I'm puzzled by Greenpeace's apparent welcome on Ed Milliband's decision to build coal power stations with only 25% carbon capture. Milliband has given the go ahead for up to four experimental plants that:
1. will emit more CO2 than current gas powered ones
2. will create electricity from a source that will run out, i.e. is not renewable
3. divert funds and effort from building renewable power and reducing energy consumption
4. will only have full carbon capture fitted if it works
5. are unlikely to be decommissioned if CCS doesn't work.
He is talking about two different types of CCS and we can only assume that one version might work or might work better than the other which is why there are to be two types of power station. So if one works will the other just continue as dirty coal? Will it be retro fitted with the other type? What if both types don't work? I can't see them being decommissioned.
So why are Greenpeace seemingly backing Milliband's decision? Their suggestion that he is showing a 'glimmer of leadership' may be true, but what the world needs is a bit more of a glimmer, we need a dazzling bright light.
If the government can spend hundreds of billions on buying banks, it can also spend enough to make the UK low consumption and renewable.