solutions

If you're not already taking advantage of Peter Sinclair's youtube videos, you probably should be. Each week he examines a particular controversy in the field of climate science, explains it, and picks apart the often-dubious arguments of the climate deniers.

It's a valuable contribution, but if you're after something a bit more uplifting, Peter is now taking occasional breaks from being 'science geek with video skills' to concentrate on showcasing the technologies that we hope are driving the inevitability of a low-carbon future.

This month, it's wind power, and Peter does a great job of expressing clearly all that stuff you kind-of-already know about wind power, but never had the pithy facts at the front of your mind to call on about.

Nathan is next up in our spring blog relay - catch up on entries from other Greenpeace staff.

I've been with Greenpeace now for nearly six years, having worked on a number of campaigns, but now sit within the climate and energy team as a senior campaigner on energy solutions. But what do I actually do (a question my boss asks on a more than regular basis)?

Well, this week, what with it being spring (glorious uninterrupted sun and modest temperatures) it's been difficult to concentrate on the task at hand – the task being balancing the needs of the nuclear campaign with nurturing the infant that is the energy solutions campaign.

John Hutton committing to take action on climate change at the 2007 Labour Party Conference © Rose / Greenpeace

"No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights," said Business Secretary John Hutton (pictured above, proving he really has heard of climate change, honest) today.

Bearing in mind the findings of leading energy consultants Pöyry (pdf) that we don't need new nuclear or new coal to keep the lights on - we just need the government to meet its own, existing targets for energy efficiency and renewables - he might better have said "no vision plus no guts equals no chance of averting catastrophic climate change". Which at least has some basis in fact.

Keeping the lights on - without new coal

"[U]nless we want to risk our security of supply and face greater cost burdens, stations such as Kingsnorth must be part of the energy mix."

"Currently, we have to use a mix of energy sources to power our country - fossil fuel, renewable energy and nuclear power. Together they provide us with a reliable electricity supply. And although the use of low-carbon energy sources is growing, fossil fuel will continue to generate power, not just here but around the globe."

Senior government and Big Energy have been working hard to propagate the idea that, to keep the lights on, we need to build new coal plants.

So, is it true?

One of the world's premier economic forums, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), has openly identified environmental degradation as the greatest threat we face. While this is hardly news to those of us who've long been aware of the grave damage we've been inflicting on the planet in recent decades, for a mainstream economic organisation such as OECD it represents a fairly seismic change in thinking.

The key theme of its new report, 'Environmental Outlook to 2030', is that tackling climate change, pollution and other environmental hazards is urgently necessary to avoid irreversible damage.