It is no surprise that the nuclear industry, its friends in the construction industry and the unions approved of the UK government's energy review last week.
But among those who know about the environment, energy, finance or the behavior of companies and individuals, there were few who thought that the second energy review in three years in any way laid a platform for Britain to meet its climate change targets and to keep the lights on. Indeed, a consensus has emerged that nuclear power is completely irrelevant to the real debate that must be had about sustainability.
"The idea that we are facing an enormous energy gap that only nuclear power can fill has been a classic case of spin," said Robert Napier, chief executive of WWF. "This review admits that, at best, just one nuclear reactor could be up and running by 2020. It only reaffirmed its existing 20 percent target for renewables by 2020."
This was not an energy review, said the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. Rather, it was a review of big electricity generation, which ignored transport and heating, the two great generators of carbon dioxide emissions.
"The review had the traditional over-emphasis on large, centralized and big power supply using conventional engineering," said Kevin Anderson, director of the center's energy program.
"Electricity provides just 18 percent of the UK's final energy consumption, with nuclear providing only 3.6 percent of UK energy. The review neglected the other 82 percent of UK energy use. Replacing ageing nuclear plants with new nuclear stations has an irrelevant impact on targets for reducing UK's carbon dioxide," he added.
Tyndall -- along with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other organizations -- was scathing about the government's claims that the review would address climate change targets.
"This review cannot be reconciled with the UK government's repeated commitment to ... cut carbon dioxide by 60 percent by 2050," said Anderson.
What was needed, he said, was an assessment of all the energy sectors. As it was, transport was neglected, again, and saving energy remained the Cinderella issue.
While the review was peppered with references to energy efficiency, there was widespread disappointment that no real policies were outlined, and no imagination was employed to come up with new ideas.
"Using energy more efficiently must be the cornerstone of any solutions," said Paul Allen, development director at the Center for Alternative Technology, who urged a massive energy rethink program, such as super-insulating all existing homes in Britain.
British Gas welcomed the market route to energy supply, but said the government had failed to grasp the opportunity to put forward eye-catching incentives for individuals.
"There are 9 million homes with insufficient insulation wasting ?1 [US$1.48] in every ?3 of their energy," said Mark Clare, its managing director.
This was emphasized by the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH), which represents housing professionals. It regretted that the emphasis on new developments in the review meant that the government was missing an open goal to save energy and greenhouse emissions.
going green
"New construction accounts for only 2 percent of the housing stock ... a staggering 3.7 million homes are insufficiently insulated and cost owners a great deal to heat. More attention needs to be given to vulnerable households in existing private sector housing -- those who can least afford to `go green,'" said Sarah Webb, CIH policy director.
Some observers did detect a positive tone in the review. Sir Jonathon Porritt, chair of the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission, slammed the decision to continue with nuclear power but welcomed the emphasis on individual action with micro-generation.
"The determination to move towards a low-carbon economy comes across loud and clear. The challenge now is delivery, not further policy refinement."
Despite the government's insistence that the planning system would be bent towards accepting nuclear and other large renewable schemes, bringing clean electricity to the public is not expected to be easy. While many electricity generators welcomed what they believe will be easier planning permission for their wind, solar and micro-generating schemes, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and others warned that the proposals could delay rather than speed up the delivery of renewables by igniting public hostility.
"The government risks undermining the role of the planning system in securing sustainable development. In tackling our energy needs, [planning] should not be seen as part of the problem. Any proposals to weaken the public's voice in future planning decisions will only intensify concern over nuclear power and other large energy installations," said a CPRE spokesman.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, too, maintained its tightrope walk between officially backing renewables, but in practice opposing many large wind farm applications on the basis that they are harmful to birds.
"Some of the best areas for wildlife could be lost if plans to build inappropriately sited wind farms are given the green light because of changes to the planning system proposed by the energy review," it said.
Most of the renewable energy organizations feared that despite the government saying wind or tidal electricity generation was important, the very act of going down the nuclear route would discourage potential investment in their emerging technologies.
"The government has made its commitment to renewable energy marginally more credible," said Campbell Dunford, chief executive of the National Renewable Energy Foundation.
And there was underlying wonder that nuclear was needed.
"If Northern Ireland can deliver an energy system without nuclear power, then why cannot Britain do the same?" asked Stephen Hale, Green Alliance director and former special adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Nor were some of the groups that the government needs for carbon reduction overly impressed.
"The UK now faces a 20 gigawatt power shortage by 2016. The review fails to ensure that we secure a reliable supply for the next 10 years; fails to halt the threat of power cuts; fails to encourage coal plants to reduce emissions with clean coal technology and fails to give a decision for incentives for carbon capture," said a spokesman for Mitsui Babcock, Britain's leading clean coal group. "It is worrying to see government taking a fingers-crossed approach before the first of the planned nuclear plants become operational in 2019."
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS