“It’s essential that the forthcoming Budget sets out a clear framework for science funding well beyond the current spending period, and ideally for a 10-year period.” MP John Denham, Shadow Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills, said at the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK (CaSE) Annual Lecture last week.

The lecture entitled ‘Science and Growth’, held at the Royal Institution of Great Britain came after the government’s decision to abandon commitments to a decade long science investment strategy, in favor of a move to short term investment branded ‘short-termism’. Denham warned that following the move ‘there is a real danger of the UK losing its leading position in world science”. The Shadow Secretary went on to emphasise the need for Britain to continue investing in the discipline not only because of its own importance, but for the growth of the economy.

During his speech MP Denham said that British science faced two challenges in the immediate future; to effectively reinstate research in science and engineering as a case for government investment, and ensure that research findings are effectively used.

Despite the governments change in investment strategy Denham remained positive stating “it remains the case that we have real strength in science” and listed some promising figures to come out of Britain:

“We [Britain] are the most productive science nation in the G8, per researcher, per public pound spent; the UK produces 12% of the world’s academic citations, with a 14.4% share of the top 1% most highly-cited papers, ranking second only to the USA; … first degree graduates from STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] subjects increased by 15% between 2002 and 2008; overall, the number PhD graduates also increased by 19% over the same period”.

Accompanying the CaSE lecture, the BIS (UK Department for UK Business, Innovation and Skills) funded National Science and Engineering Week was launched at the 2011 Big Bang Fair in London’s ExCel Centre last Friday. The 10 day programme – which runs until 20th March, is a celebration of science, engineering, and technology aimed to inspire young people to build career in science.

The European Commission will publish a climate and energy policy road-map later today. The report is expected to stick by current targets to reduce EU carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 despite calls for tougher cuts of between 25-30%.

Contradictory results published in the report itself state that increasing EU targets to 25% could not only be easily met but cost-effective. Furthermore, an increased target of 25% would better position the EU to meet its long term emissions reductions targets of between 80-95% by 2050.

Additional research conducted in 2010 by the climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, found that industry emissions were already down by 12% in 2009 due to the economic recession, making 2020 reductions targets not only easier but cheaper to achieve than first expected. Further academic research even indicated that the current target of 20% would be achieved under a ‘business as usual’ scenario.

Despite this backing, the European Commission has been reluctant to increase emission reduction targets above 20%. Hesitance has in part, been blamed on scaremongering, and concerns that increasing emissions cuts will restrict the growth of the EU economy. Although counter arguments claim investing in clean energy and greener industry in attempt to reduce emissions will do the opposite, and increase economic growth.

Following the release of the road-map target today it is likely that the debate to increase emissions reductions targets to 30% will be revisited at future UN climate negotiations if a new global deal is made.

Last week EU leaders put the subject of research and innovation at the top of the political agenda by dedicating one of their summit meetings specifically to the issue. Today the European Commissioner for Research Innovation and Science, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, conducted a keynote speech highlighting the importance of research and innovation at the Royal Society, London.

Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn’s speech opened with her agreement with the Royal Society; to “put science and innovation at the heart of a strategy for long-term economic growth”. She revised that we need to efficiently prioritise resources, and drew attention to the need for continued investment in research and innovation in order to create future jobs, warning that cuts to the sector could jeopardise economic growth. This opinion is supported by economic research, which indicates that reaching the EU’s target of investing 3% of GDP in the sector could create nearly four million jobs in Europe and increase annual GDP by €700 billion by 2025.

The talk was held prior to the release of the Green Paper on future EU funding for research and innovation by the European Commission this week. Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn explained that there have been seven previous Framework Programmes. Rather than creating an eighth however, she proposed a new instrument – a Common Strategic Framework, that would bring together all of the relevant EU tools. This approach, as outlined in the Green Paper, would be supportive of EU policy objectives, and therefore operate on a scale at which major European societal challenges could be dealt with effectively. The Common Strategic Framework would aim to raise scientific excellence in Europe by increasing support and investment to create an attractive environment in which to harness scientific talent. Additional to this, the framework would be simple, with less red tape, allowing scientists to spend more time in the lab and innovators to innovate.

The second speaker of the day, Professor Adrian Smith, Director General for Knowledge and Innovation at the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, agreed with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn. He stated that directing funding streams toward research and innovation was vital to deliver added value, and that and collaboration between all EU members would be required for success.

In light of today’s talks on research and innovation one thing stands out; it is now time to get focused, get united, and get ahead.

Member countries of the European Union should adopt plans for their own ‘Green Investment Bank (GIB)’ in order to benefit from 30% emissions reductions, according to the independent think-tank E3G. Recommendations from the report – “Building a sustainable and low carbon European recovery” – suggest creation of institutions similar to the GIB and the German national bank KfW, to provide much needed low carbon investment. These measures would function alongside a strong policy portfolio to include the development of a European smart energy grid. Improvements in European domestic energy efficiency, innovation and low carbon infrastructure – which would be funded by the GIB (or an equivalent body) -are essential to ensuring energy security, claims E3G.

E3G state that: “the most economically sensible shift to 30 per cent would prioritise investment in domestic European energy efficiency, and in the infrastructure and innovation needed to sustain reductions beyond 2020 and maintain European companies’ lead in the low carbon race,”, rather than proposals to meet the 30% targets via cheap emissions reductions credits. However, the changes have been opposed by those that claim the costs of meeting such ambitious targets are beyond the capability of many firms current economic recession. They suggest that a lower target of 20% is more realistic and economically beneficial given the current financial crisis, a point strongly denied in the report.

Whilst the final decisions on EU emisisons reductions will not be made until early 2011, it is likely that the package of measures will be influenced by outcomes at the next UN climate change summit (COP16), in which European nations will be voting as a ‘bloc’.

The latest report of the TEEB study was released on Friday, 13 November. ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers 2009′ follows the TEEB Interim Report, released in May 2008. The next releases; ‘TEEB for Local Administrators’ and ‘TEEB for Business’ reports, will be released in summer 2010, whilst the final TEEB synthesis report will be published in time for the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in autumn next year.

The latest document is intended to highlight the relevance of the TEEB study to mainstream policy-making, providing evidence to support a strong case for policy action; concrete examples of ways to make policies work (from removing subsidies to payments for ecosystem services) and practical guidance for managing the transition during policy reform.

TEEB is built around the central point that the lack of market prices for ecosystem services and biodiversity means that the public benefits we derive from these goods are usually neglected or under-valued in decision-making. By failing to account for the value of ecosystems and biodiversity we will make the wrong choices in responding to the global challenges of climate change, food, water and energy security. Making the benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services visible to economies and society is necessary to pave the way for more efficient policy responses.

Download the full report and the executive summary.

Access the TEEB website.

The policy team yesterday attended a very interesting talk delivered by Professor Adrian Smith, Director General of Science & Research at the Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS).

He started off on an optimistic note, arguing that the UK research base has been living through a golden age since 2000- government research expenditure, which had been hovering at just under ₤3 billion a year for over 15 years before that date, had grown to well over ₤5 billion a year by 2008. He argued that the results were clear, with the UK still punching well above its weight in world-class research, receiving 12% of world citations despite having only 1% of the world’s population, and remaining the “most productive & efficient’ research nation in the G8.

However, this decade of growth is now at an end, and he highlighted the major implications for the research base. Renewed stress will be placed on demonstrating the value of research to the economy, and the new funding expectations amongst researchers which have developed in the boom times will now have to be replaced by more constrained ambitions. He did note that the ring-fence around science funding had been maintained in the last budget, and explained that lessons had been learnt from the decline of the nuclear research base in the country: research funding cannot simply be switched on and off, as researchers will depart for abroad during any funding break.

His conclusion was that some tensions certainly did exist between funding short-term ‘economy-building’ research and longer-term blue-sky research, and that some prioritisation around areas where the economy can be strengthened was inevitable. He was optimistic however that the argument for longer-term science funding could be successfully made, and felt that policy makers were well aware of the damaging long-term effects and potential brain drain which could result from cutting funding. He concluded that making the argument for the value of scientific research was therefore as important as ever it has been, and told the audience he expected them to be out there making that case.

Experts are strongly urging G20 members to insert clear green commitments when they meet in London this week to come up with solutions to the global economic downturn. UN climate negotiators have warned that the G20 summit will not succeed in devising a plan to save the global economy, unless there is a plan in place to save the planet first.

Gordon Brown has repeatedly pledged that the G20 London summit will launch a “global green new deal” and G20 members are committed to including climate change in its discussions of the financial crisis. However, concerns have been raised after the draft G20 communique leaked at the weekend revealed that references to climate change were minimal, and the $2tn (£1.4tn) economic stimulus packages presented to counter the recession were not pro-environment.

Professor Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said ” “… [Low-carbon recovery] deserves a higher profile. It would be a missed opportunity while they’re talking about the economy not to talk about how to transform it to low carbon.”

Eminent climatologist James Hansen, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the Guardian: “If this is the best they can do, then their ‘planet in peril’ rhetoric is probably just that – empty rhetoric.”

Many experts believe that if a strong green element is emphasised at the G20 meeting, it will send a clear sign that climate change is a high international priority and demonstrate that the financial crisis and global warming can be tackled simultaneously. Meaningful ‘green’ promises would also be likely facilitate progress at Copenhagen in December.

Read more about this story at the Guardian News Website

The future of coal power is now in the hands of the climate change committee, as they are due to set out plans to ‘de-carbonise’ the economy. The committee plans to publish the findings of their report later today.

Environmentalists are keen that the committee sets stringent emission targets from 2020, ensuring that any new coal-fired power stations are fitted with carbon capture and storage technology.

It is expected the climate change committee will recommend interim targets up to 2022, considering the EU aims to reduce emissions by up to 30% by up to 2050.

The executive secretary of the UN climate secretariat, Yvo de Boer said that the international talks on a climate change treaty in Poznan, Poland, could set plans on how rich countries can help the developing world cope with the impact of climate change. It is hoped the treaty will come into effect by 2012.

De Boer said: “I think it is important that countries in Copenhagen reach a political agreement that is a response to what scientists tell us need to be done.”

Currently rainforest lost is reaching unprecedented levels. The talks may offer new direction to how polluting countries can pay tropical countries to conserve their forests, as a means of reducing CO2 emissions, since forest clearance is a huge contributor to climate change.