Wednesday, 18 January 2023

My MP's Justification for the Whitehaven Coalmine - Hogwash

 This is my MP's response to my email to her deploring the Whitehaven coalmine. It's utter self-serving hogwash:

Dear Richard ,

Thank you for contacting me about the called-in planning decision for a new metallurgical coal mine in Cumbria. 

 I completely understand that there are strong views on both sides of this case. A public inquiry was held on the proposed development, giving all parties the opportunity to put their case before an independent inspector. 

 The independent planning inspector's report has been considered in depth by the Levelling Up Secretary, who has decided to approve planning permission on the proposed coal mine. His reasons for the decision are set out in full in the following letter, which you may wish to read: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1122625/22-12-07_Whitehaven_-_Decision_Letter_and_IR.pdf 

 First, I would like to stress that the coking coal extracted from the mine will not be used for energy. The Government remains firmly committed to its goal of eliminating unabated coal-power generation by 2024. Coal’s share of the UK’s energy supply has already fallen from 40 per cent in 2012 to 1.8 per cent in 2020. Furthermore, there is a commitment to ensuring the proposed development is net zero over its whole lifetime, which would make it the only net zero metallurgical coking coal mine in the world.

 Having looked over the inspector’s report, I am assured that the mine would not cause any unacceptable impacts on ecology or result in a net loss of biodiversity. The proposed development itself would have an overall neutral effect on climate change, taking into account all the mitigation. 

 The inspector’s report highlights that all the scenarios and forecasts for the future use of coking coal which were put before the inquiry demonstrated a continued demand for coking coal for a number of decades to come. Coking coal also has a vital role to play in the steel industry’s transition to climate neutrality, as noted by international partners such as the European Commission.

 I firmly support the creation of new jobs, and therefore take note of the fact that the mine will directly create 532 jobs. These will be high-skilled well-paid jobs, with many of the skills acquired likely to be inter-transferable to other industries. I know that these contributions to the local and regional economy are important factors for local people. 

 While I appreciate that my position will not please everyone, I do hope that this response has highlighted why I am satisfied that the Secretary of State has made the right decision. 

 Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. 

 Best wishes,

  Angela Richardson MP

Let's look at one or two of her statements:

"First, I would like to stress that the coking coal extracted from the mine will not be used for energy." So what? It will be combusted thereby releasing CO2. That is the central issue here.

"Furthermore, there is a commitment to ensuring the proposed development is net zero over its whole lifetime". Again, this misses the point. The end-to-end result will be CO2 emissions, there's no getting away from that. Making one part of the chain net zero (which is a big ask in the first place) is a specious "benefit".

 "The inspector’s report highlights that all the scenarios and forecasts for the future use of coking coal which were put before the inquiry demonstrated a continued demand for coking coal for a number of decades to come." This is not an argument for Whitehaven. Far better to push the economics towards alternative energy sources for steel production than to facilitate continuation of current processes.

" I firmly support the creation of new jobs, and therefore take note of the fact that the mine will directly create 532 jobs." Perhaps promoting renewables industries in the area might have been a better bet? That would be true "levelling up". The children and grandchildren of those 532 workers will suffer the consequences of climate change for many years. Short-termism wins out again!!


HMG's Green "To Do" list

 A very good summary of where HMG needs to go in 2023 from Edie's Sarah George and Matt Mace.

Reposted from Edie:-

The key green policy gaps for the UK Government to close in 2023

As we enter a New Year, edie reflects on the green policy opportunities taken and missed in the UK in 2022, laying out seven policy gaps for Rishi Sunak and his Cabinet to work to close in 2023.

Sarah George & Matt Mace

Published 2nd January 2023

Save

The key green policy gaps for the UK Government to close in 2023

With the long-term direction of travel set by the 25-Year Environment Plan and legally binding net-zero target, the devil is now in the detail. Policymaking this decade will be crucial to lay the foundations for the changes needed to create a net-zero, nature-positive economy here in the UK – and to maximise the social and economic benefits of doing so.

Yet the Government has faced practical challenges in delivering any policy to time in the second half of 2022 – green or otherwise – amid two changes in leadership. Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister in July and his successor, Liz Truss, appointed in September. She served just 45 days in office and was replaced by her opponent in the original leadership race, former Chancellor Rishi Sunak.

Sunak did pause or overturn some of the policy measures made by Truss that were concerning to green groups, but fumbled on climate optics by originally declining his invitation to COP27. He did ultimately go, for one day, after Johnson accepted his invite – but his speech failed to impress environmental NGOs. He also did not heed requests to attend biodiversity COP15 negotiations in Montreal.

As the weeks have progressed, it has become clear that Sunak still has a hefty green policy to-do list in his in tray. Here, we round up seven green policy gaps his Government will need to address in the coming year.

  1. Avoiding a post-Brexit ‘bonfire’ of environmental safeguards

Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak alike campaigned on promises to ensure that UK law diverges from EU law in instances where this could create higher standards and economic benefits. Under Truss, the Government ushered in the Retained Law Bill, which is designed to ensure that the majority of EU laws retained in the UK post-Brexit expire at the end of 2023. The rest of the laws should then be phased out by June 2026.

The Bill was swiftly criticised by green groups who claimed that hasty changes could lead to a downgrade in environmental and social standards. Moreover, delivering the Bill, some have argued, would redirect civil service resource from progressing the pressing changes to legislation needed to meet key climate and nature targets, following years of delays already.

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) itself has now warned the Government against a rushed approach to ‘sunsetting’ EU legislation. It is recommending that the 2023 deadline is moved.

The OEP’s chair Dame Glenys Stacey said: “If done well, this review could make environmental law better. But done badly, or rushed unduly, it could compound environmental problems and create new uncertainties and burdens. Rushed law-making is not conducive to addressing environmental problems that are difficult, complex, interconnected and long-term. It runs the risk of undermining the UK Government’s own environmental ambitions and international standing.

“Hundreds of environmental laws could be revoked or amended under the Bill. These laws are critical to solving pressing challenges such as nature depletion and the quality of air and water and marine environments. Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.”

  1. Making the Net-Zero Strategy lawful

July 2022 saw the High Court ruling that the UK Government’s Net-Zero Strategy, published in late 2021 in the run-up to COP26 in Glasgow, is unlawful. The Court sided with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth as they argued that the Strategy does not contain the level of funding or detail needed to be aligned with net-zero by 2050, nor with the UK’s interim carbon budgets.

The Court gave the UK Government nine months to amend the Strategy, which will bring us to March 2023. By this point, Chris Skidmore MP’s net-zero review will be complete and the Government should be working on its detailed response to the resulting recommendations. This should form a good basis for updating the Strategy.

edie’s own Net-Zero Business Barometer survey of 148 energy and sustainability professionals, conducted online in September and October, revealed that most of these professionals are very keen for the Government to update the Strategy as a priority. 59% of respondents classed this move as a top-three priority for policymakers.

  1. Closing the growing green skills gap

Shortly after the publication of the Net-Zero Strategy, MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) warned that it only detailed the creation of a further 440,000 green jobs by 2030, while the Government’s target is two million. The EAC also argued that, without an official definition of what makes a role “green”, Ministers cannot credibly claim to be developing robust job creation plans to remedy the fact that the UK only hosted 207,800 green jobs in 2020.

Under Johnson, the Government created a Green Jobs Taskforce featuring representatives from businesses, trade bodies, education and NGOs. We are not sure whether the Taskforce will continue to exist under Sunak. Moreover, the Government is yet to provide a formal definition of what constitutes a ‘green job’ or to provide a thorough update to its plans for skills or education.

So far, with Sunak in charge, the Government has confirmed £9.2m of funding to upskill workers in the energy, heating and buildings sectors to help with the installations of clean heating and energy efficiency solutions for homes. This will be crucial as the UK works to reduce energy consumption by 15% by 2030 – an ambition announced in Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s first fiscal statement on 17 November. However, we will need an approach that is more holistic and less piecemeal to meet retrofit targets – and that’s before we come onto other kinds of green jobs, in fields like electric car manufacturing and nature conservation.

  1. Supporting farmers in the net-zero transition

Truss’s short tenure, in the green economy, will likely be remembered for her willingness to pit economic growth and environmental sustainability against each other. In no sector was this clearer, arguably, than agriculture. Truss described solar panels as “paraphernalia” and argued that building them out would compromise food security, despite evidence to the contrary provided by both the renewables sector and farmers.

It was reported in early October 2022 that Defra was looking to extend its ban on solar for high-grade farmland to land categorised as 3b, or “sub-grade”. Land within this category accounts for the majority of the planned pipeline for ground-mounted solar on farms. The ban already applies to grade 1, 2 and 3a land.

Also under Truss, the Government was reportedly set to propose changes to the flagship Environmental Land Management schemes (ELMs), ending measures that would see farmers paid for conserving and restoring soils, nature, water and more. The ELMs are set to replace the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-Brexit and the change is an opportunity to disincentivise farming approaches that prioritise short-term yields over long-term sustainability. Natural England and other organisations have spoken out about the reported proposals.

Both of these moves were shelved as Truss resigned as Sunak was appointed. Defra’s Therese Coffey, who holds the top job at the Department, has indicated that the solar ban proposal is likely to go ahead. However, regarding the ELMs reforms, a Department spokesperson said that no changes have been made and that the Government will “press ahead” with the ELMs.  The spokesperson did say that there will be “some fine-tuning” and that “more details will be provided in due course”.

Defra is being pushed for ELMs clarity by a coalition of more than 50 organisations operating in the food system, led by WWF. A letter sent to the Department in December 2022 by the coalition called for “the vision, clarity, and detail on the rollout of ELMs to plan into an uncertain future”. Defra reiterated that further announcements on the schemes would be coming soon.

  1. Firming up the National Food Strategy

July 2021 saw a team lead by Henry Dimbleby publishing a string of recommendations for a new National Food Strategy. With the food system accounting for one-fifth of the UK’s emissions and with the Government grasping the need to work with farmers to converve and improve nature, Dimbleby highlighted recommendations on reducing emissions, improving efficiency, working with nature and promoting more sustainable diets.

The Government’s response, published in June 2022, saw precious few of these recommendations drawn up. It was, by and large, a disappointment to the green economy and to farmers – groups so often pitted against one another, as mentioned above. Dimbleby’s proposals on free school meals and reducing meat and dairy consumption were among those failing to make the cut for the Government’s interpretation.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has stated that the agriculture and land use sectors have been among the worst with net-zero progress to date. Closing policy gaps here must, therefore, be a priority for Sunak and his Government if he wishes to be seen as a ‘green’ PM. Fine-tuning the Food Strategy is also an opportunity to address other challenges for Sunak, including food security, public health and fair pay for farmers.

  1. Unlocking onshore wind

Onshore wind development in England was effectively banned under David Cameron in 2016. The Government did add onshore wind back into the Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction rounds’ eligibility criteria in 2020 under Johnson but planning restrictions were kept in place.

Now, with gas prices at record highs and with the UK working to end electricity generation from unabated gas by 2035, the Government is facing calls to couple its lofty ambitions for offshore wind with at least some changes to support onshore wind development.

Some of these calls are coming from within the Conservative Party itself. Simon Clarke MP tabled an amendment to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, to include a clause that would lift planning restrictions for onshore wind in areas where communities have voiced support for development. Again, following this amendment would seem to fit with the narrative of the Net-Zero Review – to make the transition as “pro-growth and pro-business” as possible.

Supporting Clarke were almost two-dozen Conservative MPs including Truss and Johnson. The Conservative Environment Network, which has more than 100 Tory MPs signed up, has also publicly spoken out in favour of Clarke’s proposal.

The amendment was ultimately adopted and we can expect the Bill to progress to Royal Assent this year. The Bill was introduced in May and is currently progressing through the House of Lords.

  1. Navigating fossil fuel backlash

Despite strong rhetoric at COP26 and the best efforts of summit President Alok Sharma, the UK is widely regarded as having fumbled international optics around climate leadership at – and since – the summit.

The Energy Security Strategy, published in April 2022, confirmed plans previously floated to hold a major oil and gas licencing round in the autumn/winter season, leading to increased questions about the compatibility of the government’s energy transition approach with its own legally binding climate targets.

While the move to lift the ban on fracking was short, the licencing round is proceeding, despite threats of legal action. Sunak’s climate minister has maintained that the UK can increase oil and gas production in the near-term and meet its legal pledges. Nonetheless, the decision on the Rosebank oil and gas field is facing delays, with project lead Equinor required to provide more information on how the project complies with the sector’s transition requirements and the corporate’s own climate targets. This does set a precedent, especially when one considers that the Cambo project has also faced delays.

Oil and gas aren’t the only fossil fuels in the spotlight. After a string of delays, Levelling Up Secretary and former Environment Secretary Michael Gove gave West Cumbia Mining permission to develop the UK’s first deep coal mine in more than 30 years near Whitehaven in December 2022. Gove was satisfied that there will be a demand for coal from British steelmakers and steelmakers abroad for the years to come and stated that he did not consider a “compelling case” for electric arc furnaces, hydrogen direct reduction or other cleantech options to displace coal in the sector. Some cleantech and steel business commentators have disagreed.

Gove also argued that the mine would not result in additional coal use, but, rather, displace the use of coal from elsewhere. He noted that this could be a good thing given the mine’s requirement to operate on a ‘net-zero’ basis. This claim has been widely rubbished, with plans to offset emissions from the project deemed “absurd”. Critics also argue that the UK should be encouraging steelmakers in other countries to follow its low-carbon lead.

Beyond the environmental impact of the mine, eyebrows have been raised by the fact that the mine will ultimately be owned by EMR Capital, a private equity fund based out of the Cayman Islands – a tax haven. Another broadly-questioned aspect of the situation is  that Gove was provided with recommendations by a former coal miner.

As we enter a new year, we can expect more criticism from policymakers at home and abroad over the UK’s fossil fuel approach. There will also likely be new legal challenges.

Tuesday, 27 December 2022

 Another repost from Edie

In my experience Defra has always been a weak and flabby organisation. 


Confirmed!


‘Weak and unambitious’: Green groups criticise Defra’s legally binding environment targets

The UK Government has finally published its updated, legally binding targets to restore and protect nature, but green groups do not believe the new measures will help to stop the degradation of the natural environment.

Author avatar image

Published 19th December 2022

Save

‘Weak and unambitious’: Green groups criticise Defra’s legally binding environment targets

The Government is legally required to publish an Environmental Improvement Plan in January 2023 that will set out how these targets will be met

Defra failed to meet a statutory deadline of 31 October to confirm targets for nature that are included under the Environment Bill, despite the Bill receiving Royal Assent in November 2021.

Following “extensive consultation”, Defra has now released new targets that are all aimed at leaving the environment in a better state for future generations.

Under the Environment Act, the targets require the Government to halt the decline in species population by 2030 and increase populations by at least 10% beyond current levels by 2042. It also commits to restoring water bodies to their natural state, boosting nature recovery and woodland cover to 16.5% of total land area in England by 2050 as well as halving waste per person that is sent to residual treatment by 2042.

The new targets also include vague and unspecified plans to cut exposure to pollutants in the air and restore 70% of designated features in our Marine Protected Areas to a favourable condition by 2042, with the rest in a recovering condition.

Overall the strategy will build into targets to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, which will also help the UK to meet its international commitment to protect 30% of its land and ocean by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050.

The Government is legally required to publish an Environmental Improvement Plan in January 2023 that will set out how these targets will be met.

Environment Secretary Thérèse Coffey, speaking at the UN Convention in Montreal, said: “We are committed to leaving our natural world in a better state for future generations, and today we are laying the foundations that will help deliver on this commitment.

“These targets are ambitious and will be challenging to achieve – but they will drive our efforts to restore our natural environment, protect our much-loved landscapes and green spaces and marine environment, as well as help tackle climate change.”

Defra updated the draft Policy Statement on Environmental Principles in May 2022. One of the listed principles, the integration principle, states that policymakers should seek opportunities to embed environmental protection and restoration in all fields of policy that impact nature. Another, the prevention principle, states that all Government policy should aim to prevent environmental harm at the source.

Reaction to these principles has been lukewarm at best, with many major green groups expressing concern that they will result in a downgrading of ambitions and actions. 

Earlier this year, the UK’s post-Brexit watchdog urged the Government to revisit its approach to environmental targets, warning that “comprehensive” statutory targets need to be introduced to help protect and restore the environment. It has since called for an environmental non-regression safeguard to be added to the ongoing review of hundreds of retained EU laws as well as calling for the deadline to be extended beyond 2023.

Industry reaction

Commenting on the new targets, Environmental Audit Committee Chairman, Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP, said: “The bottleneck at DEFRA appears to be easing, and I welcome the Environment Secretary’s publication of these proposed environment targets. Our Committee is yet to scrutinise the proposed targets and interim targets and how they will be met, and the Commons and Lords must approve them before they come into force. Today’s publication nevertheless marks a further milestone on the road towards environmental recovery mapped out in last year’s Environment Act.

“The Government’s renewed commitment to halting the decline in species abundance by 2030 is welcome, but requires swift action to ensure the target is achieved. As the Committee recommended in its report on biodiversity and ecosystems, clear interim targets are required. At the time, we called for the targets to include species distribution, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition.

“For environmental targets to be successful, they must be achievable yet ambitious. This must also require a cross-Government effort: in the same way individual departments need to get behind net zero, they must also be committed to improving nature and the environment. The climate crisis and ecological crisis are twin challenges and tackling them together in a serious and committed way is key.”

The Wildlife Trusts’ chief executive Craig Bennett said: “We were told that these targets were delayed to take into account the unprecedented public response to the consultation – but despite 99% of respondents calling for greater ambition to reverse nature’s decline, we’ve ended up with the same low ambition targets that were consulted on. What’s more, the Government has failed to set targets on two of the most pressing issues – river health and protected sites for nature.

“Not a single river, lake, or estuary in England is in good health – with sewage, agricultural and chemical pollution continuing to pour into our waterways. And the Government’s latest data on the state of nature shows that the condition of our most important places for wildlife is continuing to decline year on year. Failing to set targets to tackle these fundamental issues defies public opinion. Without a target to improve our protected sites, the Government has little hope of achieving its international commitment to protect 30% of land for nature by 2030.

“The target to halt nature’s decline by the end of the decade is welcome but this should be coupled with a genuine target for nature’s recovery. Simply aiming for marginally more nature in 20 years’ time than our current, extremely depleted state is far from world-leading and an abdication of our responsibility to future generations.”

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) land analyst Matt Williams said: “New national targets show the UK is planning to turn global nature goals, currently being negotiated in Canada, into action back home. But some may question how serious the Government is, given there’s no target whatsoever for the health of nature reserves – some of the most important areas for storing carbon and providing a home for wildlife. A target for increasing the number of trees – crucial for storing carbon – looks less ambitious than many had hoped, and like it will let England off the hook, relying on greater effort from the other UK nations.

“In recent years for climate change we’ve seen legally binding targets send a strong signal and stimulate private investment in renewable energy and low-carbon transport. The hope will be that these targets for nature do the same, stimulating private investment in restoring forests, hedgerows, and peatlands that can absorb carbon and help tackle climate change, including to support farmers to do so.”

Clear Air Fund’s executive director Jane Burston said: “It is hugely disappointing that the government has set a weak and unambitious target for reducing deadly air pollution. The research is clear that achieving cleaner air by 2030 can be done in a cost-effective way that boosts the economy. By delaying this target by 10 years, between 260,000 and 380,000 more lives could be lost to air pollution. This weaker target would also mean the loss of a potential ‘clean air dividend’ to the UK economy of £1.6bn each year or more than £12bn over 10 years, according to recent CBI analysis. We must see greater ambition from the government if we’re to meet this challenge, protect people’s health, deliver on Net Zero and strengthen the economy.”

Wildlife and Countryside Link’s chief executive Richard Benwell said: “It’s good to see Government catch up with its legal obligations and publish Environment Act targets before the end of COP15. Environment Act targets are more than political aspirations. They are meant to provide legal certainty, clarity for business, and shared purpose across Government. So a package without targets for protected sites and overall water quality is a job half done. Ministers are in Montreal now promising to protect 30% of the land and sea for nature by 2030. To publish targets at home without a commitment to improve the condition of our most important wildlife sites is a world away from that rhetoric.

“In January, Defra is legally required to review whether the targets would deliver a significant environmental improvement. The 2030 target to halt the decline of species is a real positive, but without protected sites and water quality targets, the package does not live up to that test. DEFRA should commit to consult and fill these gaps without delay.”

The Aldersgate Group’s executive director Nick Molho said: “Today’s publication of the UK’s long-term targets is a significant milestone in the journey to reverse the decline of the natural environment. The publication of the targets during the COP15 summit in Montreal should empower the UK negotiation team to push for ambitious progress at a time when global progress on nature and biodiversity restoration is critical. The introduction of the species abundance targets should be particularly welcome in this regard.”
“While the publication of the targets is a significant step forward, work remains to be done to strengthen the targets over time and plug some important gaps. In particular, the water quality targets could be made more effective by being more outcomes focused and the Government should keep open the possibility of increasing ambition on the species abundance targets. The overall framework should also be strengthened over time by introducing a few key missing targets include a national apex target to improve water quality, a resource productivity target to improve resource efficiency across the economy and a target to improve the conditions of Sites of Special Scientific Interest to support the country’s biodiversity ambitions.”

The Views of Brits re Climate Action

 This is reposted from Edie

Some of the findings of this survey are alarming:

30% of people believe the media exaggerate the risks of climate change.

28% of people clearly don't understand the tragedy of the commons question.

But there are hopeful signs, too.

Read on:



What do Brits really believe about climate action and net-zero?

Almost half (47%) of adults in Britain are overwhelmed by climate-related information, which they often find to be conflicting. So, what are the general public really thinking about environmental issues this season?

Author avatar image

Published 16th December 2022

Save

What do Brits really believe about climate action and net-zero?

The UK Government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published the latest edition of its quarterly public attitudes trackers this week. These surveys were sent to more than 20,000 adults – a representative sample of socioeconomic demographics. More than 4,100 people responded, providing a handy snapshot of public sentiment on climate and energy issues.

It could be argued that this latest edition is very timely. We are now one month out from COP27 and negotiations are ongoing for biodiversity COP15. Climate disinformation has been rife on Twitter, with some denying the global temperature increase due to the cold snap currently gripping the UK.

BEIS found that these people are a minority. 45% of people say they are “very concerned” about climate change,  with a further 38% being fairly concerned”. Only 3% of people are “not at all concerned”. These proportions have been fairly consistent over the past year. Levels of concern were found to be higher for women than for men, and higher in those educated to degree level.

Here, we summarise – in handy bullet points – some of the other key findings from this round of BEIS’s public attitudes tracker research.

Net-zero knowledge

  • Only 10% of people in the UK have never heard of the concept of ‘net-zero emissions’ or ‘net-zero carbon dioxide’, down slightly from 13% last Autumn.
  • 16% of people say they know ‘a lot’ about net-zero, up slightly on a quarterly basis from 14%. A further 35% say they know ‘a fair amount’.
  • Almost half of people (47%) are overwhelmed by climate-related information, which they often find to be conflicting.

Trust in climate-related information

  • The most-trusted information sources are scientists working at universities, and scientific organisations. Four in ten Brits trust these sources “a great deal”.
  • The least trusted information sources are posts on social media, which only 15% of people trust to some extent. Four in ten people do not trust climate information circulated on social media at all. Newspapers and newspaper websites, plus the UK Government itself, are also failing to garner high levels of trust.
  • 30% of people believe that the media exaggerates the risks and impacts of cimate change.

Changing habits

  • 28% of people believe that it is not worth taking climate action if others are not already doing the same.
  • 85% of people think individual behavioural changes have a role to play in combatting the climate crisis.
  • The least common behavioural change is driving an electric car. Just 10% of people surveyed said they do this.
  • The most common individual environmental action is recycling waste – something 86% of people say they do.

Opinions on renewable energy

  • 88% of people support the use of renewable energy. Support has remained consistently high over the past 12 months when all technologies are accounted for.
  • Solar is now the most-supported technology option, with 59% of people identifying as “strong supporters”, up from 55% last autumn.
  • – Opposition is highest for biomass (6% in strong opposition) and onshore wind (4% in strong opposition).
  • Three-quarters of people (74%) believe that renewable energy developments  bring economic benefits to the UK
  • Only 12% of people would be unhappy for an onshore wind farm to be developed in their local area, falling to 7% for a solar farm. The main concerns were the development making the view less attractive; the potential impact on nature and the potential impact on house prices.