Fracking is a matter of the most serious environmental concern, but questions remain on its safety
Four days. That’s how long it’s taken the Tories to renege on the promise and principle of Paris COP21. The ink has barely dried on Saturday’s Agreement – an agreement that symbolises a new era of clean energy and carbon limits.
But today, the Government has already hit reverse gear – backtracking on its pledge to protect National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest from fracking for shale gas.
Posturing is all very well – but the inconvenient truth for the government is that, when you sign an agreement, the public does expect you to abide by it. That stands true for Paris – and it stands true for its pledge on fracking limits.
Earlier this year Labour laid down 11 specific amendments to the Infrastructure Bill. We said there should be no more fracking unless all these safeguards – including for our Water Protection Areas – were put in place. The government conceded.
But in an anti-democratic, downright bewildering U-turn, the government is today using a back door procedure known as a ‘deferred vote’ – whereby no MP is able to speak or debate the issue – to force through a motion to allow fracking under our National Parks.
Their ill-considered – ill-fated – dash to extract every last drop of fossil fuel – even at the risk of our most loved landscapes – shows that the Conservatives believe international treaties are binding on everyone: except them.
Paris has set us on a low-carbon pathway to a new clean, green industrial revolution. It’s urgent we get on track. Moreover, it makes economic, as well as environmental, sense.
Today’s move shows a level of financial incompetence from the Conservatives that is frankly breath-taking. The Government was completely at odds with the world’s business leaders, who gathered for the COP21 Sustainable Innovation Forum.
I spoke with many of them. They’re ready to embrace the enormous benefits offered by a low carbon future and to invest in renewable technologies.
Our government, on the other hand, is cutting subsidy for renewables, scrapping the programme for low carbon homes, pocketing the £1billion grant that was supposed to pioneer Carbon Capture and Storage and locking us into a fossil fuel future that will vastly undermine UK jobs and growth.
The markets are so far ahead of the UK, it’s frightening. The price of oil has dropped by 12 per cent in the past ten days. £124 billion has been wiped of the share value of companies like BP and Shell.This is not the moment to invest in a whole new fossil fuel industry.
Fracking is a matter of the most serious environmental concern; but even for those who believe the technical issues around it can be solved to make it safe, the question remains as to the sense of investing in a fossil fuel technology whose days are so very clearly numbered – even by the Government’s own admission.
Climate action is a matter of fundamental social and environmental justice. That sense was the driving force behind the historic Paris Agreement. The deep sense that more should be done for the poorest communities – paying, as they are, so dearly for a global warming crisis they didn’t cause; a crisis caused by carbon emissions from developed economies that they haven’t even received the benefit of.
But what will power the Paris Agreement forward are the global financial markets. The investors. The business leaders. They’ve seen the writing on the wall for fossils and they’re doing what good business does: adapting.
They’re switching to the technologies of our future, but government is locking us into the past.
32 Responses to “We need investment in renewable energy, but our government is going the other way”
AlwaysIntegrity
The carbon pay back time for solar panels in the UK is at least ten years and fifteen in Scotald, so there is no solition there. Small scale wind on buildings never pays back its carbon, so no solution there. For biomass we would need to coppice Kent in its entirity to replace a single modest gas fired plant. Wind onshore is just about viable – if, as everyone pushing renewables does, we ignore that fact that we need to have high speed gas fired backup for at least 80% of the installed wind capacity and that such backup runs inefficiently spewing out CO2, whats left ?
The answer is lots more nuclear and soon.
GeoffBeacon
“OUR CROWDED ISLAND” MYTHS
—-“London is fairly crowded but the UK is much less dense” – True—-
The London Region is quite dense at 51.1 people per hectare but
the South East region has 4.5 people per hectare. The South West
has 2.2 people per hectare. The London Region may not have much spare land but the rest have.
—-“Loss of land for recreation” –Myth—-
Surrey has more land allocated to golf
courses than for homes.
—-“Loss of agricultural land” –Myth—-
We get our wine from California and Australia, our wheat from Canada. Local food distribution and production can increase the amount of food produced using market gardening techniques and have lower carbon footprints than current agricultural practices. This will mean higher levels of local employment, if more labour is used.
—-“Loss of biodiversity due to housing” – Myth—-
Green belts are often “green deserts” as modern agriculture is high in chemical and other inputs. At British Association a few years ago Dr Keith Porter of English Nature said low-density developments with gardens and public open spaces would provide more favorable habitats for species than the giant pesticide-treated cereal fields that dominate much of the countryside now.
“By placing housing in these areas with innovative designs you can build in the corridors and the linkage the wildlife need to come back in,” he said. “You would be certain to increase biodiversity.”
Indeed, a square kilometer of central London has significantly more bird species than a square kilometer of farmed land in Surrey. And, of course, many brownfield sites have significant amounts of wildlife.
—-“UK’s swollen population” –Myth —-
We still have plenty of room: UK’s population density is 2.55 per hectare. Less than Netherlands, Israel, India, Belgium, Japan, Vietnam & Etc
More at http://ow.ly/VFzmq
Sid
And the climate scam continues ….
AlwaysIntegrity
Yep, all the scientists around the world in a single huge conspiracy to outwit do do’s like you
AlwaysIntegrity
You have no idea I am afraid, you would have to cover much of the UK in solar panels to replace one nuclear power station and the amount of carbon dioxide created in their manufacture would take at least ten years of solar electricity to pay it back. If only things were so simple …