Professionals have said claims that the UK is “ahead of the pack” in regards to climate change and clean energy are not true. A report published by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) suggests the UK is behind some other EU member states in the fight against climate change. The ECIU report focuses on a number of measures needed for building a clean, energy secure, low carbon economy.
Richard Black, Director of ECIU, said: “This report reveals that the UK’s record is about average compared with other EU member states – we’re ahead of the pack on some measures, and behind in others.
“For example, we’re the fourth most advanced country in Europe in terms of how much renewable energy capacity we’ve installed per person in recent years, but only 21st of 28 countries if you look at the total amount we have on a per capita basis.
“The meme of UK exceptionalism is raising its head in the context of the Fifth Carbon Budget, with suggestions that we should reduce the pace of decarbonisation as we’re somehow ahead of our neighbours; but when you look across the piece, we’re not ahead, so the argument should logically go away.”
ECIU compared EU countries on a ‘basket’ of seven measures of progress towards a clean energy economy. Reliance on any single measure – for example, per-capita emissions – does not provide an accurate indication of progress, as it can be hugely skewed by either historical or current factors.
The report finds that:
– The UK is broadly average across four of the chosen metrics, namely per capita carbon emissions, recent annual percentage per capita decrease in emissions in recent years (2009-2014), carbon intensity, and percentage of low-carbon energy in total energy use
– The UK performs badly on renewable energy per-capita compared with comparable large economies (UK, Germany, Italy, France and Spain) and with the entire 28 European Union countries (EU28), coming last out of that ‘Big Five’ and 21st overall
– The UK performs well on recent increases in per capita renewable energy capacity (2009-2014), coming second out of the ‘Big Five’ and fourth out of the EU28. It is also first of the Big Five in emission reductions since 1990, but only 8th overall.
The UK is also distinctly average on energy efficiency, although this was not included in the ‘basket’ of seven measures as it is difficult to derive a single value to represent efficiency across various sectors.
The entire EU28 shares the same long-term goal – a reduction of emissions by 80-95%, from a 1990 baseline, by 2050. Because this goal applies to all EU nations, it was not included in the analysis.
Dr Jonathan Marshall, ECIU’s Energy Analyst and an author on the report, said: “Each EU country has a different history – for example, France with its big nuclear sector, the UK with its ‘dash for gas’, the Baltic States emerging from the Soviet Union – so comparing their progress on a single measure can be really misleading.
“All are aiming in the same direction however, namely an efficient, clean, secure energy economy; and to get there by 2050 requires progress on a range of different measures.
“We think this ‘basket’ approach that we’re using here is the basis for a much more realistic comparison. On this basis, the UK is ahead on some measures and behind on others – overall, it’s about average.”
Twenty Conservative MPs recently called on David Cameron to adopt the CCC’s recommendation on the fifth carbon budget with no caveats, arguing that acceptance will cut the costs of decarbonisation and encourage businesses to invest in low-carbon infrastructure. However, 15 other MPs including 12 Conservatives have argued against its adoption ahead of agreement by European member states on ‘burden sharing’ of an EU-wide 2030 emissions reductions target.
Richard Benyon, Conservative MP for Newbury who sits on ECIU’s Advisory Board, said: “EU member states are all working towards the same long term goal, of cutting carbon emissions and building a low-carbon economy. This report shows that when you look at overall progress towards this ambition, the UK is far from being ‘ahead of the pack’ as some people claim that we are.
“In Britain, however, we benefit from carbon budgets, set by the Committee on Climate Change, which help successive governments work towards that goal in the most cost effective way possible.
“Early and full acceptance of the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation on the fifth carbon budget, with no caveats, will give investors the confidence to invest in the low-carbon infrastructure we need, and so maintain this government’s excellent record of lower emissions combined with sustained economic growth.”
Is Wood Burning Sustainable For Your Home?
Wood is a classic heat source, whether we think about people gathered around a campfire or wood stoves in old cabins, but is it a sustainable source of heat in modern society? The answer is an ambivalent one. In certain settings, wood heat is an ideal solution, but for the majority of homes, it isn’t especially suitable. So what’s the tipping point?
Wood heat is ideal for small homes on large properties, for individuals who can gather their own wood, and who have modern wood burning ovens. A green approach to wood heat is one of biofuel on the smallest of scales.
Is Biofuel Green?
One of the reasons that wood heat is a source of so much divide in the eco-friendly community is that it’s a renewable resource and renewable has become synonymous with green. What wood heat isn’t, though, is clean or healthy. It lets off a significant amount of carbon and particulates, and trees certainly don’t grow as quickly as it’s consumed for heat.
Of course, wood is a much less harmful source of heat than coal, but for scientists interested in developing green energy sources, it makes more sense to focus on solar and wind power. Why, then, would they invest in improved wood burning technology?
Solar and wind technology are good large-scale energy solutions, but when it comes to small-space heating, wood has its own advantages. First, wood heat is in keeping with the DIY spirit of homesteaders and tiny house enthusiasts. These individuals are more likely to be driven to gather their own wood and live in small spaces that can be effectively heated as such.
Wood heat is also very effective on an individual scale because it requires very little infrastructure. Modern wood stoves made of steel rather than cast iron are built to EPA specifications, and the only additional necessary tools include a quality axe, somewhere to store the wood, and an appropriate covering to keep it dry. And all the wood can come from your own land.
Wood heat is also ideal for people living off the grid or in cold areas prone to frequent power outages, as it’s constantly reliable. Even if the power goes out, you know that you’ll be able to turn up the heat. That’s important if you live somewhere like Maine where the winters can get exceedingly cold. People have even successfully heated a 40’x34’ home with a single stove.
Benefits Of Biomass
The ultimate question regarding wood heat is whether any energy source that’s dangerous on the large scale is acceptable on a smaller one. For now, the best answer is that with a growing population and limited progress towards “pure” green energy, wood should remain a viable option, specifically because it’s used on a limited scale. Biomass heat is even included in the UK’s Renewable Heat Initiative and minor modifications can make it even more sustainable.
Wood stoves, when embraced in conjunction with pellet stoves, geothermal heating, and masonry heaters, all more efficient forms of sustainable heat, should be part of a modern energy strategy. Ultimately, we’re headed in the direction of diversified energy – all of it cleaner – and wood has a place in the big picture, serving small homes and off-the-grid structures, while solar, wind, and other large-scale initiatives fuel our cities.
New Climate Change Report Emphasizes Urgent Need for Airline Emission Regulations
In less than two months, the United States has grappled with some of the worst natural disasters in its history. Hurricanes battered the south central United States. Fires destroyed homes throughout Northern California. Puerto Rico experienced some of the worst storms ever. A massive windstorm caused more damage to the northeastern United States then any other storm on record before winter even struck.
These recent incidents have spurred discussion on the dangers of climate change. A recent report from the University of London has shed some light on the discussion. The new report suggests that new regulations are needed, including stricter EPA regulations on Airlines.
Review of the new report
The new report was published in the British medical Journal, Lancet. The report concluded that climate change is a “threat multiplier” for a variety of social problems, including diseases and natural disasters. While numerous studies have processed the risk that climate change plays with creating natural disasters, University of London report is among the first to explore the relationship between climate change and disease.
The authors warned that the problems are becoming irreversible. They will continue to get worse if risk factors are not adequately addressed.
The most concerning part of the report is that these problems are having the most serious impact on the most vulnerable communities in the world. Countries that depend on agriculture and other issues will suffer the most if climate change escalates.
“The answer is, most of our indicators are headed in the wrong direction,”said Nick Watts, a fellow at University College London’s Institute for Global Health and executive director of the Lancet Countdown, one of the lead researchers of the paper. “Broadly, the world has not responded to climate change, and that lack of response has put lives at risk. … The impacts we’re experiencing today are already pretty bad. The things we’re talking about in the future are potentially catastrophic.”
Airline industry discovers climate change is a two-way Street
The airline industry is coping with the problems of climate change, while also coming to terms with the fact that it has helped accelerate the problem. Earlier this year, American Airlines was forced to cancel four dozen flights near Phoenix. Cancellations were called due to excessive temperatures. The air was over 120 degrees, which is too hot for some smaller jet planes to get off the ground.
One anonymous airline executive privately admitted that their business model has facilitated climate change. They warned that the problem may become twice as bad in the next few years if proper safeguards aren’t implemented. Representatives from Goindigo have echoed these concerns.
The EPA has stated that airplanes account for 11% of all emissions. They are expected to increase over 50% within the next 30 years. This could have serious repurcussions if newer, greener airplane models don’t become the new standard in the very near future.
This is driving discussion about the need for new policies.The EPA has been discussing the need for new airline regulations for nearly two years. An EPA ruling made in July 2016 set the tone for new regulations, which could be introduced in the next year.
The new policies may be delayed, due to the new president’s position on climate change. He hired an EPA chief that has sued the organization about a dozen times. However, the Trump Administration may not be able to oppose climate change indefinitely, because a growing number of people are pressing for reforms. Even younger conservatives primarily believe climate change is a threat and are demanding answers. This may force the EPA to follow through on its plans to introduce new solutions.