Britain falls from third to 13th place in league table of countries investing in alternative energy and clean technology
• Budget 2011: The new, green economy falls to the old politics
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 29 March 2011
The UK is rapidly losing the race to be the global powerhouse of the green economy, while other countries streak ahead in low-carbon technology investment and development, according to rankings published on Tuesday.
Last year, the UK slumped from being third in the world in terms of investment in green growth, to only 13th place, , according to a report by the respected US Pew Environment Group.
This means the UK now ranks well behind developing countries such as Brazil, in sixth place, India in 10th place and China in first place.
Investment in alternative energy and clean technology reached $11bn (£7bn) in the UK in 2009, but plummeted to only $3.3bn (£2bn) last year - a decline of 70%. This compares with $2.3bn (£1.45bn) investment in Mexico last year, $4bn (£2.5bn) in France and $14bn (£8.7bn) in Italy. Top of the league is China, with $54bn (£34bn), Germany with $41.2bn (£25.7bn) and the US, with $34bn (£21bn) of investment last year.
The news comes ahead of a crucial cabinet discussion of the UK's climate change targets beyond 2020. There are still deep divisions between the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which is calling for tough targets to stimulate green growth, and the Treasury and the Department of Business, which argue that the current economic situation calls for less stringent targets in 10 years' time.
Ministers must decide whether to adopt recommendations made by the Committee on Climate Change, the statutory body that is charged with advising the government on how to meet long-term climate change targets. The committee said last year the UK should aim to cut emissions by 60% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels. A decision should be taken soon on whether to follow that advice, if ministers are to enact the new target into law this autumn, as the Climate Change Act requires.
The Pew report blamed the UK's fall down the ranking on "a sharp decline in offshore wind energy investments and uncertainty surrounding [government] policy".
Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew's clean energy programme, said: "National policy matters - investment follows policy. We've seen that again and again."
Overall, global clean technology investment reached a record $243bn (£152bn) last year. Cuttino said it was a landmark, as this was the first year in which investment in renewable energy overtook nuclear power.
"This was a big year," she said. "Now it's about keeping up that momentum."
But there was disappointment that the UK had not performed better. Meg Hillier, shadow energy and climate spokeswoman, said: "If we do not move fast we will slip back even further, and companies will shut up shop here or go abroad."
Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace, added: "The Conservatives came to power promising to end dithering on energy decisions but instead investors face a continuing atmosphere of uncertainty. With long delays in setting up the green investment bank, further dilly-dallying over when it will be able to function as a proper bank, and a green leal [project to insulate homes] with no sense of direction, we've had a year of delays and broken promises. In the mean time green investment elsewhere has surged ahead so we're losing jobs and industries to other countries. Unless [David] Cameron gives a direct instruction to his Treasury to stop sabotaging his ambitions for the low-carbon economy, British businesses will continue to lose out."
Ahead of the Cabinet discussion, a group of 10 major UK companies including Unilever, Kingfisher, Tesco, Thames Water, EDF Energy and Shell, brought together by the Prince of Wales' corporate leaders group on climate change, have written to the prime minister, urging him to take a stand.
"This target is only credible if there are the right policies and milestones in place to ensure we take adequate action to achieve it between now and 2050. We therefore support the Committee on Climate Change's call for steady progress towards that goal along a clear trajectory, and would welcome the adoption of a strong fourth carbon budget consistent with a 2030 milestone of at least 60% reductions, and with the proposals in the EU's 2050 low-carbon roadmap."
They also called for more international action on greenhouse gas emissions from sectors such as aviation and shipping.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Nuclear is the safest form of power, says top UK scientist
Sir David King says nuclear power is a 'massive economic opportunity' and should be pursued despite incidents in Japan
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 March 2011 15.57 BST
Stepping on to a transatlantic flight will expose a person to more radiation than walking around the Fukushima nuclear power station in Japan – even in its current state of near-meltdown – according to the UK government's former chief scientist.
Sir David King mounted a robust defence of nuclear power on Wednesday as renewed fears over its dangers buffeted the industry. He said it was the safest form of electricity generation, and that the recovery of most of Japan's nuclear fleet after the worst earthquake in living memory showed that safety systems were working.
"An earthquake of 9.0 [magnitude] hit Japan, and all 16 nuclear plants that felt the earthquake were switched off within two minutes," he said. "Every one of them acted as they were meant to, including Fukushima. Water cooling was initiated, as designed."
He pointed out that the 14-metre tsunami which hit Fukushima was "an extremely unlikely event" that overwhelmed defences designed for a tsunami of more than 2m. When this happened, the battery systems stepped in to pump cooling water round the plant for nine and a half hours, he said. All this was evidence of safety systems kicking in correctly.
"As far as we know, not one person has died from radiation," he added. "Let me put that in context - in the same week, 30 coal miners died. Generating electricity from coal is far more dangerous."
He asked: "Is there safer power than nuclear energy historically? No. Even hydroelectricity has caused more fatalities."
Nuclear power represented a "massive economic opportunity" for the UK, Sir David said, and one that should be kept on track despite the incidents in Japan.
Sir David said the lessons from the Japanese incident would help to improve safety further. "We should be looking carefully at the lessons we have learned from this tsunami and how to manage the risks. On the whole, [the Japanese nuclear industry] responded well."
The problems in Japan "could never have been a Chernobyl - that could not have happened," he said. The mass evacuations that have taken place were a good precaution, but people were not in danger, he said.
Airline passengers unwittingly expose themselves to a dose of radiation when they fly, but it is harmless as it is in such small quantities.
Sir David also said he did not believe the assertion by Connie Hedegaard, Europe's climate change commissioner, that electricity generation from offshore wind was cheaper than nuclear power. "My own view is that nuclear is going to prove to be very competitive," he said.
But he said that in the race to decarbonise electricity production, countries should pursue all available non-fossil fuel options, including all forms of renewable energy.
Sir David was speaking at the launch of a new report from the Smith School of Enterprise, part of Oxford University, which showed that the UK should reform its nuclear industry in order to recycle spent fuel waste into new usable fuel for the new generation of reactors the coalition government is pressing for.
Fiona Harvey , environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 March 2011 15.57 BST
Stepping on to a transatlantic flight will expose a person to more radiation than walking around the Fukushima nuclear power station in Japan – even in its current state of near-meltdown – according to the UK government's former chief scientist.
Sir David King mounted a robust defence of nuclear power on Wednesday as renewed fears over its dangers buffeted the industry. He said it was the safest form of electricity generation, and that the recovery of most of Japan's nuclear fleet after the worst earthquake in living memory showed that safety systems were working.
"An earthquake of 9.0 [magnitude] hit Japan, and all 16 nuclear plants that felt the earthquake were switched off within two minutes," he said. "Every one of them acted as they were meant to, including Fukushima. Water cooling was initiated, as designed."
He pointed out that the 14-metre tsunami which hit Fukushima was "an extremely unlikely event" that overwhelmed defences designed for a tsunami of more than 2m. When this happened, the battery systems stepped in to pump cooling water round the plant for nine and a half hours, he said. All this was evidence of safety systems kicking in correctly.
"As far as we know, not one person has died from radiation," he added. "Let me put that in context - in the same week, 30 coal miners died. Generating electricity from coal is far more dangerous."
He asked: "Is there safer power than nuclear energy historically? No. Even hydroelectricity has caused more fatalities."
Nuclear power represented a "massive economic opportunity" for the UK, Sir David said, and one that should be kept on track despite the incidents in Japan.
Sir David said the lessons from the Japanese incident would help to improve safety further. "We should be looking carefully at the lessons we have learned from this tsunami and how to manage the risks. On the whole, [the Japanese nuclear industry] responded well."
The problems in Japan "could never have been a Chernobyl - that could not have happened," he said. The mass evacuations that have taken place were a good precaution, but people were not in danger, he said.
Airline passengers unwittingly expose themselves to a dose of radiation when they fly, but it is harmless as it is in such small quantities.
Sir David also said he did not believe the assertion by Connie Hedegaard, Europe's climate change commissioner, that electricity generation from offshore wind was cheaper than nuclear power. "My own view is that nuclear is going to prove to be very competitive," he said.
But he said that in the race to decarbonise electricity production, countries should pursue all available non-fossil fuel options, including all forms of renewable energy.
Sir David was speaking at the launch of a new report from the Smith School of Enterprise, part of Oxford University, which showed that the UK should reform its nuclear industry in order to recycle spent fuel waste into new usable fuel for the new generation of reactors the coalition government is pressing for.