UK energy and climate policy: SGR letter
Text of letter
to Chris Huhne, UK Secretary of State for Climate Change and Energy; 10
June 2010
Dear Mr
Huhne
UK energy and climate
policy
Congratulations
on
your new post as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
I
am writing on behalf
of Scientists for Global Responsibility, a UK organisation of about
1000
science, design and technology professionals whose concerns include
environmental sustainability and energy security.
We
would like to raise
some broad issues with you at this time concerning the energy and
climate
change policies proposed by your government in the ‘Programme for
Government’
and other recent announcements.
Improving energy
efficiency and reducing energy
demand
We
are encouraged by
the proposal for a new Energy Bill which would “deliver a national
programme of energy
efficiency measures to homes and businesses”. This is an
area which has received far too little action to date. The funding
mechanisms
set up by the previous government were inadequate to support the full
range of
cost-effective efficiency options. We
urge you to follow the recommendations for policies and measures
outlined by
the Existing Homes Alliance1 and the Green
Building Council2.
Not only would these bring major environmental benefits, they also have
the
potential to generate many tens of thousands of new jobs – more per
unit of
investment than any other set of policies within the energy and climate
change
arena. This, of course, is key in the current economic climate.
However,
it is not
enough just to increase energy efficiency. We also believe a key
priority for
your Department should be enact policies to reduce
energy demand overall – by, for example, targeting
profligate energy
consumption. Controlling energy demand is the surest way to reducing
environmental impacts and improving energy security in a
resource-constrained
world. Such an approach would also help reduce the potential for
international
conflict over, for example, diminishing supplies of oil and gas.
Expanding renewable
energy
We
also welcome the
commitment of your government to support a major expansion of renewable
energy.
We urge you to increase the 2020 target for the proportion of energy
from
renewable resources, not least because the previous government
underestimated
the potential for small-scale renewable technologies and the potential
for
reducing energy demand. Related to this, we are disturbed by the lack
of any
mention in the ‘Programme for Government’ of the proposed Renewable
Heat
Incentive for small-scale technologies. Like the Feed-In Tariff for
small-scale
electricity, this is a very important funding mechanism to help support
a neglected
sector.
The
proposals for a ‘smart
grid’ will be important in integrating variable renewable energy
sources into
the system. The ability to utilise a large proportion of renewables
would be
further strengthened by strong grid connections to mainland Europe and
the
development of a European supergrid, as shown in the Offshore Valuation
report
to which you referred in a recent speech. The commitment to a national
recharging network for plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles will also
complement the expansion of variable renewable energy technologies, and
reduce
oil dependence.
We
also urge you to
enact a major increase – at least tenfold – in the proposed government
funding
of R&D on renewable energy, especially marine technologies
where the UK is
a world leader. Not only would this help provide longer-term
environmental and
energy security benefits, it would yield major employment benefits due
to the
high labour intensity of this sector. A funding increase of this
magnitude
could, we believe, come from cuts in the government’s military
R&D budget
which – at about £2.5 billion – is far higher than government
R&D spending
in key areas such as energy, health or environmental protection.3
Nuclear
power
We
agree with the Liberal Democrats that
new nuclear build is not desirable. The security and environmental
problems of
this technology are serious, and the economics are highly questionable.
In
particular, we believe that the
government should stick to its pledge to ensure that the nuclear
industry does
not benefit from public subsidies. As such, the nuclear industry should:
- pay the full costs of
radioactive waste management and eventual disposal. Proposals such as
offering
an upfront ‘Fixed Unit Price’ for waste disposal shift the financial
risk from
industry to the government and should be abandoned.
- pay the full commercial
insurance costs. The government should abandon the guarantee of an
upper limit
for insurance costs that the industry would have to pay in the event of
a major
accident.
We
also believe that the current
consultation and approval processes for new nuclear power stations are
deeply
flawed. For example, the safety assessment of the proposed reactor
designs has
yet to be completed, and the radioactive waste management strategy has
yet to
be agreed. But despite this the previous government seemed ready to
take a
decision on ‘Justification’ as required under EU law. To give the
go-ahead
without completion of the safety and waste assessments leaves the
government
open to legal challenge. The decision should be delayed at least until
these
have been completed, even though this would delay the start of
construction of
new plants.
We
would also like to point out that
nuclear power creates considerably fewer jobs per megawatt of energy
generation
than renewable energy technologies.4
Climate change and other issues
We
would also like to
comment on a number of your government’s other policies as follows.
- We
welcome the commitment to push for an increase in the EU target for
carbon emissions reduction by 2020 – but also urge you to strengthen
further the UK’s own national target.
- We
welcome the cancellation/ refusal of proposals for airport expansion
around London – but urge you to make this a nationwide policy.
- We
welcome the setting up of a ‘green investment bank’.
In
conclusion, we
strongly support efforts to ensure energy and climate change issues are
a
central component of this government’s agenda. There are major social
and
economic benefits, as well as the more obvious environmental ones,
which will
be forthcoming if these efforts are successful.
Sincerely
Dr Stuart Parkinson
Executive Director
Notes
1.
For example, see: http://www.existinghomesalliance.org/new_call_2010.php
2.
For example, see:
http://www.ukgbc.org/site/document/download/?document_id=760
3.
Dept of Innovation, Universities and
Skills (2007). Science, engineering and technology (SET) statistics.
4.
New Economics Foundation (2005). Mirage
and oasis: Energy choices in an age of global warming.
http://neweconomics.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
For further
information contact Dr Stuart Parkinson
<StuartP@sgr.org.uk>
Send
correspondence about the
web-site to webmanager@sgr.org.uk
This page last
updated: 26th June 2010
©
SGR 1997-2010
|
