Connect with us


MP claims investors could ‘lose interest’ in UK if energy uncertainty continues



Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith has said that the government’s uncertainty on energy policy could put off potential investors, adding that a lack of clear direction is “hopelessly irresponsible”.

A recent investigation by Greenpeace appeared to uncover a Tory anti-wind farm plot involving MP for Daventry Chris Heaton-Harris and energy minister John Hayes.

It’s alleged that both men supported the campaign of Telegraph blogger James Delingpole, who was running as an anti-wind candidate in the Corby by-election. Delingpole withdrew his candidacy at the end of October, a few days before the deposit deadline.

The Greenpeace video also revealed significant information into the views of the George Osborne. Peter Lilley MP was recorded as saying that the chancellor “doesn’t need persuading” about wind, while his father-in-law Lord Howell claimed Osborne was “putting pressure” on David Cameron to rethink the UK’s carbon reduction targets.

Hayes, who replaced Charles Hendry as energy minister in September, added fuel to the fire last month by claiming in two national newspapers onshore wind turbines “peppered” the countryside and that “enough is enough”.

He was reprimanded by Lib Dem energy secretary Ed Davey, who insisted that the coalition government’s energy policy hadn’t changed, and Goldsmith, the MP for Richmond Park and former editor of The Ecologist magazine, said that the inside squabbling isn’t beneficial in terms of attracting energy investment to the UK.

The greatest risk for anyone investing in the energy sector is political instability and lack of certainty”, he told Blue & Green Tomorrow.

Even while the government’s policies are broadly unchanged, it does appear that the Treasury is playing political games with the issue.

It isn’t entirely clear what it is trying to achieve by undermining its own policies, but one effect, certainly, will be that investors will simply lose interest in the UK.

The chancellor in particular must lay out his views and then stick to them. Nudge nudge, wink wink may work in opposition, but it is hopelessly irresponsible in government.”

In previous statements and speeches about where the UK gets its energy, Osborne has lauded the role of gas. In his budget statement in March, he said that it is “cheap, has much less carbon than coal and will be the largest single source of our electricity in the coming years”.

This strategy – which has come to be known as the ‘dash for gas’ – has been criticised by green campaign groups including No Dash for Gas, which earlier this month staged a seven-day occupation of a Nottinghamshire power plant in protest.

Meanwhile, the government’s climate change advisers – the Committee on Climate Change – wrote a letter to Ed Davey outlining that a dash for gas could in fact be illegal.

By focusing on a finite source of power, the government is not only making it difficult to meet carbon reduction targets, but it’s failing to capitalise on the UK’s potentially limitless range of renewable energy technologies – those that would attract investment, create jobs and ensure sustainable growth in the economy.

A recent poll by YouGov displayed overwhelming votes of confidence for clean sources of energy alongside derision for fossil fuels, proving that government policy is once again the biggest stumbling block for a vital, burgeoning industry.

The Huffington Post reported today that a spokesperson for Osborne had said that, “The chancellor supports government energy policy which has helped secure record investment into the UK energy infrastructure”.

But commenting on news Friends of the Earth’s head of campaigns Andrew Pendleton said that with this recent wave of confusion, it’s not clear what the coalition’s policy actually is.

Until the energy bill is published we don’t know what government energy policy is”, he said.

But we do know the chancellor is pushing for one that will keep the nation hooked on dirty and increasingly expensive gas for decades.

The prime minister must take action to stop leading Conservatives like George Osborne from pursuing an anti-green agenda and undermining investor confidence in clean energy.

Tackling climate change was a key part of David Cameron’s plans to modernise the Conservatives – but until he tackles the dinosaurs within his party he will struggle to succeed.”

Further reading:

Greenpeace investigation uncovers Tory anti-wind strategy

Coalition at loggerheads over energy minister’s wind comments

Committee on Climate Change letter condemns government’s ‘dash for gas’

Why I helped occupy a gas power station in the name of a better future

The Guide to Limitless Clean Energy


Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?



self-driving cars for green environment
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Zapp2Photo |

Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?

But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?

The Big Picture

The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.

That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.

Driver Reduction?

One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.

There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.

As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.


Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.

Make and Model of Car

Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.

On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.

The Bottom Line

Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?

Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.

Continue Reading


New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035



renewable energy policy
Shutterstock Licensed Photo - By Eviart /

New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.

New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.

Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.

Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”

The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.

Zero net emissions by 2050

Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.

Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.

She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.

Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”

A worldwide shift to renewable energy

Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.

Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.

Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.


Continue Reading