To destroy human civilisation we just need to continue with business as usual
|
Version 0 of 1. China’s strategy for dealing with air pollution is a cosmetic exercise cynically timed to coincide with the Paris summit on climate change (Airpocalypse now: factories and schools in Beijing shut by unprecedented smog alert, 9 December). The 24-hour WHO limit for small particulates is 25 microgrammes per cubic metre of air, though recent studies have demonstrated adverse effects on foetal development at levels well below this. During recent pollution episodes, levels as high as 900 have been recorded in Bejing and other large cities such as Baoding. China’s ruthless determination to grow its economy has therefore rendered its cities wholly unfit for human habitation, and especially dangerous for pregnant women. Despite all the fine speeches in Paris, China has 368 coal-fired plants under construction, and is planning a further 800. It may be investing in renewables but this does not alter the fact that China is responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse gases worldwide. It has also admitted understating its emissions of CO2 by 14%. To destroy human civilisation it is not necessary to send in an army. We just needs to continue with business as usual.Dr Robin Russell-JonesStoke Poges, Buckinghamshire • Neither James Hansen and his colleagues (Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change, theguardian.com, 3 December), nor Paul Dorfman and his (Letters, 7 December), have given a full picture of the challenge that faces us to decarbonise energy. To drive an electric economy, there must be some forms of energy generation that are flexible enough to be adjusted to meet fluctuations in demand. Nuclear isn’t one of these, being suitable for providing a steady baseload output but not rapidly adjustable. This is why France doesn’t generate all its power from nuclear, only about 75%, with much of the rest being from hydro and gas that can be adjusted almost instantaneously. Wind and solar provide constantly fluctuating outputs, solar with peaks that are severely out of phase with both seasonal and diurnal cycles of demand. To make fullest use of these abundant but non-nuclear forms of energy we will need another flexible form of generation to complement their fluctuations and match the changing demand cycles. Gas has been touted as the answer to this but fossil fuel gas will only make the climate problem worse, whether conventional or from fracking. The sustainable alternative would be to store energy generated at times when renewables provide a surplus, and use it when they fall short. Storage is thus a vital component, now almost completely missing from our energy systems. Only pumped storage hydro schemes currently have any role and their contribution to overall use is small. We need a clear vision of how energy storage might be incorporated alongside nuclear and renewables, research into viable technologies, and the political, societal and commercial will to implement them. Hydrogen from electrolysis of sea water and methane generation from organic waste could both form part of the mix, but how will they be stored, distributed and used to meet high demand whenever wind neither blows nor sun shines? On this issue we have hardly begun, despite years of promises to phase out fossil fuels and adopt renewables and the beginnings of a worldwide movement to do so.Tim AtkinsonNorwich • I cannot help but feel that Mary Robinson’s complaint about gender inequality at the COP21 negotiations (Opinion, theguardian.com, 1 December), though well meant, is irrelevant at the present moment. Surely the priority in Paris, even for the most politically correct bien-pensant, is securing an agreement that will allow our species to continue to exist sustainably on this planet. Whether this agreement is reached by women or men is beside the point.Steven JouannySheffield • I feel that your coverage of climate change doesn’t pay enough attention to reducing greenhouse gases by curbing the amount of energy wasted in poorly insulated and inefficiently heated buildings. Local renewable energy production and storage can play a huge role in reducing harmful emissions. A 7kWh battery charged by renewable power during the day can meet the demands of any well-insulated family home on even the darkest and coldest of winter nights. This also goes a long way to solving the problem of energy peaks. Millions of buildings must undergo retrofitting work. Oil prices are falling, and are set to continue on a downward trajectory. Governments can maintain high duty on fuels, and use the windfall to provide subsidies and incentives for home and business owners to upgrade insulation to achieve maximum heat retention. Not only will emissions fall, but thousands, if not millions, of jobs will be created. Climate change ranks low on the list of voter interests; changing this desperate reality depends on making a global issue relevant to local people on a local level. By creating more out of less in the built environment – warmer homes and offices, lower energy bills, and the community spirit of local energy generation, not to mention the boost to jobs and local economies – energy and climate change can become a voter priority, and re-enfranchise those whose faith in democracy is currently lost.Guy KiddeyDirector, Dakhus Modular Solutions, Freiburg, Germany • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |