Different strokes
Two different approaches to energy were unveiled yesterday. President Bush announced his plan to slow the rate of increase of US emissions. In the UK, the findings of a long-awaited (and much leaked) energy review were released (disclosure: I worked on the UK review).
There were Panglosses who thought Bush would yesterday provide an adequate environmental response despite his rejection of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. But his set of voluntary measures merely seeks to slow the increase in US emissions, when the rest of the world is working hard (and in many places successfully) to reduce emissions. Bush made the false implication that the environmentally conscious seek to slow economic growth (there are some green extremists who do think growth is bad, but that's not the broad, international consensus). The Bush proposals were widely and rightly pilloried by environmental groups.
The UK review, in contrast, has as its aim a shift from a carbon-based energy culture to a hydrogen one. It proposes a goal of 20% of energy requirements provided by renewables by 2020, and an increase in energy efficiency over the same period of 40%. The review has attracted criticism for leaving open the option of nuclear power, provided all of the costs are borne by the private sector. As many financially savvy commentators have pointed out, there is no appetite in global capital markets for financing nuclear stations.
The exciting part of the plan for Britain is the potential for renewables. All of the most-mocked aspects of British weather come good: this wet and windy island means Britain has greater wind, wave and tidal energy potential than anywhere else in Europe.
11:29:39 AM 
|
