PowerSwitch

Early Day Motion 890 is calling for a feed-in tariff arrangement (a la Germany) to be set up, using the Energy Bill to create the necessary mechanism:

Alan Simpson, MP wrote:
That this House notes that massive expansion of renewable energy generating capacity is essential in order to cut the UK's carbon emissions significantly and to meet the EU renewable energy targets; further notes that the UK generates just five per cent. of its electricity from renewable sources; recognises that many European countries have adopted a feed-in tariff system with considerable success, paying a long-term, guaranteed premium price for renewable electricity exported to the grid; appreciates that a feed-in tariff has played a transformational role in Germany which now generates 13 per cent. of its electricity from renewable sources and employs 236,000 people in the renewable energy sector; further notes the finding of the Stern Review that `comparisons between deployment support through tradeable quotas and feed-in tariff price support suggest that feed-in mechanisms achieve larger deployment at lower costs'; believes that there is an urgent need for a feed-in tariff to support smaller scale renewable electricity schemes; recognises that a UK feed-in tariff could work alongside other policy mechanisms that support large scale renewable electricity generation; and calls on the Government to introduce the necessary enabling powers for a feed-in tariff in the current Energy Bill and give a commitment to introduce, following appropriate consultation, a UK feed-in tariff to support smaller non-merchant renewable electricity generation.

If you'd like your MP to sign it (and you would, wouldn't you ) you can write them a missive by putting your postcode into http://www.writetothem.com.

I've not put a 'template' letter up because write-to-them (allegedly) blocks pasted text.

Amazing. When it appears more and more that the "global warming" thing is failing, they start kicking another dead horse in the form of "EU renewable energy targets".

What's so dangerous with talking about "depletion"? That's what it's all about after all.

MacG wrote: What's so dangerous with talking about "depletion"? That's what it's all about after all.

Ah I can answer that. Those of us in the Green Wing have learned from bitter experience that Scared People Do Nowt. Or at least, nowt USEFUL. They just sit there staring at the oncoming disaster, or sometimes if in power they do something really stupid like enact the Official Secrets Act or invade some small random country as a divertissement.

Therefore, irrational though it may seem, the best thing to do if you want a result is to hide PO behind something else. "EU targets" is actually quite a good one because missing them will cost us money. Money, unlike future disasters, does get people moving (yeah I know, it'll be worth s*d-all soon, but they don't know that, do they?)...

MacG wrote:Amazing

Of course there are some of us who think that PO is going to be a serious nuisance quite soon, whereas global warming will end civilization and perhaps even the our species, a little later.

Hey, but let's not argue about that again. We can all support Alan Simpson's EDM whatever our motives

biffvernon wrote:

MacG wrote:Amazing

Of course there are some of us who think that PO is going to be a serious nuisance quite soon, whereas global warming will end civilization and perhaps even the our species, a little later.

Hey, but let's not argue about that again. We can all support Alan Simpson's EDM whatever our motives

Guess I'm just a bit disappointed. Just when I thought that we would be able to have a public and enlightened discussion about oil depletion and what to do about it, I get all this junk science about "global warming" in the face. The last months I've had a feeling that people have stopped responding to the AGW-hysteria though, and then we get... "EU requirements"!

I think we have better chances to handle depletion if we address it directly, and not trough various imaginative proxies. Not that I have much hope it will happen though.

My MP, Ian Liddell-Grainger in West Somerset, has a policy of not signing EDMs, as he's told me when I've written to him before. So I'm afraid I can't help .

JohnB wrote:My MP, Ian Liddell-Grainger in West Somerset, has a policy of not signing EDMs, as he's told me when I've written to him before. So I'm afraid I can't help .

Ummm...did he explain why, by any chance?

RenewableCandy wrote:

JohnB wrote:My MP, Ian Liddell-Grainger in West Somerset, has a policy of not signing EDMs, as he's told me when I've written to him before. So I'm afraid I can't help .

Ummm...did he explain why, by any chance?

No, but he doesn't come across as one of those enlightened green Tories.

RenewableCandy wrote:

MacG wrote: What's so dangerous with talking about "depletion"? That's what it's all about after all.

Ah I can answer that. Those of us in the Green Wing have learned from bitter experience that Scared People Do Nowt. Or at least, nowt USEFUL.

Candy is right.
The problem is that there are too many super doom sites out there that have to do with peak oil.
I like to think I'm fairly rational but in truth I am debilitated by my knowledge of peak oil and the crippling fear of what it may result in.
This has caused me to be effectively paralyzed in my ability to make long term rational decisions since the Iraq war started and I immediately guessed it had to do with peak oil.

The only way I have of dealing with it is by pushing it to the back of my mind that we might die. Unfortunately it's very, very difficult. I can't watch the news because I can interpret it in a very negative way and be paralyzed with fear for days afterwards. The only thing I can do to calm my nerves is force myself to read peak oil debunked over and over and then read green car congress and evworld. It doesn't always help though because I know I may be deluding myself.

So the moral of the story is it's better to pitch peak oil solutions as solutions to a problem we have 50 years down the line.

Unfortunately there are enough intelligent people who are welded to business as usual who just don't buy into it because of the big inconsistencies of what the politicians and corporations are doing versus what they are saying.

The classic example is building more coal fired power stations.
WTF???
If it is global warming they are trying to solve then why that?
Likewise the best transport solution is plug in electric hybrids but the big give away there is that we will AGAIN build more coal fired power stations.

Although I don't like governments very much I think that in a way it's a good thing they don't listen to the people and instead forge ahead with their plans. That way something might actually get done.

Who knows. Today I'm in a nuetral mood. Hopefully I will be able to cheer up tomorrow or perhaps next tuesday.

fifthcolumn wrote:

RenewableCandy wrote:

MacG wrote: What's so dangerous with talking about "depletion"? That's what it's all about after all.

Ah I can answer that. Those of us in the Green Wing have learned from bitter experience that Scared People Do Nowt. Or at least, nowt USEFUL.

Candy is right.
The problem is that there are too many super doom sites out there that have to do with peak oil.
I like to think I'm fairly rational but in truth I am debilitated by my knowledge of peak oil and the crippling fear of what it may result in.
This has caused me to be effectively paralyzed in my ability to make long term rational decisions since the Iraq war started and I immediately guessed it had to do with peak oil...

You're lucky: I was the b***er in 1982 who was going round saying that the Falklands was because of oil (in the UK section of Antarctica)...ah, those were the days!