People across the UK have installed solar thermal panels on their roofs to produce their own energy, but until now none of these small scale generators have been paid by the government or energy suppliers for their power. Good Energy,… Read More »Good Energy launches groundbreaking deal to pay homes for solar heat
You could be. The Low Impact Living Initiative are running courses during the month of October on composting, building solar water heaters, green woodwork, low-impact smallholdings, wood burner construction and advanced recycling. The courses are run in the South East,… Read More »Are you ready for a low carbon future?
This is a guest post by Pete Roche, editor of the No2nuclearpower website.
Photo credit: Akuppa
There is an episode of “Spooks” – the BBC Spy Drama – in which “green terrorists” threaten to blow up the Thames Barrier and flood London unless the Government releases a report proving it is secretly trying to appear serious about climate change whilst actually continuing with business as usual. Few commentators would be surprised today if they were to learn such a report actually exists.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) and the charity Help the Aged lodged papers at the High Court in London on 9th April seeking a Judicial Review of UK energy efficiency policy because of the Government’s failure to meet its legal obligation to eradicate fuel poverty. People suffering from fuel poverty are defined as those spending more than 10% of their income on heating and lighting. According to the Government’s Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (FPAG), more than 2.3m of the most vulnerable households in England suffer from fuel poverty, which means around eight old people are dying every hour due to cold related illnesses in the winter months.
Britain has plans for ten new “Eco-Towns” and all new houses will be zero-carbon after 2016. But 80% of the houses we will inhabit in 2050 are already built, so, in order to cut carbon emissions by 60%, or preferably 80%, then emissions from these buildings will need to be cut by at least the same amount. Yet current plans expect an entirely inadequate contribution from the domestic sector.
Read More »UK goes mad for nukes
Of course I’ve heard about Webcameron, but I’ve never had the pleasure of actually watching any of it. So here you go, a politician talking sense, for a change. I’ve never considered giving the Conservatives my vote before, but I… Read More »David Cameron and Greenpeace agree micro-generation is the way forward
This is a guest post by Lorna Li, of Lorna Li : Green 2.0 Marketing.
As oil prices skyrocket and the climate heats up, the debate around the 2007 Energy Bill, currently being debated in U.S. Congress behind closed doors, is getting hotter. Environmentalists, students, rock stars, and even auto industry workers in the United States are clamoring for a strong, clean 2007 Energy Bill that includes high fuel efficiency standards, more renewable electricity and no nukes. The U.S. auto industry is contentiously divided, as American students rally across the nation, and everyone launches YouTube video campaigns.
Can the U.S. Ever Reach 35 mpg by 2020?
The United States Congress is hard-pressed to choose between 2 fuel efficiency standards – the 35 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard, which was approved by the Senate in June, and the U.S. Auto Industry counter-proposal of 32 mpg by 2022.
A large group of auto workers and dealers have broken from the industry in order to support the 35 mpg by 2020 fuel efficiency standard. As oil prices continue to rise, what is at stake in the debate over fuel efficiency is the future of the American auto industry and the livelihood of U.S. autoworkers, not to mention the wallets of American drivers in the years to come.
Adam Lee, a third generation auto dealer, makes this personal plea in his 3-minute video clip.
“My family has been selling American made cars since 1936. My livelihood and the livelihood of over 350 employees who work for us depend upon the success of the automobile industry. Today that strength is severely compromised by the lack of fuel-efficient cars and trucks customers want to buy. …
Without a 35 mile-per-gallon mandate, I’m afraid, global warming and our dependence on foreign oil will continue to get much worse in the long run. And, in the short run, I’m afraid I’ll be stuck with a lot full of cars that no one wants to buy or even worse: This country will no longer have an American auto industry.”
To emphasize the difference between the 2 fuel efficiency proposals, the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency delivered Trick or Treat bags to members of Congress, illustrating the Spooky Truth about the32 mpg by 2022 Auto Lobby proposal.
Read More »The 2007 Energy Bill – Can the U.S. Ever Green Its Energy Policy?
An ordinary couple decide to become self-sufficient.
A family home and business are powered by the wind.
This is a guest post by Pete Roche, editor of the No2nuclearpower website.
The UK Government’s consultation on the Future of Nuclear Power – forced on to it by a successful legal action brought by Greenpeace – ended on Wednesday 10th October. By coincidence, Wednesday was also the 50th anniversary of Britain’s worst nuclear accident when the reactor core at Windscale caught fire sending a plume of radioactive material across the country. Five decades ago secrecy and cover-ups did nothing to reassure those with growing doubts about the risks of nuclear technology. Today, the closed consultation has carried on the tradition of wilfully misleading the public.
Britain’s leading environmental groups withdrew from the consultation prior to 8th September when a series of consultation workshops, organised by Opinion Leader Research (OLR), were held in eight cities around the UK with 1,100 member of the public who were asked to assess the case for and against nuclear power and then take a vote. The environment groups said the government had failed to fairly reflect the arguments presented at the meetings, and was distorting the evidence. Independently, 20 senior academics agreed that participants were misled.
An inconvenient truth about nuclear – that it can only make a small contribution to reducing the UK’s overall CO2 emissions – was not mentioned. The information given to the public was biased and incomplete. The Government’s intention was clear – provide very limited, biased information in order to lead the participants to a predetermined conclusion. Greenpeace has made a formal complaint to the Market Research Standards Council about the conduct by Opinion Leader Research.
Read More »UK’s nuclear consultation sham