CLIMATE CHANGE: THE UK IS BETTER THAN THE AMERICANS, BUT IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH?

Web version of a press release issued on 14th February 2002 by SGR

George W. Bush today announced his plans for dealing with climate change by setting US emissions controls for greenhouse gases which are linked to economic growth - thus allowing the US to continue to increase emissions. Meanwhile, the Government here published its Energy Review, which calls for concerted efforts in the UK to improve energy efficiency and expand renewable energy in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change in the long-term.

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) [1] condemns the Bush Administration for producing a plan which will do very little to help tackle one of the most important environmental problems facing the world. On the UK Energy Review, SGR gives a guarded welcome. The recommendation that 20% of the UK's electricity should be supplied by renewable energy by 2020 together with targets on conserving household energy [2] is good start, but these targets could be more ambitious if more investment was directed into this area. For example, proposed increases in the UK research and development budget for renewable energy will only bring it back up to the levels of the early 1990's, and will not be that much greater than the present funding for nuclear fusion (which even optimists admit will not be economic for many decades) [3]. Further, this R&D will still be less than 1% of the annual UK R&D spending for military purposes [4]. Since renewables offer particular security advantages over fossil fuels and nuclear fission power, SGR calls for at least 10% of the military R&D budget to be redirected towards renewable energy R&D to speed the development of technologies such as solar photo-voltaics and tidal/ wave energy.

In terms of nuclear (fission) power, the Energy Review considers it important 'to keep the option open'. However, nuclear power facilities are potential terrorist targets (with potentially devastating consequences if hit by an aircraft or sabotaged by other means) [5], the nuclear industry has yet to deal effectively with its radioactive waste, and despite fifty years of research and development nuclear power plants are still not economic [6]. There is also the problem that if the UK builds new nuclear power plants, it will encourage other countries to do so with the increased probability that this could contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation. If the UK is to pursue the nuclear option, the Government must outline convincingly how it will deal with these problems.

SGR Chair, Dr Stuart Parkinson said "George Bush's climate strategy is wholly inadequate and he can learn many lessons from UK energy policy. However, the UK needs to be more ambitious in its targets for renewables and energy conservation, and it could afford to do so if it redirected finance from its mammoth military R&D budget."

Notes:

[1] Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) is an independent UK organisation of scientists committed to the ethical use of science and technology. See our website

[2] The Energy Review recommends that the Government should implement a programme to increase domestic consumers' energy efficiency by 20% by 2010 and by 20% again between 2010 and 2020.

[3] Proposed increases to research and development funding for renewables will take it up to approximately £20 million a year. Annual funding in the early 1990's hovered around £20 million. Annual funding for R&D on nuclear fusion in 2000 was £14 million [International Energy Agency statistics, http://www.iea.org/stats/files/rd.htm]

[4] Annual R&D spending by the Ministry of Defence is £2.1 billion. [Office of Science and Technology SET statistics, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/setstats/]

[5] For example, see SGR press release, 'Could terrorists turn the UK into a nuclear wasteland? [http://www.sgr.org.uk/nuclear_terrorists_pr.html]

[6] When construction and decommissioning costs are taken into account electricity generation costs of nuclear fission power are uneconomic, as demonstrated by fact that the UK Government wrote off these costs when the more modern nuclear power stations were privatised. As admitted by the Energy Review, this is still the case.

For further information contact Dr Stuart Parkinson, Chair (Tel 07941 953640) or Dr Philip Webber, Vice-Chair (Tel 07929 827322) or if they are unavailable, contact SGR Press Officer Jan Tari (Tel 07798 523534)