8 Questions: the Climate Change Act

Former environment secretary Owen Paterson has called on the government to scrap the Climate Change Act, which makes it a legal requirement for the UK to cut carbon emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, arguing that such a restrictive policy will make it impossible to “keep the lights on”. This month’s 8 Questions looks at energy policy. 508 readers responded

1. Do you think the Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be scrapped?

No: 62%
Don't know: 10%

Former environment secretary Owen Paterson hit the headlines last month when he suggested that the Climate Change Act should be scrapped. However, most engineers stand firmly against the idea, fearing that, without targets, there would never be any progress on reducing carbon emissions. Plenty of readers said that Paterson's comments were a classic example of a politician thinking short-term, with one eye on voter polls. 

2. Do you think the Climate Change Act should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures?

No: 54%
Don't know: 5%

The No vote weakened significantly here, indicating that readers are concerned about the impact and effectiveness of Britain acting unilaterally when it comes to climate change. Plenty of respondents pointed to China’s unabated emissions increases as being an example of how other countries were failing to pull their weight.

3. Are you confident that the UK will avoid power cuts due to electricity generation shortages during the next five years?

No: 60%
Don't know: 10%

With some ageing fossil-fuel and nuclear plants encountering unplanned outages due to maintenance issues, almost two-thirds of readers feared that electricity cuts could be on the way. There has been plenty of warning of such problems, it was noted.

No: 32%
Don't know: 12%

There was strong support for nuclear new-build in the write-in replies, with many readers citing it as the only means of clean and reliable electricity generation. Most readers thought new nuclear would be crucial to energy networks in the medium term, but there were real fears that planning and construction issues would continue to cause delays.

The IMechE recently issued a position paper calling on the government to put small modular reactors through the Generic Design Assessment. Most readers could see the benefit of such technology, with smaller reactors seen as offering a more flexible alternative to large-scale plants.

6. Do you expect to see shale gas emerge as a major source of new energy supply over the next 10 years?

No: 37%
Don't know: 13%

Something of a split vote here. It was clear that most respondents supported fracking as a means of providing indigenous energy supply. But there were worries that in 10 years’ time we’d still be talking rather than doing.  

7. Are you concerned about the possible environmental damage caused by fracking?

No: 45%
Don't know: 7%

The figures here proved that proponents of fracking still have a long way to go before they can claim to have convinced sceptical engineers about the safety of the technique. Other readers said they felt sure that the necessary technical and regulatory guidance to reduce risk would be put in place.

No: 27%
Don't know: 26%

US technology giant Lockheed Martin confirmed last month that it was working on a nuclear fusion device. And then a few days later cosmologist Stephen Hawking identified fusion as his greatest hope for clean energy of the future. There is perpetual interest in the technology - but will it ever deliver? Most readers remain optimistic, but plenty remain undecided. There were still so many obstacles that need to be overcome, readers commented, that making predictions about nuclear fusion was nothing more than a stab in the dark. That explained the high number of Don’t Know responses.