True cost of fos­sil fu­els

The Daily Telegraph - - Letters To The Editor -

SIR – Nick Ti­mothy (Comment, Septem­ber 14) is right to urge price trans­parency in the en­ergy mar­ket.

How­ever, it would be a mis­take to re­duce Bri­tain’s car­bon price sig­nif­i­cantly. If the true cost of re­new­able en­ergy should in­clude the costs of in­ter­mit­tency, then the cost of elec­tric­ity gen­er­ated from fos­sil fu­els should in­clude the so­cial and en­vi­ron­men­tal costs of their car­bon emis­sions.

It would also be wrong to post­pone se­ri­ous emis­sion re­duc­tion un­til nearer 2050. The Cli­mate Change Act man­dates the Gov­ern­ment’s in­de­pen­dent ad­vis­ers, the Com­mit­tee on Cli­mate Change, to an­a­lyse the best eco­nomic ev­i­dence avail­able and to rec­om­mend the cheap­est path to­wards our 2050 tar­get. The pace and depth of emis­sions cuts should con­tinue to be based on their ad­vice. Sam Hall

Se­nior Re­search Fel­low, Bright Blue Lon­don SE1

SIR – Why are we hav­ing a seem­ingly end­less dis­cus­sion on the mer­its of wind power ver­sus so­lar ver­sus nu­clear when there is a tidal la­goon wait­ing to be built in Swansea? Julie Wel­lard

Llanelli, Car­marthen­shire

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.