The Rio +20 Earth Summit, taking place in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, needs to build upon the momentum begun by the last round of UNFCCC climate change negotiations in Duban, South Africa. That was the message of an event in Parliament yesterday evening, organised by the Aldersgate Group (co-sponsored by WWF) and attended by the BES Policy Team.

Chris Huhne MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, gave the opening speech, emphasising the positives which had emerged from the climate change negotiations; primarily from the ‘huddle’ called on the conference floor at the eleventh hour by the South African delegation. Using the analogy of the film ‘Sliding Doors’, where each of two realities were equally possible depending on the choices made in an instant, Chris Huhne suggested that the outcomes of the talks could have been very different, if it wasn’t for strong leadership by a number of countries.

Outcomes from Durban included an extension to the Kyoto Protocol and a commitment to develop a successor- an international legally-binding framework to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases – no later than 2015, to come into force in 2020. Parties to the negotiations have also recognised the need for greater urgency and ambition in tackling emissions; acknowledging that the timetable for action and the pledged emissions cuts lag someway behind the necessary momentum suggested by climate science.

One of the important commitments to emerge from Durban is to a Green Climate Fund, which will assist developing countries in their efforts to establish clean energy mechanisms. Member countries of the UNFCCC are required to contribute to the fund, although the Secretary of State and others at the Aldersgate Group event recognised that public money will need to be used to leverage significant amounts of private funding for the mechanism to be a success; there were questions around whether and how, this would be possible. The Green Climate Fund builds on the pledges made at the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009, to mobilise $100 billion per year for clilmate change adaptation and mitigation.

In a question and answer session to follow the Secretary of State’s speech, one delegate challenged the Government to be yet more ambitious during international negotiations, inviting Chris Huhne to give his view on innovative approaches that can really help to move the international community towards a ‘paradigm shift’ and new political reality. To this, Chris Huhne replied that investment in science and innovation would be key; an interesting statement given the extensive analysis in recent months by the Campaign for Science and Engineering that the UK science budget is actually going to decline in real terms to 2015, whilst other countries are investing in R and D as a way out of recession.

David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF UK, speaking later in the evening, emphasised the importance of Rio +20 leading to action, not rhetoric and to a vision of human development proceeding in parallel with conservation of the planet’s ‘life support systems’ (ecosystem services). Consistency across the UK Government will be vital. A speaker from the Aldersgate Group echoed this point when calling for the Prime Minister to vest genuine responsibility in the negotiating team from Defra who will be sent to Rio; allowing substantial pledges to action to be made.

Finally, a speaker from Philips stressed the need for Rio +20 to build on the momentum and atmosphere of change which he felt was in evidence at Durban. To make genuine progress: efforts to advance technology must be continued; policy frameworks must be developed (a global treaty); innovative financing mechanisms are needed to take care of the upfront investments that will be necessary, along with changes to budgeting practice – emphasising that upfront costs may be high but long-term, this investment will reap dividends. Finally, it is vital to communicate the ecological benefits of clean energy and a decarbonised, sustainable economy to the public at large but, beyond this, the social benefits of this transition. Ultimately, this will translate to changes in individuals’ mindsets and so onwards to voting choices, consumer behaviour and to business decisions.

The final speaker, from the Aldersgate Group, was pragmatic, saying that ‘Durban teaches us that we must manage our expectations for Rio’; the pace of political negotiations and of change can be achingly slow. Alongside international negotiations, he suggested, we must develop a pluralistic consensus on the need for change.

An Aldersgate Group event on 16th May will see Secretary of State for the Environment, Caroline Spelman MP, deliver a speech looking forward to Rio +20 and outlining the UK Government’s position on the Summit.

Vince Cable yesterday announced more detailed plans for the green investment bank, including some indication of the type of projects that will be financed. The bank will be the first of its kind in the world, specifically designed to fund the new low carbon green economy. The announcement, and publication of a progress report by the department of business innovation and skills, follows a speech given by Nick Clegg at an event hosted by Climate Change Capital.

The deputy Prime Minister emphasised the need to consider the reasons for investing, including preserving the environment on which we rely for the next generation. He also mentioned the economic incentive to make the UK the world leaders in producing green technology, suggesting that many companies could set up manufacturing plants in the UK.

In an oral statement to the House of Commons Vince Cable focussed on the legally binding commitment made by the government to reduce carbon emissions 50% by 2050, and the need to revolutionise our energy and transport sectors, and invest in green infrastructure to achieve this target. He also noted the requirement for stable long term green policies to encourage investment in green infrastructure, which will flow through the green investment bank. £3 billion will initially be invested in the bank.

The progress report published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills picks out the Water Framework Directive and Air Quality Standards Regulations as other key legislation to be supported by the green investment bank. Money will be invested in waste water management and improving flood defences replacing loss of funding due to Defra budget cuts. Money will also be invested in improving air quality and reducing emissions from vehicles.

Both Nick Clegg and Vince Cable noted the economic benefits of investment in green infrastructure in terms of saving energy and money, however there was no mention of investment to protect ecosystem services, and biodiversity, or the possible cost of inaction in these areas. Investment in better protection of ecosystem services will be vital for protecting the environment for the next generation.

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.

The latest round of UN climate change negotiations (COP16) begins today in Cancún, Mexico. Representatives from 193 countries will meet over the next fortnight, in hopes of securing an international deal on climate change. Several world leaders including the US president and UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, will not be attending the conference, amidst worsening claims that developed countries are not committed to creating the ‘green growth’ economic model required to tackle climate change.

It is widely thought that Cancun will fail to produce a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012. However, key issues on the table at COP16 include the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programme, and international climate finance, for adaptation in developing nations.

The Energy and Climate Change secretary, Chris Huhne, will join the second week of talks, having already downplayed hopes of reaching any legally binding agreement. In a statement to the Guardian last week, the secretary warned that: “The objective is to reinvigorate the talks. Success means getting the world to within shouting distance of a deal, keeping the show on the road and making practical progress on areas like forestry, finance and reduction commitments”. However, the prime minister has stated that Britain would act unilaterally if a deal could not be reached, in a letter to the Observer published yesterday. The UK will be pushing for more ambitious targets in the EU-moving towards at least a 30% cut in greenhouse emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 – targets which could also be economically beneficial across the European bloc.

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’.

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

From 18th August Local Authorities across the UK will have the restrictions on generating and selling renewable energy removed, following an announcement by the Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne this week.

The potential for Local Authorities to lead the way in clean energy generation has been highlighted due to the size of many Local Authority owned estates, combined with a new ability to benefit from the new Feed in Tariff payments. This potential sharply contrasts with existing Local Authorities’ efforts, which have been restricted by 1980s regulations put in place during the privatisation of utilities. This has resulted in Local Authorities generating just 0.01% of renewable electricity nationally.

DECC hope this decision will stimulate action to tie in to their wider climate change mitigation strategy to increase the percentage of energy generated from renewable sources, and reduce carbon emissions. The decision also mirrors the new Coalition Government’s local democracy agenda, by giving Local Authorities an active role in the low carbon transition and the freedom to lead by example. To read Huhne’s letter to Local Authorities, which includes more information on the rationale behind his decision, click here.

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.

China believes it can meet European targets on renewable energy by producing 20% of its energy needs through wind and solar power. Whereas Japan is aiming for 15% in the same time frame, a target that environmentalists call “appalling” yet is in line with the USA’s and Australia’s less ambitious targets.

China’s aims include a three-fold increase in both solar power energy production and in wind energy production targets. As in the UK, China is also promoting energy-efficient lightbulbs, installing 100 million of them this year. China may even beat the USA in solar heating array targets for 2020. Funding for these ambitious targets will come from China’s $590bn economic stimulus package. Over $30bn will be directly spent on environmental projects and even more money put into carbon-efficient transport and electricity transmission systems.

We will all however, have to wait until December when a climate change agreement to supersede the Kyoto Protocol in 2012 should be agreed in Copenhagen. This new agreement will allow everyone to see how far China and other countries are willing to go in formally cutting climate change emissions.

Original articles in the Guardian (10/06/09) and on the BBC website (10/06/09).