No evidence to back call for low carbon future

IT makes me sad to say so, but evidence does not support your editorial ‘How to capture region’s future’ (Yorkshire Post, October 16). I do follow the issues raised professionally.

CCS is not ready for commercial application any time soon and may never become ‘sustainable’ in the truest sense of the term. You did not give any figures about the energy needed to capture, liquefy, transport and inject the carbon dioxide into rocks under the sea, hopefully forever. Only rarely is this likely to be profitable: e.g. when combined with enhanced production of oil or gas!

The “green” energy revolution as envisaged here and elsewhere may be ending because of new (fuel and energy technology related) developments.

The evidence that dangerous man-made warming is affecting the UK negatively is becoming weaker – if it ever was strong – and the economic climate is 
now such that only industries needing subsidies can afford to remain loyal to the decarbonisation cause.

Recent research from Germany and Cambridge shows that home insulation, in many cases, does not reduce energy demand and benefits mainly the producers of insulation.

The advanced biofuels market – biofuels made from waste and hence not competing with agriculture, has been slower to develop than expected, and 
even current biofuels are in trouble even if recent EU regulations have been kinder than expected.

Can Yorkshire really afford economic growth based on bureaucratic regulation, subsidies and finance from private investors that have de facto 
been bribed?

The whole concept of a “green” rather than growing and 
efficient economy needs 
re-examining urgently, and 
voters need to be reminded that a new parliament can annul 
old laws.

We need not be bound in future by emission standards and carbon prices fixed a long-time ago when the world was very different and certainly, it seemed, much richer.