Bishop Hill Econowoo
The Royal Society of Edinburgh has produced a report on how Scotland should move to a low-carbon economy. This seems to demonstrate that the spirit of Chairman Mao's `Great Leap Forward' is alive and well and living in Auld Reekie. Yes folks, the answer to all our problems is a plan to be developed in Holyrood.
Here are the report's recommendations:
1. The UK Government should urgently improve the infrastructure and management of the electricity grid in Scotland to optimise the development of renewable energy and to permit the export of surplus renewable energy.
2. The Scottish and UK Governments need to retrofit existing regulation to achieve a balance with the need to reduce carbon emissions.
3. The Scottish Government should work with local authorities and businesses to align and sharpen regulation in order to achieve a step change in energy efficiency in buildings and transport.
4. The Scottish Government and local authorities should jointly introduce truly integrated polices in order to achieve effective reductions in emissions at a regional level.
5. The Scottish Government should develop a spatially-referenced national land use plan integrated with regional strategic plans in order to optimise carbon sequestration
6. The finance industry should take a lead and work with government to create the business environment that will mobilise private finance in support of a low-carbon society.
7. All organisations should appraise their goals and practices in the light of the urgency to achieve a low-carbon society.
8. Local authorities should integrate and embed their low-carbon policies across all their various functions.
9. The Scottish Government and local authorities should actively assist local communities to introduce low-carbon initiatives.
10. Closer engagement is needed between people, civil society, market and state in the pursuit of Scotland’s low-carbon vision.
Reader Comments (73)
Only one of the names listed in Chris' post above shows evidence of ever having worked in the private sector.
Wasn't it Kentucky Fried Movie that proposed, as a solution to the energy crisis, extracting oil from teenagers' faces?
One wonders how this lot of public sector fat cats missed coming up with that one.
Breaking news from America:
House says NO to IPCC
Don Pablo,
That bill, H.R. 1, may not get passed by the Senate, but is a nice effort.
H.R. 1
1. The UK Government should urgently improve the infrastructure and management of the electricity grid in Scotland to optimise the development of renewable energy and to permit the export of surplus renewable energy.
Surplus?!!!!!!!!!
What surplus?
Study leading to the Report funded (partly) by BP and Shell-Esso. Pot, kettle, black?
Kevin
If it isn't in HR 1, then the money isn't either. That is the important issue. At least the Tea Party is starting to do something about this CAGW BS.
"Surplus?!!!!!!!!!
What surplus?"
That which becomes available when domestic "smart-meters" start cutting off supplies to those who can't pay their bills.
Don Pablo,
I hear ya...
"The finance industry should take a lead"
That would be the finance industry that has virtually bankrupted the country because of its over-reliance on dodgy computer models, then? Plus ca change...
Dear Bishop,
Regarding Kevin's questioning of names used in the post: May I encourage you to submit to the international Spirit and be a bit less Anglican in your phraseology. Though Whitehall resonates throughout the world as the seat of power of the bygone Empire, nobody knows, or cares, what Holyrood is.
To quote a famous movie: "We're a nation of wanckers, colonised by wanckers"
Regards,
An Anglophile :)
"permit the export of surplus renewable energy"
Surplus? ROTFL!
The economics of the Scottish low carbon policy are quite straghtforward - they can't afford it so do what all politicians do - get someone else to pay, in this case the English. English governments love it. They even gave £2 million in aid to an oil rich state such as Libya.
I noticed that in the list of 'worthwhile' targets the words 'cost and benefit' didn't get a mention.
A report from scientists should include some clarity and measurement. That is what proper scientists have traditionally done. But then there are none of the hard sciences represented on the committee, like physics or chemistry. Most importantly how about adding up all these proposals and see if they will get anywhere near to an 80% reduction in emissions in 40 years? There is another constraint endorsed by the IPCC and the Stern Review - that the costs of acting will be far less the costs if we let temperatures increase by 3 to 10 degrees.
However, they seem to have nicely divided up the report so as to inflate egos in every section. Some contradict themselves. For instance
Section 2 talks about non-optimal regulation and planning of the national grid, whilst section 9 mentions "installing community wind turbines" and other local projects.
Another point is that the reductions in emissions are ambitious. To have any hope of success it needs people of dynamism who can cut through the regulations, making rapid decisions on the most effective policies from the local community grass roots to the national level. Who are these wonder people? Why the local authority planners of course.
Section 8 page 13 "A surprise was that the role of planning officers seemed sidelined. The Inquiry team expected planners to be playing a leading role in creating and implementing strategic regional plans."
So why were there no economists or beancounters involved? That is those most qualified to put together a business plan? Probably because they would have concluded with a minority report, with a simple conclusion - Let the future generations in Scotland enjoy some decent weather and grow a wider range of crops. The plans to cut emissions will only impoverish the Scottish people (and the English fool enough to bankroll it), with no capability or knowledge to achieve the reductions desired.
Witness the rise of post-normal research and its new-age professors.
'Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.' Mike Hulme.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Interpretation of-
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469
Sunderland Steve - on average Scotland does export electricity to England - iirc usually about 0.5-1GW. And this will rise, at least when the wind is blowing, and Hunterston (0.8GW), Torness (1.2GW) and Longannet (2.3GW) are still running that is. However, it will get very interesting in about 5 years, when Hunterston is closed and we have a stable anti-cyclone sitting over us as we have had for prolonged periods in the last 3 winters, when peak UK demand can reach 60GW and our 5GW of lovely windmills and frozen rivers typically produce only 200MW. By that time the last ancient Magnox reactors (Oldbury 0.4GW, Wylfa 1GW), and also Hinkley Point (0.8GW) south of the border will also have closed. I think some gas plants are being built somewhere but nowhere near enough. The new England-Netherlands interconnector may also help save the day, but the only long term solution is nuclear. Interesting times.
Pharos - didn't know that disturbing Mike Hulme quote, thanks. It reminds me of something I wrote in a comment on Martin Cohen's excellent THES essay 'Beyond Debate?" in December 2009: "... A few cold winters may speed this up, but either way, the politicisation of the science now means it is too important to be left to scientists, and much will depend on the media".
BBD you observe that no matter what the UK does, it will be too insignificant to alter the effect of the largest economies.
But what about the REALLY big Australian economy?
Our PM plans to push ahead and tax carbon until it sqweals.
She aims to provide an example for the whole world to follow!
Have you not heard of "The Moral Dimension"?
Are you NOT a fan of "Yes Minister"?
/sarc off
More seriously, the situation is reaching an interesting phase in Australia.
The MSM is on the whole totally subservant to government policy.
The PM vows to press on with her plan to tax Carbon (dioxide - never stated).
(Carbon - black - dirty - air polution - enough said).
Now many sections of business are getting on board - finance companies, insurance, media - the usual suspects that expect to benefit from the scam.
There is a growing call for certainity to allow business planning to proceed, sure in the knowledge that the economy will be nobbled.
The present "uncertainty" - created by the government's hair brianed scheme - is causing "uncertainty" in the business community and investment is being "harmed".
We need the "certainty" of destruction to allow our strong economy to keep steaming along.
Yes black is white and weak is strong and all other true / false sayings as well.
Yes we do live in interesting times.
There are just so many things wrong with the RSE proposal that one hardly knows where to begin. But just for starters:
1) I'd prefer that they use the proper term "carbon dioxide" and not "carbon" to describe their mitigation goals. I surely hope they don't intend for Planet Earth to be "low carbon."
2) If there is one action item that is demonstrably (and probably clinically) insane, it is the notion of carbon sequestration. Actually I believe that when ecoloons mention this, the public thinks "Oh, they want to capture the CO2 from cars and power plants and pump it underground. Right. Won't that require more electric power?" Really I hope they mention it even more, because it exposes the CAGW religion as being utterly crackpot.
3) As with all things CAGW, one must follow the money. Thus, who at the RSE has a financial interest in furthering the CAGW cause?
re Mac 1:59pm "we already have low-carbon societies across the planet - they are known collectively as the third-world"
Classic - I'm afraid I've now stolen this for my email sig.
Before you get all high and mighty about less government being obviously better you have to deal with the fact that all of our energy currently comes from government directed and funded projects. And for those zho prefer nuclear, please note that if left to market forced the French would not have had so many nuclear reactors built because.....economically it was always a non starter. Thet's why the Thatcher government totally destroyed the nuclear programme for the UK and dashed for gas. Well it might work out ok....if we find more gas.
By the way, I hope you enjoyed the recent documentary that spoke of the creation of the national grid which brought cheap electricity to everyone. A huge government effort that was poo pooed by free marketeers. Why did they undertake this massive project? Because the free market in electricity power provision was patchy and expensive and damaging the economy of the UK in comparison to their European neighbours who had already decided that a national grid was too vital to be left to chance or the markets.
Get rid of your ant government dogmata people. Sometimes you are right but it doesn't mean you are always right. And that fact doesn't change because some Austrian academic who had never run so much as a toffee shop said so.
Simples.
JamesG: you seem to be confusing a national grid with a nationalised grid.