David Cameron to launch new environmental policy this afternoon via a webcast

This afternoon David Cameron will be launching his latest proposals to create a low carbon Britain via a webcast.

This is something of a first and will involve the party leader being interviewed by Geoffrey Lean of The Independent before taking questions from all-comers via live chat, e-mail and Twitter.

It coincides with the appointment today of Craig Elder at CCHQ as Online Communities Editor, a post which will involve him heading up the party's presence in social media and ensuring that online communities get lots of opportunities for productive interaction with the party. He has written about his new role here.

The new policy itself has been previewed via an interview David Cameron has given to this morning's Guardian. It revolves around investing £1 billion in a "hi-tech National Grid" which would see "smart meters" being installed in every home - meaning that energy companies would be able to tell consumers when it is cheapest to use electricity.  Householders would also be able to use the smart meters to feed the grid with electricity generated through solar panels.

You can watch the policy launch webcast live at 1.30pm via the chatroom below or through the party's website. You can email your questions in advance to be put to David Cameron or use the Twitter tag #askDC.

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Norm Brainer]

It revolves around investing £1 billion in a "hi-tech National Grid" which would see "smart meters" being installed in every home - meaning that energy companies would be able to tell consumers when it is cheapest to use electricity

Is that 'Smart' as in a bell will go off at 8pm, or as in the electricity company can but the price up/down depending on demand at any time of day to help smooth it out, where people can set different sockets to auto power on/off at a certain price point?

If there's less fluctuations in demand then it makes environmentally friendly things like nuclear a more viable option.

[Alan S]

This is NOT an online policy launch.

I have just heard Greg Clarke launch it on the Today programme.

[Paul Biggs]

When will Cameron realise that the 'green' agenda is really about promoting Marxism? I note the invovlement of the 'Independent' and 'Guardian.'

When will Cameron discover that his rooftop windmill is a net consumer of electricity and makes him look silly, or should that be sillier?

[Julian L Hawksworth]

The so-called "green agenda" is utter nonsense. And a rather expensive one, at that. It's also a needless distraction from the important issues, facing our country today.

[Martin Cole]

As I have just posted to your front page - if there are any left with a care for the party they had better put a stop to this, the timing this afternoon is potentially disastrous.

[Norm Brainer]

The so-called "green agenda" is utter nonsense.

Who called it a green agenda?
This looks to be an environmental policy thing (although didn't hear the details from the pre-annoucement so it could be greeny clap-trap)

Just because the eco-socialists are trying to implement their evil politics through environmental means doesn't mean that the environment or energy efficiency isn't important - you're letting them control your mind with reverse psycology.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Why don't you all wait to see what he has to say before prejudging the event?

[Anon]

There is a huge groundswell of opinion against this 'green' nonsense. Can Dave not see he is jumping on a bandwagon that is running out of steam.

God save us from the 'bean eating munchie' brigade breaking wind in the palaces of the mighty. They will bring our country to its knees if we let them.

[David_at_Home]

The grid is quite “smart” already but, I suppose, making it better would be a worthwhile task. However, the real problem with the UK is that our coal and nuclear power generating capacity is aging fast and we are dangerously dependent upon natural gas, not only for heating but also for electrical generation, at a time when our indigenous supplies of natural gas are declining at an alarming rate. This is the legacy of John Major’s idiotic “Dash for Gas” policy, continued under Tony Blair. The various directives from the EU will force us to close most of our remaining coal fired plant by about 2015 and, at around that time, most of our remaining nuclear plant is scheduled for closure.

So we have a problem and no amount of solar panels, wind turbines (Mr Cameron should let us know how much electricity his personal wind turbine has generated this year – my guess is that the answerer is roughly zero) or tidal schemes are going to save us from expensive intermittent power in the next decade and thereafter. This will not only cause distress as consumers but, more importantly, also kill of what remains of our industry.

The next government should tell the EU to stuff its environmental policies in a suitable orifice, institute a crash civil nuclear programme (keeping as much of the design and manufacture here in the UK as we can) extend the live of our existing coal fired stations and licence the building of a lot more.

This problem is, perhaps, the most important issue for the next government and, thus far, the Cameroons have demonstrated little or no understanding of the problems that face us.

[David]

Yes, if course we need to be less dependent on oil and gas, but this 'green agenda' is bull.

[rationality]

Perhaps the armchair energy gurus on this site should read what I understand to be the fairly detailed proposals for the future of our energy generation contained within this policy paper, before carping about it.

Whether it's 'green' or not is by the by. If it saves money and delivers opportunity for british business, creates jobs and improves quality of lives, I don't think the UK will complain.

Energy and Climate change policy are practically the same thing. I completely agree that the hair shirt, left wing Greens are a dangerous and often very unhelpful voice, but until the right wing pragmatists wake upto the opportunities of a more efficient and productive, low carbon, energy secure economy, the 'lentil eaters' will remain, for their own reasons, the public face of a lot of very sensible policy.

[David Graves-Moore]

The Party should follow the lead given by Christopher Booker and insist on waste paper and cardboard being re-classified as “biomass” and used to generate electricity instead of the present classification as “waste” which can only be burnt with the aid of absurdly expensive equipment as specified by the European Union.
Equally importantly, we should abandon the drive towards wind generators which disfigure the landscape and do permanent damage to the sites which they occupy. On Romney Marsh in Kent, for example, they are destroying very good quality farm land.
Our emphasis should be on electricity generated by nuclear means, solar panels, tidal flow and the burning of cardboard, etc. as mentioned above.

[Clean Future Energy]

You cynics you.

A smart grid is the best approach to greenery. It enables consumers to become more efficient, which is neither nonsense, nor marxism.

Solar panels & personal wind turbines and their ilk may be completely worthless, but a smart grid is a good step forwards.

[Robert Eve]

Dave needs to wise up - global warming/cooling is not caused by human activity.

He should be concentrating on getting rid of socialism.

[Pulvertaft]

There is a global collapse in industrial output. Now, might that have more of an effect upon the volume of naughty gasses being produced than some scheme to put hydro-electric generators in my lavatory downpipe or whatever.

Tell the truth. The model has changed and yet we still have to endure this facile irrelevance as the factories collapse around us.

And. Why 13.30? Why not 19.30 when most taxpayers have finished paying tax for the working day and might wish to contribute by means other than by paying our taxes?

I'm on me lunch, me.

[bexie]

To get solar electric panels installed onto enough roof space to supply a house, with the associated regulators and storage would cost upwards of 20 grand.

Is Dave going to arrange a discout for party members?

[Julian L Hawksworth]

I agree that there is an important distinction, between a "green agenda" and the very pressing need for our country to be more energy efficient. Must we assume that you have to consider these two quite different environmental issues, as one? Indeed, why not concentrate on energy efficiency alone?

[Paul]

Its like the blinkers go on when anybody mentions the word "green" on this site.

To all those knocking this and particuarly those who don't agree on the need for a low carbon economy on the basis of global warming, can you not see its virtue from the energy security benefits it will hopefully make?

Yes, the technology is in its infancy but that will improve. The smart-reader is a useful tool as part of this process.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Spending a billion to save what?

A billion is a lot of small change - hope Cameron has the numbers to back this up. Just 'green' doesnt do it.

[anon]

Hardly a hard-hitting interview...

These things are great in theory, especially on a Friday lunchtime, but why can't they be just a little more authentic?

A few more probing questions, a few challenges, a few more harder questions from the internet etc...

I think people would respect an authentic live interview much more, same goes for those absurd 'Richard and Judy' chats that have replaced conference debates and succeeded in turning off all media and public interest in conferences!

[Steve Foley]

Good to read that I am not the only one who sees through the Greens and finds the Reds beneath.

I can see Cameron losing the next General Election leaving Labour with a narrow majority of about 20 or so owing to all this Green Nonsense that he has become so besotted by.

If that happens perhaps the Eco-loonies will go elsewhere and the Conservative Party will get back to common-sense led by David Davis, a good solid down to earth Tory.

[Jack Stone]

David Davis a good solid Tory like the ones who lost the last two elections. Back to the future we go!!!

[Super Blue]

Our recovery is in danger of losing momentum unless DD returns to the Shadow Cabinet - after all, Labour supporters don't want him back.

[pp]

If it costs us money then it is a con, if it saves us money then it doesn't need to be pushed, just tell us what it is and how much we will save and it will happen.

Does anyone else think it is odd that there are no 'alternative' forms of energy for which we will be charged *less* than at present... gosh what a surprise...

[Robin Horbury]

This "policy" is insane. When will politicians start looking at the real evidence about AGW (which shows it isn't happening) and start realising that these proposals are actually about an unecessary expansion of state power? Further, "green" energy cannot replace fossil fuel generated supplies in the forseeable future - the technology simply isn't there. What the Tories are actually proposing here is a massive increase in fuel bills, and in doing so, they are condemning British manufacturing industry - already beleaguered by endless EU red tape - to a slow, lingering death. They are also imposing fuel poverty on hundreds of thousands of vulnerable British families, and, in effect, sentencing tens of thousand of our elderly citizens to death - by cold.

The party's policies in this area have been hijacked by idiots. I, for one, will never vote for a party that supports such utter, arrant nonsense, and has such nasty disregard for human welfare.

[The Bishop Swine]

"The so-called "green agenda" is utter nonsense.

Who called it a green agenda?"

So we are still not willing to talk to Greens. Greens have an agenda. The Dark Green agenda is clear, we belive in pruning.