The Green Investment Bank (GIB) – proposed as part of government’s strategy to tackle climate change through the promotion of investment in environment and clean energy projects, is not the most controversial topic to spring to mind. Yet the subject of how to proceed with plans for the GIB has however been one of hot debate.

The GIB hopes to raise £200 billion in the long term to help renew the UK’s energy grid. At present, the government has pledged £1 billion towards the bank, which critics argue is simply not enough. The pinnacle of the controversy however arises over how to proceed with the GIB; as an investment bank or fund.

If the GIB were classified as a bank by the National Statistics Office, (whether independent or publicly owned), it would have the ability to raise additional capital and borrow money. If however the GIB were to take on the form of a fund it would not be granted these borrowing rights, and would therefore be expected to fall far short of government climate change targets due to a lack of funds.

It is subsequently argued that the GIB should adopt the form of a public sector investment bank, as a government backed bank would have a higher rating than an independent one. The major obstacle to this lies in the reluctance of the treasury to back the GIB as this would mean that government would have to accept all future liability, which in turn could threaten to undermine plans to reduce the deficit. If the GIB were to alternatively become a fund, the UK could miss out on the opportunity to attract billions of pounds worth of green investment to assist economic growth.

If climate change targets are to be reached with additional potential for economic growth there is a strong case to designate the GIB a public bank. Nonetheless, considering the current economic climate, uncertainty, and resulting caution this is a subject that will continue to be debated. Plans concerning the future role of the GIB are due to be released at the end of May.

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.

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.

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.