsh Assembly and UK Government can we have some LEADERSHIP and ACTION. I am a pale green kind of person, full of good intent. But why is it so HARD to do my bit? Why does my food come in six layers of packaging that I dont want? Why doesn't the bus run after 6 at night forcing me into the car? Why is fitting solar panels to my large, south facing roof so expensive? Why is recycled, non-polluting paper MORE expensive? Why is my kids' school so overheated that they find our nice 'heating turned down one degree' home too cold for comfort? and so on and so on.
And while I struggle to do my bit, where is business being forced to REALLY change - not just do some headline grabbing stuff with plastic carrier bags??
I really really despair of any change and I wonder just what we have to do to get some meaningful action.
Post a Comment