The Cost of Cold: Letter to i-Newspaper

Dear Editor,

Yesterday Sarah Cassidy reported on research carried out by Age UK into the health effects of cold homes. Nearly thirty thousand deaths a year due to poor housing and high energy bills in the UK. This is a disgrace.

It is also disappointing that the amazing Spread the Warmth campaign being fought by Age UK to rectify this situation seems to have garnered very little in the way of support from Green NGO's. Surely this is a clear climate change mitigation and health synergy where there should be cooperation? It is reported that £1.4bn is spent by the NHS each year dealing with cold related illnesses. By comparison the governments flagship home insulation scheme had a budget of just £1.1bn over three years from 2008 to 2011.

I sincerely hope that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others join this drive to improve housing standards. Energy bills would be cut, carbon targets would be that much closer to being met, and in the medium term related NHS expenditure would decrease. Surely even this coallition govornment could be convinced to go for a win-win-win policy?

Yours faithfully,
Calvin Jone

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

The Cost of Cold

Today a respected UK charity released estimates of the death toll and the cost to the NHS of cold homes nationwide. These figures are included in The Cost of Cold (pdf).

It is a shocking state of affairs. The NHS is spending roughly £1.4bn per year treating conditions brought on my cold living conditions. Even after this expenditure  roughly twenty seven thousand people a year die from conditions brought on by the combination of shoddy housing stock and high energy prices.

While energy prices always hit the headlines, insulation and draftproofing are the less glamorous solutions that need more funding. For this reason Age UK has launched Spread the Warmth.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Hurricane Sandy: The Climate Connections

Hurricane Sandy was the largest Atlantic storm ever recorded, it had a huge impact along much of the United States eastern seaboard. Partly due to it creating the lowest atmospheric pressure at its latitude ever recorded; this created a huge upswell of water.

Paraphrasing Bill Clintons famous 'Its The Economy Stupid' Bloomberg Buisiness Week lead with 'Its Global Warming Stupid'.

But what are the experts saying? Attributing a single event to climate change as BusinessWeek appear to is notoriously difficult to do but statements like 'we can expect a lot more of this in the future due to climate change' are more easily argued. In fact on the Scientific American website Mark Fischetti argues that climate change is already increading the number of large storms to be found across the Atlantic united states.


Columbia University's Earth Institute created a dedicated website with some highlights bellow: 

• The Science and the Lessons of Hurricane Sandy (link) 
• This is a wake-up call, don’t hit the snooze button (link) 
• Researcher Klaus Jacob anticipated these hazards years ago; in this video, he talks about how he was personally affected, and what needs to be done. (link)

Hurricane Sandy in the Scientific Press

• Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions: Factsheet on Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change (link) 
• Smithsonian Institute Online:  Did climate change cause hurricane sandy?
• *Top Pick* Scientific American: Special Hurricane Sandy Website.
• Science journal Nature has a "news explainer" on the issues. 

Background Reading:

• Media Coverage Review: Carbon Brief, a website analysing media coverage of climate change has produced a summary of the media narative around sandy.  
• Climate Science Review: Skeptical Science has a detailed overview of the climate science issues around hurricane sandy.   
• Climate Science of Extreme Events: Intergovornmental Pannel on Climate Change Report on Extreme Climate Events. (link) 

Related Podcast:

The Unexplained with Howard Huges, Edition 95: Hurricane Sandy Special. Featuring an interview with Katherine Hayhoe.

Related Video:

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Renwable Energy Foundation on Wind Power

The Renewable Energy Foundation  are regularly getting their distorted views on wind power published. Here is a letter that i had published in a local paper as a response.

Dear Editor,

On Monday you carried a story claiming wind farms will cost electricity bill payers £400 a year.  A lot of people are really struggling with energy prices, particularly in rural Aberdeenshire where mains gas isn't accessible. The story was based on work by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) and this should provide some relief.

The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) was set up in 2005 by Noel Edmonds (yes that one!) and has been called a "anti-wind lobbying group" by the wind industries trade body. It is not an academic institution nor an impartial party.

So where does this number come from? This £400 number is what you get if you estimate the subsidy due to all of the UK's wind farm projects likely to be built in Scotland by 2020 and then allocate all of that cost to Scottish electricity bill payers. Even if Scotland becomes independent it is far from clear how the issue of subsidies would be resolved, not least because everyone will want to take credit for the carbon saving. All of the UK's nations have carbon targets.

REF clearly want people to be disgusted by the cost of wind. The only problem is that wind power produces low carbon electricity in a safe manner at a cost only marginally higher than fossil fuel sources. As the cost of fossil fuels goes up and the cost of wind power comes down London School of Economics (1) predicts that onshore wind will become cheaper that traditional forms of energy. Wind power has the potential to create large numbers of jobs in Scotland and despite what REF wants you to believe alternative forms of power may well become cheaper than traditional forms. If you don't like the look of wind turbines i cant argue with that but the economic case is far from as frightening as REF portray it.

Yours faithfully,
Calvin Jones

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Stop the Planting of Biofuels on Rainforests

The growth of biofuels is one of the leading causes of deforestation. This not only destroys the beauty and diversity contained by these rain forests but also causes the release of large quantities carbon into the atmosphere.

Please sign the petition by Avaaz and help to pressurise the government not to continue subsidising this process.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!