Yesterday evening, Jonathon Porritt, founder of Forum for the Future and chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, spoke at the annual Burntwood lecture, hosted by Institution of Environmental Science.

In a dynamic talk, Porritt described the so-called “growth fetish” of modern society, in which emphasis is increasingly put on economic growth, measured by Gross Domestic Product, above all other indicators of success. He also spoke on the role of human rights and development NGOs in fighting the cause for environmentalism, stating that they had failed to address the root of the problem.

Population growth, he said, was a key factor in the debate on how to achieve “a sustainable low-carbon economy”, a piece of the puzzle that had thus far been ‘missed out’. As a result, natural and economic resources would continue to be stretched to unsustainable levels, with almost every significant trend in consumption- including water, food and energy- increasing steadily. He assured that establishing a ‘real’ global price on carbon emissions was also vital, if the world is to lower its greenhouse gas emissions to at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050, avoiding the dangerous effects of climate change. This would be equivalent to 6g of carbon dioxide per US dollar ($) of economic growth by 2050, whilst current levels are approximately 750g of carbon dioxide per dollar of growth.

Mr Porritt then suggested the essential tools needed to get us to a ‘sustainable economy’. He supported the idea that innovation and technological advancement, driven by a need for sustainable consumption, would also bring huge benefits economically. ‘Marketisation’, or valuation of natural assets including Ecosystem Services, would help to create an economic model in which preservation of natural assets remains more profitable than environmental destruction. “It’s about using nature’s wealth more sustainably”, Porritt stated. He suggested that political corruption and the rise of ‘Denialism’ were responsible for the majority of inaction on global over-consumption, which has lead to runaway environmental destruction.

Mr Porritt then called on NGOs and environmental advocates to start focussing their effort towards promoting “limits to growth”, to stop what he regarded as “the systematic betrayal of young people today”. Relentlessly increasing levels of consumption were “completely non-viable”, he added. He commented that well-known NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth and WWF, should make more effort to address the economic developmental pressures of the world today, in order to remain the “lifeblood” of the environmental movement.

A lively question and answer session followed the lecture, in which Trewin Restorick – CEO of Global Action Plan- and representatives from WWF-UK disputed Porritt’s claims that the NGOs strategy on global sustainability was “inadequate”. Mr Porritt also acknowledged the significant positive effect” that had been made by thinking and research on ecosystem services, in making biodiversity conservation more effective. He believes that understanding the “economics of natural capital” will help to further expose the irreversible costs of environmental destruction.

Other questions from the floor related to the role of innovation and technology in achieving his vision of ‘a sustainable low carbon economy’. Mr Porritt commented that innovation in ‘green technology’ did not have to come at the expense of economic recovery. He also praised leadership from “forward thinking entrepreneurs” in partnership with the private sector, for contributing to a “thriving” portfolio of low-carbon technologies, against the backdrop of political failure to establish a “price on carbon”. Further progress was being ’stunted’ by a lack of “market-based controls on carbon”, which would allow these technologies to become more economical, he said.

Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at Defra, will state that Britain’s carbon footprint has grown, not shrunk, since 1990, in a BBC Radio 4 documentary next Monday (6th September). Professor Watson will say that calculations taking into account the carbon embedded in products which Britain imports, from countries such as China and India, reveal that Britain’s emissions have grown by 12%, not declined by 15-16% as current accounting proceedures show. Under the current system of counting emissions, greenhouse gases generated in the manufacture of goods are assessed in the country of production, not consumption.

A spokesman from the Department for Energy and Climate Change said “Our position is that greenhouse gas emissions have been cut by 22% since 1990. While some emission reductions have resulted from the trend for manufacturing to move overseas, international rules state that emissions from manufacturing are counted by the country of production”.

In the documentary, ‘Uncertain Climate’, Prof. Watson will urge the Government to ‘be more open’ about the carbon accounting proceedure and what the emission reduction figures do and do not cover.

Original Source: Joel Taylor, Metro, 3 September

A new study, the results of which have been released as part of the ongoing analysis of data collected as part of the 2007 Countryside Survey, is at odds with a previous accepted analysis of carbon released from soil in England and Wales.

In 2005, Nature published the results of a study led by Prof. Guy Kirk of Cranfield University, based on the National Soil Inventory, a series of measures taken between 1978 – 83 and 1994 – 2003. Prof. Kirk and colleagues estimated that from 1978- 2003 there had been an estimated loss of 4m tonnes of carbon a year from the soils of England and Wales. Because of Scotland’s peaty soils, the team estimated that the total loss of carbon from the whole of the UK over this period was approximately 13m tonnes. As the loss had occurred across all land types the team suggested that the losses were linked to climate change.

Now a team led by Professor Bridget Emmett at CEH Bangor has compared Countryside Survey data collected between 1978 and 2007. The ecologists found that the carbon concentration in the top 15cm of the soil increased between 1978 – 1998 and then decreased from 1998 – 2007, leading to no net change in soil carbon concentrations. In arable land there was a net loss of carbon, probably due to soil disturbance through ploughing.

Speaking to the Observer, where the story was reported yesterday, Prof. Emmett said that “the amount of carbon in topsoils across England and Wales is about 2bn tonnes so detecting a change of even 4m tonnes per year is very challenging. Small differences in methods between the two surveys can therefore have a large effect”. Scientists have proposed that a study group with an independent statistical expert should be convened to examine why the two studies may differ.

Rise in UK carbon emissions disputed by report: Observer, Sunday 7th March, Juliette Jowit.

A group of scientists, led by Professor Corinne Le Quéré at the University of East Anglia, have called for urgent action at the UN climate change talks in Copenhagen to avert a catastrophic 6C rise in average global temperature. Professor Le Quéré and colleagues from the British Antarctic Survey published their results, part of the Global Carbon Project, in Nature Geoscience. The Guardian this morning describes the study as ‘the most comprehensive analysis to date of how economic changes and shifts in land use have affected carbon dioxide concentrations’.

The scientists suggest that the global trend, with emissions rising by 29% in the past decade, is towards 6C of warming before 2100. To limit a rise in temperature to 2C, a target favoured by policy-makers as necessary to avoid ‘dangerous climate change’, emissions would have to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then fall to one tonne per capita globally by 2050. At present the average British citizen is responsible for approximately 9.3 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum. A firm agreement at the Copenhagen summit is therefore vital, they say.

The scientists estimated how much carbon dioxide is being absorbed by forests, oceans and soil. They conclude that these natural carbon sinks are becoming less effective; absorbing 55% of carbon emissions now, compared to 60% 50 years ago. These results are however disputed by Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol, who published an analysis of similar data in Geophysical Research Letters showing that carbon sinks had not noticeably changed. Professor Le Quéré suggests that her team’s data is more robust, using monthly, rather than annual data on carbon dioxide levels.

Both teams of scientists agree that an improved understanding of land and ocean carbon sinks is crucial, with sinks holding a major influence in determining links between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

Original article: Global temperatures will rise by 6C by the end of the century, say scientists

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.

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.

Experts from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research have announced that the climate change reports used to set Britain’s first carbon budget is “naïvely optimistic”. They have warned that the advised target to cut UK carbon emissions 34% by 2020 will not be strict enough to prevent dangerous levels of global warming.

This comes after 2,500 climate change experts from 80 countries attended a 3-day conference on global warming in Copenhagen last week. At the conference, experts agreed that both the rate and severity of climate change was much greater than previously thought. They also expressed frustration at politicians for failing to take on board the seriousness of the problem.

The Tyndall Centre report analyzed the conclusions of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which said in December that ministers should aim to cut UK carbon emissions 34% by 2020, as part of worldwide efforts to limit temperature rise to 2C.

The Tyndall scientists said the committee’s report is “inevitably and significantly compromised” and claimed that the committee was forced to use “highly optimistic and sometimes unclear assumptions” to hit the 2C target.

The Tyndall scientists have called for the UK government to aim to cut emissions 42% by 2020 and stressed the need for cuts come from the economy, rather than buying offsets abroad. These proposals were backed by more than 90 Labour MPs – including four ministerial aides – in a parliamentary petition.

Ministers are due to announce Britain’s first legally binding carbon budget next month.

Read more about this story on the Guardian News Website and the BBC News Website

Information can also be found on the The Friends Of The Earth Website, who commissioned the study with the Co-op Bank.