Lazy and shortsighted

THE Government has announced that it is going to build more gas-fired power stations and exploit gas reserves which lie under large swathes of Britain, including under York.

I believe this to be the wrong way to power the country, as it will result in us failing our obligations under the Climate Change Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The government claims burning gas is low carbon; this is not do. Burning fossil methane may result in lower CO2 emissions per watt of electricity than burning coal or oil, but it is in no way “low carbon”, as it adds unwanted CO2 into our atmosphere, from carbon which has been safely and naturally stored for millions of years.

Low-carbon energy comes from renewable resources, such as the sun, wind, waves, tides and local biomass. Gas may be a useful primary fuel (in homes) but to use it for generating electricity is madness.

The recent announcement also reiterated that “Carbon Capture and Storage” would continue to be explored. If this were to work, I’d be in favour, but the trial technology has not worked well, and is years away from being a commercial proposition. Taking yet more gas out of the ground is lazy and shortsighted.

John Cossham, Hull Road, York.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:04pm Sat 8 Dec 12

capt spaulding says...

If it brings my bills down I dont give a monkeys.
If it brings my bills down I dont give a monkeys. capt spaulding

10:51pm Sat 8 Dec 12

ColdAsChristmas says...

On your bike John. Who says that CO2 is unwanted? Algore perhaps, so it can be taxed? Gardeners will pump CO2 into their greenhouse crops to make them grow bigger and better for example. More houses and less land for food; we might need to improve crop yield to feed the masses? Our cooling climate is not helping either!
Then you go on to talk about targets: how about a target to bring down the number of winter deaths through hypothermia, that would have made far more sense and benefit our people.
I would agree that gas should primarily have been used for mostly heating instead of the dash for gas, almost destroying the coal industry UK. However, we now have the shale gas bonanza and we need to get onto it quickly to not only reduce costs to the domestic user but also to power our industry if we are ever to pay off this massive deficit, costing us currently £120 Million a day.
Meeting stupid CO2 targets won't do one single bit of good except keep energy prices sky high meaning less disposable income to aid our economic recovery but instead fill the bank accounts of our mostly foreign owned energy suppliers.
The Captain is correct, we need cheaper energy and we need it fast!
On your bike John. Who says that CO2 is unwanted? Algore perhaps, so it can be taxed? Gardeners will pump CO2 into their greenhouse crops to make them grow bigger and better for example. More houses and less land for food; we might need to improve crop yield to feed the masses? Our cooling climate is not helping either! Then you go on to talk about targets: how about a target to bring down the number of winter deaths through hypothermia, that would have made far more sense and benefit our people. I would agree that gas should primarily have been used for mostly heating instead of the dash for gas, almost destroying the coal industry UK. However, we now have the shale gas bonanza and we need to get onto it quickly to not only reduce costs to the domestic user but also to power our industry if we are ever to pay off this massive deficit, costing us currently £120 Million a day. Meeting stupid CO2 targets won't do one single bit of good except keep energy prices sky high meaning less disposable income to aid our economic recovery but instead fill the bank accounts of our mostly foreign owned energy suppliers. The Captain is correct, we need cheaper energy and we need it fast! ColdAsChristmas

11:07pm Sat 8 Dec 12

ColdAsChristmas says...

John, while you think (Wrongly) that meeting CO2 targets will save the planet, (96% is naturally occurring anyway) how about meeting fuel poverty targets instead? Yes that one will not only be missed but is likely to more than double between 2002 and 2016! What about that one John.
The secret climate conference (COP 18) in Doha ended today, a day late so as to save face and agreed to extend their Kyoto treaty until 2020. By that time we should be at the end of this nonsense. If not we will be well and truly bankrupt.
John, while you think (Wrongly) that meeting CO2 targets will save the planet, (96% is naturally occurring anyway) how about meeting fuel poverty targets instead? Yes that one will not only be missed but is likely to more than double between 2002 and 2016! What about that one John. The secret climate conference (COP 18) in Doha ended today, a day late so as to save face and agreed to extend their Kyoto treaty until 2020. By that time we should be at the end of this nonsense. If not we will be well and truly bankrupt. ColdAsChristmas

2:31pm Mon 10 Dec 12

John Cossham says...

Dear 'ColdAsChristmas' (cowardly hiding behind pseudonym), I agree that setting targets to reduce hypothermia deaths would be a good thing, and yes, I agree with you on reducing fuel poverty. But if you think that extracting all this gas will reduce gas prices, I think you'll be wrong. If I were a betting man (I'm not) I would bet that in 10 years time, or even in 5, that the price of gas will be higher than it is now (even taking inflation into account), and if I knew your real name, I'd make a note of this comment and date, and contact you in 5 years time to show you that you were wrong.

And, sadly, you are in a tiny misguided minority with regards to your opinion about climate change. Cooling we certainly aren't. You may be too arrogant and proud to change your mind, and may go to your grave with your beliefs, but there are plenty of ex-deniers now who grudgingly admit that they were previously wrong, and agree that all the evidence and science points towards higher emissions of CO2 = higher temperatures = less climate stability/more climate chaos.

Time will tell. I think we can all see that our weather (one indicator of climate) is becoming less predictable.
Dear 'ColdAsChristmas' (cowardly hiding behind pseudonym), I agree that setting targets to reduce hypothermia deaths would be a good thing, and yes, I agree with you on reducing fuel poverty. But if you think that extracting all this gas will reduce gas prices, I think you'll be wrong. If I were a betting man (I'm not) I would bet that in 10 years time, or even in 5, that the price of gas will be higher than it is now (even taking inflation into account), and if I knew your real name, I'd make a note of this comment and date, and contact you in 5 years time to show you that you were wrong. And, sadly, you are in a tiny misguided minority with regards to your opinion about climate change. Cooling we certainly aren't. You may be too arrogant and proud to change your mind, and may go to your grave with your beliefs, but there are plenty of ex-deniers now who grudgingly admit that they were previously wrong, and agree that all the evidence and science points towards higher emissions of CO2 = higher temperatures = less climate stability/more climate chaos. Time will tell. I think we can all see that our weather (one indicator of climate) is becoming less predictable. John Cossham

3:26pm Mon 10 Dec 12

Dave Taylor says...

The Frack-Heads who think shale oil and gas are a viable alternative really ought to understand the massive dangers to public health and the danger of a polluted environment on such a small island. In the USA, Dick Cheney repealed Water Pollution Protection laws to permit his company, Halliburton, to pump chemicals into the ground to force gas out. The gas then goes everywhere, including into the water supply. See this movie and learn. Oil shale gas extraction is not a strategy. It's a horror story!

www.gaslandthemovie.
com
The Frack-Heads who think shale oil and gas are a viable alternative really ought to understand the massive dangers to public health and the danger of a polluted environment on such a small island. In the USA, Dick Cheney repealed Water Pollution Protection laws to permit his company, Halliburton, to pump chemicals into the ground to force gas out. The gas then goes everywhere, including into the water supply. See this movie and learn. Oil shale gas extraction is not a strategy. It's a horror story! www.gaslandthemovie. com Dave Taylor

3:27am Tue 11 Dec 12

Magicman! says...

The only point I am going to make is that the water supplies concerned in America were in naturally occuring wells. Our water is in metal pipes.

I can't be bothered to put a reply to the letter writer because they've obviously bought into the global CON (or should that be "CO2N"...) and so won't listen to proven logic.
The only point I am going to make is that the water supplies concerned in America were in naturally occuring wells. Our water is in metal pipes. I can't be bothered to put a reply to the letter writer because they've obviously bought into the global CON (or should that be "CO2N"...) and so won't listen to proven logic. Magicman!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree