Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Wind power is the path to poverty

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    270

    Default Wind power is the path to poverty

    Bjørn Lomborg: Wind power is the path to poverty

    Dr. Bjørn Lomborg is the Director of Copenhagen Consensus Center and Adjunct Professor at Copenhagen Business School and conducts research into the smartest ways to improve the environment and the world. According to the UK Guardian, he is one of the 50 people who could save the planet.
    Here he writes how the burden of ineffective ‘green’ technologies for generating electricity, such as wind energy, has fallen to the poorest of our community, ensuring they stay in poverty.
    The Poverty of Renewables
    Bjørn Lomborg

    17 March 2014

    According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “Climate change harms the poor first and worst.” This is true, because the poor are the most vulnerable and have the least resources with which to adapt. But we often forget that current policies to address global warming make energy much more costly, and that this harms the world’s poor much more.
    Solar and wind power was subsidized by $60 billion in 2012. This means that the world spent $60 billion more on energy than was needed. And, because the total climate benefit was a paltry $1.4 billion, the subsidies essentially wasted $58.6 billion. Biofuels were subsidized by another $19 billion, with essentially no climate benefit. All of that money could have been used to improve health care, hire more teachers, build better roads, or lower taxes.
    Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates that the total cost of the EU’s climate policy will be €209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end of the century.


    The burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the world’s poor, because the rich can easily pay more for their energy. I am often taken aback by well-meaning and economically comfortable environmentalists who cavalierly suggest that gasoline prices should be doubled or electricity exclusively sourced from high-cost green sources. That may go over well in affluent Hunterdon County, New Jersey, where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on gasoline. But the poorest 30% of the US population spend almost 17% of their after-tax income on gasoline.


    Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the United Kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%.


    The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a UK home has become 63% more expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now energy poor – that is, they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.


    In Germany, where green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year, household electricity prices have increased by 80% since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies essentially paid by poor tenants in the Ruhr, who cannot afford their own solar panels but still have to pay higher electricity costs.
    The list goes on. In Greece, where tax hikes on oil have driven up heating costs by 48%, more and more Athenians are cutting down park trees, causing air pollution from wood burning to triple.
    But climate policies carry an even larger cost in the developing world, where three billion people lack access to cheap and plentiful energy, perpetuating their poverty. They cook and keep warm by burning twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths per year – by far the world’s biggest environmental problem.


    Access to electricity could solve that problem, while allowing families to read at night, own a refrigerator to keep food from spoiling, or use a computer to connect with the world. It would also allow businesses to produce more competitively, creating jobs and economic growth.


    Consider Pakistan and South Africa, where a dearth of generating capacity means recurrent blackouts that wreak havoc on businesses and cost jobs. Yet the funding of new coal-fired power plants in both countries has been widely opposed by well-meaning Westerners and governments. Instead, they suggest renewables as the solution.
    But this is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. Over the next two years, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants to keep the lights on.


    In 1971, 40% of China’s energy came from renewables. Since then, it has powered its explosive economic growth almost exclusively with highly polluting coal, lifting 680 million people out of poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23% of its energy from wind and solar. By contrast, Africa gets 50% of its energy today from renewables – and remains poor.
    A new analysis from the Center for Global Development quantifies our disregard of the world’s poor. Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $500. But, using gas electrification, we could pull more than four people out of poverty for the same amount. By focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people in darkness and poverty.
    Addressing global warming effectively requires long-term innovation that makes green energy affordable to all. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the world’s poor is no solution at all.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sherbets
    Posts
    2,768

    Default

    What does he think about nuclear power? Seems a pretty significant gap in his theory if he's not considering the lavish subsidies thrown there.Also I'm surprised is his claim that China got 40% of its power from renewable sources in 1971. That was way before wind generation started to mature. Could have been hydro I suppose bu he neglects to mention hydro either.THe Germans have been into wind in a big way for 30 years. It doesn't seem to have done their economy any harm. And the Danes have been at the forefront of wind technology since the start - I'm sure their economy would look very different if they'd not been exporting turbines round the world.Sorry I think yer man is just another academic.
    Working On Behalf Of The Community!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Strathy
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captain chaos View Post
    bjørn lomborg: Wind power is the path to poverty

    dr. Bjørn lomborg is the director of copenhagen consensus center and adjunct professor at copenhagen business school and conducts research into the smartest ways to improve the environment and the world. According to the uk guardian, he is one of the 50 people who could save the planet.
    Here he writes how the burden of ineffective ‘green’ technologies for generating electricity, such as wind energy, has fallen to the poorest of our community, ensuring they stay in poverty.
    the poverty of renewables
    bjørn lomborg

    17 march 2014

    according to un secretary-general ban ki-moon, “climate change harms the poor first and worst.” this is true, because the poor are the most vulnerable and have the least resources with which to adapt. But we often forget that current policies to address global warming make energy much more costly, and that this harms the world’s poor much more.
    Solar and wind power was subsidized by $60 billion in 2012. This means that the world spent $60 billion more on energy than was needed. And, because the total climate benefit was a paltry $1.4 billion, the subsidies essentially wasted $58.6 billion. Biofuels were subsidized by another $19 billion, with essentially no climate benefit. All of that money could have been used to improve health care, hire more teachers, build better roads, or lower taxes.
    Forcing everyone to buy more expensive, less reliable energy pushes up costs throughout the economy, leaving less for other public goods. The average of macroeconomic models indicates that the total cost of the eu’s climate policy will be €209 billion ($280 billion) per year from 2020 until the end of the century.


    The burden of these policies falls overwhelmingly on the world’s poor, because the rich can easily pay more for their energy. I am often taken aback by well-meaning and economically comfortable environmentalists who cavalierly suggest that gasoline prices should be doubled or electricity exclusively sourced from high-cost green sources. That may go over well in affluent hunterdon county, new jersey, where residents reportedly spend just 2% of their income on gasoline. But the poorest 30% of the us population spend almost 17% of their after-tax income on gasoline.


    Similarly, environmentalists boast that households in the united kingdom have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10% since 2005. But they neglect to mention that this reflects a 50% increase in electricity prices, mostly to pay for an increase in the share of renewables from 1.8% to 4.6%.


    The poor, no surprise, have reduced their consumption by much more than 10%, whereas the rich have not reduced theirs at all. Over the past five years, heating a uk home has become 63% more expensive, while real wages have declined. Some 17% of households are now energy poor – that is, they have to spend more than 10% of their income on energy; and, because elderly people are typically poorer, about a quarter of their households are energy poor. Deprived pensioners burn old books to keep warm, because they are cheaper than coal, they ride on heated buses all day, and a third leave part of their homes cold.


    In germany, where green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year, household electricity prices have increased by 80% since 2000, causing 6.9 million households to live in energy poverty. wealthy homeowners in bavaria can feel good about their inefficient solar panels, receiving lavish subsidies essentially paid by poor tenants in the ruhr, who cannot afford their own solar panels but still have to pay higher electricity costs.
    The list goes on. In greece, where tax hikes on oil have driven up heating costs by 48%, more and more athenians are cutting down park trees, causing air pollution from wood burning to triple.
    But climate policies carry an even larger cost in the developing world, where three billion people lack access to cheap and plentiful energy, perpetuating their poverty. They cook and keep warm by burning twigs and dung, producing indoor air pollution that causes 3.5 million deaths per year – by far the world’s biggest environmental problem.


    Access to electricity could solve that problem, while allowing families to read at night, own a refrigerator to keep food from spoiling, or use a computer to connect with the world. It would also allow businesses to produce more competitively, creating jobs and economic growth.


    Consider pakistan and south africa, where a dearth of generating capacity means recurrent blackouts that wreak havoc on businesses and cost jobs. Yet the funding of new coal-fired power plants in both countries has been widely opposed by well-meaning westerners and governments. Instead, they suggest renewables as the solution.
    But this is hypocritical. The rich world gets just 1.2% of its energy from hugely expensive solar and wind technologies, and we would never accept having power only when the wind was blowing. Over the next two years, germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants to keep the lights on.


    In 1971, 40% of china’s energy came from renewables. Since then, it has powered its explosive economic growth almost exclusively with highly polluting coal, lifting 680 million people out of poverty. Today, china gets a trifling 0.23% of its energy from wind and solar. By contrast, africa gets 50% of its energy today from renewables – and remains poor.
    A new analysis from the center for global development quantifies our disregard of the world’s poor. Investing in renewables, we can pull one person out of poverty for about $500. But, using gas electrification, we could pull more than four people out of poverty for the same amount. By focusing on our climate concerns, we deliberately choose to leave more than three out of four people in darkness and poverty.
    Addressing global warming effectively requires long-term innovation that makes green energy affordable to all. Until then, wasting enormous sums of money at the expense of the world’s poor is no solution at all.
    so very very true!
    "Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped."

  4. #4

    Default

    Everything harms the poorest worst and first, inflation whether food fuel property. But hey it makes a good headline for the anti wind lobby.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ubique
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    I have only been against the drive for renewable energy because of the way the green levy was applied through customers’ energy bills. This disproportionately affects the poorest in society, people who can least afford to heat their homes. If all subsidies came from general taxation the load would be spread more widely.
    'We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.'
    Maya Angelou

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sherbets
    Posts
    2,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gronnuck View Post
    I have only been against the drive for renewable energy because of the way the green levy was applied through customers’ energy bills. This disproportionately affects the poorest in society, people who can least afford to heat their homes. If all subsidies came from general taxation the load would be spread more widely.
    The power generated by Dounreay was paid for out of your leccy bills ( the 'Dounreay Obligation' back in the day). However the billions required to clean up after the nuke industry comes out of your taxes. Which do you feel most annoyed about?
    Working On Behalf Of The Community!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubthumper View Post
    The power generated by Dounreay was paid for out of your leccy bills ( the 'Dounreay Obligation' back in the day). However the billions required to clean up after the nuke industry comes out of your taxes. Which do you feel most annoyed about?
    I feel most annoyed about people calling it "leccy."

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sids View Post
    I feel most annoyed about people calling it "leccy."
    I suggest you avoid the City of Liverpool.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smithp View Post
    I suggest you avoid the City of Liverpool.
    I wouldn't begrudge people in faraway places their linguistic quirks.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubthumper View Post
    The power generated by Dounreay was paid for out of your leccy bills ( the 'Dounreay Obligation' back in the day). However the billions required to clean up after the nuke industry comes out of your taxes. Which do you feel most annoyed about?
    When I posted this, 27.1% of your electricity was being generated by nuclear. What have you switched off to avoid being tainted by it?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	30 MAR 2145.jpg 
Views:	143 
Size:	97.0 KB 
ID:	23318 https://www.dropbox.com/s/7hdi37qsvq...MAR%202145.jpg

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubthumper View Post
    The power generated by Dounreay was paid for out of your leccy bills ( the 'Dounreay Obligation' back in the day). However the billions required to clean up after the nuke industry comes out of your taxes. Which do you feel most annoyed about?
    Indeed. David Mackay puts the cost of cleaning up the nuclear industry at 2.3p per kWh. Quite a hefty subsidy over the expensive build costs of nuclear!!
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gronnuck View Post
    I have only been against the drive for renewable energy because of the way the green levy was applied through customers’ energy bills. This disproportionately affects the poorest in society, people who can least afford to heat their homes. If all subsidies came from general taxation the load would be spread more widely.
    and yet the profit of coal, oil and gas goes straight into the pockets of overseas oligarchs. I think you need to reassess your position.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  13. #13

    Default

    Originally Posted by Gronnuck
    I have only been against the drive for renewable energy because of the way the green levy was applied through customers’ energy bills. This disproportionately affects the poorest in society, people who can least afford to heat their homes. If all subsidies came from general taxation the load would be spread more widely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
    and yet the profit of coal, oil and gas goes straight into the pockets of overseas oligarchs. I think you need to reassess your position.
    Your reply has no relevance to Gronnucks post but consider this small sample:

    Causeymire, Stroupster, Burn of Whilk, Farr, Novar Windfarms - RWE -German
    Halsary, Whitelee Windfarms - Scottish Power - Iberdrola -Spanish
    Baillie Windfarm - Statkraft - Norwegian
    Robin Rigg Windfarm - E.on -German

    There are lots more.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ywindythesecond View Post
    Originally Posted by Gronnuck
    I have only been against the drive for renewable energy because of the way the green levy was applied through customers’ energy bills. This disproportionately affects the poorest in society, people who can least afford to heat their homes. If all subsidies came from general taxation the load would be spread more widely.



    Your reply has no relevance to Gronnucks post but consider this small sample:

    Causeymire, Stroupster, Burn of Whilk, Farr, Novar Windfarms - RWE -German
    Halsary, Whitelee Windfarms - Scottish Power - Iberdrola -Spanish
    Baillie Windfarm - Statkraft - Norwegian
    Robin Rigg Windfarm - E.on -German

    There are lots more.
    I am not defending that but they are from EU countries and we are EU citizens except Statkraft who has just a 30% stake in Baillie. And they are providing British jobs. Of course big international companies can spend the money to get their projects through the planning process.

    The difference is that there have been a number of locally owned wind farm developments which have been opposed by the now defunct Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. They opposed the Shebster Wind farm which was 100% locally owned and that allowed Baillie to go through. It was obvious that only one would have been built near Shebster. The shebster wind farm could have been built now, arguably a more suitable size for the area.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
    I am not defending that but they are from EU countries and we are EU citizens except Statkraft who has just a 30% stake in Baillie. And they are providing British jobs. Of course big international companies can spend the money to get their projects through the planning process.

    The difference is that there have been a number of locally owned wind farm developments which have been opposed by the now defunct Caithness Windfarm Information Forum. They opposed the Shebster Wind farm which was 100% locally owned and that allowed Baillie to go through. It was obvious that only one would have been built near Shebster. The shebster wind farm could have been built now, arguably a more suitable size for the area.
    Is it obvious that with Baillie now operational near Reay that Limekiln will be refused? Presumably you will have objected to Limekiln on these grounds? If Shebster was a more suitable size for the area than Baillie, then it follows that Baillie is a more suitable size for the area than Limekiln, but much less suitable than Shebster. By the way, have you asked the people in the cottages which would have looked out on Shebster windfarm how suitable they thought it was for their area?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ywindythesecond View Post
    Is it obvious that with Baillie now operational near Reay that Limekiln will be refused? Presumably you will have objected to Limekiln on these grounds? If Shebster was a more suitable size for the area than Baillie, then it follows that Baillie is a more suitable size for the area than Limekiln, but much less suitable than Shebster. By the way, have you asked the people in the cottages which would have looked out on Shebster windfarm how suitable they thought it was for their area?
    No it is not obvious that Limekiln will be refused because of Baillie because Limekiln is much further away from Shebster than the Shebster wind farm development. Caithness West Community Council have not balloted the people of Reay of their opinions regarding Limekiln, nor do they intend to. Since RSPB and SNH have not raised any objection then I'm presuming that Limekiln is a suitable place for a wind farm.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Not Wick
    Posts
    1,667

    Default

    Please don't start Rheghead off about stupid windmills.
    A 1991 Gallup survey indicated that 49 percent of Americans didn't know that white bread is made from wheat.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
    No it is not obvious that Limekiln will be refused because of Baillie because Limekiln is much further away from Shebster than the Shebster wind farm development. Caithness West Community Council have not balloted the people of Reay of their opinions regarding Limekiln, nor do they intend to. Since RSPB and SNH have not raised any objection then I'm presuming that Limekiln is a suitable place for a wind farm.
    RSPB generally do not object because they believe that climate change is a bigger threat than wind turbines. SNH is only allowed to object on grounds of National Interest, and it stresses that its role is to advise local authorities. SNH has concerns about Limekiln which Highland Council should heed.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    12,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ywindythesecond View Post
    RSPB generally do not object because they believe that climate change is a bigger threat than wind turbines. SNH is only allowed to object on grounds of National Interest, and it stresses that its role is to advise local authorities. SNH has concerns about Limekiln which Highland Council should heed.
    And also, the nearest turbine is over 2km to the nearest dwelling. In the early days, CWIF campaigned for a minimum of 1km from properties until they hooked up with CATs. Seems to tick all the right boxes, oh and it is in the hinterland of the landscape. Perfect place for a wind farm I'd say.
    God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And wisdom to know the difference.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rheghead View Post
    And also, the nearest turbine is over 2km to the nearest dwelling. In the early days, CWIF campaigned for a minimum of 1km from properties until they hooked up with CATs. Seems to tick all the right boxes, oh and it is in the hinterland of the landscape. Perfect place for a wind farm I'd say.
    If you are so convinced then I expect you will be campaigning among your neighbours for support for the project.

    Are you?


    View from Reay Golf Course Car Park

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •