CH has resigned as a minister (he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, often just reported as “energy secretary”) after he was charged with asking his then-wife to take some speeding points for him; or, more formally, for “perverting the course of justice”. And I think the reaction, certainly amongst his colleagues, has been “well that was inevitable, but its a shame cos he was good”. Richard Black (beeb.env) says Chris Huhne’s departure from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) sees the exit of a minister who is generally regarded as having fought tenaciously for “green” policies within the Cabinet. Whereas Timmy says Tee-Hee: “So, is the next bloke at DECC going to reverse all of his idiot policies?”. I wondered: from my POV, does CH’s departure look like a loss?
Of course, to find that out I’d have to know what his policies are. I started off looking at his website under the “issues” tab. Neither the “national” nor “local” tab has anything to say about climate change. So although it may have been his “day job” at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), it clearly isn’t where his heart is. Or alternatively, that he is too much of a politician to say what he thinks, which again makes him no great loss.
The Beeb profile of him has nothing to say about climate or global warming, but going back to the original beeb article: Despite having had only seven months in the job, he was one of 10 ministers chosen by the Mexican host government to pull the Cancun talks around when they appeared to be heading for the rocks. Cancun was a waste of time, so his failure to recognise that loses him more points.
By 2020, we will complete the ‘easy wins’… insulating all remaining cavity walls and lofts… condensing boilers… new car emissions will fall … as internal combustion engines continue to become more efficient. Emissions from power stations, already down a quarter since 1990, will fall a further 40%, with most existing coal-fired power stations closing.
All coal stations to close by 2020? With all the Nooks going too, it is hard to see what will replace them. Lots of fracked gas?
By 2030… New low carbon power stations – a mix of carbon capture and storage, renewables and nuclear power – will be built.
Oh, that’s odd: the Nooks are back. Where did they come from? Still, they are in the plan, so that is a plus. Not sure I believe the CCS: without a carbon tax / sane carbon pricing they are uneconomic.
we will run a technology race, with the least-cost technologies winning the largest market share
That’s nice. Timmy says your current tariff / subsidy system doesn’t do this, but then he is an old curmudgeon so we’ll ignore him. But least-cost tech winning sounds very much like leaving the market to operate without government interference. I think that is good, but it is a slightly curious way of phrasing it – almost as though they don’t want to say it.
I got a bit bored reading it at that point, ending at “This will put the UK on a path towards an 80% reduction by 2050” which I’ve already said I don’t believe.
OK, so I dunno. But I imagine that people out there have opinions: feel free to point out CH’s virtues from a Global Warming POV, or indeed those of the gov’t as a whole.