The Green New Deal Group, of which I am a member, was formed in 2007 and began publishing its solutions to the world's economic crisis before Lehman Brothers crashed. One of our key proposals was, and remains, programmes of home insulation and local energy generation to create sustainability with long term economic returns that would also deliver jobs in every constituency in the UK.
In 2010 the government, as we now know to be its habit, stole our mantle and launched the Green Deal to supposedly promote a somewhat more limited, and hopelessly underfunded version of that vision. Yesterday it scrapped it.
I suppose I should be depressed by headlines like this in the Guardian:
Government kills off flagship green deal
I am not, in itself. The watered down version was always a half-hearted gesture.
What I am annoyed about are three things. The first is that this is yet another move by the government to walk away from environmental responsibility.
The second is that we still need a Green New Deal and we are not getting it.
Third, we have made clear how such a Deal could be funded, but politicians (with one or two exceptions) are so far fighting shy of it.
The government may be walking away from its Green Deal. The Green New Deal marches on.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It’s a climate of insanity.
We need to shut down our carbon-spewing fossil fuel power plants yesterday, and move to safely decommission the potential Chernobyls we have dotted around the coastline.
Britain could be the world leader in sustainable, ecologically sound communities. But the fatcats would rather our children fry than create a sustainable future.
Can you imagine what a green Britain would look like? Children playing happily in the streets, with few cars to endanger them. Communities coming together to build wind and solar towers for the good of the many, not the greed of the few. Power holidays on calm summer evenings, where the people would gather for candlelit vegetarian dinners and *talk* instead of being glued to stupefying television and computer screens. Organic allotments in every garden, to free us from dependency on chemically toxic GMO junk food. A kinder, gentler society with a new respect for Mother Earth and her seasons.
The people wouldn’t make very good “consumers” if we had a truly green economy. They’d mend and make do. They’d forge real community bonds to help each other out. That is why the fatcats are determined to keep them on this treadmill of Thatcherite greed, and to hell with the climate.
I’ve had this argument before..
Yes, we COULD go totally carbon-free for power generation.
But our solar cells are produced in China (cheaper labour and fewer inconveniences like planning laws).
In producing them, large waste dumps/toxic waste pits are generated.
Wind turbines are nice, but expensive. Their lifespan, so far, is not living up to the “25 year” rating…their average life is 7 years before repair.
The newer ones which are direct drive may last longer…but their permanent magnets use neodymium…again from China…again with massive environmental damage (although moving to elecromagnetic provision may be a good move for one company, which (obviously) does not use permanent magnets)
Use of renewables without storage would lead to a collapse of the grid….so balancing the system with only wind/solar would be by “demand management” (power cuts).
Industry, which we still have, would be intolerant of power cuts. Heavy users (like the disappearing steel makers/foundries etc) would just install their own generators (the use of which would be paid for by the generating utilities..or you/me).
Plans to balance by use of reserve plant are also rapidly moving into action…massive diesel generating plant is being installed to provide peak load if the already installed plant cannot meet the load…
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/services/balancing-services/reserve-services/short-term-operating-reserve/
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/household-electricity-survey–2
http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/chinas-solar-panel-production-comes-at-a-dirty-cost/?_r=0
http://www.progress-group.com/news/short-term-operating-reserve-stor
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/wind-turbines-lifespan-far-shorter-than-believed-study-suggests-1.62945
Renewables are nice…if you do not delve too deeply into the subject.
They are a short term answer to the problem of environmental damage, not the long term solution.
Germany disproves much of what you are saying, in my opinion
Of course we cannot use renewables alone: no one as yet suggests that
But they are a key component in the mix
That depends upon who/what you read Richard.
Germanys extensive use of solarPV was, and is, a mistake. OK in summer (maybe), but not in winter.
“Germany however has been set up as a symbol of the 100% renewables nirvana state to come, so I guess this is understandable. Yet, despite what many believe, Germany has a target of sixty, not one hundred percent, renewable energy by 2050, and is now building more coal power plants than any European country. Again, pointing out that Germany is building coal power plants puts me at risk of getting called “anti-renewables.”
http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/335806/germany-shows-renewable-energy-has-failed-and-other-strange-ideas
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
To say that Germany leads the world [in renewables] is a distortion of facts.
Now I look at costs of power versus source. There is a rather nice graph here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:LCOE_comparison_fraunhofer_november2013.svg
Renewables, with massive storage, are only part of the answer. Without, they are part of the problem.
But unless you get renewables to work there is no point in massive storage – where progress is now being made – so I think you are ignoring the impact of incremental change
Yes, they wanted to do away with “that green crap!” Their corporte paymasters have spoken.
Glad to hear it.
In whatever shape our campaigns take, those of us who are campaigning for a better and more sustainable society must never give up. There will and should be differences between our approaches to achieving our common goals, just as there will be much opposition in many different forms to what we are trying to achieve.
I have recently learned of a new not for profit company that is being setup by the New Economy Organisers Network which is essentially a network for both individuals and companies who are campaigning for an economy based on social and environmental justice. I think this is an excellent idea and it can only strengthen our commons goals to have such a platform for sharing goals and ideas.
http://www.neweconomyorganisersnetwork.org/groups/neon/request_membership
Cor, Bella Cohen, there’s a name that takes me back. You’re obviously quite educated to use a Ulysses reference. I couldn’t read the whole book, mind, very difficult to concentrate on.
But why waste your time writing all that guff above? I mean, parodies are all well and good, but you’re about thirty years too late using those turns of phrases. A bit like thinking the Beano is funny.