The public inquiry into a desalination plant opposite my house starts today. As my good friend EU_Serf said the other day, Ken had already rejected the idea before the inquiry started on the grounds that such a plant would not be environmentally friendly. Who needs water to survive huh? According to Ken and the Green Party such a plant would
pump out 250,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases each year but produce a relatively small amount of water.Note the distinct lack of detail in that statement? A "relatively small amount" might actually mean "quite a lot" but is being compared to an astronomically high figure of equivalent carbon emmission output. That does of course assume that the plant will use fossil fuels for its power, couldn't it just as easily use renewable supplies? Couldn't it even produce some of its own power and thus be semi-self sufficient?
Livingstone's decision to dismiss the plant out of hand is not about environmentalism, it is, to paraphrase David Cameron, fossil fuel approaches in a carbon conscious age. London needs drinking water, I don't hear him offering any other solutions.