Biofuel Emissions Undercounted

If 10,000 square metres of Brazilian rainforest is cleared to make way for soya beans – which are used to make biodiesel – over 700,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is released. The saving generated by the resulting biodiesel will not cancel that out for around 300 years. In the case of peat land rainforest in Indonesia, which is being cleared to grow palm oil, the debt will take over 400 years to repay.

The New Scientist reports on two more studies that show again how mistaken the environmental lobby have been to campaign for more widespread use of biofuels. Somehow I doubt that will stop the madness quite yet, however...

Putting Wind-Carts Before Sea-Horses

The Government's green light to build more than two offshore wind turbines per mile of UK coastline without first implementing a proper marine planning system through comprehensive legislation is potentially devastating news for the marine environment and threatened wildlife, including seabirds, fish and whales, not to mention the impact they will have on shipping and fishing. But it's all in the name of saving the environment, so it must be OK, mustn't it?

Whatever happened to talk of sustainable development? Clearly the same thing as talk of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, which is now higher than it has ever been over the past ecologically-enlightened decade under Labour.

Power to the People

"In other countries low carbon energy sources have led a process of decentralisation – in the Netherlands, for instance, in little more than a decade, combined heat and power (CHP) became the single largest supplier of the country’s energy needs."

I was very interested by the above fact, cited by David Cameron in his intro to today's energy Green Paper, Power to the people: The decentralised energy revolution. I have heard various comments on the radio today noting the cost-ineffectiveness of wind and expressing reservations about photovoltaic power. However, micro-CHP (which Nick Spencer & Robert White also strongly support in their recent book Christianity, Climate Change and Sustainable Living) appears to hold out real prospect of helping us become significantly more efficient in our production and consumption of energy, which has to be a good thing for our finances (personal and national), our national energy security, and our stewardship of the environment.

In contrast to Labour's myopic approach on renewables (it's all wind!), I also welcome David's commitment not to prescribe which energy sources should be used and to level the playing field, allowing "the market to deliver a globally competitive low carbon future." Quite clearly there will be many issues to work through as we "move from a top-down, old-world, centralised system to a bottom-up, new-world, decentralised system," but this seems an exciting contribution towards the creation of a "safer and greener" Britain.

Biofuels "Crime Against Humanity"

Every five seconds a child under ten dies from hunger or disease related to malnutrition and there are 854 million hungry people in the world.

Last month I asked when we were going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on questions surrounding biofuels, food security and the environment. At last, people appear to have taken notice:

Earlier this month, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler described current approaches to biofuels as "a total disaster for those who are starving."

Last week, in its October 2007 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund voiced concern that the increasing global reliance on grain as a source of fuel could have serious implications for the world's poor.

Earlier this week, in the Parliamentary debate to establish the first fixed targets for biofuels, the Shadow Minister for Transport, Julian Brazier warned, "If biofuels are to play a successful part in the fight against climate change, it is absolutely vital that they come from sustainable sources. Without clear and binding rules on sustainability, this proposal could damage the environment not protect it. It would be madness if UK biofuel targets actively encouraged people to rip up the rainforest."

Now, the UN's Jean Ziegler has described the conversion of food crops to fuel as a "crime against humanity" and has called for a five-year moratorium on biofuels. He suggests the ban would allow scientists to develop ways to make biofuels from other crops without diverting land from food production, such as a pilot project in India using trees planted in arid areas unsuitable for food crops. He also criticised European governments for choosing a military response to those fleeing famine and chronic hunger from sub-Saharan Africa and wants a new human right to be created in favour of these "refugees from hunger."

Let us hope good sense will prevail over the economic interests of the climate change lobby.

Energy Security

I was amused to be at a meeting this past week in which my local MP stressed the need for our political priority in the climate change debate to be on energy security, rather than superficial emissions targets, only to be followed by one of our MEPs claiming that a Europe-wide energy network would deliver us the security we need. I can't say that I was at all convinced that such a move would give us any national control over our energy supply, so was interested to pick up the following report from the Bruges Group:

EU to take control over Britain's energy policy

The proposed treaty will give the EU power for the first time over the whole field of energy and Britain’s oil and gas reserves.
The UK’s oil industry produces £5 billion in taxes and has about 265,000 employees. But this could all be threatened by the revived and renamed EU Constitution.

Under the new Article 176a in the Reform Treaty the European Union will take control over energy policy and usage. This will be introduced under Qualified Majority Voting, meaning that Britain will not be able to veto damaging EU laws, nor protect the North Sea reserves.

The implications of this will be enormous. Article 176a reads;

1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:
(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;
(This will hand Brussels the power to decide, where and how the oil and gas are sold)

(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union, and
(This could mean that the UK must supply energy to another member-state if they are having problems with their network)

(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy;
(This will make the debate in Britain about how energy is produced irrelevant because Brussels will be making those decisions)

(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.
(This will give the EU a key role as the system guarantor and thus threatening British control over the North Sea reserves)

Brussels will also be able to decide issues relating to the taxation of the reserves without Britain’s Parliament having a say.

EU involvement in this area is especially worrying because the looming and renamed EU Constitution also adds another clause on energy, Article 100(1), which will force Britain to share its reserves in a time of crisis.

After concerns were raised by the oil and gas industry about the implications of Article 100(1) the proposal mentioning energy was removed from the final text of the then EU Constitution. Now, however, by slight-of-hand it has found its way back into the text of the Reform Treaty. In this respect the so-called Reform Treaty will pose more of a threat to Britain’s energy reserves than the original text of the EU Constitution.

Tree-Felling Tree-Huggers

"Breathe in. Breathe out. In that time, an area of rainforest the size of five football pitches has been lost forever."

So a piece of literature that I received in the post from the RSPB informs me. "Every minute we destroy 25 hectares of the world's forests," it continues. This set me thinking about how misguided the anti-aviation environmental campaigners are. For, in the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 8,000,000 people flying from London to New York. Or, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, deforestation in the next four years alone will pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at least 2025!

So, while deforestation accounts for up to 25% of global emissions of heat-trapping gases (and paper makes up 35% of all the rubbish we throw away) and transport, industry and agriculture each account for 14%, aviation contributes at most just 3% of the total. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol didn't even mention, let alone attempt to tackle, this far greater issue.

Perversely, as a result of the efforts of the global warming fanatics and so-called carbon markets, countries are actually being encouraged to destroy the world's forests — take, for instance, the recent deal between China and the Philippines that could ultimately see 8.8 million hectares of "idle alienable and disposable lands and forest lands" developed for agribusiness and biofuel production to feed China's voracious appetite for fuel, threatening the Philippines' own food security.

When are we going to begin getting a proper sense of perspective on these matters?

Blueprint for a Green Economy

"If we are to create a way of living that we can sustain, then water, waste, transport and energy, as well as farming, food, fishing and the built environment, have to be thought of as a whole."

Launching the Conservatives' Quality of Life Policy Group report, a day after the price of crude oil reached a record $80, former Environment Secretary John Gummer is surely right to place the emphasis on sustainability.

At the end of the day, for all the uncertain predictions about an imminent big freeze or, conversely, a global heatwave and for all the questions about the extent to which man has exacerbated the planet's natural cycles of climate change, one thing is certain: the world's reserves of fossil fuels will one day run out. Whether we make them last 50 years or 100 years, or even 200 years, won't ultimately affect mankind's carbon footprint. What our rate of fossil fuel use will affect is the timeframe available in which we can invest in the research and development of renewable sources of energy — during which we can answer the really big question: How can we sustain life and civilisation as we know it? Or, as the report puts it, given that there are plenty of other symptoms of the damage wrought by humans' modern lifestyles — such as desertification, soil erosion, and the destruction of forests — can we continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one?

Does the report provide a satisfactory answer that is "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? The introduction notes that "Instead of wanting the State to intervene and control, Conservatives seek only to ensure that the market framework is capable of delivering the nation’s requirements and that people, communities, and organisations, whether for profit or not, are empowered and trusted to play their proper and fullest role." Yet, about aviation, it complains:

"Growth in demand is heavily concentrated in short-haul leisure flights taken by UK residents. Between 1994 and 2004, 70% of the additional international trips that occurred were UK residents going abroad for leisure. From the perspective of the UK economy, this is arguably the wrong sort of growth. Shorthaul leisure flights exacerbate the country’s tourism deficit – the difference between what overseas visitors spend in the UK and what British citizens spend abroad – which already stands at around £15 billion. Today, over half of all air trips arriving or departing UK airports are UK residents travelling for leisure, and this proportion is set to increase." (p.355)

Thus, some of what are already its most criticised recommendations, such as no further airport expansions, rethinking Heathrow's proposed runway, and no new runways at Gatwick or Stansted, seem to burst with big state interventionism. The authors argue that "Scaling back airport expansion plans would lead to more efficient use of existing capacity, and accelerate the allocation of flight slots to parts of the market that value them most" and that this "does not mean that there would be a diminution in the cheap flights already available," but it is hard to see how such an approach could not but damage Britain's economy and international competitiveness.

I am happy to accept the premise that no government can be neutral in matters of wellbeing and we should therefore shift taxation policy towards the taxation of pollution — from 'pay as you earn' to 'pay as you burn.' However, if the shift is to be managed in an orderly manner, the Government will need to ensure that the alternatives that it wishes us to embrace are adequate. There is no point trying to tax us from flying if the rail network doesn't have the capacity to cope with the additional passenger loads. I would probably even be willing to accept that the best way of retuning growth to take account of environmental health is "by pricing carbon into the equation as the most effective surrogate for environmental cost" — so long as this genuinely is not used as a means to increase the total tax burden.

I agree that "It is time to debunk the myth that we must choose between the environment and the economy. In truth there is no either/or between environmental protection, social stability and sustainable economic growth." So, its discussions about energy efficiency — for instance in the context of the household sector discussed earlier in the week by Zac Goldsmith, which include the rejection of the Home Information Packs (HIPs) regime — are to be welcomed. In the related context of planning and also of rural life and Defra, its recommendation that "the localism agenda be used to empower the very lowest of levels of government, nearest to the people whose lives they affect" is also strongly welcome. This also applies to the subsequent discussions about reform of Europe's infamous Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, "to shift the CAP across Europe from production-related subsidies (Pillar 1) to a system of paying farmers for the public goods and services they provide (Pillar 2)." As it says, "The more complex the world gets, the more globalisation seems to remove power from people, politicians, and even nations, and the more it is important that individuals feel they have a real say about the future of their own community." It is high time that this process should be reversed.

Given that I also believe we should "tilt the balance back from ‘economy-friendly families to family-friendly economies,’" I would also not oppose the suggestion for the planning system to "prioritise the protection and enhancement of ‘town centres’ and ‘local neighbourhood shopping centres’ over and above out of town/edge of town retail development." If we wish to strengthen our local communities, then it seems vital that we maintain the economic and social viability of our towns. I expect that some of you might disagree, but I think this is an area where Margaret Thatcher's "Never call me laissez-faire" quote is probably relevant: "Government must be strong to do those things which only government can do."

Lastly, back on transport, I was pleased to see the call for increased carriage of freight by inland waterways and, in relation to proposed national road user charging, the willingness to "seek simple and transparent ways to achieve our ends and avoid grandiose schemes that rely on unproven technology and huge investment."

In conclusion, does the report tell us how we can continue to be an economically successful nation and, at the same time, an environmentally and socially healthy one in a way "entirely consistent with long-standing Conservative principles"? Given that these are merely proposals that will all go into the melting pot containing the many recommendations from each of the other policy group reports, then I believe we have to conclude that it does as least help illuminate the way forwards. The next challenge will be for the Party to compile a coherent manifesto around a single Conservative vision for the twenty-first century...

Renovation Ethics & Finances

"We're saying that we should offer very generous stamp duty reductions, rebates, if your home is passed on in the best possible condition. And I think if you do that it becomes less of an ethical decision and more of an investment, a financial decision...

The principle focus is on energy and we can achieve massive reductions with very little investment. And from the home owner's point of view that does lead pretty quickly to energy savings, bill savings, but in order to make that happen, because most people aren't, you know, the savings aren't so big that it's going to drive people to make these changes unless they're driven by ethical concerns which is why you need to have this stamp duty rebate."

Now, maybe I'm missing something in what Zac Goldsmith said on The Andrew Marr Show about the Quality of Life Policy Group's proposals — which won't actually be published until Thursday, despite the widespread coverage in today's papers — but I can't see how it is either an ethical or a financial decision for the Government to offer me the carrot of being able to pay less stamp duty on my property when I sell it, given that it is not me that will be paying stamp duty on my property, but whoever buys the house from me.

Now, cuts in council tax and VAT for those who make "green" domestic renovations, as reported elsewhere by the BBC, sounds like more of an incentive. But can anyone help explain the thinking behind the stamp duty proposal?

Slaves to the Environmentalists

On the Today programme this morning, Lord Puttnam attempted to draw a parallel between the abolition of the slave trade and the government's plans for tackling climate change.

However, the comparison is spurious in the extreme. The slave trade was a very lucrative business and Britain became the premier trader from the seventeenth century onwards. It is believed that 40% of the 6,000,000+ Africans enslaved in the eighteenth century were transported in British vessels. After Britain abolished slavery, British patrols effectively ended trade in slaves along the Gold Coast, up to Senegambia, and when the port of Lagos was taken by the British in 1840, the slave trade from the Bight of Benin also collapsed.

In contrast, Britain's annual carbon footprint amounts to just 2% of the global output and is dwarfed by the weekly new-build of power stations in China. Were we to cut our emissions even by 100%, it would make no noticeable impact and we would be in no position to police the rest of the world in the way that the Navy could the Atlantic two centuries ago. The proposed target of 60% by 2050 will simply damage our economy without any benefit to the world around us. Besides which, let us not forget that even if America had signed up to Kyoto, it would have made negligible difference to global temperatures — even those who believe that average global temperatures are increasing (and given the manipulation of the actual data, even this is a highly questionable premise) and that human carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for this increase accept that the impact of Kyoto would have been at most 0.4 of a degree, more likely less than 0.2.

No, our politicians need to be a lot more certain of their ability to provide a secure and affordable alternative source of energy before they heed calls from the joint committee on climate change to make the government's "groundbreaking" draft Climate Change Bill tougher and legally enforceable.

Picture credit: Leading Design

An Unquiet World

Almost before any of us have had a chance to digest Tuesday's report from the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group, the Conservative Party's National and International Security Policy Group has today published its own final report, An Unquiet World. Unlike the ground-breaking first report from the Social Justice Policy Group, it is not always obvious why we had to wait eighteen months. For instance, take the first four conclusions:

• The UK has not made enough of its natural advantages in developing a close relationship with India.
• Our civil liberties at home and our human rights record abroad matter and must be upheld in a consistent manner.
• The broader Middle East is a region in turmoil. ... Iraq has made some aspects worse.
• The risk and danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction have been increased by the situation in the broader Middle East.

... Or its verdict on the key relationships and institutions:

• The continuing importance of the transatlantic Alliance.
• The vital need for functioning US European relations.
• UK security involves close partnership in Europe.
• Functioning international law and invigorated international institutions protect and promote our interests. ... The UK should put effort into UN reform generally and Security Council enlargement in particular.

None of this sounds particularly fresh or insightful. Even once it reaches the sections on security, its criticisms of Government and European policy are nothing new:

• The identity of the British people needs to be rebuilt to include minority communities on the basis of shared values and active equal citizenship.
• The UK is without arrangements in place for guaranteed energy supply or a strategic reserve available for emergencies.
• Policies being pursued by European governments towards Russia and the countries on the EU’s borders in the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe do not serve the political and security interest of member states as well as they could and should.
• It is urgent for EU leaders to agree with Turkey a way forward on the accession negotiations.
• Our armed forces which serve the nation with great professionalism round the world are overstretched and there is no reserve available for emergency. ... Their mission no longer corresponds to the real security requirements of the nation.

The real interest, therefore, doesn't come until we reach its recommendations. It suggests that an incoming Conservative government should:

• Conduct a Defence review not with the aim of inflicting further cuts, but of ensuring that our armed forces have been asked to do the right job, are properly equipped and trained and are employed on the right terms and conditions.
• Establish a dedicated force with a permanent command headquarters for homeland defence and security, to provide assistance as and when requested to the civil authorities in the event of a major terrorist incident or other national emergency.
• Maximise the influence of its considerable range of soft power assets (such as the British Council, the BBC World Service, and British university system). British diplomacy, an asset neglected by the Labour Government, should be revitalised.
• Create a National Security Council in the Cabinet Office. The FCO should be brought back from the sidelines. The FCO and DfID should develop a dedicated civil expeditionary capability.
• Adapt the method of budgeting for spending on the external aspects of national security by relevant departments (FCO, MOD, DfID) to support a national security approach and alter spending patterns to fund more adequately reform and nation building programmes relevant to the establishment of open societies.

Perhaps it should come as little surprise that "Much of the existing policy base is valid and should be built on." However, particularly coming so soon after the Prime Minister adopted Conservative calls for a unified border force (even though Brown's version turns out not be to quite as radical a reform as initially appeared), we could have hoped for a greater emphasis on those elements that would demonstrate to the public that there is in fact a difference between the major political parties — and that the Conservatives are the Party that can best meet the nation's domestic and international security challenges. ... Let's hope the next policy groups establish a little more "clear blue water" in their reports.

Rape of Nature

Renewables are not green. To reach the scale at which they would contribute importantly to meeting global energy demand, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, water and biomass, cause serious environmental harm. Measuring renewables in watts per square metre that each source could produce smashes these environmental idols. Nuclear energy is green. However, in order to grow, the nuclear industry must extend out of its niche in baseload electric power generation, form alliances with the methane industry to introduce more hydrogen into energy markets, and start making hydrogen itself. Technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their conditions of evolution. Like computers, to grow larger, the energy system must now shrink in size and cost. Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors.

In Renewable and nuclear heresies, the noted conservation biologist and climate change researcher Jesse Ausubel argues that key renewable energy sources, including sun, wind, and biomass, are "boutique fuels" — "They look attractive when they are quite small. But if we start producing renewable energy on a large scale, the fallout is going to be horrible." Analysing the amount of energy per square metre of land used that different power sources can produce, he shows that solar power would require 150 square kilometres of photovoltaic cells to obtain the same amount of energy as a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant, while biofuels would require 2500 square kilometres of prime farm land.

One critic, from the US government's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, quoted in the New Scientist, responds by noting that "even if the US got all of its power from solar energy, it would still need less than half the amount of land that has been paved over for highways" — which is rather perverse when you consider that 70% of Los Angeles is used for roads and car parking. One might just as well note that the whole of the US electricity demand could be met if they dedicated "just" 780,000 square kilometres of land to wind power alone — an area the size of Texas, America's second largest state!

As Ausubel concludes, "We should be sparing land for nature, not using it as pasture for cars and trucks."

Green Energy "Dangerously Oversold"

Last month we were warned that the rush for biofuels is causing enormous environmental and social damage. We now learn that not only will the rapidly growing and heavily subsidised corn ethanol industry in America cause significant environmental damage, it will not significantly reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels either!

A comprehensive new report by the environmental advocacy groups Food & Water Watch, the Network for New Energy Choices, and the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School analyses hundreds of previous studies and concludes that even if all corn grown in the US was used for fuel, it would only offset 15% of the country's petroleum use. Yet, the same reduction could be achieved simply by increasing fuel efficiency standards for all cars and light trucks by just 3.5-miles-per-gallon. Instead, 27% of the country's entire corn crop is earmarked for biofuels this year — a level that is already beginning to put a squeeze on corn for food production. Worse news still, all recent attempts to assess the total carbon footprint of biofuels conclude that, once farm equipment and refineries are factored in, biofuel production can lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions than the so-called "dirty fuels" they are intended to replace.

Reds and oranges represent
low oxygen concentrations,
making it very difficult for
marine life to survive [NASA]

It is further feared that development of a corn-based ethanol market will exacerbate problems already associated with large-scale corn production, such as groundwater depletion, soil erosion, algae blooms, and the formation of "dead zones" in waterways inundated with pesticide and fertiliser runoff (such as the 6,600 square mile "dead zone" pictured by NASA in the Gulf of Mexico).

Somewhat scathingly, the report concludes: "What looks like an attractive solution — farmers gaining from higher corn prices, agribusiness and investors increasing profits, and politicians pleasing their constituents by going green — could be a political move to avoid the truly effective measures that will result in genuine public benefits." Constructively, having recognised that "the continuing reliance upon foreign oil is one of the greatest threats to U.S. national security and economic stability," it makes eighteen recommendations ranging from promoting local ownership and farmer-owned cooperatives, through increasing fuel efficiency, to promoting smart growth in urban planning.

If we in Britain are to ensure the future provision of reliable and affordable energy supplies, our politicians would also do well to explore such "truly effective measures that will result in genuine public benefits" rather than simply "pleasing their constituents by going green."

Too Hot to Handle?

The world would have to build new nuclear power stations at the unprecedented rate of four a month if nuclear energy is to play a serious part in fighting global warming, according to a new report by the Oxford Research Group.

The report, Too Hot to Handle? The Future of Civil Nuclear Power, claims that this is both logistically impossible and has major implications for world security that negate any argument in favour of nuclear power:

"For the nuclear weapons proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks to be worth taking, nuclear must be able to achieve energy security and a reduction in global CO2 emissions more effectively, efficiently, economically and quickly than any other energy source. There is little evidence to support the claim that it can, whereas the evidence for doubting nuclear power’s efficacy is clear."

Unfortunately for the authors of the report, just two weeks ago the World Energy Council asserted that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the new energy mix, noting that "the development of nuclear power in many countries was driven by concerns about energy security and the need for self-sufficiency, but also has significant benefits in reducing emissions." Observing that "countries with a high dependence on nuclear have achieved levels of emissions some 40% lower than countries which are otherwise in a similar position but which have rejected the nuclear option or have a significantly lower penetration of nuclear," it also suggests that "nuclear, like other technologies, is undergoing continuing technical improvements. Many of the existing objections to nuclear can at least be mitigated, and possibly removed, potentially enabling it to make a bigger contribution to meeting the climate change challenge."

The likes of the Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy Spokesperson, writing in the foreword to today's ORG report, may claim "If one were to set out to design from scratch a solution for the problem of climate change in a world without nuclear power, there is little chance that anyone would come up with nuclear power as that solution, or, if they did, that anyone would think that nuclear power was anywhere near acceptable." However, realists are going to need to heed sounder advice from experts such as Professor Michael Laughton, who recently warned that, in its pursuit of other objectives — however worthwhile they may be — the Government cannot overlook the fundamental purpose of any energy policy. We do not need to build four new nuclear power stations a month in a fruitless attempt to combat a process over which we have little control — What we need is to ensure the provision of reliable and affordable energy supplies.

New Global Warming Danger

Would you pay someone to dump a whole load of toxic rubbish into the world's oceans? No — What about if they told you that by doing so you would be reducing your "carbon footprint"?

That is the latest scam scheme to emerge from the highly profitable carbon offsetting market, ostensibly established to combat global warming. The project is opposed by scientists, who have done insufficient research to know either how effective the experiment might be or what the unintended consequences may prove to be. It is opposed by environmentalists, who are concerned about potential negative impacts on the marine environment and human health. And it is opposed by the International Center for Technology Assessment, who believes it breaches laws against dumping material into the ocean without permits.

Nevertheless, a private company, Planktos, plans to dump 100 tonnes of iron particles into the Pacific Ocean off the Galapagos in an attempt to trigger a plankton bloom, which they claim could absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a portion of which would sink to the sea floor when the plankton dies, effectively transferring the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean. In the past twenty years, ten ocean expeditions around the world have attempted to trigger phytoplankton blooms by purposefully seeding the waves with fine iron dust. However, each of these has involved dumping no more than ten tonnes of iron particles and results have been inconclusive. Other questions remain about the impact of the iron and other materials that may be released with it, the impact of any harmful algal blooms that may develop, and the impact of gases that may be produced by the expected phytoplankton blooms or by bacteria decomposing the dead phytoplankton, including reducing oxygen concentrations.

As with research published this week by Grain, the international charity promoting the sustainable management and use of agricultural biodiversity, showing that the rush for biofuels is causing enormous environmental and social damage, do we care? Probably not — after all, we're all AGW believers now, aren't we? And, besides, there's money to be made, so who wants to put a dampener on entrepreneurial initiative?

EU Energy Target Costs

"Unrealistic targets for renewable energy will cost the equivalent of £1,330 per household and are unachievable."

Reports on this week's Energy White Paper almost exclusively focused on nuclear power. Unless I missed it, the media appear to have overlooked warnings from one of Britain’s leading electrical engineers that, in its pursuit of overambitious environmental targets, the Government is in danger of overlooking the fundamental purpose of any energy policy — namely, to ensure the provision of reliable and affordable energy supplies.

In Energy Policy: The Feedback From Reality, Professor Michael Laughton suggests that any policy which pursues other objectives — however worthwhile they may be — risks ignoring the degree to which modern society is dependent on reliable and affordable electricity. As far as the UK is concerned, a recent legally binding EU target that 20% of inland energy consumption must be met by renewable sources by 2020 is unachievable. For, hard economic, scientific and engineering constraints mean that such a huge development of renewables and such a great displacement of existing patterns of supply are not realistic.

Besides which, it would also be very expensive and could, in the coming decade, delay or even shut out viable alternatives such as clean coal and nuclear build. The Renewables Obligation scheme which subsidises the development of renewable energy sources has cost £1.7 billion to date (the equivalent of £70 on the average household bill); it is forecast to cost £32 billion over its lifetime (the equivalent of £1,330 per household).

Thankfully, Professor Laughton says that there is an alternative: "The twin drivers of climate change and energy security complement each other in directing the UK towards an aggressive programme of replacing fossil fuels with a combination of renewable energy and nuclear." He concludes, "Long before the end of this century, major changes in energy supply availability and patterns of energy use appear to be inevitable. These changes will take many decades to accomplish; hence the need for foresight that is based on the “feedback from reality” – and not on the eternal human faith in unknown possibilities."

Conservative Green Tax Plans

So, we're all to be allowed one short-haul flight a year at the standard rate of tax but penalised for any further flights at a higher rate.

The trouble is Oxford University research published a month ago showed that green taxes fail to curb growth in greenhouse gas emissions from travel because high-income groups absorb any price increase rather than change their travel habits.

The reality is, even though George Osbourne says he doesn't want to "tax people out of their one foreign holiday a year," it is those in low and middle income groups who would pay the price by being deprived the opportunity to travel - some of whom would be denied the chance to visit immediate relatives living abroad or to cultivate important international business relationships.

For all the criticism that environmentalists have directed at America in recent years, perhaps Conservative MP Tim Yeo was closer to the mark with his private members bill at the end of January proposing that we move our clocks forward by one hour, as demand falls for electricity in the evening if it is still light. For America has today switched to daylight saving time three weeks earlier than usual in order to cut fuel consumption. Their summer time will also last a week longer into the autumn than it has previously. Overall, this move is expected to save $4.4bn in energy bills by 2020 and avoid the need to build more than three large electric power plants – and all without penalising individuals or damaging the economy.

Europe's Unchallenging Renewables Challenge

Investment in all forms of renewable energy is clearly important if we are to achieve energy security without damaging either our economy or our ability to compete internationally. However, today's laughable headlines proclaim "EU challenges world with climate change plan" and "EU agrees renewable energy target" as though a 20% boost in renewable fuel use by 2020 would be a great achievement. In fact, a report out today concludes that, although the government is unlikely to meet its target of generating 10% of Britain's electricity from renewable sources by 2010, this level is already expected to rise to 20% by 2020.

Labour's Climate Strategy: "Just A Lot Of Hot Air"

The government's claim to be "leading the world on tackling climate change" is simply another product of the Downing Street spin machine.

This is the conclusion of an independent peer-reviewed audit of the Government's planned greenhouse gas reductions. The report, discussed in The Guardian, predicts that the government will not reach its 2020 target of a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions until 2050 and concludes: "What makes these failures most shocking is that Blair's government took office in 1997 with a massive head start. When John Major left office, the UK was one of the few nations on course to meet its Kyoto commitments, with plenty of emissions to spare. That advantage has already been squandered."

However, while offering a valid critique of the Government's failure to deliver on its own goals and objectives, it appears not to move the debate on. Rather than endlessly wondering at what rate the world's climate might be changing and to what extent mankind might be responsible – valid academic questions for the scientists – or setting meaningless artificial targets, surely the focus of politicians' questions needs more practically to be, for instance, how we are going to end our dependency on the world's finite reserves of oil and to achieve energy security without damaging either our economy or our ability to compete internationally?