It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
By John Bingham
Published: 3:21PM BST 28 Jun 2010
Eigg's unspoilt location is its main attraction But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
President Obama hails Ben Bernanke's courage as he gives him second Fed term
Harlequins success produced by team spirit, not climate of fearOther household equipment such as washing machines are to be used only outside times of “peak” demand for the island’s 45 homes and 20 businesses.
Weeks of what passes for heatwave conditions in the Inner Hebrides have caused water levels on the island’s three main burns to drop uncharacteristically low, cutting off the island’s hydroelectricity supply.
The normally powerful Atlantic gusts in the tiny island south of Skye have also reduced to a pleasant breeze leaving the island’s wind turbines idle for hours on end.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
The shortages come only months after Eigg’s innovative renewable power grid won a share of a £1 million first prize in a nationwide competition to become model on how to tackle climate change.
Its community-owned triple solar, wind and hydro generating station, thought to be the first of its kind, impressed the judges in the Big Green Challenge, run by the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA).
When the power scheme was switched on in 2008, it transformed life on the island, bringing mains electricity for the first time.
Residents described it as bringing Eigg “literally out of the dark ages".
“We are suffering from a lack of rain in general, believe it or not,” said Maggie Fyffe, secretary of the Eigg Heritage Trust, the group which runs the island since the 1997 community buy-out which ended centuries of semi-feudal control.
“More than half the power comes from hydro sources so the drought has hit us hard. There has also been a lack of wind too.
“We have now sent out emails and posted notices saying we are on level 'red' – which restricts the use of electrical items that are a drain on supply.
"People are having to go back to boiling kettles by gas and doing their washing at night – outside peak demand. Deep fat fryers are a definite no-no.”
The trust is now planning to spend part of its £300,000 share of the prize money on more solar panels to prevent a repeat of the shortages in future years.
Last month the area had just over an inch of rain, half of the usual total for the time of year, according to the Met Office. A similar pattern has been seen throughout the spring.
On Sunday temperatures on nearby Skye inched toward 70F, cool by comparison to conditions seen in the south but well above the average high of 59F.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Why water waste just won't wash
Hosepipe bans are a nightmare for the green-fingered. But with so much flooding last year, why are utility companies threatening drastic action?
By Sam Muston
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink, as Coleridge put it – and so it seems in modern Britain. We endure endless rainy winters and yet a flicker of sunshine seems to herald the imposition of hosepipe bans up and down the country, as petunias wither and wilt. United Utilities, the water supplier for the north west of England, last week called a ban "increasingly likely" and other suppliers are said to be considering the measure if the current sunny spell continues.
The driest January to May period since records began has led to increasingly low water-levels in reservoirs and rivers in the region. And with people using more water as the weather gets hotter, the environmental implications of overextraction and evaporation are brought into ever-sharper relief.
Even before the recent heatwave and the added pressure it brings, the Environment Agency classified a number of rivers as under "serious water-stress" with abstraction for domestic use a major factor behind this. The upshot of this is that the ecosystems these waterways sustain is under threat, as lower flow levels lead to decreased levels of oxygen in the water and increased incidence of Algae overproduction and the reduction in spawning grounds for fish. As a recent report by the WWF points out, only 15 per cent of rivers are in a condition to support a healthy, vibrant ecosystem and this figure now looks optimistic for the north west of England. But is a hosepipe ban really the best way to tackle this problem?
The media has certainly taken a view, and it isn't favourable to the water companies. Many point to the "biblical flooding" in the area last October and suggest the real reason ecosystems are under threat is the mismanagement of supplies. There is a widespread perception that the real problem is water companies failing to maintain service pipes, leading to massive losses through leaky pipes. However, not so, says Jacob Tompkins, managing director of Waterwise, a British NGO devoted to increasing water efficiency. "Despite what you may read," he says, "the utilities are pretty good at stopping leaks.
"Ten years ago this was not the case, but things have improved dramatically. We are now at the point where further repairs are uneconomical – the disruption and cost would be disproportionate. The real problem is simple: the British public use an awful lot of water."
While our continental neighbours use around 120 litres of water per person per day, we consume around 40 litres more. And in the summer months, no small part of this is used to keep our lawns green. The wastage involved is enormous. A sprinkler left on for an hour uses as much water as a family of four does in a day and a half.
But Waterwise is still not a supporter of an outright ban: "Bans are creatures of the 1950s," continues Tompkins. "They're old fashioned and unsophisticated. What we really need is a change in our attitude to water use – and the best way to do this is by retrofitting water meters." He has a point.
The environment agency points to research that shows water metering is the most effective method of reducing consumer usage, with metered properties using around 15 per cent less water. And by how much do hosepipe bans reduce usage? About 15 per cent, says Waterwise.
Hosepipe bans remain a blunt instrument that penalise both the wasteful and virtuous. They are a short term palliative that fails to tackle a long-term ecological problem. If we do value the biodiversity that our lakes and rivers sustain, we need to look further forward and change our relationship to water. And the best way to do this? By actually paying for what we as consumers use.
Large scale retrofitting of meters would herald a radical change in our relationship with water, meaning it would no longer be considered an endless resource. As a society, we respond better to carrots than sticks. So, in future, water utilities must put away the stick of hosepipe bans, and offer the consumer real incentives to conserve water. Then we can safeguard our precious waterways, as well as protect our petunias.
By Sam Muston
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink, as Coleridge put it – and so it seems in modern Britain. We endure endless rainy winters and yet a flicker of sunshine seems to herald the imposition of hosepipe bans up and down the country, as petunias wither and wilt. United Utilities, the water supplier for the north west of England, last week called a ban "increasingly likely" and other suppliers are said to be considering the measure if the current sunny spell continues.
The driest January to May period since records began has led to increasingly low water-levels in reservoirs and rivers in the region. And with people using more water as the weather gets hotter, the environmental implications of overextraction and evaporation are brought into ever-sharper relief.
Even before the recent heatwave and the added pressure it brings, the Environment Agency classified a number of rivers as under "serious water-stress" with abstraction for domestic use a major factor behind this. The upshot of this is that the ecosystems these waterways sustain is under threat, as lower flow levels lead to decreased levels of oxygen in the water and increased incidence of Algae overproduction and the reduction in spawning grounds for fish. As a recent report by the WWF points out, only 15 per cent of rivers are in a condition to support a healthy, vibrant ecosystem and this figure now looks optimistic for the north west of England. But is a hosepipe ban really the best way to tackle this problem?
The media has certainly taken a view, and it isn't favourable to the water companies. Many point to the "biblical flooding" in the area last October and suggest the real reason ecosystems are under threat is the mismanagement of supplies. There is a widespread perception that the real problem is water companies failing to maintain service pipes, leading to massive losses through leaky pipes. However, not so, says Jacob Tompkins, managing director of Waterwise, a British NGO devoted to increasing water efficiency. "Despite what you may read," he says, "the utilities are pretty good at stopping leaks.
"Ten years ago this was not the case, but things have improved dramatically. We are now at the point where further repairs are uneconomical – the disruption and cost would be disproportionate. The real problem is simple: the British public use an awful lot of water."
While our continental neighbours use around 120 litres of water per person per day, we consume around 40 litres more. And in the summer months, no small part of this is used to keep our lawns green. The wastage involved is enormous. A sprinkler left on for an hour uses as much water as a family of four does in a day and a half.
But Waterwise is still not a supporter of an outright ban: "Bans are creatures of the 1950s," continues Tompkins. "They're old fashioned and unsophisticated. What we really need is a change in our attitude to water use – and the best way to do this is by retrofitting water meters." He has a point.
The environment agency points to research that shows water metering is the most effective method of reducing consumer usage, with metered properties using around 15 per cent less water. And by how much do hosepipe bans reduce usage? About 15 per cent, says Waterwise.
Hosepipe bans remain a blunt instrument that penalise both the wasteful and virtuous. They are a short term palliative that fails to tackle a long-term ecological problem. If we do value the biodiversity that our lakes and rivers sustain, we need to look further forward and change our relationship to water. And the best way to do this? By actually paying for what we as consumers use.
Large scale retrofitting of meters would herald a radical change in our relationship with water, meaning it would no longer be considered an endless resource. As a society, we respond better to carrots than sticks. So, in future, water utilities must put away the stick of hosepipe bans, and offer the consumer real incentives to conserve water. Then we can safeguard our precious waterways, as well as protect our petunias.
How About a Program for Sustainable Government?
Al Gore and David Blood seek to transform unregulated, unfair capitalism into a socially conscious "sustainable" version that encompasses environmental, social and governmental interests ("Toward Sustainable Capitalism," op-ed, June 24). Interestingly, never once in the op-ed does the word "capital" appear, suggesting that the capitalism envisioned by Mr. Gore and Mr. Blood is a hybrid breed of many "isms," the least of which is the system heretofore known as free-market capitalism.
It does not take a Nobel Prize winner to understand that the shortest time horizons on Earth for measuring performance belong to politicians, not capitalists. What 200-year record of success can they demonstrate that proves that the current capitalist system doesn't deliver optimal long-term results, but their transformed system will?
Kevin Johnson
Chatham, Mass.
What is especially curious about Messrs. Blood and Gore's piece is what they leave out. For example, how about creating a climate that rewards investment, for one, by reducing tax rates on long-term capital gains which will lead to greater investment and greater overall wealth? What about radically simplifying the tax code to eliminate the billions wasted each year for tax compliance and tax avoidance? Perhaps government-mandated investment boondoggles and shameless borrowing, which crowd out private investment, should be ended, too. Might long-term income in equality be reduced by improving the education system, such as through school choice, robust vocational training, and by returning the focus of education to knowledge, rather than the grievance du jour?
Of course, these ideas, none of which are original, are of no interest to these gentlemen.
Jonathan A. Lesser
Sandia Park, N.M.
Investors place their money with a firm in the expectation of a financial return in a stream of dividends or rising stock price due to improved earnings. Who would invest in a firm with no earnings, but a high environmental, social and governance factor (ESG)? Answer: a philanthropist. But charity is not capitalism, and philanthropy will not raise the standard of living for Americans. Companies which focus on ESG good are most likely not to drive job growth and economic expansion.
George Hamilton
Claiborne, Md.
With the amount of money that Mr. Gore's party accepts from lobbyists and unions, I surmise they understand financial incentives fully well. I also find it amusing when they pose the question: "What type of capitalism will maximize sustainable economic growth?" Messrs. Gore and Blood, please take note: There are not several "types" of capitalism to choose from. We all know that you are using capitalism as a catch phrase to divert our attention from what you are really talking about. I'll give you a hint. Like "sustainable capitalism," it begins with an "s" and ends with an "m." It's called "socialism."
Heidi Adams
Clearfield, Pa.
Ludwig von Mises sheds light on this subject in his book "Human Action." "The concept of capitalism is as an economic concept immutable; if it means anything, it means the market economy. . . . This faulty nomenclature becomes understandable only if we realize that the pseudo-economists and the politicians who apply it want to prevent people from knowing what the market economy really is. They want to make people believe that all the repulsive manifestations of restrictive government policies are produced by 'capitalism.' "
Bill Burbage
Cayce, S.C.
How about instituting the concept of sustainable government policy?
Allan Page
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
It does not take a Nobel Prize winner to understand that the shortest time horizons on Earth for measuring performance belong to politicians, not capitalists. What 200-year record of success can they demonstrate that proves that the current capitalist system doesn't deliver optimal long-term results, but their transformed system will?
Kevin Johnson
Chatham, Mass.
What is especially curious about Messrs. Blood and Gore's piece is what they leave out. For example, how about creating a climate that rewards investment, for one, by reducing tax rates on long-term capital gains which will lead to greater investment and greater overall wealth? What about radically simplifying the tax code to eliminate the billions wasted each year for tax compliance and tax avoidance? Perhaps government-mandated investment boondoggles and shameless borrowing, which crowd out private investment, should be ended, too. Might long-term income in equality be reduced by improving the education system, such as through school choice, robust vocational training, and by returning the focus of education to knowledge, rather than the grievance du jour?
Of course, these ideas, none of which are original, are of no interest to these gentlemen.
Jonathan A. Lesser
Sandia Park, N.M.
Investors place their money with a firm in the expectation of a financial return in a stream of dividends or rising stock price due to improved earnings. Who would invest in a firm with no earnings, but a high environmental, social and governance factor (ESG)? Answer: a philanthropist. But charity is not capitalism, and philanthropy will not raise the standard of living for Americans. Companies which focus on ESG good are most likely not to drive job growth and economic expansion.
George Hamilton
Claiborne, Md.
With the amount of money that Mr. Gore's party accepts from lobbyists and unions, I surmise they understand financial incentives fully well. I also find it amusing when they pose the question: "What type of capitalism will maximize sustainable economic growth?" Messrs. Gore and Blood, please take note: There are not several "types" of capitalism to choose from. We all know that you are using capitalism as a catch phrase to divert our attention from what you are really talking about. I'll give you a hint. Like "sustainable capitalism," it begins with an "s" and ends with an "m." It's called "socialism."
Heidi Adams
Clearfield, Pa.
Ludwig von Mises sheds light on this subject in his book "Human Action." "The concept of capitalism is as an economic concept immutable; if it means anything, it means the market economy. . . . This faulty nomenclature becomes understandable only if we realize that the pseudo-economists and the politicians who apply it want to prevent people from knowing what the market economy really is. They want to make people believe that all the repulsive manifestations of restrictive government policies are produced by 'capitalism.' "
Bill Burbage
Cayce, S.C.
How about instituting the concept of sustainable government policy?
Allan Page
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Paris looks for power from turbines beneath the Seine
River currents could be harnessed at four bridges across the capital
Kim Willsher guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 14.01 BST
The river Seine, the historical "sacred river" running through Paris, inspired Monet, Matisse and even the British painter Turner, who sat on its banks to capture the scenery.
Now the landscape is to undergo a subtle change, with a plan to install eight turbines underneath the city's celebrated bridges to raise energy from river currents.
Paris city hall is to launch an appeal this week for power companies to come up with suitable projects to install the turbines, or hydroliennes.
"After a study by our urban ecology service and the French waterways, four potential sites have already been identified," Denis Baupin, the deputy mayor, told Le Parisien newspaper. One is to the west of the city, at the Pont du Garigliano, while the others are in central Paris, at the Pont de la Tournelle, Pont Marie and Pont au Change. Two energy-harnessing machines will be placed at each spot.
"At these places the current speeds up a little," said Baupin. "The idea is to locate all the natural power sources that we have in Paris and that we might be able to exploit."
French energy company EDF has already declared the idea "interesting".
The companies interested in the project have until the autumn to submit proposals. The winner will be chosen next January and the first turbines or propellers installed by next spring.
While the bulk of the machinery to harness the currents of the Seine will be hidden under water, part of the structure of many modern hydro-mill prototypes sits above the water.
Paris authorities — already experimenting with the heating of buildings with water from underground springs, and installing mini-windmills on buildings — say the project is aimed more at raising public awareness of renewable energy than powering the city.
"We're not expecting the moon and the stars with these techniques," Baupin said, "but the educational impact of these experiments is just as important. Vélib [Paris's free bicycle scheme] has made Parisians realise they can use cycles in the city, and these renewable energy schemes will make them aware of the need to watch what they consume."
The reaction of Le Parisien readers was mixed: "Bravo! Let's hope the local authorities and fishing community understand the importance of this kind of energy," one wrote.
Another said: "The idea seems good at first glance, but when they say before they've even started that the quantity of energy produced will be symbolic, almost ridiculous, why push ahead?"
"We're going to throw a fortune into useless hydroliennes," another commented. "Their cost will be considerably higher than the electricity produced. All that to be 'educational'?" .
An underwater turbine has previously been placed under the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
Kim Willsher guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 14.01 BST
The river Seine, the historical "sacred river" running through Paris, inspired Monet, Matisse and even the British painter Turner, who sat on its banks to capture the scenery.
Now the landscape is to undergo a subtle change, with a plan to install eight turbines underneath the city's celebrated bridges to raise energy from river currents.
Paris city hall is to launch an appeal this week for power companies to come up with suitable projects to install the turbines, or hydroliennes.
"After a study by our urban ecology service and the French waterways, four potential sites have already been identified," Denis Baupin, the deputy mayor, told Le Parisien newspaper. One is to the west of the city, at the Pont du Garigliano, while the others are in central Paris, at the Pont de la Tournelle, Pont Marie and Pont au Change. Two energy-harnessing machines will be placed at each spot.
"At these places the current speeds up a little," said Baupin. "The idea is to locate all the natural power sources that we have in Paris and that we might be able to exploit."
French energy company EDF has already declared the idea "interesting".
The companies interested in the project have until the autumn to submit proposals. The winner will be chosen next January and the first turbines or propellers installed by next spring.
While the bulk of the machinery to harness the currents of the Seine will be hidden under water, part of the structure of many modern hydro-mill prototypes sits above the water.
Paris authorities — already experimenting with the heating of buildings with water from underground springs, and installing mini-windmills on buildings — say the project is aimed more at raising public awareness of renewable energy than powering the city.
"We're not expecting the moon and the stars with these techniques," Baupin said, "but the educational impact of these experiments is just as important. Vélib [Paris's free bicycle scheme] has made Parisians realise they can use cycles in the city, and these renewable energy schemes will make them aware of the need to watch what they consume."
The reaction of Le Parisien readers was mixed: "Bravo! Let's hope the local authorities and fishing community understand the importance of this kind of energy," one wrote.
Another said: "The idea seems good at first glance, but when they say before they've even started that the quantity of energy produced will be symbolic, almost ridiculous, why push ahead?"
"We're going to throw a fortune into useless hydroliennes," another commented. "Their cost will be considerably higher than the electricity produced. All that to be 'educational'?" .
An underwater turbine has previously been placed under the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
Green setback for UK as British power supplied by renewable sources falls
Fall of 7.5% in power obtained from wind, hydro and other renewable sources blamed on dry winter with low wind speeds
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 21.06 BST
Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that the proportion of electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind and hydro power fell 7.5% in the first three months of this year compared to 2009.
The drop was officially blamed mostly on a dry winter, which reduced power from water turbines, and low wind speeds, leading to the lowest absolute supply from those two sectors for four winters – as far back as the DECC figures recorded.
Experts also expressed concern that renewable energy could also have suffered from a hiatus in investment and from competition from cheap gas from overseas, as the government figures showed the UK became a net importer of gas for the first time in more than 40 years in January to March.
The latest renewable energy figures will be seized by critics and other experts who have long argued that the UK needs fewer reports and targets and more action to support and fund the long-promised low carbon transformation.
"It's absurd that despite having one of the best green energy resources in Europe, too many UK renewable projects struggle to get off the ground," said Andy Atkins, executive director of one of the country's biggest environmental groups, Friends of the Earth.
"The coalition must keep its promise to be the greenest government ever by making it easier for renewable energy projects to take off – and creating a well-funded green investment bank focused on making Britain a world leader in a developing a low-carbon economy."
The message of urgency is likely to be seconded by tomorrow's report from the independent Green Investment Bank Commission, which will call for government to use fast-track legislation to set up the new bank, which could begin operating next year.
James Cameron, executive director of Climate Change Capital bank and a member of the six-person commission on the GIB, said there was concern that there had been a slowdown in renewable energy projects because of the recession, and because of uncertainty of government policy under the new coalition government.
"If people are expecting this institution [the bank] to exist with a range of products which might lower the cost of capital, they'll wait until it does," he added.
The Green Investment Bank Commission, set up by Chancellor George Osborne while the Conservative party was in opposition, is expected to recommend a bonfire of green business quangos, whose more than £2bn a year in grants could be used to fund the bank.
It also wants an estimated £40bn from sale of permits to pollute under the European trading scheme from 2012 to 2020 to be ringfenced to support the drive to decarbonise Britain's economy.
Pension funds, other institutional investors and even ordinary savers would also be offered a chance to contribute to the low-carbon revolution by buying green bonds and green individual savings accounts, under the plans.
The bank could use the money to focus on off-shore wind power, a new "smart" grid to enable the best use to be made of renewable energy, and big schemes to make homes more energy efficient – including the government's pledge of a "green new deal" offering homeowners up to £6,500 each for improvements to cut emissions from their energy use, says the report. It suggests the total spending needed on renewable and energy efficient infrastructure will be £550bn by 2020.
The coalition government has said it will publish details of the new bank after the autumn spending review.
The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.
RenewableUK, the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.
However Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. "We can't rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," he said.
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 21.06 BST
Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that the proportion of electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind and hydro power fell 7.5% in the first three months of this year compared to 2009.
The drop was officially blamed mostly on a dry winter, which reduced power from water turbines, and low wind speeds, leading to the lowest absolute supply from those two sectors for four winters – as far back as the DECC figures recorded.
Experts also expressed concern that renewable energy could also have suffered from a hiatus in investment and from competition from cheap gas from overseas, as the government figures showed the UK became a net importer of gas for the first time in more than 40 years in January to March.
The latest renewable energy figures will be seized by critics and other experts who have long argued that the UK needs fewer reports and targets and more action to support and fund the long-promised low carbon transformation.
"It's absurd that despite having one of the best green energy resources in Europe, too many UK renewable projects struggle to get off the ground," said Andy Atkins, executive director of one of the country's biggest environmental groups, Friends of the Earth.
"The coalition must keep its promise to be the greenest government ever by making it easier for renewable energy projects to take off – and creating a well-funded green investment bank focused on making Britain a world leader in a developing a low-carbon economy."
The message of urgency is likely to be seconded by tomorrow's report from the independent Green Investment Bank Commission, which will call for government to use fast-track legislation to set up the new bank, which could begin operating next year.
James Cameron, executive director of Climate Change Capital bank and a member of the six-person commission on the GIB, said there was concern that there had been a slowdown in renewable energy projects because of the recession, and because of uncertainty of government policy under the new coalition government.
"If people are expecting this institution [the bank] to exist with a range of products which might lower the cost of capital, they'll wait until it does," he added.
The Green Investment Bank Commission, set up by Chancellor George Osborne while the Conservative party was in opposition, is expected to recommend a bonfire of green business quangos, whose more than £2bn a year in grants could be used to fund the bank.
It also wants an estimated £40bn from sale of permits to pollute under the European trading scheme from 2012 to 2020 to be ringfenced to support the drive to decarbonise Britain's economy.
Pension funds, other institutional investors and even ordinary savers would also be offered a chance to contribute to the low-carbon revolution by buying green bonds and green individual savings accounts, under the plans.
The bank could use the money to focus on off-shore wind power, a new "smart" grid to enable the best use to be made of renewable energy, and big schemes to make homes more energy efficient – including the government's pledge of a "green new deal" offering homeowners up to £6,500 each for improvements to cut emissions from their energy use, says the report. It suggests the total spending needed on renewable and energy efficient infrastructure will be £550bn by 2020.
The coalition government has said it will publish details of the new bank after the autumn spending review.
The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.
RenewableUK, the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.
However Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. "We can't rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," he said.
Unilever tops climate change index with 'superb' track record
Unilever followed by BT, Morrisons and Rolls-Royce in a comparison of Britain's 350 largest firms on energy efficiency and carbon reduction
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 29 June 2010
Unilever has topped a new index that assesses how Britain's largest companies are dealing with climate change, outperforming other industry leaders such as Tesco and Centrica.
The new FTSE carbon strategy index weighs up the "carbon risk and performance" of the UK's largest 350 firms. It compares them on cutting carbon emissions, making their products more energy-efficient and setting the most ambitious reduction targets.
The first index, compiled by the consultancy ENDS Carbon using Carbon Disclosure Project data, describes Unilever's track record on cutting emissions as "superb". The company aims to have cut its emissions by 25% by 2012.
The multinational has also seen a 20% improvement in its carbon efficiency – a measure of its carbon emissions per pound sterling of turnover, also known as "carbon intensity" – over the last three years, and has improved its carbon efficiency by 40% since 1995.
The index, published today, is one of a series of initiatives to measure and reward carbon efficiency. It argues that firms with a strong grasp of the risks of climate change and of high carbon emissions are likely to be the most efficient and best-run.
Perhaps surprisingly, Rolls-Royce, the civil and military engine maker, is No 4 in the rankings, behind BT Group in second place and the supermarket chain Morrisons in third.
The rankings weigh firms by comparing their performance against the average for all 350 firms in the index. Rolls-Royce came top in the category of improving the carbon efficiency of its products and manufacturing. Although it failed to make the overall top 10, Imperial Tobacco tied for second with BSkyB for managing CO2 emissions in the supply chain, just behind publisher Reed Elsevier.
Sixty of the FTSE 350 firms – including one FTSE 100 company, Aggreko – failed to make the index because they refuse to publish information on carbon emissions.
The index also published a risk assessment for the most carbon-intensive companies. The operator of the UK's largest coal-fired power station, Drax, came in last, owing to its complete dependency on coal. Easyjet came second-last in this category: under the new European emissions carbon trading scheme, the airline faces having to buy a significant amount of emissions permits to cover its high level of year-on-year growth.
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 29 June 2010
Unilever has topped a new index that assesses how Britain's largest companies are dealing with climate change, outperforming other industry leaders such as Tesco and Centrica.
The new FTSE carbon strategy index weighs up the "carbon risk and performance" of the UK's largest 350 firms. It compares them on cutting carbon emissions, making their products more energy-efficient and setting the most ambitious reduction targets.
The first index, compiled by the consultancy ENDS Carbon using Carbon Disclosure Project data, describes Unilever's track record on cutting emissions as "superb". The company aims to have cut its emissions by 25% by 2012.
The multinational has also seen a 20% improvement in its carbon efficiency – a measure of its carbon emissions per pound sterling of turnover, also known as "carbon intensity" – over the last three years, and has improved its carbon efficiency by 40% since 1995.
The index, published today, is one of a series of initiatives to measure and reward carbon efficiency. It argues that firms with a strong grasp of the risks of climate change and of high carbon emissions are likely to be the most efficient and best-run.
Perhaps surprisingly, Rolls-Royce, the civil and military engine maker, is No 4 in the rankings, behind BT Group in second place and the supermarket chain Morrisons in third.
The rankings weigh firms by comparing their performance against the average for all 350 firms in the index. Rolls-Royce came top in the category of improving the carbon efficiency of its products and manufacturing. Although it failed to make the overall top 10, Imperial Tobacco tied for second with BSkyB for managing CO2 emissions in the supply chain, just behind publisher Reed Elsevier.
Sixty of the FTSE 350 firms – including one FTSE 100 company, Aggreko – failed to make the index because they refuse to publish information on carbon emissions.
The index also published a risk assessment for the most carbon-intensive companies. The operator of the UK's largest coal-fired power station, Drax, came in last, owing to its complete dependency on coal. Easyjet came second-last in this category: under the new European emissions carbon trading scheme, the airline faces having to buy a significant amount of emissions permits to cover its high level of year-on-year growth.
Invest in rail, not roads
Arguing that rail investment is pointless because more people use cars ignores the reality of congestion and climate change
Richard Hebditch guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 15.00 BST
So the RAC Foundation's Stephen Glaister argues that roads are missing out on the lavish attention spent on rail. The argument that the road network suffers in comparison with rail simply does not stand up. Rail, as part of a better integrated and supported public transport network, has to be the future priority for investment if we are to stop adding to congestion and climate change.
The RAC Foundation's arguments against rail seem to come down a circular argument that not enough people use rail, therefore it shouldn't receive significant investment to expand its capacity, which will mean that not enough people will use it, which justifies not investing in it … This just won't do as the basis for deciding where scarce public investment should go.
So why should we invest in rail as part of a decent public transport network? Well, I'd suggest the first answer is that the country can't afford not to. The costs resulting from the current poor transport system mean we have to move to a better mix of transport modes. The Cabinet Office's study on urban transport showed that the costs of congestion in urban areas alone are over £10bn a year, and on top of that are costs of £8.7bn from people injured in collisions, up to £10bn from poor air quality, £9.8bn from physical inactivity as people are put off walking and cycling by the levels and speed of traffic, and up to £5bn from noise pollution.
Building more roads will not tackle these problems, and evidence shows that congestion simply builds up with the traffic jam often simply moved a few miles down the road. Road building eats up more and more public funding, with schemes like the A46 from Newark to Widmerpool costing five times as much as when it originally entered the roads programme and the proposed new 21-mile section of the A14 costing almost £1,000 an inch.
Spending on these schemes are justified through a system that gives a massive value to tiny time-savings, but which consistently undervalues the cost of the increased carbon produced as a result.
Which brings us to the second reason why we need to invest in rail – the need to meet our carbon reduction targets. The Committee on Climate Change found that the distance we travel by car needs to come down if we are to reduce CO2 from transport by enough to meet our legally binding carbon targets. Rail will have to be a part of that, alongside improving bus services and making it easier to walk and cycle for short trips.
Transport spending is likely to be cut more than other areas, but we have to think about the country's long-term needs, not just short-term pressures to cut back.
At Campaign for Better Transport, we have set out where the axe needs to fall in our Smarter Cuts report . We agree with the RAC Foundation that things like maintaining the roads and improving road safety need investment. But where new capacity is needed, it has to be public transport that helps to reduce congestion and CO2, not add to it.
Richard Hebditch guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 15.00 BST
So the RAC Foundation's Stephen Glaister argues that roads are missing out on the lavish attention spent on rail. The argument that the road network suffers in comparison with rail simply does not stand up. Rail, as part of a better integrated and supported public transport network, has to be the future priority for investment if we are to stop adding to congestion and climate change.
The RAC Foundation's arguments against rail seem to come down a circular argument that not enough people use rail, therefore it shouldn't receive significant investment to expand its capacity, which will mean that not enough people will use it, which justifies not investing in it … This just won't do as the basis for deciding where scarce public investment should go.
So why should we invest in rail as part of a decent public transport network? Well, I'd suggest the first answer is that the country can't afford not to. The costs resulting from the current poor transport system mean we have to move to a better mix of transport modes. The Cabinet Office's study on urban transport showed that the costs of congestion in urban areas alone are over £10bn a year, and on top of that are costs of £8.7bn from people injured in collisions, up to £10bn from poor air quality, £9.8bn from physical inactivity as people are put off walking and cycling by the levels and speed of traffic, and up to £5bn from noise pollution.
Building more roads will not tackle these problems, and evidence shows that congestion simply builds up with the traffic jam often simply moved a few miles down the road. Road building eats up more and more public funding, with schemes like the A46 from Newark to Widmerpool costing five times as much as when it originally entered the roads programme and the proposed new 21-mile section of the A14 costing almost £1,000 an inch.
Spending on these schemes are justified through a system that gives a massive value to tiny time-savings, but which consistently undervalues the cost of the increased carbon produced as a result.
Which brings us to the second reason why we need to invest in rail – the need to meet our carbon reduction targets. The Committee on Climate Change found that the distance we travel by car needs to come down if we are to reduce CO2 from transport by enough to meet our legally binding carbon targets. Rail will have to be a part of that, alongside improving bus services and making it easier to walk and cycle for short trips.
Transport spending is likely to be cut more than other areas, but we have to think about the country's long-term needs, not just short-term pressures to cut back.
At Campaign for Better Transport, we have set out where the axe needs to fall in our Smarter Cuts report . We agree with the RAC Foundation that things like maintaining the roads and improving road safety need investment. But where new capacity is needed, it has to be public transport that helps to reduce congestion and CO2, not add to it.