The 2008 Climate Change Act commits the UK to 80% statutory greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) reduction by 2050. The agricultural industry is responsible for approximately 25%, 50%, and 80% of global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) respectively. In the UK farming and land use are accountable for 7.4% of total UK emissions and therefore represent a good opportunity to make progress toward GHG reduction targets.

Reducing GHG emissions within the agricultural sector however faces significant obstacles driven by the growth of the human population. As human population numbers rise, more people need feeding, and as the wealth of nations increase so does the demand for meat with the ‘westernisation’ of diets putting pressure on the agricultural industry to produce more food. Furthermore, the dwindling availability of land suitable for farming limits expansion of the industry. As a result, agriculture must as increase productivity by 70-100% by 2050 in order to avoid future food security crisis.

The combination of increasing food production on limited land while reducing GHG emissions consequently presents a unique scientific challenge. To address this, a meeting attended by the BES was held at the Royal Society in London this week to discuss the options for ‘Reducing green house gas emissions from agriculture’.

Expert speakers gave presentations on how to create ‘climate smart agriculture’ and discussed potential solutions and opportunities including:

• Improving land management through intensification of agricultural practices to avoid further carbon dioxide release from expansion into remaining suitable land such as tropical forests.
• Improving soil management to conserve stocks of nitrogen and enhance carbon capture/sequestration.
• Reducing unnecessary over use of nitrogen fertilizers responsible for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions.
• Replacing fossil fuel use with bioenergy feedstocks.
• Exploring genetic modification of rice cultivars and cattle to reduce methane production.
• Altering rice cultivation management practice and cattle diet to reduce methane production.
• Improving manure management to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
• Decreasing food wastage and changing western dietary behaviours by encouraging people to decrease meat consumption to reduce demand.

The meeting highlighted that reducing emissions across the agricultural industry provides a significant opportunity to help achieve the UK emissions reduction targets. Speakers additionally drew attention to the fact that the agricultural industry has until present, not been a central part of climate change talks, and suggested that the future inclusion of agriculture as a central part of the climate change agenda would be beneficial. Speakers further noted that subsequent policy should consider all demands on land, provide incentives for implementation of more environmentally friendly practice across farming, and include raising awareness to encourage decreased meat consumption in western society.

A paper published in the Journal of Global Change Biology this week indicates that climate change is already having an impact on tropical forests in Costa Rica. The study, which was conducted over 20 years, indicates that if current warming trends continue, we could see the species composition of rainforests change as a consequence.

Future conditions are predicted to reduce biodiversity as plants adapted to survive in drier environments such as deciduous canopy trees will be favored at the expense of other species which will not be able to compete. A climate induced re-shape in the forest profile may additionally have detrimental impacts on both future carbon storage, and ecosystem service provision.

Such research is particularly relevant in light of the forthcoming BES Annual Symposium entitled ‘Forests and global change’ due to take place on 28-30th March 2011 at the University of Cambridge. The symposium will bring together expertise in rainforest ecology and climate change to discuss emerging themes in forest ecology and conservation.

The Secretary of State for Energy, Chris Huhne announced on Monday that the government will abandon its plans to invest in the controversial Cardiff-Weston Barrage project, in a bid to save between £10-30 billion of taxpayers money. If the project were to go ahead, the barrage would stretch nearly 10 miles from Lavernock Point, west of Cardiff, to near Brean Down in Somerset. The plans have been ditched in favour of investment for 8 nuclear power stations, and technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), which are considered to be more “financially viable” and have greater possibilities for development and export to rapidly growing nations. In a press release from DECC , Mr Huhne said:

“The Severn Tidal Power feasibility study clearly shows that there is no strategic case at this time for public funding of a scheme to generate energy in the Severn estuary. Other low carbon options represent a better deal for taxpayers and consumers.”.

” We urgently need investment in new and diverse energy sources to power the UK”.

“We’ll need renewables, new nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, and the cables to hook them all up to the grid as a large slice of our current generating capacity shuts down.”

Wildlife campaigners from the RSPB, Friends of The Earth Cymru and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, which have consistently opposed the barrage plans on the grounds of potential environmental destruction, are said to be delighted.

However, supporters of the tidal project claim that it could have met up to 5% of the UK’s electricity needs, but has been thrown off course by “environmental fundamentalism”. Senior welsh officials have spoken out on believe that scrapping the project- which could potentially provide thousands of ‘quality green jobs’- will have an equally devastating effect economically.

Some environmental groups have reacted harshly to the news, on the grounds that it jeopardizes the likelyhood of the government’s energy strategy meeting commitments to supply thousands of green jobs, and tackle future climate change. Jim Footner, senior energy campaigner for Greenpeace , added that: The economics just don’t add up. Nuclear power is hugely expensive, and there’s no way any more reactors will be built in the UK without a taxpayer hand-out.”.

However, the DECC report also indicates that the project could become financially viable in future, and as such could not be ruled out indefinitely.

Details of the agreements between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have been announced, outlining the coalition’s stance on several environmental topics.

A document on the Liberal Democrat’s website outlines measures seeking to fulfill “joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy”.

Measures include aims to encourage marine energy production and significantly increase energy production from waste, continue public sector investment in CCS technology and introduce emission standards for new coal-fired power stations, and promote green spaces and wildlife corridors to “halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity”.

Agreement has also been reached to allow continued Liberal Democrat opposite to new nuclear power plants, whilst permitting the government to “bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible”.

Further details on the arrangement can be found on the Liberal Democrat’s website.

The Queen’s Speech in Parliament today, in which she set out the legislative agenda for the Government, was just 7 minutes long. This is far shorter than normal, and reflects the fact that there is very little parliamentary time between now and the next election for the passage of new Bills.

The speech did however still contain some proposals of note from an ecological perspective. A proposed ‘Energy Bill’ would support the construction of up to four Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) demonstration schemes to reduce emissions from coal power plants, whilst a ‘Flooding & Water Management Bill’ would require sustainable drainage systems to be considered for new building developments and give water companies more power to control customers’ water usage during droughts. The Government will also respond to proposals on high-speed rail between England and Scotland.

One draft environmental bill proposed in June has been dropped however- the Antarctica Bill. This would have implemented a new annex to the Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty, introducing a ‘polluter-pays mechanism’ to act as a deterrent to irresponsible operators in the region. It would also have established a liability regime for environmental emergencies.

It remains to be seen how many of the proposals retained in the speech actually make it into law. For a comprehensive list of all the Bills proposed by the Government, please see here.

The first annual report to Parliament by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), published today, concludes that a step change is required in the pace of UK emissions reduction to meet carbon budgets, and that in some areas, new policy approaches will be required to deliver the Government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan.

The Climate Change Act requires the Committee to report each year on emissions reductions relative to the UK’s carbon budgets. The report found that from 2003-2007, emissions reductions averaged 0.5% per annum. Given that in the future, reductions of 2-3% pa will be required to meet the carbon budgets, the Committee argues that a step change in the pace of reduction is needed.

In particular, it says that three policy areas need to be revised or strengthened in order to achieve this step change:

1. Residential and commercial buildings

The heaviest criticism was directed at the government’s policy to reduce carbon emissions from homes. The carbon emissions reductions target (Cert) came into effect last year and places an obligation on energy suppliers to help homeowners reduce household emissions through specific measures such as by supplying energy-saving light bulbs. The results are too piecemeal according to the CCC, and a ‘whole house’ approach (simultaneously implementing the full range of measures) and ’street-by-street’ approach is likely to be required.

2. Electricity Generation

Dramatic improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings must be coupled with a 50% cut in the carbon emitted by the energy sector by 2020. The Committee backs the government’s plan for coal stations with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, but says three new nuclear plants should be operational between 2018 and 2022. The CCC has also recommended that 23GW of wind power be added to the current installed capacity of 4GW. This would mean the equivalent of 8,000 3MW turbines by 2020.

3. Road transport

The Committee reiterated its belief that the carbon-efficiency of new cars can and should be reduced from above 160g/km today to 95g/km by 2020. This reduction could be achieved by improvements to fuel efficiency on conventional cars, but further reductions beyond 2020 will require a significant role for electric cars. To ensure rapid progress, two new mutually reinforcing government policies are required: Support for new car purchase to drive initial volumes and help manufacturers achieve economies of scale; and support for battery charging infrastructure.

For further information please see the CCC website, or visit the Guardian.

This morning the BES Policy Team attended the launch of the Royal Society’s new report, “Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty”. The report is the first to provide a wide-ranging assessment of potential future geoengineering options (the large scale manipulation of the earth’s climate) and is the result of over a year’s activity by the working group set up to develop the document, chaired by John Shepherd FRS.

Speaking at the launch, Professor John Beddington FRS, the Chief Scientific Advisor, UK Government, congratulated the Society on producing an authoritative and sensible contribution to a controversial area. Other speakers referred to geoengineering as an area in which there is ‘a lot of heat but not much light’, and welcomed the Society’s report as a means to dispel some of the misinformation quoted regarding geoengineering.

Geoengineering is not a ‘magic bullet’ or an alternative to emissions reductions but may help to support efforts to mitigate climate change: this was the high level conclusion of the report as outlined by John Shepherd. All speakers were clear that geoengineering is not ‘Plan B’ to the ‘Plan A’ of emissions reductions facilitated by this December’s climate change negotiations in Copenhagen but must be seen as part of a ‘toolkit’ of options to tackle dangerous climate change.

The report calls for more research to be conducted not only into the technology needed for geoengineering to proceed but into the social, ethical and legal consequences of developing geoengineering schemes. Catherine Redgwell, a member of the working group and a professor of international law at the University of London, touched upon this at the launch, stating that at present no single institution or treatise exists under which deployment of geoengineering technologies could be regulated.

The report concludes that in most respects, carbon removal systems are preferable to solar radiation management systems in that carbon removal systems directly tackle the cause of climate change, including tackling consequences such as ocean acidification. Direct removal of carbon dioxide from the air, through ‘air capture’ is outlined as a highly effective, but also highly expensive, carbon removal option, whilst stratospheric aerosols may be a highly effective and affordable method of solar management. The report concludes however that there are great risks and legal implications associated with the use of this technology.The working group advocates research into both classes of method.

Summing up discussion, which also saw contributions from Professor James Lovelock FRS, Professor Ken Caldeira and Dr Doug Parr, Chief Scientist and Policy Director at Greenpeace, Professor Beddington stated that the Government would examine the report and consider geoengineering as part of the overall solution to climate change. Professor Beddington did not see a major shift in funding towards geoengineering research as practical but said that the Research Councils and others in the ‘government advisory community’ would consider how to take forward the recommendations of the report in concert with international partners.

Read the Royal Society’s report: Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty

A member of the Policy Team yesterday attended a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee to discuss the vexed question of coal-fired energy generation and ‘Carbon Capture & Storage’ (CCS).

The Conservative Shadow Energy Minister, Charles Hendry, gave a very interesting presentation summarising his views and the priorities of any future Conservative Government. He stated that the market can no longer genuinely deliver a satisfactory energy system by itself, and that the Government needs to get more involved and establish a national energy policy. He then proceeded to argue that diversity of supply was essential to ensure energy security, and that therefore the UK needs to keep burning coal, and thus needs to introduce CCS.

Mr. Hendry recognised that this would require significant Government leadership and funding, for whilst the price of one large coal plant is approximately ₤700 million, including CCS would add a further ₤1 billion to the cost. Clusters of CCS-utilising power plants should therefore be created to attain as many economies of scale as possible, with one prime cluster candidate being in the South-East, on the Thames estuary.

To ensure that carbon reduction did occur, the Shadow Minister stated he was very interested in adopting an emissions performance standard along the lines of California, where any new power plant cannot be built unless its projected carbon emissions are under a certain set level. He also said he was considering the introduction of a minimum carbon price, in the form of a carbon tax, which could remedy the volatility and uncertain outlook of the current EU carbon price.

He was followed by Andy Read, the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Project Manager at Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, who argued that CCS would definitely work, and that it is rather a question of economics, regulation and political uncertainty which will dictate how soon and where it is implemented. E.ON UK, the owners of Kingsnorth, are strongly pushing the creation of a CCS cluster in the South-East, with the carbon to be transported via under-sea pipeline to an old oil and gas field in the North Sea. The Q & A session did pick out one interesting point however, in that E.ON are committed to post-combustion removal of carbon technology, whilst many, including numerous chemical engineers in the audience, felt that pre-combustion carbon removal will be the real technology of the future. Charles Hendry stated that he recognised it was still unclear which exact technology will be most effective, but argued that the Government therefore had to support demonstration projects to ascertain which technologies would provide the best answer.