Posted by jossc — 16 July 2010 at 10:14am
-
Comments
This week Greenpeace launches our vision for a European energy revolution – a practical blueprint for a renewable energy future. Using only proven technologies we can phase out fossil-fuels, cut CO2 emissions by over 90% by 2050 and ensure energy security – without a huge reduction in living standards.
Posted by jossc — 22 April 2009 at 2:20pm
-
Comments
All eyes were glued to the TV in the office this lunchtime to see whether Alistair Darling's budget would deliver the kind of changes we need to see if we want to give ourselves the chance to keep the lid on climate change.
Posted by jossc — 22 August 2007 at 1:59pm
-
Comments
Bad energy: inefficient centralised energy generation is a major contributor to global warming
Over the next decade, Britain needs to invest tens of billions on renewing its dilapidated energy infrastructure. Many of our current nuclear, coal and gas power stations will close, and the electricity transmission and distribution grids themselves will need replacement.
Which provides us with a once-in-a-generation chance for the government to redesign our energy market. We have the perfect opportunity to go for maximum environmental efficiency, whilst ensuring energy security and reliability of supply.
We all know that, to stop climate change, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. The government says we need nuclear power to do this. Our new film explains why nuclear power can’t stop climate change – and lays down a better, cheaper, more convenient solution:
Right-click on these links and select 'Save link as...' to download the film as a Quicktime (30MB) or Windows Media (27MB) file.
Convinced? Find out what you can do to make sure the UK gets a genuinely clean and efficient energy system.
Not convinced yet? Read on.
The single biggest use of fossil fuels in the UK isn't for electricity or for transport, but for creating heat to warm our buildings and power our industrial processes. So any solution to climate change needs to contribute to heating, as well as to electricity generation.
Nuclear power contributes almost nothing to our enormous heating requirements. In fact it contributes less than four per cent to our overall energy needs. And building new nuclear power stations (as the government wants to do) won't increase that share.
So what is the solution? Well, in the same amount of time and for less money, we could implement an energy system that will do far more to stop climate change and ensure energy security than nuclear power: a combination of renewable energy, efficiency, and combined heat and power:
Today, the government has finally published its energy white paper. After last year's energy consultation was ruled "seriously flawed", "misleading" and "manifestly inadequate and unfair" by a High Court Judge, this white paper outlines a new energy policy - and a new nuclear consultation.
Yep, despite a few ineffectual concessions to renewables and efficiency, Tony Blair is still busily spinning the nuclear industry's line: that nuclear power is the answer to climate change. And we still think he's dangerously wrong.
Posted by bex — 5 January 2006 at 9:00am
-
Comments
The UK will shortly become a net importer of gas, as the North Sea fields which have given us over 20 years of self-sufficiency finally begin to run dry; production is decreasing so that we are now a net importer, rather than a net exporter. The recent attempt by the Russian Government, Europe's major gas supplier, to hike the price of the gas it supplies to neighbouring Ukraine (the first step on the pipeline route to Western Europe) has led to intense media speculation over the security of supplies to the UK - in effect the argument is that since we cannot rely on a stable supply of gas, we should press ahead with a new generation of nuclear power plants which would guarantee energy security.
Posted by bex — 13 August 2002 at 8:00am
-
Comments
Earth from Space
Rémi Parmentier, Political Director, Greenpeace International
You can hardly open a newspaper these days without finding the latest revelations about how the White House and American intelligence failed to interpret signs that the September 11th attack was being prepared. Eleven months after that day, discussions about 'security' seem to have stalled within that very narrow framework.
