Well that's it, Copenhagen talks simply paralysed by the growing chasm between rich and poor countries. The accord finally pushed out by the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa did not receive the universal support from the 193 countries represented and provoked reactions from fury to despair. Sudan's chief negotiator compared it to the Holocaust! Hugo Chavez talked of the sulphur of hell and suggested that Obama was Satan. Ian Fry of the drowning island of Tuvalu likened the accord "to being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people of the future".
We need to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves down and , well, pretty much start all over again. However, surely you didn't expect a sweeping deal out of Copenhagen, not if you considered today's polarised and charged geopolitics. The rift between rich and poor countries is wide, and the chasm paralysed the negotiations.
China opposed key elements of proposals, not least (unsurprisingly) external monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions and yet had moved very far coming into the talks. India too found some proposals one too far and then retreated to a fail safe position. The World's changing political land is partly why even Obama's last minute brokering did not produce something powerful. Many in G77 see Obama forming a league of super-polluters and would-be super polluters, a coalition of foxes who would together govern the hen house.
Well, well are we all doomed? The accord is better than no accord, even if below our ambition and well short of what is desperately required. They are all going to have to go back to their capitals and think long and hard. Meanwhile lets see what we've got.
Copenhagen has given us the first significant climate fund for poor nations, promising $30bn over the next three years and to raise $100million in yearly climate financing for poor countries. A deal was struck helping developing economies convert to green energy. Not enough I fear.
The question is whether these initial financial commitments are seen by developing countries as an incremental step that moves towards figures they see as sufficient.
The next UN climate conference in Mexico in 2010 will present many of the same challenges that faced leaders in Copenhagen, it will be very interesting to see how they approach this one. They should all remember that flood, drought, fire and all the other effects of rampant global warming are indiscriminate, a category 5 hurricane hitting, say Miami would be no less damaging than a typhoon hitting Bangladesh, global warming is not just a problem for the developing World.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Glam, Grim and Glum.
Good to see so many famous faces giving their best in Copenhagen, or "Hopenhagen" as it now is. We have the Glam Arnie, the Grim Gordon and the Glum Prince amongst many others. Fine words from these guys, some great ideas coming forward (not least the "Tobin Tax", brilliant)... now sign on the line please.
Given the amount of coverage of COP15, and that it all hangs in the balance, I thought I'd rather comment on Mr Cameron's proposals this week, just to give you a break from talks in Denmark. Poor Mr Cameron, not in Copenhagen, no one asked him so he's reduced to waving his arms around and huffing and puffing over here.
Having said that, I do like his comment that environmentalism is becoming "limited to well-suited politicians stepping out of aeroplanes on to tarmac" although I suspect he rather wishes he was just such a figure, out there on the tarmac with Glam, Grim and Glum.
So, what is it that he's been working up, ready to unleash as soon as he's over the threshold of No.10 and sorted out a space in the shed for his bicycle? Well, he's a Tory so he likes the capitalist system above all else and likes to get into bed with big successful money makers. Off to see the big retailers then, first port of call Tesco and M&S who with David's help are going to "share our savings on energy", thanks.
Here's the scheme; Tesco or other High Street oligarch, will fit out the lowly householder with a basic pack of energy saving measures, insulation and the like. In return Tesco, or other High Street oligarch shares in the resultant cost savings from the energy supplier who is likely to be err, Tesco (or other High Street oligarch). We'll be able to share our savings with them for a number of years.
Now, I don't want to be unkind to Mr Tesco or any other High Street oligarch but I never did think that these guys had an understanding of the word "altruistic". Although it has been wonderful that they have halved the number of plastic bags they have to buy, and wonderful too that they can sell us such profitable "bags for life" and give us some extra "green points" on our loyalty card.
Now, I think I'll get back to the very serious issue of the talks in Copenhagen, cross my fingers for a sensible outcome and pick out the salient parts for you in my next missive.
Given the amount of coverage of COP15, and that it all hangs in the balance, I thought I'd rather comment on Mr Cameron's proposals this week, just to give you a break from talks in Denmark. Poor Mr Cameron, not in Copenhagen, no one asked him so he's reduced to waving his arms around and huffing and puffing over here.
Having said that, I do like his comment that environmentalism is becoming "limited to well-suited politicians stepping out of aeroplanes on to tarmac" although I suspect he rather wishes he was just such a figure, out there on the tarmac with Glam, Grim and Glum.
So, what is it that he's been working up, ready to unleash as soon as he's over the threshold of No.10 and sorted out a space in the shed for his bicycle? Well, he's a Tory so he likes the capitalist system above all else and likes to get into bed with big successful money makers. Off to see the big retailers then, first port of call Tesco and M&S who with David's help are going to "share our savings on energy", thanks.
Here's the scheme; Tesco or other High Street oligarch, will fit out the lowly householder with a basic pack of energy saving measures, insulation and the like. In return Tesco, or other High Street oligarch shares in the resultant cost savings from the energy supplier who is likely to be err, Tesco (or other High Street oligarch). We'll be able to share our savings with them for a number of years.
Now, I don't want to be unkind to Mr Tesco or any other High Street oligarch but I never did think that these guys had an understanding of the word "altruistic". Although it has been wonderful that they have halved the number of plastic bags they have to buy, and wonderful too that they can sell us such profitable "bags for life" and give us some extra "green points" on our loyalty card.
Now, I think I'll get back to the very serious issue of the talks in Copenhagen, cross my fingers for a sensible outcome and pick out the salient parts for you in my next missive.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Good Luck Delegates (on yer bike sceptics).
It is the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Change talks. A binding treaty agreed by all countries seems unlikely but we hope for far reaching and accelerating policies from all to stimulate action and protect our environment for future generations.
Ahead of all this has been a catalogue of distractions; e mail leaks discrediting climatologists, a rise of voices sceptical of the influence by mankind on World climate, sloping shoulders, disinformation, exaggeration, politicisation and procrastination! There is a lot to be gained by those with a vested interest in debunking climate change evidence and diluting desired outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, not least the value of their shares.
I clutch my head in anguish as I listen or read the climate change sceptics. They clearly have a personal agenda which is thinly veiled greed. They are old timers, living in the past.
Lets take the atmosphere first.... whether you are a climatologist, a president, a pauper or an apologist, it's there, but it's tiny. How far to Space? About 62miles, an atmosphere 62 miles thick on a planet 8000 miles across, it's tiny. It's thin and delicate and contains all known life. Belch around 80 million tonnes of CO2e into it every day, an unprecedented amount, and it seems to me you're asking for trouble. That's not naivety, that's common sense.
The exploitative nature of energy procurement and use is just SO 20th century! Lets move on. Just as horse power fizzled out in the 19th century, so motor power should have done so in the 20th. Time for better, we move on. The car has reached the limit of it's capability and excellence, at best we can improve on it only by adding another superfluous device, "oh good electric windows", "oh good speed indicator on the windscreen", a breakthrough for mankind, no not really, they're backward steps that each in their small way increase division and inequality.
Time for new and better and hope and action and if we need the excuse of climate change to do it, jolly good. Stop protecting the status quo (no, not the bloody band, although they are of course a world treasure) and protect the environment around you.
Which would you rather have? A giant, smoking concrete stack requiring huge swaths of land to be dug up every day to provide the fuel for them to produce your electricity (not to mention the terrible working conditions for those having to do it) or a slowly revolving propeller gracefully sweeping round? Away with you nimby wind turbine protestors!
Good luck Copenhagen delegates, the World needs you.
Ahead of all this has been a catalogue of distractions; e mail leaks discrediting climatologists, a rise of voices sceptical of the influence by mankind on World climate, sloping shoulders, disinformation, exaggeration, politicisation and procrastination! There is a lot to be gained by those with a vested interest in debunking climate change evidence and diluting desired outcomes of the Copenhagen summit, not least the value of their shares.
I clutch my head in anguish as I listen or read the climate change sceptics. They clearly have a personal agenda which is thinly veiled greed. They are old timers, living in the past.
Lets take the atmosphere first.... whether you are a climatologist, a president, a pauper or an apologist, it's there, but it's tiny. How far to Space? About 62miles, an atmosphere 62 miles thick on a planet 8000 miles across, it's tiny. It's thin and delicate and contains all known life. Belch around 80 million tonnes of CO2e into it every day, an unprecedented amount, and it seems to me you're asking for trouble. That's not naivety, that's common sense.
The exploitative nature of energy procurement and use is just SO 20th century! Lets move on. Just as horse power fizzled out in the 19th century, so motor power should have done so in the 20th. Time for better, we move on. The car has reached the limit of it's capability and excellence, at best we can improve on it only by adding another superfluous device, "oh good electric windows", "oh good speed indicator on the windscreen", a breakthrough for mankind, no not really, they're backward steps that each in their small way increase division and inequality.
Time for new and better and hope and action and if we need the excuse of climate change to do it, jolly good. Stop protecting the status quo (no, not the bloody band, although they are of course a world treasure) and protect the environment around you.
Which would you rather have? A giant, smoking concrete stack requiring huge swaths of land to be dug up every day to provide the fuel for them to produce your electricity (not to mention the terrible working conditions for those having to do it) or a slowly revolving propeller gracefully sweeping round? Away with you nimby wind turbine protestors!
Good luck Copenhagen delegates, the World needs you.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Shut up and get on with it.
Crikey, it's getting hot out there! Everywhere you go, which ever way you turn; more about climate change, Copenhagen, Obama's dilemma, the desperate need for global agreements on climate action, and the confusion around how those might become binding. It is no wonder that according to the recent Times commissioned survey nearly half of us don't believe that a World crisis IS happening, or if it is, it is not a man made phenomenon. Yet apparently we do believe the whole climate change thing is a government ploy to raise unfair taxes. Good for you, Times readers.
It's all very fraught. Well, regardless of what you think. Regardless of what the government and your company and your neighbours are doing about climate change. Regardless of what the weather might be doing today or tomorrow we are heading for a low carbon economy. It's happening, regardless, for what ever reason, people are getting on with it.
Overarching sustainability strategies are being developed, innovative technologies are being invested in , developed and delivered, new ways of reducing environmental impact and increasing cooperation across divides is happening with no regard for whose fault it is or whether the climate is or isn't changing. It's the way we are going, it's where the best new investment is going, it's creative and exciting.
My best advice; don't fret about the weather, don't bother about Copenhagen and China and population statistics, hey, just get on board and help make the World a greener place.
It's all very fraught. Well, regardless of what you think. Regardless of what the government and your company and your neighbours are doing about climate change. Regardless of what the weather might be doing today or tomorrow we are heading for a low carbon economy. It's happening, regardless, for what ever reason, people are getting on with it.
Overarching sustainability strategies are being developed, innovative technologies are being invested in , developed and delivered, new ways of reducing environmental impact and increasing cooperation across divides is happening with no regard for whose fault it is or whether the climate is or isn't changing. It's the way we are going, it's where the best new investment is going, it's creative and exciting.
My best advice; don't fret about the weather, don't bother about Copenhagen and China and population statistics, hey, just get on board and help make the World a greener place.
Monday, 9 November 2009
Unclear about Nuclear
As expected our Mr Ed Milliband has today confirmed the government commitment to future energy supply based on a basket of sources which will, as the mainstay energy producer include nuclear. Really hard this for Green supporters, many of whom are still signed up CND supporters with battle scars from protesting against nuclear in the 60s.
I did O' level geography a long time ago, for one of our field trips we went to Suffolk and included in our studies a visit to the then quite new (and now quite shut down) Sizewell A nuclear power station. We were taken round the impressive site by an eager P.R chap who without a shudder proudly told us that the fish in the local waters were far bigger than elsewhere. Whether they glowed or had two heads he did not say.
The great guru of Green thinkers and the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis is James Lovelock. Here's what he has to say about nuclear; "We must conquer our fears and accept nuclear energy as the one safe and proven energy source that has minimal global consequences. It is now as reliable as any human engineering can be and has the best safety record of all large scale energy sources."
Easy for him to say, I still have visions of giant fish, but he's not wrong. France grasped the idea early and produces much of it's energy from nuclear thus making it more self sufficient and less vulnerable to major energy exporters with a hand on the the big "off" tap.
There are statistically minute risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Almost a third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breath air laden with the pervasive carcinogen, oxygen.
The World Health Organisation states that only 75 people died as a result of the steam explosion and subsequent fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. The area itself is now verdant and teaming with life, so here's what Lovelock suggests; go to nuclear for a large proportion of energy production, and the rather difficult to deal with waste?..... dump it in the rain forests so nobody can go there!
I have to say, a bit of a CND campaigner myself in my time, it makes sense, at least until we can sort out nuclear fission as a power source.....perhaps we can use those big fish too.
Copenhagen draws near and clearly the various representatives of the various interested parties are getting fretful and protectionist and edgy. Doubtless the same old, same old will happen; none will give an inch and then after all that time there, at the eleventh hour, following a variety of dramatic brinkmanship ploys, an agreement of sorts, not strong enough but with the potential to be improved at another summit, will be approved. You mark my words.
Brilliant! It's really difficult to visualise just what a tonne of carbon is.... well here is a fantastic piece of work that does just that, check it out here now;
http://carbonquilt.org/
I did O' level geography a long time ago, for one of our field trips we went to Suffolk and included in our studies a visit to the then quite new (and now quite shut down) Sizewell A nuclear power station. We were taken round the impressive site by an eager P.R chap who without a shudder proudly told us that the fish in the local waters were far bigger than elsewhere. Whether they glowed or had two heads he did not say.
The great guru of Green thinkers and the inventor of the Gaia hypothesis is James Lovelock. Here's what he has to say about nuclear; "We must conquer our fears and accept nuclear energy as the one safe and proven energy source that has minimal global consequences. It is now as reliable as any human engineering can be and has the best safety record of all large scale energy sources."
Easy for him to say, I still have visions of giant fish, but he's not wrong. France grasped the idea early and produces much of it's energy from nuclear thus making it more self sufficient and less vulnerable to major energy exporters with a hand on the the big "off" tap.
There are statistically minute risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Almost a third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breath air laden with the pervasive carcinogen, oxygen.
The World Health Organisation states that only 75 people died as a result of the steam explosion and subsequent fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. The area itself is now verdant and teaming with life, so here's what Lovelock suggests; go to nuclear for a large proportion of energy production, and the rather difficult to deal with waste?..... dump it in the rain forests so nobody can go there!
I have to say, a bit of a CND campaigner myself in my time, it makes sense, at least until we can sort out nuclear fission as a power source.....perhaps we can use those big fish too.
Copenhagen draws near and clearly the various representatives of the various interested parties are getting fretful and protectionist and edgy. Doubtless the same old, same old will happen; none will give an inch and then after all that time there, at the eleventh hour, following a variety of dramatic brinkmanship ploys, an agreement of sorts, not strong enough but with the potential to be improved at another summit, will be approved. You mark my words.
Brilliant! It's really difficult to visualise just what a tonne of carbon is.... well here is a fantastic piece of work that does just that, check it out here now;
http://carbonquilt.org/
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Carbon Paw Prints
As if you weren't subject enough to the needs of the planet, what with insulating your house, leaving the car in the garage, turning the damn lights off and the heating down, reducing the number of kids you have and what else besides. Well, what else besides might be to consider keeping a no pet home.
Owning a pet comes at a far higher cost than you might have thought. According to the authors of the new book, "Time to Eat the Dog" it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium sized dog fed. Meanwhile, running a 4.6 litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing, and drive it 10,000 Km/yr, requires a mere 0.41 hectares!
Or how about some other troubling comparisons? The average citizen of Vietnam has an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares and an Ethiopian just 0.67. In a World of scarce resources can we justify keeping pets?
We grudgingly put out the recycling and use low energy light bulbs, is giving up our pets in the name of sustainability a sacrifice too far?
Well, perhaps we could start thinking about reducing our pet's impact. Feeding your dog or cat or gerbil leftovers will have an immediate effect and help to do something about the scandal of food waste. Pet food manufacturers sell us the idea that nothing is too good for our beloved pets and indeed the choice for them is staggering, it takes longer to choose the dog's dinner in the supermarket than your own. The first manufacturer to produce green products would be ahead of the game.
Oh, cats? Eco-footprint 0.15 hectares (similar to a VW Golf). Fluffy hamster? 0.014 hectares... large dog; a staggering 1.1 hectares.
But that's not all, every year the U.K's 7.7 million cats kill over 188 million wild animals (one common objection to wind turbines is "bird strike", reasonably calculated at one bird killed per year, per turbine. I bet there's a NIMBY wind turbine objector or two with a cat or two).
Dogs are not entirely blameless either, in 2007 the University of New South Wales monitored bird life in woodlands to assess the impact of dogs being walked there. They showed that bird life in areas frequented by dogs, even when kept on a lead, had 35% less diversity and 41% fewer birds overall.
Areas with off-lead dogs seem to suffer even more; ongoing studies here in the U.K. indicate that dogs are aiding the decline of some rare species of birds, such as European nightjars. As if that weren't enough we should consider the effects of tonnes and tonnes of pet faeces on the environment... it's pretty bad!
Solution? Well, obviously fewer pets or perhaps eating them or turning them into pet-food at the end of their lives.
Owning a pet comes at a far higher cost than you might have thought. According to the authors of the new book, "Time to Eat the Dog" it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium sized dog fed. Meanwhile, running a 4.6 litre Toyota Land Cruiser, including the energy required to construct the thing, and drive it 10,000 Km/yr, requires a mere 0.41 hectares!
Or how about some other troubling comparisons? The average citizen of Vietnam has an ecological footprint of 0.76 hectares and an Ethiopian just 0.67. In a World of scarce resources can we justify keeping pets?
We grudgingly put out the recycling and use low energy light bulbs, is giving up our pets in the name of sustainability a sacrifice too far?
Well, perhaps we could start thinking about reducing our pet's impact. Feeding your dog or cat or gerbil leftovers will have an immediate effect and help to do something about the scandal of food waste. Pet food manufacturers sell us the idea that nothing is too good for our beloved pets and indeed the choice for them is staggering, it takes longer to choose the dog's dinner in the supermarket than your own. The first manufacturer to produce green products would be ahead of the game.
Oh, cats? Eco-footprint 0.15 hectares (similar to a VW Golf). Fluffy hamster? 0.014 hectares... large dog; a staggering 1.1 hectares.
But that's not all, every year the U.K's 7.7 million cats kill over 188 million wild animals (one common objection to wind turbines is "bird strike", reasonably calculated at one bird killed per year, per turbine. I bet there's a NIMBY wind turbine objector or two with a cat or two).
Dogs are not entirely blameless either, in 2007 the University of New South Wales monitored bird life in woodlands to assess the impact of dogs being walked there. They showed that bird life in areas frequented by dogs, even when kept on a lead, had 35% less diversity and 41% fewer birds overall.
Areas with off-lead dogs seem to suffer even more; ongoing studies here in the U.K. indicate that dogs are aiding the decline of some rare species of birds, such as European nightjars. As if that weren't enough we should consider the effects of tonnes and tonnes of pet faeces on the environment... it's pretty bad!
Solution? Well, obviously fewer pets or perhaps eating them or turning them into pet-food at the end of their lives.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Dirty Aliens/CRC
Looking for life on other Worlds has long fascinated us. Seeking out radio noise has been the preferred method for some time, but do Aliens pollute their planets? If they do, then this would give us a promising way to spot where they live.
Light pollution from out cities might give us away and we can look for a similar glow on far away planets although our detectors would need to be very sensitive. Our presence on Earth also leaves other traces that could be observed from afar, CFCs strongly absorb infrared light making them detectable in the atmosphere, as do other artificial compounds, each with their own characteristic infrared fingerprint. So, if you don't want to be invaded by Alien monsters, stop polluting!
I keep being asked about CRC, so here it is, pay attention;
The CRC has now been renamed, rather nattily, as the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme, which trips off the tongue as easy as a peanut butter sandwich.
Under various climate change agreements the government has incentives in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from big energy intensive industries. The next stage of the government plan to achieve it's obligations is now being introduced.
The new emissions trading scheme, this CRC energy efficiency scheme thingy (herein after called the CRC) is a mandatory scheme starting next April and affects all businesses and organisations whose electricity consumption exceeds 6000 MW/hr... or in other words, those with an electricity bill of more than around £500K ... that is many businesses and organisations (Councils for example) . This will include companies that operate across multiple sites, or that have franchises, or groups of companies in private equity ownership.
From April 2010 all organisations in this category will be required to measure their carbon footprints and then purchase carbon credits at a currently fixed price of £12/tonne CO2e.
At the end of each year, performance will be summarised in published league tables outlining the best and worst performers in terms of carbon emissions and reductions. The auction revenues generated by the initial sale of the credits will be recycled back to participants with organisations receiving payments back from the government in relation to their first year emissions, plus or minus a bonus or penalty dependent on their league table position.
In year one the maximum bonus or penalty rate is 10%. This will rise to +/- 50% by year 5.
In 2013 the ante will be upped and the system will become a full cap and trade system with carbon credits being sold on the open market by those with surplus through efficient operation and purchased by those that increase their greenhouse gas emissions.
I think this is a superb piece of government thinking, and if you're eligible then you'd better get on it sharpish.
The organisation performance will be ranked in the league table using three metrics;
Absolute Metric; the relative change in absolute emissions
Growth Metric; their change in emissions relative to revenue
Early Action Metric; whether they have taken voluntary steps to reduce emissions prior to 2010.
Any business out their not up to speed.... you'd better contact Change of Atmosphere.
Light pollution from out cities might give us away and we can look for a similar glow on far away planets although our detectors would need to be very sensitive. Our presence on Earth also leaves other traces that could be observed from afar, CFCs strongly absorb infrared light making them detectable in the atmosphere, as do other artificial compounds, each with their own characteristic infrared fingerprint. So, if you don't want to be invaded by Alien monsters, stop polluting!
I keep being asked about CRC, so here it is, pay attention;
The CRC has now been renamed, rather nattily, as the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme, which trips off the tongue as easy as a peanut butter sandwich.
Under various climate change agreements the government has incentives in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from big energy intensive industries. The next stage of the government plan to achieve it's obligations is now being introduced.
The new emissions trading scheme, this CRC energy efficiency scheme thingy (herein after called the CRC) is a mandatory scheme starting next April and affects all businesses and organisations whose electricity consumption exceeds 6000 MW/hr... or in other words, those with an electricity bill of more than around £500K ... that is many businesses and organisations (Councils for example) . This will include companies that operate across multiple sites, or that have franchises, or groups of companies in private equity ownership.
From April 2010 all organisations in this category will be required to measure their carbon footprints and then purchase carbon credits at a currently fixed price of £12/tonne CO2e.
At the end of each year, performance will be summarised in published league tables outlining the best and worst performers in terms of carbon emissions and reductions. The auction revenues generated by the initial sale of the credits will be recycled back to participants with organisations receiving payments back from the government in relation to their first year emissions, plus or minus a bonus or penalty dependent on their league table position.
In year one the maximum bonus or penalty rate is 10%. This will rise to +/- 50% by year 5.
In 2013 the ante will be upped and the system will become a full cap and trade system with carbon credits being sold on the open market by those with surplus through efficient operation and purchased by those that increase their greenhouse gas emissions.
I think this is a superb piece of government thinking, and if you're eligible then you'd better get on it sharpish.
The organisation performance will be ranked in the league table using three metrics;
Absolute Metric; the relative change in absolute emissions
Growth Metric; their change in emissions relative to revenue
Early Action Metric; whether they have taken voluntary steps to reduce emissions prior to 2010.
Any business out their not up to speed.... you'd better contact Change of Atmosphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
