If the popn could be reduced by 0.25% per year it would fall to 52.5 million by 2050, reducing demand for energy.

• Would be a long term benefit- more sustainable and smaller density
• Lower popn. Means fewer people to use resources.
• Smaller families would reduce Child Tax subsidies and Child Benefit Payments, so lowering some taxes

• Not enough direct gov. control and thus uncertain outcome.
• Family planning and contraceptives already available in this country
• Need migrant workers as we are ageing popn.
• Fewer workers and an ageing population means that without migrants, workers will pay more taxes to pay for pensions ie higher dependency ratio esp for elderly
• Restriction on personal liberties and choices
• Population is likely to stabilise or reduce anyway as we are an ageing popn

• Optimum Population Trust
• Migrant Watch UK

• Centre for Strategic International Studies

The building of more wind farms could be encouraged, especially offshore, so that wind power can provide 20% of UK electricity by 2030

• Relatively cheap source of energy
• No greenhouse gases produced
• Adaptable form of energy that can provide energy for any consumption level
• Cost will continue to fall as turbine technology improves
• UK has 40% of Europe’s potential production of offshore wind energy 0 3 x UK’s present energy consumption – we could export profitably to the rest of Europe!

• Maintenance costs?
• Ugly and noisy – local people might argue against a relaxation of planning restrictions. With a moderately high popn density, finding so many locations might be tricky
• Not as efficient as other eg. Nuclear?
• Rely on weather – but offshore ones are more reliable
• Loss of energy from off-shore also more tricky to construct
• Need a lot of wind farms as they do not produce much power each.
• Other types of renewable energy might be more efficient (eg landfill gas and incinerators)
• Costs of wind power fell by 50% in last 25 years. Costs should continue to decrease.

• British Wind Energy Association
• Council for the Protection of Rural England

• Country Guardian

4 new NP stations could be built so that NP can provide 10% of UK electricity by 2030

• More likely to die in road accident or at home than from the radioactive emissions
• Very efficient. Only 12 NP stations produce 22% of UK’s electricity
• Cheaper production costs per KWh than other options (pg. 11)

• High safety risk CHERNOBYL
• Expensive to build (£1 billion each) – money would come from taxpayers who might protest
• Waste- a decommissioned NP station is unsafe for 135 years
• Controversial – local people would protest against building of new NP Stations
• Risk of terrorist attack
• Small risk of radioactive leakage
• Huge decommissioning costs
• By 2025 only 1 of current NP stations working (3% UK energy) so shortfall of energy without new NP stations

• Royal Society
• British Energy plc

• Greenpeace

People could be encouraged to be more energy-efficient in both their homes and vehicles
Currently 38% greenhouse gas emissions comes from this sector

• In the long term- more sustainable housing
• Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (Kyoto agreement on Carbon emissions)
• Relatively low maintenance – many aspects are passive or design-based
• Oil and gas will become more expensive and also be imported from polictically unstable areas such as Iraq, Russia and Azerbaijan.
• Will encourage new industries and employment in designing and installing Green Technologies

• Can’t force people to convert houses
• Could be expensive and thus raise costs of new houses
• Government has agreed to give grants for energy conservation and LPG vehicles (equivalent to between one third and one half of the cost of producing the saved energy)

• Green Alliance
• Energy Saving Trust

• Oil companies
• Association of British Drivers