The Royal Society yesterday published ‘People and the Planet‘, a report which marks the end of nearly two years of work by a group including both the British Ecological Society’s current President, Professor Georgina Mace FRS and a past-President of the Society, Professor Alastair Fitter FRS. Speaking to the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme yesterday morning, Professor Mace warned that we are eroding the earth’s vital support systems through over-consumption and unfettered economic growth and that as a consequence we are not doing a very poor job of ‘gardening the planet’.

The study examines the links between global population and consumption and the implications for our finite planet. The aim of the report is to provide policy guidance to decision makers and to inform interested members of the public. Yesterday’s publication led to very interesting coverage on the Guardian’s environment blog, with members of the working group, including the group’s chair, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Sir John Sulston FRS, commentators and others offering their views on the content. Some of those commenting contended that the scientists were too negative in their assessment and that economic growth should not always be viewed as having negative consequences for the environment. One suggestion was that economic growth means that natural resources such as timber could be replaced with man-made materials for development purposes, so reducing environmental degradation. Another was that economic growth means technological and scientific advances, with humanity thereby innovating our way out of a crisis.

Aside from any external comment on the project’s conclusions, the overriding message of the study is that we must examine population growth and consumption patterns together and that it is the combination of these two factors that has an effect on the planet. The human population is set to reach 10 billion people, from the current seven billion, by the middle of this century. Over 1.3 billion people currently live in abject poverty, on less than $1.25 per day. It is clearly not desirable to see a world in which both the population increases and inequalities are exacerbated. Inequality must be addressed, people must be lifted out of poverty, but as their wealth and living standards increase, so too will the consumption of resources. Reducing consumption whilst also reducing inequalities and ensuring that those in poverty achieve an adequate living standard is a dilemma, and one which seems intractable.

Yet, speaking to the Today Programme yesterday morning, Sir John Sulston described tackling these pressures on the planet, what he characterised as ‘planning to flourish’, as ‘very simple’. Echoing the conclusions of the report he stated that we need to ‘dematerialise’ our economy, for example by investing in zero carbon forms of energy and by moving beyond GDP as a measure of economic growth to price in natural capital. In addition, tackling population growth will require countries to work together constructively, rather than the developed somehow lecturing the developing world in how to address birth rates. Contraception should be made available to those who want it in Africa, where two thirds of the anticipated growth in population is projected to occur, for example, but representatives of some African nations, such as Kenya, are requesting this, rather than this being imposed from outside.

Top priority is afforded to lifting people out of poverty, in the report’s conclusions. The international community is urged to address inequality through investment in education, family planning and economic development. The other recommendations are (to paraphrase):

- Most developed and developing economies must stabilise and reduce material consumption levels (de-coupling economic growth from environmental impacts and improving the efficiency of resource use, for example);
- Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes should be supported by political leadership and financial commitments;
- Population and the environment should not be considered separately. Demographic changes should be factored in to Rio +20 negotiations, for example;
- Governments should invest appropriately in urbanisation, for example supporting waste collection, which has the potential to reduce environmental impacts through allowing resource efficiencies;
- High quality primary and secondary education should be available for all young people;
- Governments should accelerate the development of a comprehensive wealth measure, including improving national natural asset accounting;
- Governments should collaborate to develop socio-economic systems and institutions not dependent on continued material consumption.

Natural and social scientists have an important role to play. The seventh recommendation calls for scientists to increase their research into the interactions between consumption, demographic changes and environmental impacts, providing policy-makers with the information they require in order to ensure that both the planet and the human population under pressure can continue not only to survive but also to thrive.

A new £1 billion competition has been announced by the UK Government to support the development of industrial scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. So far CCS has been developed on small scales but no commercial scale test of the technology has ever been undertaken.

The Government’s previous attempt to incentivise the development of commercial-scale CCS collapsed in October 2011 following the withdrawal of all nine companies participating in the scheme, citing concerns over the financial viability of the programme.

Changes have now been made, meaning that the competition announced today will accept applications from schemes that trap carbon dioxide pre-combustion, as well as post-combustion, and will also be open to both gas as well as coal fired power plants.

One or more demonstration plants will be funded and it is anticipated that the selected projects will be up and running by 2016 – 2020. By the end of the 2020’s the Government expects 12 – 20 new plants to be fitted with the technology.

Alongside the £1 billion fund, Ministers have also announced £125 million to support research and development of CCS, including a new £13m CCS Research Centre; a virtual network coordinated by the University of Edinburgh. Ministers will also announce shortly the details of how the technology can be supported in the long-term. One approach that the Government favours is believed to be to encourage ‘clusters’ of power plants to develop, with these then supporting each other and sharing best practice in the development and utilisation of CCS.

Original articles:
Fiona Harvey, the Guardian, 3 April 2012 – New push for carbon capture and storage with £1 bn competitionDavid Shukman, BBC, 3 April 2012 – New UK attempt to capture carbon

Rather than spelling disaster for environmental funding, the current debt crisis could provide an opportunity to create a win-win scenario for the environment and economic recovery – that was the message from an Aldersgate Group panel debate in December last year, attended by the BES Policy Team and summarised in a debate report published today.

On the panel were; Janez Potočnik, European Commissioner for the Environment, Sir John Harman, Director of the Aldersgate Group, Paul Ekins, Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy at University College London, and David Baldock, Director at the Institute of European Environmental Policy.

The speakers agreed that at a time when businesses critically need to minimise costs, measures to improve resource efficiency and reduce waste could give them a significant competitive edge. However, there was consensus that barriers such as a lack of long-term policy coherence and the lock-in of existing infrastructure will need to be addressed in order to pursue this opportunity for green economic recovery, and that Governments will need to demonstrate increased investment in research and development and measures such as the reform of environmentally perverse subsidies.

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.

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 Secretary of State for Energy, Chris Huhne announced on Monday that the government will abandon its plans to invest in the controversial Cardiff-Weston Barrage project, in a bid to save between £10-30 billion of taxpayers money. If the project were to go ahead, the barrage would stretch nearly 10 miles from Lavernock Point, west of Cardiff, to near Brean Down in Somerset. The plans have been ditched in favour of investment for 8 nuclear power stations, and technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), which are considered to be more “financially viable” and have greater possibilities for development and export to rapidly growing nations. In a press release from DECC , Mr Huhne said:

“The Severn Tidal Power feasibility study clearly shows that there is no strategic case at this time for public funding of a scheme to generate energy in the Severn estuary. Other low carbon options represent a better deal for taxpayers and consumers.”.

” We urgently need investment in new and diverse energy sources to power the UK”.

“We’ll need renewables, new nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, and the cables to hook them all up to the grid as a large slice of our current generating capacity shuts down.”

Wildlife campaigners from the RSPB, Friends of The Earth Cymru and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, which have consistently opposed the barrage plans on the grounds of potential environmental destruction, are said to be delighted.

However, supporters of the tidal project claim that it could have met up to 5% of the UK’s electricity needs, but has been thrown off course by “environmental fundamentalism”. Senior welsh officials have spoken out on believe that scrapping the project- which could potentially provide thousands of ‘quality green jobs’- will have an equally devastating effect economically.

Some environmental groups have reacted harshly to the news, on the grounds that it jeopardizes the likelyhood of the government’s energy strategy meeting commitments to supply thousands of green jobs, and tackle future climate change. Jim Footner, senior energy campaigner for Greenpeace , added that: The economics just don’t add up. Nuclear power is hugely expensive, and there’s no way any more reactors will be built in the UK without a taxpayer hand-out.”.

However, the DECC report also indicates that the project could become financially viable in future, and as such could not be ruled out indefinitely.

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