View source for Globalisation:Global Warming Policy Foundation: Views on renewable energy investment

The GWPF have one view on renewable energy investment: they do not believe that renewable energy is the solution to climate change as they argue that it costs two or three times more as conventional energy. They hold the view that soon conventional energy will became scarce and therefore will be in competition with renewable energy but that money should not be spent on renewable energy before it needs to be. They feel that countries who are “forcing the process of competition between conventional energy and renewable energy” - using renewable energy before it is essential – are doomed in the future as they will not continue to be competitive as the products of renewable energy will increase in price. However, a question that most will ask is: is it not an intelligent act to invest now in renewable energy and develop it throughout the years to improve it before the shortage of conventional energy takes place? The answer which the GWPF gives to this question is that there will always be companies who are constantly developing and thinking of new ways to create energy therefore the development process is still taking place. However, they believe that if the government funds these alternative means of energy, the competitiveness of the countries will be destroyed.<ref>GWPF "[http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1496-climate-science-has-become-irrelevant.html Climate Science Has Become Irrelevant]", accessed 21.10.10</ref>

The GWFP also hold the view that everyone should just buy the energy which is cheapest until the conventional energy has run out and then renewable energy could then be an option. Nigel Lawson, founder of the GWPF says that "the reason we use carbon-based energy is not the political power of the oil lobby or the coal industry. It is because it is far and away the cheapest source of energy at the present time and is likely to remain so, not forever, but for the foreseeable future".<ref>The Wall Street Times "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107604574607793378860698.html Time For a Climate Change Plan B]" accessed 23.10.10</ref>. On the case of nuclear power, the GWPF claim that this was created not for economic purposes, but for security reasons. They claim that nuclear power is not a good source of renewable energy due to the fact that actually it costs more than conventional energy such as fossil fuels and is not sustainable.The GWPF do consider the fact however that environmental protection is important for a process like this to take place and do take into  account that developed countries will find this easier than developing countries who will be impacted more by climate change. Nigel Lawson of the GWPF holds the view that it may be acceptable for the developed nations to switch o renewable energy “But in the developing world, including the rapidly developing nations such as China and India, there are still tens if not hundreds of millions of people suffering from acute poverty, and from the consequences of such poverty, in the shape of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death”.<ref>The Wall Street Times "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107604574607793378860698.html Time For a Climate Change Plan B]" accessed 23.10.10</ref>


In an recent interview, Nigel Lawson states that Copenhagen fell short of their demand for a legally binding, enforceable and verifiable global agreement on emissions reductions by developed and developing countries alike. Lawson, the founder of GWPF announced that although Copenhagen claim that what has been achieved already with climate change has been a break through, it has not and that “the only breakthrough was the political coup for China and India in concluding the anodyne communiqué with the United States behind closed doors, with Brazil and South Africa allowed in the room and Europe left to languish in the cold outside.” He adds that we are very far from achieving a leap forward and that Copenhagen moreover have achieved little, if nothing. They promised that the developed nations would pay the developing nations $30 billion of climate aid over the next three years which would increase to $100 billion per year from 2020. However, the claim was not legally binding and there was no announcement as to what countries would benefit from this.<ref>The Wall Street Journal “[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107604574607793378860698.html Time For A Climate Change Plan B]” accessed 23.10.10 </ref> Nigel went on to say that the next meeting that Copenhagen has in Mexico is "a complete waste of time" as "they will never be able to get a global agreement on decarbonisation and even if you did get a global agreement on decarbonisation, which Copenhagen has quite clearly showed that you will not, but if you did the cost will be far greater than any benefit you can get".<ref>You Tube "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqBJ2S0ODTk Lord Nigel Lawson Says Lets Go To Plan B, Humans Can Adapt]" accessed 3.11.10</ref>

The Global Warming Policy Foundation announced a 'Plan B' for the world on climate change (however this was initially their 'Plan A') whereby they proposed four different themes for their ‘Plan B’:

1. The world should change from trying to avoid climate change to attempting to adapt to climate change: a plan should be devised which assists developed and developing countries to increase their resilience to the changes. Developing countries especially need assistance in dealing with extreme climate events
2. There should be a great recognition of the actual priorities of the developing nations: Economic development and the relief of poverty are more significant than the reduction of carbon emissions notes. 
3. There should be more transparency in climate change science: the failure of Copenhagen, should be seen as "an opportunity to focus on a better understanding of the dynamics and long-term impacts of climate change, including the economic analysis embodied in climate change models."
4. There should be an end to unilateral environmental action: unilateral environmental measures by Britain and the EU would be extremely short-sighted if they are implemented now that it is clear that most other countries are unwilling to burden their economies in similar ways.<ref>Conservative Home Tory Diary “[http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/12/lord-lawson-outlines-plan-b-on-climate-change-after-copenhagens-failure-.html Lord Lawson Outlines ‘Plan B’ on climate change after Copenhagen’s failure]” accessed 23.10.10 </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>