Natascha Engel Letter, page-32

Refracktion can you please explain how importing dirty gas that has been shipped half way around the world and continuing burning coal delivers a better outcome environmentally than locally produced gas?? I'm struggling to understand your logic here? Feel free to support your argument with facts. 

I'm also keen to understand how locking up local sources but not locking up imports is going to move energy supply to renewables? What do you propose as the road map of how we move from the current fossil fuels system to low / no carbon energy future? Unless I'm missing something the course of action you are proposing will definitely create higher carbon emissions, on its own will not create any outcomes that actually support renewables, will not generate any local tax revenue for the government (which could be used to fund a bridge for further green energy production) and does nothing for moving things forward. What are you proposing here?

And as for your your suggestion that leaving U.K. Gas in the ground is the a good thing for the environment, what particular outcome of this is a step forward? In responding please consider that there is no shortage of carbon based fuels in the world so if the U.K. Walks away from the cleanest, most economically sound energy source that can currently supply energy that is compatible with the grid and storage capabilities how is this going to help anything? 

In terms of viable options at present we have;

1. Nuclear - hasn't the U.K. Already knocked this on the head?

2. imported gas - no tax, higher cost, higher emissions 

3. local coal - local jobs, local taxes, dirty dirty dirty

4. local gas - local jobs, local taxes, lowest emissions of carbon fuels

you seem to be voting for 2 and 3 which would appear to be counter to your stated objectives of looking after the environment. What am I missing?

MB