For a newspaper that prides itself on its independence, this compromise of standards is disappointing. Responsible editorial policy would prevent advertisers parading questionable material as ‘facts’ in the pages of a magazine insert.
Just when I thought standards were slipping, someone pointed out to me today that Eon - the energy company responsible for the Kingsnorth power station that Climate Camp has targeted as the focus for the camp (due to the fact that Eon are planning on opening the first coal powered plant in over 20 years in this country) will be sponsoring the Guardian Climate Change Summit on Wednesday 16 July in London! I think it is fair to say that The Guardian’s claims to be independent are fairly compromised by their recent friendships and relations with fossil fuel energy companies.
]]>From the statement “we dont object to ccs–we are definetly not anti-technology” i think that, as you say, our positions are the same.
However, the stunt us satirising the idea of ccs, i think that is pretty clear. I couldnt have done what you have done with this website and the stunt, so in that sense criticism is rather hollow. However, if it where me i would have targeted the apparent enthusiasm for ccs in political/business circles with there apparent distate to actually committing to it. The language on the importance of this technology is frequently quite strident, yet govornment support for these projects is miniscule–a few million going to a partnership with china–that is laughable! Also, if the power ge3nerators where to be given the expense, rather than the tax payers ccs could simply become mandetory for any new coal powered plant being built.
Talk about how uncertain the technology is strikes me as a complete red herring; this is only important if new coal plants where allowed to run without ccs. Once such practice is outlawed it will be up to the energy companies to use the cheapest form of energy, be that coal with ccs, wind, solar, etc., Again, from your own response, what you and i both object to is gaming of the system, talk of ccs compliant and the like, which is utter bollocks.
Perhaps a skit on infadelity would have been nearer to my own preference, Alistair Darling and CCS with no marrage in sight, just talk of ‘how good we are together’, etc.,
]]>this is a very thoughtfull anaysis and I think we are pretty much in agreement.
To clarify our position:
We don’t object to CCS - we are definitely not anti-technology. But then again how could we object to a technological process, that although has been tested in parts, has not (to our knowledge) been tested as a continuous start to finish system.
However, as you pointed out, we do object to CCS being used to open the door to discussion on building new coal. Companies like E.ON and the Government give the impression that CCS is just round the corner whilst in more private quarters seem far less optimistic (Huttons’s and Darling’s own comments in particular whilst Greenpeace’s investigations showed that E.ON put pressure on the government to withdraw CCS readiness as a requirement for new build coal)
It feels like CCS is being used to create a false impression that coal is now clean and that stations like Kingsnorth can fit seamlessly with our national carbon reduction targets. In reality Kingsnorth could be built, start burning, and might not be fitted with CCS for years. As you say this would be a nightmare.
Our stunt is a satirical commentary of this state of affairs. Carbon Capture bottled water is as viable as full scale, commercially affordable, CCS technology is today. Our aim is to foster exactly this sort of debate so as to challenge and question E.ON’s proposal for new coal at Kingsnorth.
EV-EON
]]>Unfortunately we have a disagreement. Not on climate change, i volnteered for 6 months workng on this. I also have a website updated almost daily on the topic. I also hate coal and the fossil fuel industry. Futhermore i dont see climate change as a technical issue but rather a social and political one.
Having said that, i think that CCS is essential. It’s difficult to guess what arguments would come to your mind first. So let me first say that this opinion is based on the IPCC’s special report on CCS, the Inter Academy Concil on Science’s report on our energy future and the Stern Review. Hardly radical fayre, i will grant you, but strong empirical analysis is there.
In the context of Kingnorth one argument is that ccs is being used as an excuse and that it wont be ready for years…dont let them pull a fast one. In which case you have a problem with enforcement of environmental standards not ccs. If ccs is part of planing and must be functional, not just enabled–and this is what i want to see–then we are breaking important new ground.
I really dont want to offend anyone, you obviously care about climate change and are talented people. But have any of you looked at the data on coal power in asia? In terms of manufacturing capacity it is dobtful if renewables could in the short/medium term deal with the scale of power production; and flexible power grids are on the way but not yet a reality. My honest assesment is that without ccs in the short term (and all of the pieces have been demonstrated, it is ready to go just at a price premium like any new technology) we are going to fail to stabilise co2 concentrations at the nessicary levels.
Coal without ccs is a nightmare for climate change. Objecting to coal with ccs is changes to the energy economy (a worthy goal) over climate change. In my view we fight old coal technology with all our strength and unity, and try to wipe out the need for ccs by promoting renewables and energy research by govornment.
Priority:
1. No old coal.
2. No ccs coal.
Strategy:
1. Resist old coal directly.
2. Dont encourage ccs (as this threatens renewables) but dont discourage it (as this threatens priority one). Rather encourage alternatives.