Just before Christmas one of the world’s leading climate scientists wrote to Gordon Brown. Jim Hansen, who heads up the NASAGoddard institute in New York, is best known both for his research in the field of climatology and for his congressional testimony on climate change that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue.
In the letter (pdf), he makes a plea to our prime minister. “Your leadership is needed”, Hansen states, “on a matter concerning coal-fired power plants in your country, a matter with ramifications for life on our planet, including all species. Prospects for today’s children, and especially the world’s poor, hinge upon our success in stabilizing climate.” Hansen goes on to remind Brown that coal has caused “fully half of the fossil fuel increase of carbon dioxide in the air today”.
Last night the Conservative controlled Medway council in Kent, which unlike the Queen was not cc’d in to Hansen’s letter, approved plans for Britain’s first coal-fired power station in over 30 years. The plant will emit more than eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide every single year – more than the 30 least polluting nations of the planet combined. Its developer, the power company E.ON, is the single largest polluter in Britain.
E.ON and the other power giants are trying to blur the edges of what should be a simple black and white argument by talking about “clean coal” technology. This myth needs to be addressed. Clean coal, carbon storage, sequestration – all these terms are jargon, mythologising an untested, expensive and potentially unviable future process. No clean coal plants are operational anywhere in the world today, all the technologies have serious question marks hanging over them, and even the chancellor admits the techniques “may never work”. Meanwhile, those eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide are pumped into the atmosphere each year, every year. And if E.ON get their way, there will be many more coal plants to follow.
But there is an alternative. John Hutton announced last month that Britain could generate around half of Britain’s electricity from offshore wind farms by 2020 – easily negating the need for new coal. With efficiency, renewables and a radical new decentralised energy system we could slash our emissions within just a few years. Instead it seems that this government, in thrall to an outdated civil service, is convinced that large centralised plants are the only grown-up way of keeping the lights on, regardless of the consequences for our climate.
Hansen’s letter continues. “You have the potential to influence the future of the planet. Prime Minister Brown, we cannot avert our eyes from he basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points.” Coming from a top scientist, this kind of stark language is remarkable. Let’s listen to the scientists, not the industry spinners. Kingsnorth may be the most important climate change decision that Gordon Brown will have to make, but it should not be a difficult one.
Just before Christmas one of the world’s leading climate scientists wrote to Gordon Brown. Jim Hansen, who heads up the NASA Goddard institute in New York, is best known both for his research in the field of climatology and for his congressional testimony on climate change that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue.
In the letter (pdf), he makes a plea to our prime minister. “Your leadership is needed”, Hansen states, “on a matter concerning coal-fired power plants in your country, a matter with ramifications for life on our planet, including all species. Prospects for today’s children, and especially the world’s poor, hinge upon our success in stabilizing climate.” Hansen goes on to remind Brown that coal has caused “fully half of the fossil fuel increase of carbon dioxide in the air today”.
Last night the Conservative controlled Medway council in Kent, which unlike the Queen was not cc’d in to Hansen’s letter, approved plans for Britain’s first coal-fired power station in over 30 years. The plant will emit more than eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide every single year – more than the 30 least polluting nations of the planet combined. Its developer, the power company E.ON, is the single largest polluter in Britain.
E.ON and the other power giants are trying to blur the edges of what should be a simple black and white argument by talking about “clean coal” technology. This myth needs to be addressed. Clean coal, carbon storage, sequestration – all these terms are jargon, mythologising an untested, expensive and potentially unviable future process. No clean coal plants are operational anywhere in the world today, all the technologies have serious question marks hanging over them, and even the chancellor admits the techniques “may never work”. Meanwhile, those eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide are pumped into the atmosphere each year, every year. And if E.ON get their way, there will be many more coal plants to follow.
But there is an alternative. John Hutton announced last month that Britain could generate around half of Britain’s electricity from offshore wind farms by 2020 – easily negating the need for new coal. With efficiency, renewables and a radical new decentralised energy system we could slash our emissions within just a few years. Instead it seems that this government, in thrall to an outdated civil service, is convinced that large centralised plants are the only grown-up way of keeping the lights on, regardless of the consequences for our climate.
Hansen’s letter continues. “You have the potential to influence the future of the planet. Prime Minister Brown, we cannot avert our eyes from he basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired power plants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points.” Coming from a top scientist, this kind of stark language is remarkable. Let’s listen to the scientists, not the industry spinners. Kingsnorth may be the most important climate change decision that Gordon Brown will have to make, but it should not be a difficult one.