"Er those renewable targets... hmmm.. anyone mind if we scrap them?"

retired_embartl · 10-23-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Labour's plan to abandon renewable energy targets

Leaked documents detail strategy for climate change U-turn

Ministers are planning a U-turn on Britain's pledges to combat climate change that "effectively abolishes" its targets to rapidly expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.

Leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Gordon Brown will be advised today that the target Tony Blair signed up to this year for 20% of all European energy to come from renewable sources by 2020 is expensive and faces "severe practical difficulties".

According to the papers, John Hutton, the secretary of state for business, will tell Mr Brown that Britain should work with Poland and other governments sceptical about climate change to "help persuade" German chancellor Angela Merkel and others to set lower renewable targets, before binding commitments are framed in December.

It admits that allowing member states to fall short of their renewable targets will be "very hard to negotiate ... and will be very controversial". "The commission, some member states and the European parliament will not want the target to be diluted, though others may be allies for a change," says a draft copy of Mr Hutton's Energy Policy Presentation to the Prime Minister, marked "restricted - policy".

The revelations came as scientists announced that carbon emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere far more quickly than predicted. The sharp increase found by the Global Carbon Project is attributed mainly to Chinese coal-burning and a weakening of the ability of oceans and forests to soak up carbon dioxide.

The leaked papers admit to "a potentially significant cost in terms of reduced climate change leadership" if Mr Brown is seen to be driving a plan to let European member states fall short of their renewables targets.

They also reveal different priorities across government departments about how to get renewables to 20% of the electricity mix. Although Germany has increased its renewable energy share to 9% in six years, Britain's share is only 2%, with its greenhouse gas emissions rising.

Last night campaigners expressed alarm at the new direction of government policy. "Gordon Brown is now in danger of surrendering any claim to international leadership on climate change and would rather support nuclear power and scupper the European renewable energy target," said John Sauven, director of Greenpeace.

Mr Hutton will tell Mr Brown that there are severe practical difficulties about meeting the 20% target. These include persuading the Ministry of Defence and the shipping industry to accept more offshore wind power, as well as increased research and development costs for marine and tidal power.

One of the main objections of government to meeting the renewables target set by Mr Blair is that it will undermine the role of the European emission trading scheme. This scheme was devised by the Treasury under Mr Brown and allows wealthy governments to pay others to reduce emissions. "[Meeting the 20% renewables target] crucially undermines the scheme's credibility ... and reduces the incentives to invest in other carbon technologies like nuclear power", say the papers.

The government is clearly worried about its ambition to introduce more nuclear power as soon as possible. Mr Hutton will tell Mr Brown that he expects a second legal challenge by Greenpeace. "[It is] most likely to be on the basis of pre-judgement, concerns about waste, a flawed consultation process or inaccuracies."

Analysis by Mr Hutton's department suggests it could cost the UK £4bn a year to achieve a 9% share of renewable energy by 2020.

The shift in stance is due to be discussed at full cabinet next week. Last night a spokesman for the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said: "We don't comment on ministerial meetings with the PM."

given all those high and mighty proclamations along the "It's the environment, stupid!" lines, a wee bit embarrassing no?

given Brown's own words a massive 4 weeks ago:

Quote:

"The EU has already agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020…we want other developed nations to follow suit," Mr Brown said.

retired_navy0614 · 10-23-2007, 02:18 PM

Good. Enviromentalism ftl. Bring in the nuclear power :thup:

retired_guidsy · 10-23-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

The revelations came as scientists announced that carbon emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere far more quickly than predicted. The sharp increase found by the Global Carbon Project is attributed mainly to Chinese coal-burning and a weakening of the ability of oceans and forests to soak up carbon dioxide.

And these people are paid money? Oh wait, I remember where their money comes from. Silly me.

retired_lizm5285 · 10-23-2007, 06:44 PM

Hurry up and Terraform Mars, i want off this planet before it dies

retired_rachelst · 10-23-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ryan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>The revelations came as scientists announced that carbon emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere far more quickly than predicted. The sharp increase found by the Global Carbon Project is attributed mainly to Chinese coal-burning and a weakening of the ability of oceans and forests to soak up carbon dioxide.

And these people are paid money? Oh wait, I remember where their money comes from. Silly me. </BLOCKQUOTE>

What?

retired_navy0614 · 10-23-2007, 07:30 PM

Wow, my post before actually went through.

retired_guidsy · 10-23-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Ryan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>The revelations came as scientists announced that carbon emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere far more quickly than predicted. The sharp increase found by the Global Carbon Project is attributed mainly to Chinese coal-burning and a weakening of the ability of oceans and forests to soak up carbon dioxide.

And these people are paid money? Oh wait, I remember where their money comes from. Silly me. </BLOCKQUOTE>

What? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you think their money comes from? And what effect do you think that has on their conclusions?

retired_anief007 · 10-23-2007, 11:30 PM

Not really surprised to be honest, obsessed with money making in the short-term.

retired_breakbred101 · 10-23-2007, 11:31 PM

Aren't Labour ****ing awesome.

Erm, no.

retired_rachelst · 10-24-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ryan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Ryan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>The revelations came as scientists announced that carbon emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere far more quickly than predicted. The sharp increase found by the Global Carbon Project is attributed mainly to Chinese coal-burning and a weakening of the ability of oceans and forests to soak up carbon dioxide.

And these people are paid money? Oh wait, I remember where their money comes from. Silly me. </BLOCKQUOTE>

What? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you think their money comes from? And what effect do you think that has on their conclusions? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Their grants come from various science foundations, academic institutions, and industry. In most cases it has no bearing on their conclusions. Give me one reason why it would (apart from your paranoia). Why would BP, for example, fund a researcher claiming that petro-carbon emissions are damaging to the environment? Very little of the funding comes from advocacy groups, which may try to influence conclusions. What possible reason would all these researchers have for faking their results?

:thdn: to the clueless who have read Crichton fiction and think they understand the system.

"Er those renewable targets... hmmm.. anyone mind if we scrap them?"

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

"Er those renewable targets... hmmm.. anyone mind if we scrap them?"