In last week’s newsletter we reported on the appointment of Peter Lilley, “a climate change sceptic and oil company director” to the House of Commons energy and climate change select committee.
Lilley had previously said a change in temperature of 1 or 2% was “not a huge concern”. He is also vice-chairman of Tethy’s Petroleum, prompting climate change campaigners and some Electrical Review readers to suggest his place on the committee is a conflict of interest.
Two responses from readers of Electrical Review’s newsletter are printed below.
As always, I would be pleased to hear your opinions.
Dear editor
This is just another example of fossilised MPs and their last gasp to squeeze as much out of us members of the public as they can for their own grubby little ends from fossil fuels.
This simply yet another slap in the face of the voting public but unfortunately, they will not remember when voting time comes around again (although they will be moaning like stuffed pigs when the brown-outs start)
Yes another shabby, cynical political move that could very well prove absolutely disastrous to all green measures and to our commitments to reduce global warning effects (oh I forgot he is also a great euro-sceptic as well!!!!)
Disgusted,
Tony Thurgood
Dear editor
The Greens so often make themselves look naive.
For a start it is vital to distinguish between those who say there is no climate change occurring and those who say that the ‘science’ of global warming is not causally linked to either CO2 or to changed solar activity. Climate change has become measurable but the causal links remain as suggestions rather than proven, and proponents of both suggestions have not as yet given rigorous arguments which support their hypothesis in detail. More importantly in the light of the general green reaction, nobody in the various movements has suggested how politicians should deal with the yawning energy and energy cost gap if no nuclear or fossil fuel generators are to be used to fill them. These gaps would then occur with or without global warming and filling them by ‘renewable sources’ involves huge changes in land use and land/seascapes. No known renewable source is as intensive as fossil or nuclear sources and the changes associated with going renewable are highly noticeable and contentious. The changes even oppose many of the causes dear to a green heart, untouched meadows, bird migration and sanctuaries, horse-and-cart farming are all deeply affected. Huge areas of land and/or sea are involved, , e.g. Windsor Park is just sufficiently large to allow the mix of wind solar, and biomass needed to support the proposed development of Bracknell, even if the higher cost of greening is accepted. And who pays? It is unrealistic not to accept that there must be temporary stop-gap arrangements allied to a steady and well thought through greening.
Secondly the green lobbies seem incapable of accepting these figures publicly and appear to think that the solar and wind industries are simply not trying hard enough. Shades of Lysenko and theories of growing wheat in Siberia if this is a fact rather than an appearance. There must too be acceptance of the facts that theories are only partially supported by the emergence of technologies and that neither are fully supported until the engineering is fully developed.
Thirdly, the Green Party, FoE and Greenpeace seem either to ignore the political difficulties or blithely say the equivalent of that’s not our problem, it’s a government problem. If they genuinely think we should just freeze and fry until some magic renewable energy source is found they should say so. If not, and let alone the changes in ways of living, how are the enormous costs to be met, particularly by whom? What can UK Ltd now sell abroad to get the cash? Industries and utilities have already gone so do we now have to try to sell and lease back our homes?
The point is that we need consultation with the fossil fuel lobbies simply for the stop-gap measures. We don’t have to accept all that they have to say. The fact of their commercial interests has to be acknowledged in committees but then so does the unproven idealistics of the green lobbies and the fearfulness of the here-today-gone-tomorrow politicians. Agreed we do badly need genuine governors, but as a breed and profession they were laughed out of the system in the ‘70s by the satiristic lobbies of the media and we have to make the best of what we’ve got.
Regards,
John Moss.
