<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary &#187; politics</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Conservative Party policy on local generation of electricity and heat</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #7]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Conservatives.gif" align="right" height="44" width="271" />The Conservative Party published a policy paper in early December on decentralised production of energy. It argues for heavy subsidy for small-scale generation of electricity. The report is useful in focusing on the need to minimise the finance and administrative burdens on small generators. However, it omits any consideration of the costs of the scheme it proposes. It is woefully ill-informed about developments in other countries. The Conservatives have subscribed to a romantic view about micro-generation and are choosing to ignore the huge costs of subsidising inefficient local generators. If they want large-scale low-carbon generation they should either back nuclear, remove the planning problems with wind, subsidise tidal or biomass power, or invest in CO2 capture.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Conservatives.gif" align="right" height="44" width="271" />The Conservative Party published a policy paper in early December on decentralised production of energy. It argues for heavy subsidy for small-scale generation of electricity. The report is useful in focusing on the need to minimise the finance and administrative burdens on small generators. However, it omits any consideration of the costs of the scheme it proposes. It is woefully ill-informed about developments in other countries. The Conservatives have subscribed to a romantic view about micro-generation and are choosing to ignore the huge costs of subsidising inefficient local generators. If they want large-scale low-carbon generation they should either back nuclear, remove the planning problems with wind, subsidise tidal or biomass power, or invest in CO2 capture.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64#more-64" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/12/12/64/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 2007 IPCC synthesis report</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #6]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/IPCC.gif" vspace="5" />
The IPCC released a 23-page report summarising the work of the fourth phase. Newspaper headlines suggested the document was more apocalyptic than the third summary of 2001. The reality is more complex.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/IPCC.gif" vspace="5" /><br />
The IPCC released a 23-page report summarising the work of the fourth phase. Newspaper headlines suggested the document was more apocalyptic than the third summary of 2001. The reality is more complex.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#more-55" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gordon Brown’s first speech on climate change</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #6]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon capture]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Brown.jpg" alt="Gordon Brown" title="Gordon Brown" align="right" height="225" hspace="10" width="180" />The environmental community tends to think that Gordon Brown doesn’t understand the complexity and size of the climate challenge. His first speech on the subject gave more detail than expected and reassured some that the prime minister does recognise the severity of the challenge. He moved towards an 80% reduction in GHGs by 2050, but even under optimistic assumptions his plans will not result in emissions reductions on the scale required. All his proposals were pain-free. He does not yet believe that the electorate is ready to face the real challenges of emissions reduction.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Brown.jpg" alt="Gordon Brown" title="Gordon Brown" align="right" height="225" hspace="10" width="180" />The environmental community tends to think that Gordon Brown doesn’t understand the complexity and size of the climate challenge. His first speech on the subject gave more detail than expected and reassured some that the prime minister does recognise the severity of the challenge. He moved towards an 80% reduction in GHGs by 2050, but even under optimistic assumptions his plans will not result in emissions reductions on the scale required. All his proposals were pain-free. He does not yet believe that the electorate is ready to face the real challenges of emissions reduction.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57#more-57" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/57/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Community-owned wind farms</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/58</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/58#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[BT]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Co-operative Bank]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[EDF]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #6]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[ROCs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Siemens]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[power generation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[public opinion]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[renewables]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/58</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Fenland.jpg" align="left" height="147" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="254" />In Denmark and Germany, large numbers of individuals own shares in local wind farms. If the government encouraged this in the UK, a large part of the local opposition would disappear. Onshore wind farms in windy locations are good investments which could form an effective part of many people’s pension plans.

One of the few co-operatively owned wind farms in the country has almost finished raising its funds. Investors have put up £3m to buy two existing turbines in the Fens. Locally owned wind farms should be encouraged as a cost effective means of cutting emissions.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/Fenland.jpg" align="left" height="147" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="254" />In Denmark and Germany, large numbers of individuals own shares in local wind farms. If the government encouraged this in the UK, a large part of the local opposition would disappear. Onshore wind farms in windy locations are good investments which could form an effective part of many people’s pension plans.</p>
<p>One of the few co-operatively owned wind farms in the country has almost finished raising its funds. Investors have put up £3m to buy two existing turbines in the Fens. Locally owned wind farms should be encouraged as a cost effective means of cutting emissions.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/58#more-58" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/58/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary Clinton’s climate change plans</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/11/49</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/11/49#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #5]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/11/49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/hillary-clinton.jpg" alt="Hillary Clinton" title="Hillary Clinton" align="left" height="421" hspace="5" width="300" />The US presidential contenders are laying out their plans for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mrs Clinton’s proposals are noteworthy for their commitment to re-engage with the global negotiations over future emissions caps and for her ambitious acceptance of the need for an 80% reduction in US emissions by 2050. The 80% target is rapidly becoming the preferred option of world politicians, a more ambitious target than the UK’s 60% figure. (The UK’s Climate Change bill will allow the new Climate Change Committee to recommend an increase to 80% if appropriate.)

Mrs Clinton espouses a cap-and-trade system for US emissions. Unlike the EU’s approach, she proposes to auction the permits. She will continue the disastrous US policy of encouraging the conversion of corn to bioethanol. She looks to renewable electricity to provide 25% of US power.

She will add to federal expenditure on R+D, but the number proposed is insufficient to have much effect. She stresses the high cost of energy (gas, motor fuels and electricity) to American citizens but not does mention that the impact of her measures will be to increase energy costs, not reduce them.

Mrs Clinton’s plan is calm and measured. Contrast her statesmanlike tone with David Crane, the CEO of a large electricity generating company, in a 14 October article in the <em>Washington Post</em>. Crane writes, ‘We are not running out of time, we <em>have</em> run out of time’ [his italics]. He argues that the US government should put an immediate price on carbon emissions to incentivise a rapid switch to carbon capture and storage in the US power sector. His tone is desperate: ‘I am a carboholic’ but I want to stop, he writes. We could all do with a similar sense of urgency from Mrs Clinton.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/hillary-clinton.jpg" alt="Hillary Clinton" title="Hillary Clinton" align="left" height="421" hspace="5" width="300" />The US presidential contenders are laying out their plans for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mrs Clinton’s proposals are noteworthy for their commitment to re-engage with the global negotiations over future emissions caps and for her ambitious acceptance of the need for an 80% reduction in US emissions by 2050. The 80% target is rapidly becoming the preferred option of world politicians, a more ambitious target than the UK’s 60% figure. (The UK’s Climate Change bill will allow the new Climate Change Committee to recommend an increase to 80% if appropriate.)</p>
<p>Mrs Clinton espouses a cap-and-trade system for US emissions. Unlike the EU’s approach, she proposes to auction the permits. She will continue the disastrous US policy of encouraging the conversion of corn to bioethanol. She looks to renewable electricity to provide 25% of US power.</p>
<p>She will add to federal expenditure on R+D, but the number proposed is insufficient to have much effect. She stresses the high cost of energy (gas, motor fuels and electricity) to American citizens but not does mention that the impact of her measures will be to increase energy costs, not reduce them.</p>
<p>Mrs Clinton’s plan is calm and measured. Contrast her statesmanlike tone with David Crane, the CEO of a large electricity generating company, in a 14 October article in the <em>Washington Post</em>. Crane writes, ‘We are not running out of time, we <em>have</em> run out of time’ [his italics]. He argues that the US government should put an immediate price on carbon emissions to incentivise a rapid switch to carbon capture and storage in the US power sector. His tone is desperate: ‘I am a carboholic’ but I want to stop, he writes. We could all do with a similar sense of urgency from Mrs Clinton.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/11/49#more-49" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/11/49/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
