After quite a few years in the background after talk of ‘Frankenstein foods’ and the suchlike, genetically-modified (GM) crops appear to be re-emerging onto the political agenda. Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, has said that the only way the world will produce the 50 per cent more food required to feed the growing population by 2030 is to grow more crops on less land by using the latest scientific innovation, and that GM will have to be a part of the solution. “This is such a problem that you cannot say we will not use GM technology – that would be really unwise,” he said at a global food summit organised by CABI, an environmental research centre.

His comments come as a new Royal Society report, entitled ‘Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture’, also recommends GM crops to tackle the impending food crisis. Furthermore, the first trial in a year was recently re-started in Leeds, with the Government’s support, and a recent report on food security from the Defra backed further research into the technology.

It thus seems likely that public debate over GM in the UK may soon be restarted.

Professor Sir David King, former Government Chief Scientific Advisor, has condemned the Royal Society’s new report on ‘Geoengineering the Climate’. On this morning’s Radio 4 ‘Today Programme’, Tom Fielden, Science Correspondent, stated that Prof. Sir David King had expressed disappointment with the Society in giving credence to ideas which he sees as a distraction. Reflecting views also expressed by Dr Doug Parr, Chief Scientist and Policy Director at Greenpeace, at yesterday’s launch of the report, Prof. Sir David King reportedly views the report as ammunition for those promoting a ‘business as usual’ approach to tackling climate change, allowing emissions reductions to be sidelined as geoengineering is approached as a panacea.

All those at yesterday’s launch clearly made the point that geoengineering could not be seen as a ‘magic bullet’ and that any research into geoengineering should be secondary to attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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 new report, released today by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, proposes, amongst other ideas, “synthetic trees” to tackle climate change. The devices collect carbon dioxide through their ‘leaves’ and convert it to a form that can be easily stored. The devices would be thousands of times more effective at removing CO2 from the atmosphere than real trees: 100,000 would be enough to capture all of the emissions from Britain’s homes, transport and light industry, whilst 5 million could service the whole world. It is estimated that each device would cost around £12,000. The synthetic trees could be located near depleted oil and gas reserves, allowing the carbon captured to be stored underground.

Other innovations explored include painting buildings in urban areas with white, ’smart’, paint which would reflect infra-red radiation without dazziling passers by, reducing the reliance on air-conditioners for cooling. The Institution also envisage the incorporation of ‘tubes of algae’ into the structure of buildings, providing fuel for photo bioreactors which can be used to power generators.

The Institution is lobbying Government to integrate geoengineering into plans to tackle climate change and for £10 million – £20 million to be pumped into geoengineering research.

See original article: Synthetic trees and algae can counter climate change, say engineers, Times, 27 August 2009

Under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Member States must agree on common environmental targets and should establish a programme outlining how these targets will be met. Researchers have demonstrated that mussel farming may be a cost-effective way to remove excess nutrients from the marine environment, reducing eutrophication its associated algal blooms, and should thereby be a method considered by EU Member States in meeting these targets.

Working in the Baltic Sea, researchers examined the cost of nutrient removal – nitrogen and phosphorus – using mussel farms, comparing this with: increasing cleaning at sewage plants; buffer strips; wetland construction and cultivation of catch crops. Four scenarios were modelled: with and without mussel sales options and in terms of low and high cost due to growth rates and nutrient content in mussels.

In all four scenarios, mussel farming was shown to cut costs in meeting stringent environmental targets. The overall cost savings of using mussels ranged from 20 – 138 million EUR. The mussels grown in this way could be used for fish meal in poultry feed.

Expansion of mussel farming in this way could have adverse impacts on marine ecosystems and this would need to be examined further before any widespread introduction to combat eutrophication in this way. If results are favourable the researchers propose that a ‘nutrient trading’ scheme could be introduced across Europe whereby, for example, a sewage treatment plant could trade nitrogen cleaning with a mussel farm.

Original Source: EU Science for Environment Policy

Gren, I-M., Lindahl, O. and Lindqvist, M. (2009). Values of mussel farming for combating eutrophication: An application to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Engineering. 35:935-945.

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).

New research from scientists at the University of East Anglia suggests that large-scale geo-engineering projects are not a viable alternative to carbon reduction strategies in the fight against global warming. However, the researchers conclude that certain geo-engineering schemes could compliment activities aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The researchers examined a number of geo-engineering proposals, calculating their potential to cool the planet to pre-industrial levels by 2050. Those schemes with the largest cooling potential were sunshades in space and the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere – 10 – 50 km above the Earth’s surface.

Despite the potential for sunshades and aerosols to be used, the continual increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would call for the constant addition of aerosols or areas of sunshades to counteract this. In the case of sunshades, 4 million square km would have to be launched into space initially, followed by 31,000 square km each year thereafter, to keep pace with continual carbon emissions at current rates.

Researchers suggest that schemes to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are more realistic, and less risky. Seeding the oceans with iron or phosphorus fertiliser were predicted to have little or no effect on cooling, and with a damaging effect on marine wildlife. Similarly, biological pumps, bringing nutrient rich water from the deep to the surface oceans, to be used by organisms to produce more carbon, would have little impact. However, the researchers suggest that planting a large area of forest, producing charcoal and burying it in the soil as ‘biochar’ and the application of carbon and capture and storage technology to biofuels could reduce the temperature to pre-industrial levels by 2300.

Overall, the researchers conclude that no one geo-engineering scheme can be successful on its own, and no combination of schemes can be adopted in the absence of measures to curtail the carbon emissions we produce.

Original text from: Science for Environment Policy

Lenton, T.M. and Vaughan, N.E. (2009). The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. 9:2559-2608.

The Science Policy team yesterday attended the final day of the annual Environment Agency conference, which saw Jane Davidson, Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing at the Welsh Assembly Government, Ed Milliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, deliver keynote addresses.

Jane Davidson set our her vision for ‘One Wales, One Planet’, a new scheme which commits Wales to become a ‘one planet nation’. The Government aims to reduce the ecological footprint of Wales to 1.88 global Ha per person, from 5.16Ha pp at present. This will involve an 80-90% reduction in the use of carbon-based energy, plus an associated reduction in carbon emissions, a reduction in waste and in travel. Wales is committed to a 3% year-on-year reduction in emissions from 2011.

Ed Milliband, delivering his first speech as Secretary of State at the new Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), emphasised the need to “up the pace”, with respect to tackling climate change, calling on the public sector to play a greater role in energy generation. He stressed that carbon emissions from aviation can no longer be overlooked, with an amendment to the UK Climate Change Bill meaning that emissions from aviation will be taken account of in carbon targets. Mr Milliband also highlighted the opportunities for creating “green jobs” which a switch to renewable energy and development of ‘green’ technologies could bring: “greening the upturn” in the economy which would mark a climb out of recession.

Boris Johnson used his speech to announce a new ‘priority parks’ initiative, allowing the public to vote for 47 green spaces which they would like to receive investment. The top-10 parks will receive a £400,000 award for improvements. Mr Johnson stated that he had has his ‘mind changed’ over climate change, based on the ‘huge body of scientific evidence’. It was his duty as Mayor, he said, to create a city which is tree-lined, enjoyable and above all, a ‘nice’ place to live. London could be the centre of a green revolution. The cornerstone of this is the Mayor’s recently announced plan to introduce 6-10,000 bicycles to the streets under a cycle-hire scheme, and the introduction of cycle ’super-highways’.

A business forum saw corporate figures questioned by the Chair and audience over their sectors’ plans for mitigating and adapting to climate change. One speaker, Mike Barry, Head of Corporate Social Responsibility at Marks and Spencers, highlighted the need for organisations such as M and S to pay heed to ’sound science’ when making decisions regarding ‘greening’ their supply chains, and the importance of gathering multiple stakeholders together to discuss potential solutions based on this.

In a recent visit to a G24i, a solar energy technology centre, Assembly Minister Jane Davidson highlighted how clean technology lies at the heart of efforts to tackle climate change:

“Our ability to develop 21st century technologies that cuts our carbon and environmental footprints will be vital. G24i is a great example of how Wales is playing its part. The solar technology being developed and manufactured here is the future.”

Advanced solar cells that can be incorporated into fabrics in rucksacks are amongst some of the innovations G24i have developed. In a recent review of the top 100 technology companies in Europe, Wales is host to six of these; G24i featuring in the list.

Ms. Davidson went on:

“Here in Wales we are providing a lead when it comes to green technology. We have a number of pioneering companies that are developing science that will play a huge role in our lives. Climate change, the global economic situation and the rising costs of fuel mean mankind will have to discover and develop new ways to live and work – we are determined Wales plays a central part in this.”

Wales is currently the UK’s leader when it comes to developing clean technology. Of the UK’s regional administrations, Wales was the first to publish a Renewable Energy route map, leading the way on innovative alternative energy. Europe’s leading eco-centre – the Centre for Alternative Technology, also resides in Wales.