Too hot to handle?

It's nice to keep warm on a cold winter's night.  Conversely, the cold weather can kill, so warmth is not a luxury.  It is a necessity.  So I watch with interest the energy debate in the UK, particularly following the recently announced fuel price increases.  The coalition government formed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, with the latter as the junior partner, made a big issue of its green commitment in the early days in office.  I recall news clips of the Prime Minister, David Cameron, cycling to the Houses of Parliament, albeit followed by his limousine!  But it's easy to be green when not faced with tough economic choices and I now sense the tide is turning.

I always thought the highest priority on the green agenda was to prevent irreparable damage to the planet by excessive man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, which cause global warming.  If you believe action has to be taken to prevent the threat to the planet, then the economic arguments are of secondary importance.  The cost of energy produced from fossil fuels will inevitably rise because the deposits of the fuel, which have taken billions of years to form, are diminishing whilst the demand is increasing, ergo the demand is greater than the supply so the price goes up.  The green alternatives, such as solar, wind and waves, are not cheap in terms of capital investment to create useable energy supplies and the costs of running and supporting the new installations.

What about nucleur fission?  Well, it is green in terms of the extremely low levels of carbon dioxide emissions, but dealing with radio active waste, which remains active for many generations, has not been satisfactorily addressed.  Nuclear fusion (like the sun) doesn't have the same waste problem, but commercially available fusion reactors are still a long way off.

What about fracking?  In my opinion, forget it.  It's just another form of dirty fossil fuel with potentially dangerous extraction consequences that are not fully understood.

We can't flick a switch and go totally green overnight.  There needs to be a transition.  For reasons that I have already described, the transition will be costly.  This is where the political debate, such as the one currently raging in the UK, becomes interesting, because costly energy could cost votes!  Politicians are not interested in long term sustainable green energy sources at the expense of their short term political careers.  But the political system, particularly the feudal elective dictatorship in the UK, will not change overnight.  So what's the solution?

I believe the real problem is not the cost of energy but the inability of the poorer sectors of society to pay for it.  A professional footballer, a banker, a doctor, a plumber........for example........will always be able to pay for gas and electricity.  But there are many citizens who have to make the choice between warmth and food during the cold winter months.  Therefore the real problem is the inequitable distribution of wealth, where the gap between rich and poor continues to widen year-on-year.  So the political debate should not be about clean or dirty energy, which in my opinion is really beyond debate.  The real issue is about creating a fair society where the necessities of life, including warmth in the winter, are affordable by all.

But is that too hot to handle?