The Prime Minister visits the Department for Energy and Climate Change to talk to staff about the ambitions he shares with Chris Huhne.

Comments

[Autonomous Mind]

There you go then. Watch as the cost of energy, and everything requiring energy in its production and transportation to consumers, spirals

We can expect more wind turbines that only produce a fraction of their capacity - but are attractive because of the subsidies installing them attracts - dotted around the place, but not guaranteeing the GW of baseload power required for the country's needs. Coal will continue to be demonised and EU diktat will prevent us from using the 300+ years worth of supply under our feet.

There's little point Cameron and Clegg wittering on about reducing taxes and enabling people to keep more of their money, when the energy policy being pursued will take that money and more besides out of our pockets both in public subsidy and direct energy costs passed on by our power providers.

[Jsheedycf]

This is without question the single and largest issue I have with the coalition. Being stuck with the ultimate lib dem baggage that is the "eco-terrorist" wing of green communists.

[RobinClash]

I think the cost of digging out the concrete we poured down the mines, when we closed them, will also be a significant cost. Mr Huhne, needs to understand that, we either:

1. Build new Nuclear NOW, not tomorrow
2. Plan to build some more gas stations soon
3. Commit to large numbers of wind turbines, and play Scrabble or Monopoly by candlelight!

Simples chkk

[dogbiter]

Green = good excuse for whacking up taxes. That's why Cameron is banging on so much about it.

[Hatstand]

And when the lights start going out around the time of the next election - they'll be swinging side by side from a lamppost.

[David MacDonald]

Firstly wind turbines (and just about all renewables other than hydro power) produce expensive intermittent power.

Secondly a nation with expensive and unreliable sources of power will have an imploding economy.

Thirdly what else could we really expect from a collection of scientifically, technically and mathematically illiterate rich kids who, in most cases, have never done a real job of work?

[Mark Demmen]

One is never quite sure if Cameron means what he says or is positioning - note the alternation between 'energy and 'climate change'; deliberate or just how it came out? But he needs to be aware that he's picking a fight with many, many people if climate change is given priority.

[Mr Ben]

Chris Huhne sounds like a secondary-school headmaster, talking to the pupils in assembly! :)

[Yogi]

My view is that we cannot rely on oil for ever. It is getting increasingly more expensive to extract it and demand in China and India will drive the price up further. I would rather pay a higher price now - in the form of fule duty and taxes as well as subsidy now rather than pay that money to oil exporting countries now and the future generations facing an energy crunch.

Higher prices at the pump will reduce unnecessary motoring, encourage car sharing and reinvigorate the high streets.

Sorry folks to be the dissenting voice here.

[Colin Smith]

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear

It really isn't that complicated.

Just bloody well get on with it and stop messing around !

[Steve]

No airport expansion is economic suicide

[Richard]

This is one of the many reasons why I could not vote for Joanne Cash in Westminster North, the "Conservatives", and their "new" politics. This new government is a stitch up by gauche public school boys with little integrity. Climate change? give me a break! As Terry-Thomas would say: "what a shower".

[Ukhome43]

Excellent news that we now have a government committed to green issues and reducing pollution.From these posts it seems that the Conservative parties attitude in the country is don`t lets worry about the planet and the environment lets just worry about money! It seems some have still not caught on that times have changed and we have new politics now where we have a government that does care about our planet and the poor unlike some past Conservative governments.

[Ukhome43]

People in Westminister didn`t vote for Joanne Cash in a pique of sexism and inverted snobbery it was as simple as that. Some people in the party are just consumed with hatred and prejudice I am afraid.

[Ukhome43]

Reminds me of the cartoon when Nick Ridley was in power of him riding a tip up truck with a cigarette in one hand. Spoke wonders for the priorities of the then Conservative party. Money and no principles. Times have changed and we need a energy policy that is right for the planet as well as the country. Nuclear is an expensive energy that has issues with waste and the fact that it can cause problems with the health of children especially around nuclear sites. I think we will need some nuclear power stations but i think we have to explore other more safe options first.

[Ukhome43]

I am afraid air transport pollutes and is bad for the environment. We need to expand the train network so in this country people take trains rather than airplanes when they want to go to other parts of the country and I don`t think that those living near airports deserve even more disruption to there lives than they already have.

[Think This]

Do not want - we are facing a imminent energy crisis. Build more power plants and build them now. Either that or lights go out.

[It doesn't add up...]

I agree this is the issue most likely to lose the next election.

[Steve]

They didn't vote for her because she is a placewoman.

[It doesn't add up...]

We do not have any prospect of indigenous renewable energy to support our current population. That means other sources of power are essential - or we slash the population. Longer term, it isn't unreasonable to expect that fusion will provide a source that replaces most fossil fuels.

[Mark Demmen]

Remind what's the proportion of the general public sceptical of climate change? It seems the new politics hasn't stop the political elites from ignoring the views of many people. Just wait until the taxes and energy shortages hit home.

[It doesn't add up...]

They didn't vote for her because she let them see what sort of character she is.

[Ukhome43]

They didn`t vote for her because of inverted snobbery and prejudice nothing else. The lady is bright, intelligent and would have made a great addition to the parliamentary party. I hope that a safe seat where people will appreciate her qualities will be found for her.

[Ukhome43]

I am afraid those who opposed her showed far more of what they were than Joanne Cash did. Joanne cash is a able, inelligent lady who the Conservative party should have been proud to have has a candidate. The sad fact was that she was just too good for the Westminister North Association.

[Ukhome43]

Those in the Conservative Party who react in horror everytime a member of the leadership says we need to become greener, look after the enviornment more etc makes themselves look backward and totally foolish. What do they want the government to stand for more pollution!!

[It doesn't add up...]

80% do not believe that climate change is significantly affected by human activity - poll conducted for the BBC.

[Rod.Sellers]

Once again there is no correlation in the argument between energy/green issues and reckless population growth. It is madness to believe that we can tackle one without the other.Stop paying people to produce children at the taxpayers expense - screw down the lid on immigration - lean on the Catholic Church to soften its line on family planning and abortion and end all Aid to the Third World unless there are strings dealing with birth control.

[It doesn't add up...]

Being a good MP isn't just about personal intellectual capability. You also have to have a electable personality.

[It doesn't add up...]

People want jobs here - not transferred to India (like Redcar) and China for a more polluted production process that actually is worse for the planet. They also want energy not to be so extortionate that they can't afford to keep reasonably warm in winter, and to have reliable electricity supply, not blackouts as in a third world country.

[Steve Cooper]

I always thought that at its best governments did what they thought was right for the country, and not what was popular.

Just because 80% of the electorate don't believe that human activity is largely responsible for climate change does not make it so, the climate is not a democracy it does not obey the will of the people. On the other hand 80%+ of scientists do believe that human activity is largely the cause and I'm willing to give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt and believe he is planning to do what he thinks is right for the country/planet based on the majority scientific view rather than pandering to popular opinion.

[Commentator]

Jack tells us that he cares for the poor....unless it is people made unemployed in Redcar because environmental restrictions make it uneconomic to run a steelworks here rather than India. In that case, Jack's message to them, like Cameron's and Huhne's, is "foxtrot oscar".

Joanne Cash lost because she made the mistake of thinking that she owned Kensington North because she was a friend of Dave. An especially big mistake to make when faced with a popular hard-working Labour MP who was conspicuously absent from the pages of Tatler.

[corporeal]

I wish they'd get on and build the Severn Barrage, that idea's been kicking around forever.

[Fez]

"David Cameron declares his ambition to build "greenest government ever"

& let's not forget the most left wing government EVER!!!

[thespecialone]

If Cameron doesnt go ahead with building new nuclear stations then I will stop my subscription and not vote for Tory again. It is not the only issue I have with the party. Europe is another. I sincerely hope that the EU collapses completely and every country reinstate their former currencies. I was almost going to stop paying last year. The party seems to be wanting to annoy those of us older (well im nearly 50) voters. Dont our votes count? I certainly will not be foot slogging around in all weathers delivering leaflets in the future.
That means that possibly at the next election I will be voting for errr....nobody or UKIP.

[John Campbell]

The problem, Jack, is that nuclear is our ONLY option if (a) we want to keep the lights on and (b) we want security of energy supply.

[It doesn't add up...]

Then he should maximise efforts to persuade the Chinese to take it seriously. Without that, anything done in the UK is a mere vanity project. That should start with a truly independent critique of UEA, IPCC and the rest of the crowd - not the current stitch-ups. Only if the science is agreed by those who are untainted can it be sold to China as truth that needs action. Copenhagen tells us the Chinese do not take it seriously - they merely see an agenda that allows them to secure world economic domination for themselves without having to fight for it. Of course, if their view turns out to have rational scientific backing (never mind the supposed numbers of politically or economically motivated), then Lucy will have some 'splaining to do.

[It doesn't add up...]

Cameron's government must be starting out as one of the greenest ever. How many have any experience of government?

[David Parker]

Oh how I wish Edward Lear was still alive to see his prophesies come true!

"The tories went to sea in a sieve, they did,
In a sieve they went to sea.......
Their heads are green and their hands are blue...
With only a beautiful pea-green veil, tied with a riband, by way of a sail...
and everyone said, who saw then go,
"O won't they soon be upset, you know!...

" But when the sun was low in the West,
the people arose and said, what little sense we once possessed
Has quite gone out of our heads!"

[eugene]

Yeah- I am not into all this green stuff either....but we now have rid ourself of the Brown stuff. So I am keen to help and support the green faction of our new, fantastic coalition Government.

[Victor Southern]

I do wish that we could separate the issues of pollution from those of energy sufficiency and of Warmist policies.

Having spent a part of my childhood and early working life in pea-soup London I welcome the cleaner air, reduced river pollution and meaningful recycling. I suspect that 99% of us do as well.

Energy security is an explosive issue in its every aspect as is also the cost of energy. Nuclear is the only realistic path coupled with hydrogen-powered cars with electric vehicles for inner-city work.

AGW is a contentious point in which the science is far from being settled [as we were told] and is based on some supporting facts and some fabricated or highly selective ones. After all, there had to be a reason for the ending of each of the known Ice Ages and it sure as hell wasn't the activities of Man.

However, politicians conflate the three all as one - accept them all or none, in which case you are a denier. Denier of what I might ask? Somehow we had Ed Miliband arguing simultaneously for AGW and also the 3rd runway at Heath Row. Is that a sign of blindness or of idiocy?

[Oh no, not again]

Start comparing home generator kits - and don't leave it too long before placing your order (otherwise you could be in for a long wait).

[Oh no, not again]

I meant the ones that run on diesel, not wind turbines.

[Autonomous Mind]

Explain that to the many thousands of people who will find themselves close neighbours of high speed rail lines and to conservationists who will see areas of outstanding natural beauty laid with tracks and pylons. But then, having reduced the amount of power we can generate thanks to jousting with windmills, where will all the power needed for these additional trains come from?

The expansion of the airports would impact far fewer people than the Villiers plan to lay thousands of miles of new track, which supports a transportation method boasting the highest passenger fares. One day the reality will dawn on people.

[Autonomous Mind]

They rejected her because she displayed a breathtaking arrogance, obnoxious high handed manner and revealed that when she doesn't get her own way she has a propensity to flounce out in a fit of pique. Quite frankly, in my humble opinion, in addition to her sense of entitlement and attitude problem she also exhibits several indicators of a personality disorder. She would have been a disaster of an MP.

[Autonomous Mind]

No, they want the government to focus on tackling actual pollution and environmental destruction, instead of dreaming up expensive and harmful policies on the strength of an unproved hypothesis dependent on flawed computer models.

[Autonomous Mind]

Well said.

[Vince Causey]

Are the "higher prices at the pump" you refer to, the prefered outcome of government climate change policy or the result of escalating oil prices?

[Vince Causey]

What does being "greener" actually mean? When I was young it was about conserving rainforest, protecting the oceans from overfishing and rivers from agricultural runoffs. Now it seems to mean only one thing - CO2 mitigation. This is profoundly misguided as it not only displaces attention from real environmental issues, but has led to ill conceived policies that have even exacerbated problems. Witness the acceleration of deforestation in Indonesia as rainforest is burnt down to make way for - you guessed it - bio diesel. Save the planet? Don't make me laugh.

[Vince Causey]

Ask anyone pushing the myth about a consensus of scientists what it is that this 80% are supposed to agree on and they usually go quiet. As to the question of how much are CO2 increases responsible for current warming, we are directed to chapter 9 of working group 1 of the AR4 report. This chapter has 56 authors - hardly an overly large number. Chapter 9 also contains a number of caveats, but of course none of that gets into the summary for policy makers, much less the mainstream media. Even the much touted figure of 90% probability has no mathematical derivation - it is quite literally pulled out of the air. And they call this science?

[Yorkshireman]

Dr Nir Shaviv,Astrophysicist of Toronto University

"Cosmic-climate study cools Kyoto"

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Cosmic.html

"Yet, over the same time frame, the geologic record shows essentially no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature even though CO2 levels have been up to 18 times higher than today. In fact, CO2 concentration was more than 10 times higher than current levels during the Ordovician glaciation, about 440 million years ago."

Thats right folks, there have been periods in earths history when Carbon dioxide levels have been 10 times the level they are today and it was during an ICE AGE!!!

Carbon Dioxide has never driven temperature in the past, so why would it start doing so in the 21st century with far lower CO2 levels?