MELBOURNE (Commodity Online): The Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute set up in Australia has received a grant of US$500,000 from the US State Department. Welcoming the decision of the US State Department, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said it was a tangible vote of confidence in the Australian-founded Institute and recognition of the expertise it offers to other nations.
Chevron Australia Climate Change Julia Gillard This new grant will directly support carbon-reduction efforts in these nations through knowledge-sharing and capacity-building. The institute was set up in 2009.
Alongside energy efficiency measures, carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be an increasingly important part of the global energy mix, especially in developing countries which are reliant on a rising share of the world's fossil fuels.
Recognising the need to tackle climate change, the Australian Government is investing record amounts to support energy efficiency, renewables and other clean energy technologies in Australia.
However, finding new ways to move to a low-carbon economy requires global partnerships - partnerships that the Global CCS Institute is facilitating.
The Global CCS Institute's growing membership now has over 260 members including national governments, state governments, non-government organisations and leading global companies.
The work being done by the Institute on behalf of the US State Department will include:
- Mapping and assessment of capacity for CO2 storage in developing countries;
- A study on CO2 re-use;
- Sharing of best practice and experience with financial support mechanisms and policies; and
- Case studies on creating the best enabling environment for CCS deployment.
Chevron's CCS project on Barrow Island, part of the $43 billion Gorgon project, is an excellent example of what the Institute is seeking to achieve internationally.
The Global CCS Institute stock take report released in May found that the Gorgon project was the only new CCS project launched in 2010 which satisfied all 7 criteria agreed by the G8 at L'Aquila in 2009.The Gorgon CCS project received another boost in support on the world stage yesterday, when it was formally recognised by the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum at its annual meeting in Warsaw.
Prime Miniser Julia Gillard congratulated Chevron for this global recognition and for their outstanding contributions to our global understanding of the economic, technical and safety aspects of CCS.
This international recognition and support comes as the Government continues to focus on developing our natural resources in a way which furthers our economic wellbeing while ensuring environmental sustainability, according to a government press release.
Tuesday, 12 October 2010
Solar-powered cars could be destined for a bright future. But probably not in exactly the way you might think
Wish We Were Here ...
Solar power has long been the awkward cousin of the other green technologies touted as alternatives to the internal combustion engine. On the one hand, it has huge potential – the energy in just one hour of sunlight hitting the earth could power the world economy for an entire year; but on the other, no one has quite worked out how to harness this energy to power cars. Slowly, however, the gap between possibility and reality is being closed in innovative ways.
The achievements of Louis Palmer, a self-styled environmental adventurer, illustrate the size of the challenge. In 2008, Mr. Palmer became the first person to circumnavigate the globe in a car powered solely by the sun. The vehicle's battery stored the sun's energy and allowed him to travel at night and so cover distances of up to 100 kilometers in 24 hours. His pioneering adventure proved beyond doubt that solar energy can be a legitimate alternative to petrol or diesel.
However, it also highlighted the many reasons why solar power is hugely impractical for everyday use. Mr. Palmer's vehicle, the Solartaxi, only has room for two people and it needs to drag around six square meters of photovoltaic cells on a five meter long trailer to generate sufficient power. This is hardly practical for a trip to the local store.
Solar power's drawbacks do not end there. The photovoltaic cells typically used to power cars are bulky, expensive to manufacture and do not provide anywhere near enough power needed to drive a traditional five door family car. The range of most solar powered cars is also severely limited, particularly in countries where the sun does not shine frequently. In the words of one solar expert: "We can't all live in California".
Even the most passionate supporters of solar power accept that it is a long way from being a practical alternative to fossil fuels for cars. Mr. Palmer – speaking from the Ural mountains, where he is organizing and taking part in the world's first zero-emission round-the-world race – describes solar-powered cars as "an eighties concept" and points out that the vehicles he drives tend to be lightweight prototypes that are expensive to build.
It seems the world's car manufacturers have reached the same conclusion. They have produced solar-powered cars – such as BMW's Lovos car or the Honda Dream – but these are usually just concept cars or made to run in specialist races. John Kingston, government affairs and environment manager for Honda in the UK, says that despite the Honda Dream winning the prestigious World Solar Challenge race in 1993 and 1996, the technology wasn't developed further. "We reached the conclusion that solar was not the most effective way to power a car," he says.
Ken Zweibel, director of the Solar Institute at the George Washington University, says solar cars are often just used as a publicity stunt by the big car makers. "You might as well just use a plug and batteries," he says. "There are uses for solar panels on cars, such as keeping batteries charged or cooling, but you only get three-quarters of a kilowatt hour per day from a square meter of solar panels, which equates to a couple of miles. No car has 10 square meters to devote to solar panels."
Not everybody, however, takes the view that solar panels have no place on the cars of the future. Hannah Macmurray, a former car designer for Honda and Mercedes Benz and now editor of Green Car Design magazine in London, says: "If we're saying that [solar] is a waste of time, then we're saying that things like fuel cells are a waste of time. If we don't start somewhere, we won't get anywhere."
Research into solar cells is also moving on. Swiss-born inventor and physicist, Nunzio La Vecchia, advocates a "solar skin" that gets around the problem of bulky panels. His company, NLV Solar, worked in partnership with Swedish supercar manufacturer Koenigsegg to develop the NLV Quant car.
It is powered by two electric motors on the rear wheels and is covered in a photovoltaic solar skin, which sends the sun's energy to a lightweight battery in the car. Ultimately, the NLV Quant relies on most of its power from other means, and the high-tech solar skin only powers its cooling system.
But Mr. La Vecchia's car illustrates the advances being made in the field. This is why the world's biggest car manufacturers, despite the current drawbacks of solar power, are not abandoning the concept altogether. Some are finding there is a third way: To use solar as a supplement to both petrol and electric power. The hybrid car of today is rapidly evolving into the tribrid car of tomorrow. The 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid can be fitted with a solar roof for an extra $10,000, Nissan's new Leaf hybrid car can be fitted with a solar panel spoiler and General Motors will introduce a solar option on its Chevrolet Volt hybrid car.
Outside the mainstream car makers, French battery manufacturer Bolloré and Italian car designer Pininfarina teamed up in 2009 to create the 'Bluecar' – a hybrid of electric and solar – and for the true renewable disciple there is the Venturi autonomous energy vehicle that runs purely on wind and solar power.
Solar Electrical Systems in California designed the solar roof on the Toyota Prius. Greg Johanson, the company's chief executive, says there is increased demand from carmakers for his company's expertise. But he is also realistic about the potential of the technology.
"Solar panels are better on a Soccer Mum's SUV than on a Prius. Solar will give you two miles but batteries will give you 30 miles," he says.
Ultimately, the role of the solar panel in powering cars might well lie, not on the car itself, but on the garage that houses it. Ms. Macmurray says: "Keep in mind that solar panels are a product designed for commercial use on flat objects that don't move – from calculators to buildings. Car designers, and probably not engineers, were the ones who put them on cars."
Mr. Palmer is adamant that this is the future for solar-powered cars: "Today we have batteries that allow you to charge the car from home. If you put 10 square meters of solar panels on your roof you can generate 15,000 miles of driving time. For a cost of between €4,000 to €5,000 you won't need to visit a petrol station for 40 years," he says.
"The world has so much roof space. If everyone put solar panels on their roofs, we could be independent of fossil fuels."
Mr. Corbett is the reports editor for The Wall Street Journal Europe. He can be reached at charlie.corbett@wsj.com
Solar power has long been the awkward cousin of the other green technologies touted as alternatives to the internal combustion engine. On the one hand, it has huge potential – the energy in just one hour of sunlight hitting the earth could power the world economy for an entire year; but on the other, no one has quite worked out how to harness this energy to power cars. Slowly, however, the gap between possibility and reality is being closed in innovative ways.
The achievements of Louis Palmer, a self-styled environmental adventurer, illustrate the size of the challenge. In 2008, Mr. Palmer became the first person to circumnavigate the globe in a car powered solely by the sun. The vehicle's battery stored the sun's energy and allowed him to travel at night and so cover distances of up to 100 kilometers in 24 hours. His pioneering adventure proved beyond doubt that solar energy can be a legitimate alternative to petrol or diesel.
However, it also highlighted the many reasons why solar power is hugely impractical for everyday use. Mr. Palmer's vehicle, the Solartaxi, only has room for two people and it needs to drag around six square meters of photovoltaic cells on a five meter long trailer to generate sufficient power. This is hardly practical for a trip to the local store.
Solar power's drawbacks do not end there. The photovoltaic cells typically used to power cars are bulky, expensive to manufacture and do not provide anywhere near enough power needed to drive a traditional five door family car. The range of most solar powered cars is also severely limited, particularly in countries where the sun does not shine frequently. In the words of one solar expert: "We can't all live in California".
Even the most passionate supporters of solar power accept that it is a long way from being a practical alternative to fossil fuels for cars. Mr. Palmer – speaking from the Ural mountains, where he is organizing and taking part in the world's first zero-emission round-the-world race – describes solar-powered cars as "an eighties concept" and points out that the vehicles he drives tend to be lightweight prototypes that are expensive to build.
It seems the world's car manufacturers have reached the same conclusion. They have produced solar-powered cars – such as BMW's Lovos car or the Honda Dream – but these are usually just concept cars or made to run in specialist races. John Kingston, government affairs and environment manager for Honda in the UK, says that despite the Honda Dream winning the prestigious World Solar Challenge race in 1993 and 1996, the technology wasn't developed further. "We reached the conclusion that solar was not the most effective way to power a car," he says.
Ken Zweibel, director of the Solar Institute at the George Washington University, says solar cars are often just used as a publicity stunt by the big car makers. "You might as well just use a plug and batteries," he says. "There are uses for solar panels on cars, such as keeping batteries charged or cooling, but you only get three-quarters of a kilowatt hour per day from a square meter of solar panels, which equates to a couple of miles. No car has 10 square meters to devote to solar panels."
Not everybody, however, takes the view that solar panels have no place on the cars of the future. Hannah Macmurray, a former car designer for Honda and Mercedes Benz and now editor of Green Car Design magazine in London, says: "If we're saying that [solar] is a waste of time, then we're saying that things like fuel cells are a waste of time. If we don't start somewhere, we won't get anywhere."
Research into solar cells is also moving on. Swiss-born inventor and physicist, Nunzio La Vecchia, advocates a "solar skin" that gets around the problem of bulky panels. His company, NLV Solar, worked in partnership with Swedish supercar manufacturer Koenigsegg to develop the NLV Quant car.
It is powered by two electric motors on the rear wheels and is covered in a photovoltaic solar skin, which sends the sun's energy to a lightweight battery in the car. Ultimately, the NLV Quant relies on most of its power from other means, and the high-tech solar skin only powers its cooling system.
But Mr. La Vecchia's car illustrates the advances being made in the field. This is why the world's biggest car manufacturers, despite the current drawbacks of solar power, are not abandoning the concept altogether. Some are finding there is a third way: To use solar as a supplement to both petrol and electric power. The hybrid car of today is rapidly evolving into the tribrid car of tomorrow. The 2010 Toyota Prius hybrid can be fitted with a solar roof for an extra $10,000, Nissan's new Leaf hybrid car can be fitted with a solar panel spoiler and General Motors will introduce a solar option on its Chevrolet Volt hybrid car.
Outside the mainstream car makers, French battery manufacturer Bolloré and Italian car designer Pininfarina teamed up in 2009 to create the 'Bluecar' – a hybrid of electric and solar – and for the true renewable disciple there is the Venturi autonomous energy vehicle that runs purely on wind and solar power.
Solar Electrical Systems in California designed the solar roof on the Toyota Prius. Greg Johanson, the company's chief executive, says there is increased demand from carmakers for his company's expertise. But he is also realistic about the potential of the technology.
"Solar panels are better on a Soccer Mum's SUV than on a Prius. Solar will give you two miles but batteries will give you 30 miles," he says.
Ultimately, the role of the solar panel in powering cars might well lie, not on the car itself, but on the garage that houses it. Ms. Macmurray says: "Keep in mind that solar panels are a product designed for commercial use on flat objects that don't move – from calculators to buildings. Car designers, and probably not engineers, were the ones who put them on cars."
Mr. Palmer is adamant that this is the future for solar-powered cars: "Today we have batteries that allow you to charge the car from home. If you put 10 square meters of solar panels on your roof you can generate 15,000 miles of driving time. For a cost of between €4,000 to €5,000 you won't need to visit a petrol station for 40 years," he says.
"The world has so much roof space. If everyone put solar panels on their roofs, we could be independent of fossil fuels."
Mr. Corbett is the reports editor for The Wall Street Journal Europe. He can be reached at charlie.corbett@wsj.com
Why landfill mining could be the next big thing
A new project that will reuse 16.5m tonnes of rubbish from a Belgian landfill site could help solve a host of environmental problems
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 October 2010 19.24 BST
It might sound like a load of old rubbish, but landfill mining could be the next resources idea to sweep Britain and the rest of Europe. UK company Advanced Plasma Power (APP) has formed a joint venture to dig up a giant landfill site in Belgium, and will recycle half the rubbish and convert the rest into renewable electricity. The project, which will become operational by 2014, is thought to be the first of its kind in the world.
Other companies are also examining the viability of similar projects across the Continent to free up much needed landfill space and because the value of recycled metals which can be recovered has risen.
The 30-year project will reuse 16.5m tonnes of municipal waste dumped since the 1960s at the landfill site near Hasselt in eastern Belgium. APP will use its plasma technology to convert the methane produced by the rubbish, which is more than 20 times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide, into usable gas. This will fuel a 60MW power plant capable of supplying 60,000 homes.
The idea of digging up old rubbish is not new. The chief executive of one British landfill operator told the Guardian he had considered it 15 years ago. But the increasing shortage of landfill space, a need to produce more electricity renewably and higher metal prices are now combining to make firms consider it more seriously.
If Britain keeps throwing away rubbish at current rates, it will run out of space by 2018. Landfill taxes will almost double in the next five years in an effort to delay this point. The costs of landfill mining are only likely to become economic on a large scale in Britain if companies can recoup this tax in return for emptying the site. But the process can be dangerous, particularly if asbestos or other hazardous waste is found on older sites, while trapped methane can ignite when released.
Paul Davies, an environmental law partner at City law firm Macfarlanes, said: "The greatest challenge aside from dealing with the cost-benefit of materials recovery is overcoming health and safety risks posed by boring down into sites where, in many cases, for older "mature" sites, there are inexact records of what lies below."
Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 October 2010 19.24 BST
It might sound like a load of old rubbish, but landfill mining could be the next resources idea to sweep Britain and the rest of Europe. UK company Advanced Plasma Power (APP) has formed a joint venture to dig up a giant landfill site in Belgium, and will recycle half the rubbish and convert the rest into renewable electricity. The project, which will become operational by 2014, is thought to be the first of its kind in the world.
Other companies are also examining the viability of similar projects across the Continent to free up much needed landfill space and because the value of recycled metals which can be recovered has risen.
The 30-year project will reuse 16.5m tonnes of municipal waste dumped since the 1960s at the landfill site near Hasselt in eastern Belgium. APP will use its plasma technology to convert the methane produced by the rubbish, which is more than 20 times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide, into usable gas. This will fuel a 60MW power plant capable of supplying 60,000 homes.
The idea of digging up old rubbish is not new. The chief executive of one British landfill operator told the Guardian he had considered it 15 years ago. But the increasing shortage of landfill space, a need to produce more electricity renewably and higher metal prices are now combining to make firms consider it more seriously.
If Britain keeps throwing away rubbish at current rates, it will run out of space by 2018. Landfill taxes will almost double in the next five years in an effort to delay this point. The costs of landfill mining are only likely to become economic on a large scale in Britain if companies can recoup this tax in return for emptying the site. But the process can be dangerous, particularly if asbestos or other hazardous waste is found on older sites, while trapped methane can ignite when released.
Paul Davies, an environmental law partner at City law firm Macfarlanes, said: "The greatest challenge aside from dealing with the cost-benefit of materials recovery is overcoming health and safety risks posed by boring down into sites where, in many cases, for older "mature" sites, there are inexact records of what lies below."
David Cameron in U-turn over solar panels
Conservative leader had promised to increase payments to early adopters but the move has now been ruled out
• Letter from David Cameron on feed-in tariffs
• Coalition drops further green pledges on timber and renewables
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 October 2010 20.09 BST
David Cameron has reneged on a pre-election promise to reward early adopters of solar panels and other domestic green energy generation, it has emerged.
Under the "feed-in tariff" scheme introduced in April, owners of solar panels fitted to houses after 15 July 2009 are paid 41.3p per unit of electricity, while householders who put up panels before that date get just 9p.
Green energy campaigners had fought the difference, which they called a "betrayal".
Responding in March to a letter from one of his Witney constituents calling for an increase in payments to such "pioneers", Cameron wrote in a letter seen by the Guardian: "I agree with you that the [Labour] government's current proposals for feed-in-tariffs will unfairly penalise the very people who were the early investors in local energy."
He added: "That is why under a Conservative government, any micro-generation technologies that have already been installed … will be eligible for the new higher tariffs once they commence."
Within days of taking power as PM, he also said the coalition would be the "greenest government ever".
But last month, responding to a question from Green MP Caroline Lucas the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, ruled out any such move. "I considered the issue carefully on a value-for-money basis, andI am afraid that the advice from my officials was clearly that we cannot introduce retrospection in such cases because it does not represent value for money," he said.
"We are trying to introduce new schemes in future, and therefore, sadly, the only incentive and payback that people such as the Hon Lady and I will get is the warm glow of being pioneers."
Charles Hendry, the Conservative MP who is now minister of state at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), also wrote pre-election letters to campaigners, saying a Tory government would pay higher rates to those who had installed early. Many Lib Dem MPs pledged it too, signing an early-day motion on the issue.
Julie Davenport, chief executive of renewable energy supplier Good Energy, said Cameron's U-turn showed he was failing on his promise of a "big society": "Good Energy is extremely disappointed that the government has not met its own pre-election promise to support early adopters of renewable technologies. We urge David Cameron to ensure that there is no further reduction to the feed-in tariffs in any way."
"Feed-in tariffs encourage new, local investment in green energy, are a catalyst to break up traditional energy markets and help many ordinary people make a difference to climate change. Isn't that what a "big society" really means – taking control from the few and giving it back to the many?"
In addition to Huhne's comments, recent speculation that the 41.3p feed-in-tariff rate will be cut as part of spending review annoucements on 20 October mean it is now highly unlikely that early adopters will get the redress they hoped for.
Fears that the feed-in tariff will be reduced or even axed for householders who since April have joined a gold rush of solar installs have led industry figures to write to Huhne, the business secretary, Vince Cable, and chief secretary to the treasury, Danny Alexander, warning of the risks of such a cut. When the subsidy was launched by Labour, the rate paid to microgenerators was set to be reviewed in 2012.
A group of 69 individuals and organisations, including E.on's Paul Golby, wrote last week that: "Such premature adjustments to the tariff would have a profoundly damaging effect on long-term investor confidence in the clean tech and renewable energy sectors, and may cause investors to flee altogether."
• Letter from David Cameron on feed-in tariffs
• Coalition drops further green pledges on timber and renewables
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 October 2010 20.09 BST
David Cameron has reneged on a pre-election promise to reward early adopters of solar panels and other domestic green energy generation, it has emerged.
Under the "feed-in tariff" scheme introduced in April, owners of solar panels fitted to houses after 15 July 2009 are paid 41.3p per unit of electricity, while householders who put up panels before that date get just 9p.
Green energy campaigners had fought the difference, which they called a "betrayal".
Responding in March to a letter from one of his Witney constituents calling for an increase in payments to such "pioneers", Cameron wrote in a letter seen by the Guardian: "I agree with you that the [Labour] government's current proposals for feed-in-tariffs will unfairly penalise the very people who were the early investors in local energy."
He added: "That is why under a Conservative government, any micro-generation technologies that have already been installed … will be eligible for the new higher tariffs once they commence."
Within days of taking power as PM, he also said the coalition would be the "greenest government ever".
But last month, responding to a question from Green MP Caroline Lucas the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, ruled out any such move. "I considered the issue carefully on a value-for-money basis, andI am afraid that the advice from my officials was clearly that we cannot introduce retrospection in such cases because it does not represent value for money," he said.
"We are trying to introduce new schemes in future, and therefore, sadly, the only incentive and payback that people such as the Hon Lady and I will get is the warm glow of being pioneers."
Charles Hendry, the Conservative MP who is now minister of state at the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), also wrote pre-election letters to campaigners, saying a Tory government would pay higher rates to those who had installed early. Many Lib Dem MPs pledged it too, signing an early-day motion on the issue.
Julie Davenport, chief executive of renewable energy supplier Good Energy, said Cameron's U-turn showed he was failing on his promise of a "big society": "Good Energy is extremely disappointed that the government has not met its own pre-election promise to support early adopters of renewable technologies. We urge David Cameron to ensure that there is no further reduction to the feed-in tariffs in any way."
"Feed-in tariffs encourage new, local investment in green energy, are a catalyst to break up traditional energy markets and help many ordinary people make a difference to climate change. Isn't that what a "big society" really means – taking control from the few and giving it back to the many?"
In addition to Huhne's comments, recent speculation that the 41.3p feed-in-tariff rate will be cut as part of spending review annoucements on 20 October mean it is now highly unlikely that early adopters will get the redress they hoped for.
Fears that the feed-in tariff will be reduced or even axed for householders who since April have joined a gold rush of solar installs have led industry figures to write to Huhne, the business secretary, Vince Cable, and chief secretary to the treasury, Danny Alexander, warning of the risks of such a cut. When the subsidy was launched by Labour, the rate paid to microgenerators was set to be reviewed in 2012.
A group of 69 individuals and organisations, including E.on's Paul Golby, wrote last week that: "Such premature adjustments to the tariff would have a profoundly damaging effect on long-term investor confidence in the clean tech and renewable energy sectors, and may cause investors to flee altogether."
Environment adviser warns against green funding cuts
Tim Yeo, chair of cross-party environment committee, tells government to spend more on low-carbon technology
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 October 2010 21.30 BST
The Conservative chairman of parliament's cross-party energy and climate change committee is to warn the government against reducing spending on low-carbon technology, saying it would be like "cutting the budget for Spitfires in 1939".
Tim Yeo, who was an environment minister in John Major's government, says his committee is speaking out on behalf of environmentalists, who are "holding [their] breath" after indications that the government will slim down commitments to sustainable technology when it announces new four-year spending plans for Whitehall departments in the comprehensive spending review on October 20. At a recent appearance in front of Yeo's committee, Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, said "nothing was safe" in his department.
Yeo says he is concerned that upfront funding for clean coal technology will be delayed or worse; money for an upgrade of north-eastern ports needed for the establishment of large windfarms is unlikely to be secured; the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust will be scrapped; and funding for feed-in tariffs and renewable heat incentives will be reduced. If there is the slightest change to these mechanisms, Yeo says, the UK's renewables sector will become too unpredictable to survive.
Instead, Yeo tells the Guardian the government should be looking to increase spending, comparing the task with that during the second world war, when "the UK was running an even bigger deficit, but we would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed".
Yeo uses statistics provided by the House of Commons library to show that despite the national debt, spending on defence went up by 125% between 1930 and 1939. He says that in many ways the "destabilisation" of the global climate poses as grave a threat. Cutting investment in green infrastructure would be "a folly, and something of a false economy".
The MP suggests there are other departments whose budgets should be plundered to safeguard the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc). David Cameron has ordered no detail of spending settlements to emerge before the spending review, but Yeo is concerned that since the deal struck by Decc excludes "nuclear and coal legacy costs" – as much as 40% of the department's budget – Huhne has had to find savings of up to a third elsewhere.
Last week it was reported that plans to build three new factories to make thousands of giant offshore wind turbines were in jeopardy because of uncertainty over port improvements. Officials at Decc were reported to be fighting to put up half the £60m they are required to do. But it has been reported they are struggling to secure the support of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in putting up the other half. Officials say the great prize for environmentalists is the establishment of a green investment bank, as advocated by Huhne, which would divert public funds to ensure that renewable and low-carbon schemes, such as the ports, have sufficient capital. This is unlikely to be ready to be announced in the CSR but though it is intended to assuage the green community, environmentalists want to see between £2bn and £6bn in public money behind it – more than simply an agglomeration of existing renewables funds – and it to be given an ability to borrow and lend.
Huhne settled his spending commitments on 30 September but officials believe the early settlement may have been cosmetic – driven by the Treasury's desire to have Huhne, who is a Lib Dem, and a trained economist, serving on the star chamber scrutinising the settlement proposals of other departments, including that of his fellow Lib Dem Vince Cable, whose business department is one of the largest non-ringfenced departments. Yeo urges Huhne to unofficially reopen his budget settlement at the end of the process and argue for a funding increase, not decrease.
He said: "Cutting spending on low carbon technologies now, would be like cutting the budget for Spitfires in 1939. The UK was running an even bigger deficit in the 1930s, but we would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed. Of course, today we are not faced with imminent invasion, but in many ways the destabilisation of the global climate also poses a grave threat to our long term national security. In future, climate change could jeopardise our food security, cause unprecedented mass migration and conceivably even spark wars. It would be folly, and something of a false economy, to cut investment on green infrastructure now."
He calls for greater investment in green technology not less and adduces figures for the 1930s and the level of defence spending.
Yeo also quotes the words of foreign secretary William Hague to the Conservative party conference last week, when Hague said: "The scientific consensus on climate change tells us that it could give rise to the wars of the future. Even for those out there who might be sceptical, this is too great a risk not to act."
Allegra Stratton, political correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 October 2010 21.30 BST
The Conservative chairman of parliament's cross-party energy and climate change committee is to warn the government against reducing spending on low-carbon technology, saying it would be like "cutting the budget for Spitfires in 1939".
Tim Yeo, who was an environment minister in John Major's government, says his committee is speaking out on behalf of environmentalists, who are "holding [their] breath" after indications that the government will slim down commitments to sustainable technology when it announces new four-year spending plans for Whitehall departments in the comprehensive spending review on October 20. At a recent appearance in front of Yeo's committee, Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, said "nothing was safe" in his department.
Yeo says he is concerned that upfront funding for clean coal technology will be delayed or worse; money for an upgrade of north-eastern ports needed for the establishment of large windfarms is unlikely to be secured; the Carbon Trust and the Energy Saving Trust will be scrapped; and funding for feed-in tariffs and renewable heat incentives will be reduced. If there is the slightest change to these mechanisms, Yeo says, the UK's renewables sector will become too unpredictable to survive.
Instead, Yeo tells the Guardian the government should be looking to increase spending, comparing the task with that during the second world war, when "the UK was running an even bigger deficit, but we would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed".
Yeo uses statistics provided by the House of Commons library to show that despite the national debt, spending on defence went up by 125% between 1930 and 1939. He says that in many ways the "destabilisation" of the global climate poses as grave a threat. Cutting investment in green infrastructure would be "a folly, and something of a false economy".
The MP suggests there are other departments whose budgets should be plundered to safeguard the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc). David Cameron has ordered no detail of spending settlements to emerge before the spending review, but Yeo is concerned that since the deal struck by Decc excludes "nuclear and coal legacy costs" – as much as 40% of the department's budget – Huhne has had to find savings of up to a third elsewhere.
Last week it was reported that plans to build three new factories to make thousands of giant offshore wind turbines were in jeopardy because of uncertainty over port improvements. Officials at Decc were reported to be fighting to put up half the £60m they are required to do. But it has been reported they are struggling to secure the support of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in putting up the other half. Officials say the great prize for environmentalists is the establishment of a green investment bank, as advocated by Huhne, which would divert public funds to ensure that renewable and low-carbon schemes, such as the ports, have sufficient capital. This is unlikely to be ready to be announced in the CSR but though it is intended to assuage the green community, environmentalists want to see between £2bn and £6bn in public money behind it – more than simply an agglomeration of existing renewables funds – and it to be given an ability to borrow and lend.
Huhne settled his spending commitments on 30 September but officials believe the early settlement may have been cosmetic – driven by the Treasury's desire to have Huhne, who is a Lib Dem, and a trained economist, serving on the star chamber scrutinising the settlement proposals of other departments, including that of his fellow Lib Dem Vince Cable, whose business department is one of the largest non-ringfenced departments. Yeo urges Huhne to unofficially reopen his budget settlement at the end of the process and argue for a funding increase, not decrease.
He said: "Cutting spending on low carbon technologies now, would be like cutting the budget for Spitfires in 1939. The UK was running an even bigger deficit in the 1930s, but we would never have won the battle of Britain if spending on defence had been sacrificed. Of course, today we are not faced with imminent invasion, but in many ways the destabilisation of the global climate also poses a grave threat to our long term national security. In future, climate change could jeopardise our food security, cause unprecedented mass migration and conceivably even spark wars. It would be folly, and something of a false economy, to cut investment on green infrastructure now."
He calls for greater investment in green technology not less and adduces figures for the 1930s and the level of defence spending.
Yeo also quotes the words of foreign secretary William Hague to the Conservative party conference last week, when Hague said: "The scientific consensus on climate change tells us that it could give rise to the wars of the future. Even for those out there who might be sceptical, this is too great a risk not to act."