Less than 5% of British electricity came from renewable sources in 2006, compared with 26% in Denmark and 48% in Sweden. Ambitious goals to derive 30-35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 are widely considered impossible. A related pledge that 15% of total energy consumption (of which electricity accounts for roughly a third) will be renewable by that date looks even less plausible.
On March 31st HSBC, a big bank, published a report ranking countries by how green their economic-stimulus packages were. The bank reckons that Britain is allocating just 7% of its fiscal stimulus to greenery, compared with 12% in America, 34% in China and a whopping 81% in South Korea (see chart).
SHOOT: No kidding HSBC is a 'big bank'. Very impressive to see confirmation - South Korea committing 81% of its stimulus package to greenery. When I visited the country a year ago (before the current crisis had fully manifested) the mayor told us about comprehensive plans re-green Seoul.
Nuclear-power stations take many years to build, so new ones will not help Britain meet its 2020 targets for curbing emissions. But the technology is well understood. Politicians may have calculated that a few nuclear-power stations will be easier to sell the public than thousands of wind turbines. And energy does not have to be renewable to be low-carbon.
SHOOT: It may not be the most desirable technology, but nuclear is one of the few viable proposals. It's really going to be between nuclear and coal. The problem with nuclear is that in an environment that becomes increasingly...degraded...these sophisticated utilities may be hard to maintain. But as much as 70% of France's power comes from Nuclear. If you have it in place now, you're in a good position. Nuclear is an investment in the future.
The other argument is that it is very difficult to prognosticate on the quality of the future. Some talk of the human population needing to shed 6 of every 9 people in the next decades in order for people to be able to feed themselves (be sustainable). It may sound like an extreme figure but we are only beginning to see our troubles unravel around us. The signs are few and far between that leaders are taking the right steps to address our troubles. As such I'd tend to stick to the Jeremiah's in seeing a bleaker future with some sort of catastrophic die-off. And then life will go on, locally, with far fewer choices and far less moving around.
On March 31st HSBC, a big bank, published a report ranking countries by how green their economic-stimulus packages were. The bank reckons that Britain is allocating just 7% of its fiscal stimulus to greenery, compared with 12% in America, 34% in China and a whopping 81% in South Korea (see chart).
SHOOT: No kidding HSBC is a 'big bank'. Very impressive to see confirmation - South Korea committing 81% of its stimulus package to greenery. When I visited the country a year ago (before the current crisis had fully manifested) the mayor told us about comprehensive plans re-green Seoul.
Nuclear-power stations take many years to build, so new ones will not help Britain meet its 2020 targets for curbing emissions. But the technology is well understood. Politicians may have calculated that a few nuclear-power stations will be easier to sell the public than thousands of wind turbines. And energy does not have to be renewable to be low-carbon.
SHOOT: It may not be the most desirable technology, but nuclear is one of the few viable proposals. It's really going to be between nuclear and coal. The problem with nuclear is that in an environment that becomes increasingly...degraded...these sophisticated utilities may be hard to maintain. But as much as 70% of France's power comes from Nuclear. If you have it in place now, you're in a good position. Nuclear is an investment in the future.
The other argument is that it is very difficult to prognosticate on the quality of the future. Some talk of the human population needing to shed 6 of every 9 people in the next decades in order for people to be able to feed themselves (be sustainable). It may sound like an extreme figure but we are only beginning to see our troubles unravel around us. The signs are few and far between that leaders are taking the right steps to address our troubles. As such I'd tend to stick to the Jeremiah's in seeing a bleaker future with some sort of catastrophic die-off. And then life will go on, locally, with far fewer choices and far less moving around.
 clipped from www.economist.comThe British government has been playing up the parallels, with much ministerial talk of a “Green New Deal”. In March Gordon Brown promised the creation of a “low-carbon economy” for Britain that would provide jobs and clean up industry. Lord Mandelson, his business secretary, talked of a new industrial revolution and said that there was “no high-carbon future”. It is a seductive vision. If Keynesian stimulus is to be the order of the day, greenery seems a good sector in which to apply it. There are benefits besides decarbonisation. Much of the contribution would come from changing the way electricity is generated, and many of Britain’s old power plants need replacing anyway. Windy, storm-lashed Britain is a good place to harness the weather; boosters talk excitedly of a splurge on renewable electricity and the possibility of capturing the market for offshore wind turbines or wave-power machines, creating tens of thousands of jobs.
|
