In recent weeks there has been a strong and well-organised media campaign constantly arguing that large increases in gas and electricity bills are almost entirely due to "green taxes" for the development of renewable energy. So I am pleased to hear the Committee on Climate Change confirm that this is a huge red herring (Annual energy bills 'to rise by £190 by 2020', 15 December).
I believe this co-ordinated campaign has been orchestrated by those interests who seem to be determined to stop the positive, clean, sustainable and huge economic potential that exists with developing renewable forms of energy. The parallel benefit of promoting energy efficiency should be welcomed in reducing the alarming rise in fuel poverty, and it will directly help to cut fuel bills.
It is interesting therefore to read on the Guardian's website (Environment blog, 14 December) a Sunday Times YouGov poll, hardly reported by the Sunday Times, that shows strong support for renewables over nuclear and fossil fuels. The poll shows huge support for developing more solar power (74%), just when government has cut the popular feed-in tariffs (FITs), and strong support for more wind power (56%). This compares to support for new nuclear at just 35%, with a majority 50% wanting to see either no more nuclear power stations or a total phase-out. Oil and coal come out even less favourably.
Why do we not hear about such figures across the UK media? The government should look at them, and start amending its energy policies accordingly.
Councillor Brian Goodall
Chair, Nuclear Free Local Authorities
• 12 December 2011 was a dark day for Britain – the day Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, slashed solar subsidies, while proclaiming what a good result Britain had achieved at the climate change conference in Durban. Huhne claims the cost of solar panels has halved, and that therefore the subsidy (FIT) should be halved. But solar panels are only half the cost of installation, so even if panel prices have halved, which is doubtful, the total cost of investment has reduced by only a quarter.
Huhne also claimed the original FIT of 43.3p per kilowatt generated was too generous. Not so! The rate of return over 25 years, including the cost of the original investment, is a reasonable 6%. Who will take investment risks when the effective rate of return is 3%? Huhne's decision to bring the tariff change forward by nearly four months has thrown personal investment plans into disarray, and created mistrust of the government's intentions, not only for solar but also wind applications. The fact is, we need solar energy now to meet our Kyoto obligations. Huhne has betrayed the green agenda.
John Urquhart
Newcastle upon Tyne
• So the wealthy people fortunate enough to be in a position to splash out in excess of £10,000 and enjoy the huge benefits of solar panel installation are now up in arms about the government rethink of tariffs. Spare a thought for the millions of poor people who will continue in fuel poverty without a hope of ever being able to afford these benefits. It is another example of the growing economic divide: similarly those wealthy enough to enjoy a new car have little or no road tax due to emission regulations, while poorer people who have to run old cars pay the full amount of tax.
G Randall
Monks Risborough, Buckinghamshire
• If you rely on Murdoch sources, Australia's "carbon tax" may well "look like a trip to the moral high ground at the expense of international competitiveness" (Editorial, 13 December). But in fact the policy is quite gradualist: trade-exposed emitters receive a 94% discount for the foreseeable future, and eventually polluters will be able to buy foreign carbon credits if that's cheaper than cleaning up domestically. Rather than aiming for a big bang reduction in emissions, the point of the policy is to build supply lines for low-carbon technologies. This is a prudent goal. Whether due to rising temperatures or rising exports to Asia, it is unlikely that in 20 years' time Australia will be able to justify burning coal to power domestic air conditioners.
Adrian Pellas-Rice
Whipstick, Victoria, Australia
• Your leader doesn't give credit for a scheme that is likely inform the roadmap towards a global agreement on emissions reduction. The carbon tax is a four-year transition measure leading to an emissions trading scheme, so it fits with any future settlement on climate. Australian farmers have begun to move towards carbon-sequestering farming, including green manures, biochar and other techniques that will restore soil carbon and reverse the damaging deforestation, soil degradation and consequent greenhouse gas emissions of the past century.
These "carbon farming" credits will be bought at a minimum floor price of A$23 per tonne by carbon-emitting industry. This makes far more sense than the EU system of issuing excessive emissions permits to industry while subsidising agricultural practices that increase CO2 and nitrous oxide emissions. Australia's carbon tax is the first emissions reduction system that doesn't pick winners and losers, and so is free of political dictates. As such, it will stimulate investment in genuine climate mitigation efforts.
Craig Sams
Executive chairman, Carbon Gold
• Michael Jacobs says "only … investment in low carbon technologies and other emission-reducing activities" will cut greenhouse gas emissions (Hope at last in Durban, 12 December). But such technologies have not helped so far, and are unlikely to in future. This is due to the Jevons paradox – energy efficiency cuts costs, and so increases consumption – and the fact that possible savings are dwarfed by growth in energy consumption in countries such as China and India. There is no realistic prospect of valuable fossil fuels being left in the ground, so the best strategy for tackling climate change is to mitigate the damage caused by their burning. We need to invest in carbon capture and storage, and geoengineering.
Richard Mountford
Hildenborough, Kent
