Fashionable though it is to rail against plastic bags - our own Prime Minister recently penned a Daily Mail assault on this incarnate evil - the climate change battle will not be won by the phoney war on bags, light bulbs and bottled water.
It is energy supply that will determine how quickly Britain goes green. Rather than trying to herd millions of individual consumers into taking tiny steps, the Government could change energy supply with one stroke of the pen. But the pen seems to be doodling wildly at the margins of the page.
There are only two things that will determine whether the world can step back from climate change havoc. One is forests, which are disappearing at an alarming rate and which act as “sinks” for carbon dioxide. The other is coal. If we burn all the coal that is in the ground, and let its filthy emissions out into the atmosphere, we won't be feeling genteel guilt in 20 years' time, but raw fear.
So it is extraordinary that the Government is trying to rush through a new generation of coal-fired power stations. Coal produces almost three times as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity as gas. The shift from coal to gas in the 1980s accounts for almost all the progress Britain has made on reducing emissions. But John Hutton, the Energy Minister, has been bending over backwards to help the energy company E.ON to build a new plant at Kingsnorth, Kent, which now has planning permission.
Memos leaked to Greenpeace show that Mr Hutton's servile officials have pretty much let E.ON write the contract for what will be the first coal plant for 24 years. The contract does not require that E.ON should make Kingsnorth Britain's first demonstration project for carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). Yet that would be the only possible justification for building it.
CCS offers the hope of dramatically reducing emissions from power stations, by extracting carbon dioxide from coal and pumping it underground. Given that the world is set to burn a great deal of coal in the next 20 years, half of it in India and China, it is vital to prove the technology as fast as possible.
The Government is running a competition to build a small CCS demonstration project to be in operation by 2014. If that worked, it could then be scaled up to Kingsnorth size. But Kingsnorth is due to open in 2012. All eight of the coal-fired power stations now in the pipeline would have to be retro-fitted with the technology, at vast expense to the taxpayer, after they had already started polluting. The rush should be to test CCS, not to build plants that could become white elephants.
That is the view of other countries: California will not allow new coal plants without CCS. Canada has ruled that all coal plants must have CCS by 2018, built at their own expense.
Britain's antediluvian coal rush is provoking furious rows in Whitehall. Hilary Benn's department is livid that it has responsibility for environment but not energy and that while it begs energy companies to insulate grannies' homes, Mr Hutton gladhands them through the planning system. Downing Street is increasingly irritated by the muddle.
Gordon Brown ignored an aggressive memo from Mr Hutton earlier this year, which urged him not to sign the EU target on renewables. When Mr Brown stood firm, Mr Hutton's junior minister Baroness Vadera unbelievably lobbied EU ministers to treat coal (with CCS) as a “renewable” energy. Even E.ON is so fed up with ministerial dither that it has now called for a delay while it discusses “capture readiness” - a meaningless fudge but one that suits both sides.
It seems odd that a Government that talks tough on climate change is trying to turn the clock back on coal. But then this is a Government that only two years ago created the UK Coal Forum, a government- sponsored lobby whose sole purpose is to campaign for coal. The issue has opened up a seam of sympathy for old mining constituencies.
But that is not the ostensible reason for Kingsnorth. Ministers talk, first, about keeping the lights on - an argument that would be more credible if there were not already 32 gigawatts of gas and wind power planned to fill an “energy gap” of between 14 and 22GW. Secondly, they worry that Britain is too reliant on Norway and Russia for gas. But most of our coal is also imported - from Russia. And if you were going to rely on anyone, Norway is a good bet.
Renewables offer self-sufficiency. But with Britain producing only 4.7 per cent of electricity from renewable power, compared with 13 per cent in Germany, 20 per cent in Denmark, 50 per cent in Sweden and 100 per cent in Norway (from hydro power), a bigger vision is urgently needed - along with a new national grid to back up intermittent renewable sources with conventional power.
What is at stake in the Kingsnorth decision is not just the immediate pollution that it would generate. It is Britain's credibility in the international debate. India and
China are impressed by action, not words. Mr Brown has to make it clear that conventional coal has no future.
A few weeks ago I met Professor C.S. Kiang, founder of the Beijing College of Environmental Sciences. “You've shifted the blame to us,” said this mild-mannered academic, “by shifting your manufacturing to us. We have to solve this together.” We can't blame the Chinese for building coal-fired power stations if we do the same. And no amount of bleating about plastic bags is going to make up for it.
We'll all be the first to complain when the lights go off so come on lets have a balanced debate. This is a short term solution that we must take to now to maintain energy supplies but I also agree that we need a sustanable long term solution...does anyone know what it is ?
Rob, Bristol, UK
Great article. RIght said, the governments need to take the first step and enforce laws around emissions for private entities.
Norways 100% Hydro. Wow somebody has already setup a benchmark.
Why cant huge subsidies and incentives be given to people who run businesses in Wind, Solar, Tidal or other renewable sources of energy.
Why cant govt run aggressive campaigns to disperse experitise of renewbale sources of energy and how much money that can be saved with that.
Why cant it be a law that anybody who employs 20 or more employees has to produce 5% of their own power by 2010 or 10% by 2012 or 30% by 2014 and then support by all means possible.
Ashit Kalra, Delhi, India
Climate change is not an empty threat, it's a reality that we have 20 years to avoid. Nuclear power is not an option - there's about 50 years worth of uranium left on the planet. In fact all of the conventional, aka harmful methods of producing energy are set to increase in price as reserves run out. This is inevitable - there are no more dinosaurs to "make" oil, or many more sources of coal to sustain the growth of our economy in the same way. Looking at the facts shows we have to choose a new path.
Environmentally friendly sources of energy do have an initial carbon cost but it's paid back by the production of energy. The UK has some of the worlds greatest offshore wind and tidal resources which we should be investing in wholeheartedly and ASAP.
One more thing... It may have taken 30 years to convince the experts but today it's all about consumer power. Without support from people like YOU it'll be impossible to invest in our future, which is currently looking very bleak indeed
Alana, Machynlleth,
I dont know what your all so worried about!
We will all be dead soon from AIDS or is it SARS!
Oh no of course its BIRD FLU!!
Oh sorry its now GLOBAL WARMING innit!!
Stop worrying enjoy yourself and GET A LIFE!!!
P,S. Just moved to NZ and am enjoying mine immensely!
Bruce, Tauranga , New Zealand
Renewable energy offers self sufficiency only if the UK population was reduced to 20% of its current level. The same is true for much of the rest of the world.
Greenpeace and FOE have condemned much of the population of the UK to cold an hunger for many years to come. I hope they are proud of their efforts.
D Cage, Highworth, Wilts
If the world maintains a 2% growth rate for 35 yrs we will double our use of all resources in that time. In that 35 yrs we will have used the same amount of resources that we have in the past.
So all the oil we have found in the past will have to be found
again elsewhere. The same with gas, coal and uranium. The price of these fuels is increasing at an incredible rate because world producers cannot keep up with present rates of consumption. How are they going to double production? China has been growing at over 10% pa so that means they will double their consumption of fuel in only 7 years. India is a little behind China.
World oil discovery has been reducing since the 1960s and shows no sign of increasing despite record oil prices. It is widely acknowledged that world production of oil will peak in the next 10 yrs then start to decline. Other fuels are not far behind.
We have max 35 yrs of burnable fuel left so why waste money on them? Why not go straight to solar in all its forms?
Ken Neal, Newbury, England
The simple case is that nuclear power provides the only real option for future energy needs throughout the upcoming decades. People don't seem to want windfarms in their local areas and as for solar power in Britain, someone must be joking. Much of the worlds uranium is in Australia and Canada so supply is not a problem. Reprocessing nuclear waste is the major issue so future research in this area is critical as is clear government policy to ensure that industry feels safe to build and maintain nuclear power plants for the next half century.
David Lea-Smith, Edinburgh, U.K.
Interesting that people are bending over backwards to believe that burning the most polluting fossil fuel now is OK because CCS may one day work on a commercial scale. Maybe. One day.
Building more business-as-usual coal and nuclear plants leaves us with the same wasteful energy infrastructure and does nothing to help with self sufficiency because we still have to rely on gas to meet our heating needs. The only rational way forward is generation of electricity and heat together in cogeneration plants (which a speedy transition from natural gas to biomass and biogas), alongside a diverse mix of renewables. The fuel sources are indigeneous, baseload is provided, and the whole system is more secure because it doesn't rely on a tiny number of power plants.
Ross , Birmingham, UK
Make the burning of any kind of wood illegal. Ban central heating and air conditioning between latitudes 50 degrees north and 50 degrees south. Limit families to two children. Stop flying carnations in from South America. Enforce the obligatory use of hand-tools, including lawn mowers. Reinstate all the closed rail branch lines. Ban junk mail. Ban activities that squander vast amounts of fossil fuel like F1 car racing and Top Gear. Make it mandatory for one's place of work to be within cycling distance of home. Replace starter motors on cars and motor bikes with crank handles and kick starts. Replace washing machines with dolly-pegs and mangles. Issue ration books for petrol and diesel with a 40 litre per week allowance. Restrict holiday destinations to Blackpool or Skegness. Open walking training centres. Buy nuclear power stations from the French. Make operating an electric can-opener a capital offence.
Theo Nelson, South Hams,
Surely the more interesting question is, why are we not going forward to solar power. The media seems to be as scrupulously avoiding mention of the latter as are the politicians; which provides for a novice a window into the limitations of the political process.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Spot on, Camilla, as always. How can coal possibly be described as a "renewable"? Don't let the negative comments posted on here get you down. Fact is, all our energy needs could be met by renewables, it just needs imagination and organization, things British governments admittedly have never been very good at. Look at water, for God's sake, as an example of How Not To Do Infrastructure.
By the way, I think your photo's hot.
Mark Mackworth-Praed, Epsom, Surrey,
Carbon dust in the atmosphere has been know to
lower temperatures. Reference books such as
the novel "The Year Without Summer", which is about
the actual lowering of global temperature following a
volcanic erpution in 1817. There is another book
around titled "Volcano Weather" on the same subject.
Donald LeFevre, Brownsville, Texas USA
The government does seem pretty keen on the plan by E.on, not surprising really when it gave its second donation to the Labour party at the end of last year!
Ironically, to handle the awkward public relations, E.on has the lobbying power of Edelman, the employer of Jules Peck, who chairs David Cameron's quality of life comission that is supposedly bringing green thinking to the new Tory party.
Politics aside, this article is pretty sound, the only slight innaccuracy (which I'm undoubtably pedantic for picking up on) from Ms Cavendish is that trees account for a minor proportion of CO2 - it's accuation photosynthetic algae that do most of the work.
Dan, Cardiff,
Nuclear is the only way forward at the moment, to ensure an element of self-sufficiency and to cope with the inevitable and real increase in demand - unless we wish to live with frequent blackouts.
Greenpeace and other lobby groups with a minority following have held up the building start, along with dithering by the Labour government, which could cause problems of insufficient
generation in the nearer future.
Paul Butler, Reading, UK
Probably not as absurd as when the lights go out because the government has not be able to face up to the challenge of replacing aging coal and nuclear power stations.
Ian, Plymouth,
It looks as if Pres Sarkosi did not convince our government advisors that we should follow the French nuclear route.
Surely the only clean route to go if as it seems likely , we cannot build them, nuclear generators, ourselves now that our industrial base has more or less disappeared.
Peter, Saumur, France
Will someone please explain why you think it is the governments job to tell you how to get your energy? If you really want "green" energy so badly, start investing in it and paying much more for it. Stop whining about waiting for the government to hand it to you. Isn't that how a free society is supposed to work?
Matt, Texas, USA
I would question your initial comment about the value of forests as carbon sinks. There are now some fairly credible studies that indicate the value of forests in this regard may have been overrated. This research is now beginning to inform some of the debate about whether forests can be treated similar to carbon reduction credits in various international accounting schemes for green house gas emission.
As to coal, when you look at the distribution of known coal deposits, a world based on coal usage would be a more secure world than a world based on oil. Here, I am referring to security in terms of avoidance of armed conflict.
I remain skeptical about the promise of alternative renewable sources of energy. However, it certainly can work in some places.
Edward, Ottawa, Canada
The C02 = climate change formula is nonsense. What is causing our world to heat up is the sun. More C02 in the atmosphere would probably benefit plant life which depends on it for its food. With more mouths to feed we need more plants. So what's the problem or do you want us to go nuclear?
Adrian Gilbert, Tonbridge,
Chris from Newcastle hit the nail squarely in the head!
Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK
Pumping zillions of tons of CO2 underground and figuring out how to make it stay there.
Maybe that sounds easy if the most complicated thing you've ever built is a cake or a pair of curtains.
To me it sounds very difficult. Not to mention pointless.
Redclffe, London,
Just what qualifies Ms Cavendish to be allowed to make batty statements such as 'Renewables offer self-sufficiency'? I see nothing in her CV which suggests any experience or training in the field of energy production and distribution, so why does the Times grant her space to comment on these issues? Britain faces a crisis in the production of sufficient affordable energy which is far more threatening than the specious threats of climate change.
F C Aris (Dr), Bodorgan, Anglesey
Let's go ahead at full speed with CCS (albeit with German expertise). Also press on with nuclear (French suppliers), wind (Danish suppliers), wave+tidal (we might own some of them, for the time being!), solar, etc.
And of course, much better energy efficiency in homes, offices, and transport. We could cut energy usage by over 25% and barely notice the change in lifestyle.
Cutting back on the consumption of largely imported fuel would do the trade deficit a power of good to.
Let's aim for a situation where we can al least survive an oil and gas price and supply crunch in 10 years time.
As for the 'business as usual' lobby saying that CO2 concentrations are essentially insignificant, that view was demonstrated to be wrong over 100 years ago (search Svante Arrhenius and subsequent work).
Also, try to stabilise the UK population prior to letting it drift down, which may remove the govts need to concrete over the countryside.
paul newbold, sheffield, UK
We're going back to coal and nuclear and wind because we failed in our attempt to steal the Iraqi oil.
Alan, Cheltenham , UK
all those anti nuclear protestors of the 70's have got alot to answer for. we wouldnt be in the mess we are in now if we had gone to nuclear back then. they made nuclear a dirty word ,the ignorant peasants, where are they now ? campaigning against the use of oil that they made us dependant on. this is the problem with democracy , politicians want to be voted back in and so no government is willing to do something really unpopular even if it is the right thing to do.
alan , london
ALAN JAMES, london, england
Building new unabated coal plants in the UK will do nothing to curb new coal plants in China; will emit more carbon dioxide than any other possible option; will leave the UK subject to volatile coal prices (doubled in two years and rising); will leave the UK reliant on imported coal (presently 70% imported and rising - biggest source Russia); will prevent a shift to domestic renewables (which are the most secure possible option and work just fine in other countries); will mean electricity costs more (coal plants cost more than twice as much as gas plants, will have to be retrofitted with CCS and will have the highest carbon costs); will put more pressur on aviation and othr parts of the economy to decarbonise. There is no credible case for new coal and from what I see here, the only people who want coal are ideological climate change deniers. Let's have green electricity instead.
Matt, Surrey, UK
It is generally accepted among meteorological scientists that man-made CO2 emissions amount to around 3% of the earth's natural production of the gas. If the world's governments actually hit reduction targets to reduce CO2 levels by as much a 75% (an Alice in Wonderland scenario) then the man-made level would reduce to 1.75%. This would lower the earth's rate of natural production to 98.25%. Given such figures, banning plastic bags and bottled water is the equivalent of blowing out a flaming match in a forest fire. (An exaggeration, but you know what I mean.)
Mike Fox, London, England
Don't you research these things or do you just make it all up?
"There are only two things which will determine if the world steps back form climate change havoc!" Laughable
Paul, Andover,
Why are we going back to coal? Because wind turbines are useless, gas and oil have political prices attached, the RSPB howl like enraged monkeys whenever tidal power is mentioned, and the anti-nuclear lobby won't let us do the sensible thing and build more nuclear power stations.
At least we have relatively clean anthracite coal in this country...
Chris, Newcastle,
It is most certainly true that: "The shift from coal to gas in the 1980s accounts for almost all the progress Britain has made on reducing emissions".
It is equally true that the shift from coal to gas - which doubled the rate at which we used up our gas reserves - is the reason that we are now reliant on imports of gas from alien regimes, and are thus politically vulnerable. We are of course doubly vulnerable in that not just our gas supply, but also our electricity supply is imported gas dependant.
Even politicians should have been capable of the logical leap that "if you use it twice as fast, it will run out in half the time"!
Only politicians (and seemingly Camilla) could force themselves to believe that "the Chinese will follow our example", rather than laughing all the way to the bank as we cripple our industry and society in a rush to be seen as 'green'!
Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU
Clearly Ms Cavendish has no grasp of the fundamentals of electricity supply - security and controllabity. Her statement - Renewables offer self-sufficiency - clearly shows this. electricity has to be provided the instant it is required. Renewables are intermittent and uncontrollable and threaten the prsent system that operates with 99.98% continuity of supply.
We have to return to coal since we cannot build nuclear plants quickly enough - thanks to green hypocrisy.
Paul , northwich, england
I must say that the standard of the hear say sections exceeds the article. Most of our coal comes from Russia? As far as I remember (and I work for a power company) over 40% of our coal comes from the Uk, while the rest comes from Indonesia, Colombia and Russia, so I am interested to know how Russian coal makes the majority. CCS is a fledgling technology (see last week's New Scientist for one of teh best overviews of it that I've read for some time) with no clear favourite nor, most vitally, location to put the CO2. You can build the plant but then end up with the same problem as Nuclear - where do you put it all. we still haven't answered that one.
John, Knutsford, UK
Working in the coal-fired industry Iwill add only that you have no real understanding of CCS. At present there are LOTs of test sites and people are trying to determine the feasibility.
The problem is to test anything you need to test new boiler types. New stations need to use the more efficient style boilers (oxy-firing, Supercritical boilers). These sort of stations will be able to retrofit CCS if they are built in range of areas of storage.
New coal plants are needed to provide a base load of electricity generation that cannot be delivered by wave or wind. Many new plants use waste biomass to burn with the coal at present, though once again due to protests and complaints getting boilers set up to run efficiently.
It is so common for the media to complain and not realise the massive technical effort required to get things to change or work. After all it so much easy to complain than actually try and help with the problem and incredibly easy to demonise the industry.
Jacob robert, Nottingham,
THe UK needs energy security for the future. To have secure energy we need to use a variety of sources rather than being dependent on one or two. Hence it is eminently responsible for the government to be looking at coal and nuclear as well as renewables. If the environMENTALISTS want to live in the dark or the stoneage then so be it... let the rest of us get on with living in the 21st century. Oh... and we haven't all been duped by the climate change scaremongers.
Andrew Brown, derby, UK
@ Jon Anderson:
"Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity. The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.
The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.
But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.
Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
The scientists conclude that the ICPP is right, and that cutting carbon CO2 emission drastically is the only option." (source: BBC online).
I rest my case
benjamin boutreur, antwerp, belgium
Q. Why are we going back to coal?
A. Population, Population, Population!!
VJB, London,
Why ever not?
UK energy policy should be about generating secure, reliable energy with the minimum of pollution, not some folly based on unachievable reductions of a harmless trace gas. Without a shred of scientific evidence that CO2 is anything but entirely benevolent, we risk incalculable costs associated with pointless and irrelevant attempts to reduce it.
By all means reduce real pollution and our dependence on imported fossil fuels, but let’s also see the low carbon crusade for what it is; a colossal and pointless waste of money, time and effort, that can only end in failure. And please, let’s not pretend that California can teach us anything. While banning what it sees as unacceptable methods of energy production inside it’s borders, it’s ever increasing demands just mean greater imports of “dirty†energy from neighbouring states. It’s called hypocrisy.
Jon Anderson, ALTON, UK
Whatever happened to Jacob Bronowski's method of processing coal to make it clean?
John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England
Camilla, you are a professional observer of climate and energy matters and as such it is really disappointing that you seem completely ignorant of the relevance of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to this debate. That system puts an absolute limit on carbon emissions from the electricity generating and other heavy industry sectors and hence forces these industries to find the most cost effective ways of reducing carbon emissions. If not building coal stations and building other forms of electricity generating capacity instead were a cost effective way of doing that, the industry would be doing it. By forcing them to save carbon by not building coal stations, you are simply ensuring that the same carbon savings will be made but at greater expense. Where is the environmental benefit in that?
Suzeraine, London,
When the availabilty of (relatively) low cost petroleum feedstock is squandered the search will be on to find anther source to provide all the wonder chemicals that make our lives what they are today.. With the increasing use of Coal as a fuel I think that the inhabitants of Planet Earth will be kicking themselve as they will have burnt the stuff.
Until cheap oil came onto the market coal was proccessed in "Gas Works", and in larger more sophist icated plants to exstract the usefull chemicals that it contained. The residual coke was treated with steam to produce Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide which could be used as fuel fgasses. If thing s really got tough then petrol and diesel oil could be synthesised ( at a price).
I would suspect that the German Technical Universities have all the records of this technology at the back of their book stores. The Germans had to go down this route before and during the 1939-45 war.
W D Toulman, Walkington, East Yorkshire,
I love the comments posted here about climate science not being good science and coal being better than Gas becuase gas burnt at power stations for electricity is a lot less efficient than then it being burnt in the home (which is true but not relevant here). There is so much opinion about energy generation around that it becomes almost impossible to make an informed decision and as the Government are not scientists they not what they do.
At the present time climate science which considering its mix with other sciences (geology, computers, physics, chemistry, biology etc) is telling us quite rightly that greenhouse gases are going to be a big problem for us from now on. We must limit emissions and quickly, 90% by 2050. Building new fossil fuel infrastructure of any type, power plant, plane, car etc is a no no. We must economise, we must adapt and we must generate a new type of energy generation.
Personally I would say don't be under 40.
Pete Best, Northampton, UK
It is entirely within the Labour policy of; "You can make as much C02 as long as you like but you will pay heavy taxes for it". Proof positive they don't actually give a damn about C02, only where their next tax dollar comes from. When will the populace accept the great global warming swindle is an excuse for tax and get of this stupid-go-round.
David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK
Yet another badly researched badly written "article"
We are going back to coal because the choice is coal or rolling black outs.
Forests are not "carbon sinks".
The amazon is actualy a net emitter of CO2, its true, read a book.
Now, my desk, made from wood, is a carbon sink, as are the wooden beams used in houses.
But forests arent.
Dominic, Manchester, UK
Benjamin is wrong. If carbon sequestion were viable now, Kingsnorth would have it from the outset. EON only say they will retrofit the technology if there are incentives at some later date (ie at public expense). They won't build with it now because they would be paying, they don't know what it would cost and whether it will work. A rational strategy is to trial CCS and in the mean time not build unabated coal plants. Those sceptical about renewables are just being ideological and are out of date on cost and 'intermittency' - National Grid say the latter is not a problem, onshore wind power is now competitive with gas in cost terms and shows how offshore wind will also come down over time. CHP is fantastically more efficient (eg 90% compared to coal 35%-45%). Camilla is spot on.
Matt, Surrey, UK
Camilla
We can burn gas in our home central heating at 90% efficiency.
IT IS ABSOLUTE FOLLY to use gas to produce electricity at a power station efficiency of 55% if lucky.
We have 300 years of coal waiting to be dug up but not much gas.
Basic common sense (not a talent normally possessed by politicians) says use the gas in homes and the coal to make electricity.
The case for CO2 causing global warming is just not good science; it is that active star called the sun. Why else was it much warmer a few hundred years ago? Why else have there been periods when the earth had no ice caps?
Allan Crossley
Allan Crossley
allan crossley, stafford, england
We live on a huge raft of coal in the UK. It was sheer madness in the 1980s to abandon the extraction of it on the basis of questionable ideological political grounds and a persaonlity clash between the then PM and the president of the NUM.
The pockets of shareholders and directors benefitting from the "dash for gas" which was all the rage at the time were no doubt attached to jackets and coats worn by supporters of Mrs. Thatcher who were after a quick profit and ignored the prospect of being at the mercy of a regime which allegedly thinks nothing of poisoning UK citizens with polonium....but of course they were not to know that were they?.
Of course we should utilise coal energy and develop the technology for carbon capture (which is already developed according to the Sunday Times).
To which foreign regime does the author of the piece consider we should hold our energy begging bowl out to in the near future when we realise that we have not got enough energy to keep ourselves warm
Ian Wheaton, Southampton,
We have had the technology for clean coal power stations for a very long time, but not the political will. The blame for not implementing clean coal goes a lot further back than Brown - by all means blame the government for dragging their feet, not least in waiting till we are about to hit a scenario when many power stations (including coal and nuclear) will close and we may have an energy shortage. We should have had incentives for clean coal many, many years ago, and many campaigners have been fighting for this for the last decade and more.
Pamela Ross, Cawood, North Yorkshire
coal fired power stations should be built, but only hi tech with scrubbers and co2 capture.
if it is found that this is uneconomic, then nuclear becomes the only option.
why the debate?
wind and solar power does not provide economically solutions, while potentially providing unbridled destruction of the countryside.
john haydon rowe, javea,
If `clean coal` technology could be perfected that would be the an amzing acheivment and go a long way to solving the co2 crisis.
Mike, Bolton, uk
The government's stance seems to me completely reasonable and far-sighted. For one thing, carbon sequestration is a viable solution to emissions from coal. For another thing, coal is a valuable strategic resource which helps, along with nuclear power, to give our country security of energy supply.
Benjamin, London,
I would favour domestic nuclear reactors so we could be self-sufficient, but in the interim I note that the electricity firms are privately owned - which has bnever been the case in Britain before - and they must decide to build more power stations or simply raise the prices to ration energy - Supply & Demand.
They may not wish to build power stations and invest billions, and the government has no money in PFI Debtorland, so it may be a question of being nice to E-On and Gazprom and EdF because they may not want to increase local production of electricity on an offshore island where they can simply jack up prices
TomTom, Leeds, England
Forests are effecively carbon neutral once formed as trees do die and rot, or are eaten. The growth of forests absorbs forests, which is not a viable possibility in mch of the world
The oceans are bigger than the landmasses, and the potential to increase sites for growth of plants in the sea is vast.
From the simplest "solution" which is dumping Iron into oceans to increase algae density to longer term plans such as artificial reefs the seas could absorb far more than they do, and currently the pressure on ocean space is far less than that on the ground.
RIchard, London, England
as a Chinese, i totally agree with and support the action of reducing the coal fired power. but as everyone knows, it is a international thing, we need technology support from you.
cty, zhejiang, China
All tree hugers, stop -exhale-ing...aaahhh , thank you
Mr Tim, san marcos, U s of A/Ca
Why are you going back to coal? Because England is out of everything else. Because you refuse to take the path of conservation and diminished use of resources, such as water, electricity, gas, and gasoline/diesel. You should obviously ration these things NOW. Has the compressed air car appeared on your TV auto shows? zero pollution, 1/10 the price to buy and run of a normal car, 120 mile range before needing a refill. A solar panel in your yard would provide the electricity necessary for the compressor in the car. This car will reduce the need for oil by 90%. I suspect the oil companies see this coming and now own the coal companies. However, conservation can NOW reduce energy consumption in Britain by 50% IF you're serious and will ration and CONTROL the prices, to keep Big Business and the Banks from profiteering, as they are NOW DOING and to an insane level. and they are NOT ALLOWING conservation to be diligently and seriously pursued. Throw a few billionaires in Jail.
victor compton, Cherbourg, France
I think it's simply a case of NuLabour feeling guilty about its disconnection with the icons of the working class and trying to compensate by talking up coal.
John Small, Faversham, UK
Quite a bit of humbug here,Camilla. Whatever the UK does is immaterial in a global context, even if one accepts the propaganda about the allegedly evil gas ,CO2.The song and dance that the government is making about so called climate change(and any government would do the same) is so they can get through a substantial nuclear power building programme with minimal trouble.In the meantime we need some proper electricity generating plant to back up all those intermittent,very expensive windmills.
Edward Welsh, Lampeter, Wales
Firstly, gas fired power stations are not carbon neutral, although less polluting than coal. The government has also given permission to Centrica for a new gas fired station at Langage, near Plymouth. Secondly, CCS itself requires considerable energy and figures for the percentage of coal feed lost in this processing have not been disclosed. Thirdly, the captured CO2 has to be stored underground below impervious rocks. Such strata are to be found where oil and gas are extracted in the North Sea. Piping CO2 from Kingsnorth or Langage to the North Sea may never be implemented for cost reasons. Fourthly, the most likely explanation for this volte-face is that the government knows it will have a legal battle with the green lobby over nuclear stations. Fifthly, renewables alone would never meet the demand, especially if the population is set to grow to 70 million by 2031. Lastly, the UK already imports 5% of its electricity from France, hence the recent talks with Mr. Sarkozy.
Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK