Where's the Peace in Greenpeace?

This blog has now moved. Please visit Zerochampion.com and update your bookmarks

So E.ON have postponed the introduction of Kingsnorth, coal-fired Power Station in Kent until the Government has sorted out its Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) plans. A responsible decision has been made by the power generator. In fact, I think it's pretty exciting that such a promising technology and one so potentially lucrative to the UK (we have empty coal and gas fields a-plenty) and sensible (we have coal in this country for energy security) has been given such a thumbs up by a major player. It also demonstrates that public opinion (and legislation) has succeeded in forcing E.ON to do the right thing and cut CO2 emissions. Of course, it might want to do the right thing, too.

Greenpeace wouldn't have it that way, naturally. It claims, gloomily, bitterly that the Government has made a climbdown, that policy is in disarray and that the move is a major blow to John Hutton. But given that, as a Government spokesman said, it is an 'inescapable reality that fossil fuels will continue to be an important part of the energy mix for decades to come" (I talked a bit about the alternatives in my last post on the topic) what exactly is it that Greenpeace would like to see different about this outcome and the process towards it? Do they enjoy misleading people about energy security? Aren't they pleased that reasonable and grown up debate has led to a sensible decision that fills calm, rational people with hope? Perhaps E.ON has spoilt whatever witty protest they had in mind.

When I was doing my politics AS level in the 1990s, I learnt that it was the oppositional nature of our bicameral system that led to the fractious nature of politics in this country. It was not just for increased MPS that the sensible and progressive Liberal Democrats dreamed of proportional representation. But it's not just in the Commons that oppositional politics reigns.

Wouldn't it be better if people worked together to solve this crisis using any means necessary in the long, medium and short term, rather than hurling brickbats and failing to achieve it, which is what we have always done. It's only when people talk that problems get sorted.

Comments

[Brianfit]

Mmm, I would share your concern about Greenpeace unconstructively rejecting a viable solution to global warming -- if it were true.

But the fact is, Greenpeace has been promoting a viable vision of the energy future called the Energy Revolution. One of the key elements in that plan is that energy money NOT go into non-solutions like nukes or CCS.

CCS is a solution to the coal industry's problem, not a solution to the global warming problem.

More here:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/thesolution

and

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/energyrevolution-250107

[Michael]

Thanks, Brian.I gather you work for Greenpeace.
I am fully supportive of developing more renewable energy generative capacity. I am also aware of the failings of the planning system - with regard to wind farms and otherwise - and write about it where possible (when I find some news or something to report) and I write about energy efficiency all the time. I have also written in support of CHP
Unfortunately, while you seem able to take the risk of planning failure OUT of the equation when suggesting how we should generate power going forward, I cannot do that. Like it or not the reality is that 5% of the UK's capacity for generating electricity IS stuck in planning. The Government's planning reforms will not address this issue; nimby's will not lay down their pikes or staffs; local councils will continue to be self-interested.
So how will we generate power in the short to medium term in the current climate (no pun intended)? With a mix - a balanced portfolio - of solutions that minimise greenhouse gas emissions and with a view (realistic or aspirational) to eliminating them. And with a knowledge that we simply have to improve energy efficiency. The Gov's record on this is not great, certainly, but changes are afoot. I can't for the life of me see how nuclear and CCS-enabled coal can be simply, surgically removed from the equation. And in fact they are not being.
CCS is a possible and interesting solution to our (current) energy problem.