UN Biodiversity Science Panel Gets The Go-ahead

The UN has given final approval to the setting up a biodiversity science panel that will provide best possible advise to governments around the world. This will help them make policy that will preserve their natural environments.

Read more here.

Why this is important for all of us here.

The Other Cancun Meeting

If, like me, you were a bit frustrated by the passing of yet another climate conference without a final deal, this link might cheer you up.

It appears that, despite the slow progress at a global level, many nations, regions, businesses, and local governments are on their own fastpath towards a low carbon future. Some of them decided to hold a parallel summit not far from Cancun....

2010 On Course To Be Warmest On Record

According to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, January to November 2010 was the warmest first eleven months of the year since records began 131 years ago. November 2010 itself was also the warmest on record.

Looks like 2010 is still set to become a warmest year so far despite the cooling effect of a strong La Niña in the Pacific and a deep solar minimum (i.e. we're not getting as much energy from the Sun as normal).

Energy Saving Tip #5: Desktop or Laptop Computer?

When old electrical appliances like fridges and washing machines stop working, we can reduce our carbon footprint and save on our energy bills by replacing them with A or A+ rated versions. But what do we do when our home PCs die? Is a laptop any more efficient than a standard desktop PC?

According to DEFRA (The UK's Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), a new laptop uses about 80% less energy than a new desktop and monitor. This is because laptops are designed to be more efficient to allow them to be smaller and portable.

Seasonal Thoughts

It's that time of year again when my thoughts turn to fuel bills.

The energy companies must love the Winter because even the most frugal customer has to turn up the heating. Especially if there's cold snap going on. Looking out the window, I see snow on the ground again. We hardly ever get snow in the south-east of England at this time of year. We almost never get a white Christmas.

So power suppliers must be laughing all the way to the bank this year.

I hate the fact that they hike the fuel prices in Autumn (often by above inflation), announce huge profits in the Spring, then make some token cut in prices come early Summer.

The above graph shows the typical provider response to wholesale gas prices (The blue line). Notice how they increase the price to the customer (The other line) in response to rapidly increasing wholesale prices in 2008 and yet, as the latter falls equally quickly in 2009, the retail price was left at practically the same level until the present day? Yeah, thanks for that guys.

It's this kind of thing that makes me all the more determined to reduce our heating bill (and carbon footprint, of course).

So far, I've swapped our very old boiler for an A rated condenser boiler, stuck thermostats on all our radiators, had cavity wall insulation put in, draught proofed the house, and we already have double glazing throughout.

All we've got left is the loft insulation and I'm quite close to sorting that one out. That could save us up to £200 a year.

Next stop: Generating our own heating?

California Is First US State To Approve Carbon Trading

The President may be unable to get anything resembling a climate bill into law but that doesn't stop certain states making their own legislation. California is probably foremost amongst these, having passed a series of number of carbon cutting measures.

Now the State has voted for a cap-and-trade system to encourage businesses to cut their CO2 emissions. California want to cut carbon to 1990 levels by 2020 (A 29% cut).

The question now is, will the other green states, like Vermont, Oregon and Washington join them?

More details here.

UK Govt. Announces List of Electric Cars Eligible for Grants

Mitsubishi i-MiEV

The UK Government issued a list today of 9 electric vehicles (EVs) that will be eligible for a grant of up to £5000 from Jan. 1st 2011.

The cars are the Chevrolet Volt, Citroen C-Zero, Mitsubishi i-MiEV (pictured), Nissan Leaf, Peugeot iOn, Smart Fortwo ed, Tata Vista EV, Toyota Prius Plug-In and Vauxhall Ampera.

Of these, only the Mitsubishi, Smart, and Peugeot will actually be available for delivery at the beginning of 2011. And only the Mitsubishi can be bought, £24k after the grant, the other 2 will start off as rentals. The Nissan and Tata will arrive in March. The Citroen "Early 2011". The others in 2012.

Apparently, the Vauxhall, Citreon, Mitsubishi, and Peugeot are basically same car re-badged with a few mods!

Interestingly, the established EVs - like the Tesla and G-Wiz, amongst others - are missing from the list. Strange. It's almost like the government are trying to prevent a rush on the grants.

Whether or not that's the reason, I'm betting it's frustrated a lot of people who were hoping to make use of the grant come the New Year.

Cancun: Success or Failure?

Protest at Cancun

The signs weren't looking good as they started the Cancun Climate Conference just over 2 weeks ago. 

• China and the U.S. had fallen out in a preliminary meeting over verification of emission cuts.

• Japan, Russia and Canada were refusing to extend the Kyoto protocol (i.e. The last climate deal) because it didn't include all countries, especially the 2 biggest emitters: The U.S. and China.

• And the word was, if this conference finished as badly as the last one (Copenhagen), the whole U.N. climate negotiation process would be as good as dead.

So, no pressure then.

Two weeks later, as the conference was nearing it's conclusion, things were still looking pretty bad. A number of countries were refusing to budge on a whole range of issues. But, after working long into the last night, they finally had the documents all the countries (except Bolivia) could agree.

The draft agreement commits all nations to keeping the global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees C, although no mechanism for doing this has been sorted out.

Japan, Canada, and Russia have been kept in the process with wording that allowed the possibility of the Kyoto Protocol not being extended, whilst emphasising that the protocol was still the best way forward - Something developing countries had insisted on.

Developing countries will only have their emission cutting measures verified if funded by western money. This keeps the Chinese happy - who saw it as challenge to national sovereignty - and the US, who had insisted on verification.

A 'Green Fund' to help developing nations fight global warming was also agreed: $100 bn (£64 bn)) are to be paid in per year by 2020. It will go towards helping these countries adopt low carbon technology and adapt to climate change. An Adaptation Committee will be set up to support them in their efforts. The fund will be handled by the World Bank (initially), at the insistence of the US, EU and Japan.

Outline details were also worked out for funding the efforts of developing countries to reduce deforestation. This ties in with last month's biodiversity talks at Nagoya.

Success or Failure?
So, another year passes without a binding global agreement on climate change. To some that makes the conference a failure.

Yet the UN climate process lives on and real progress has been made this time round. To me, that's success.

Okay, there's still a long way to go before a meaningful final agreement is made, and a lot can go wrong in the meantime, but Cancun has laid down something than can be built on in South Africa next year. We're still in with a fighting chance.

The Future Of Energy Part 4: Energy Storage

In part 1 of this series, I made a case for reducing our dependance on fossil fuels as much, and as soon, as possible. In the rest of this series I'll be looking at ways this might be done.

So far I've looked at wind (part 2) and solar (part 3), and I've said that these can only ever make up 20% of our total electric supply. The reason being that they are intermittent sources (i.e. not round the clock) and you can't run a modern society on an electric supply that shuts down over-night!

So, is it possible to get round this problem? Well, it looks like the answer is (or will be) "Yes" if something called Grid Energy Storage lives up to it's promise.

The idea works like this: National power grids are set-up to meet the maximum possible demand the population can place on it. If they weren't, then there would be 'black-outs' all the time.

The trouble with this approach is that, for the majority of the time, there are power-stations sitting around idle, waiting for peak demand. Meanwhile, there will be others, the ones which can't be switched on and off at a moments notice (like coal, nuclear, solar and wind), that are sometimes generating electric with nowhere for it to go (e.g. when everyone's asleep). Crazy.

Imagine if you could store that excess electric, and release it at peak demand: You wouldn't need so many power stations doing nothing. Potentially huge cost savings.

Another benefit of energy storage would be for 'smoothing out' the supply dips in intermittent sources like wind and solar. This would effectively give you a constant supply from these sources, enabling them to make up much more than the 20% of the total electric supply I mentioned earlier.

Types of Energy Storage

There are actually many different types (See here) so I'm just going to pick out a few to show the potential:

• Batteries: It's difficult to think of batteries, even big ones, holding enough energy to be useful to a national grid, but that's exactly what they are being used for right now. The types of batteries range from relatives of the familiar lithium-ion (e.g. found in laptops) and lead acid (in cars) to the less well known sodium based, and so-called flow batteries. The most popular variety at the moment are sodium sulphur batteries but many others show promise, especially flow batteries. 

• Flywheels: These are already in use for grid power in a few cases. Flywheels involve accelerating a rotor to a very high speed to store the excess energy, then decelerating them to recover the energy.

• Molten Salt: You might remember I mentioned something called concentrated solar power (csp) in part 2 of this thread? With csp, an array of mirrors focus sunlight on a central tower creating heat. This heat is used to boil water and drive turbines. Any excess energy can be stored in reservoirs of molten salt for a number of hours until it's needed. This could have huge potential for sunnier regions like Australia, the Mediterranean, and California. It's a proven technology and it's likely to go into full commercial use very soon.

• Pumped Hydro: This is a commonly used storage technique which involves using spare energy to pump water uphill to a raised reservoir. To release the energy, you just let the water flow back down and drive a turbine. The obvious problem with this is that reservoirs aren't always possible e.g. Not enough room, or the land is too flat.

Conclusions
For me, energy storage will play a key role in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It will allow electric generation to be more efficient by holding onto any excess until it's needed; permit solar and wind power to be bigger players in generating electric; and, for transport, smaller, cheaper, lighter batteries will revolutionise electric cars.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

But energy storage is still in it's infancy and it may be a decade or more away from making a real impact. So what do we do in the meantime? Well, for a start, keep adding to the wind turbines and solar power stations as fast as possible. It's going to take a while for most countries to reach their 20% thresholds anyway. By then, energy storage may be in the position to take off.

My concern though is: What happens if, for some reason, energy storage doesn't take off?

I look at a possible answer in the next part of this series.

More on energy storage.

Can Australia Go Zero Carbon Emissions By 2020?

According to a team of scientists, engineers, and economists from Melbourne University and the Energy Research Institute, the answer to that question is "Yes".

They have provided a detailed blueprint on how it can be done using current, proven technology, at a reasonable cost. Click here to see the plan (192 pages). The 17 page synopsis is here.

If they've got their numbers right then Australia has been handed a golden opportunity: Whilst other countries are struggling to identify a path to 80% reductions by 2050, the Aussies, thanks to their unique circumstances, have the chance to go 100% in just 10 years and have complete energy security whilst the rest of us get hit by every oil/gas/coal price hike for years to come. Sounds like a great reason to migrate to Australia!

It should be interesting to see what the Australian government's response will be. I bet they're being lobbied heavily by their coal and natural gas industries already.....

The Future Of Energy Part 3: Solar Power

In part 1 of this series, I made a case for reducing our dependance on fossil fuels as much, and as soon, as possible. In the rest of this series I'll be looking at ways this might be done.

In part 2 I looked at wind power, this time round I'll be talking about the role solar power might play.....



Current State Of Play
Solar energy is a very fast moving area of technology, with new developments coming through all the time. However, there are, broadly speaking, 2 ways solar is used to generate electric: Photovoltaic (PV) e.g. solar panels; and concentrated solar power (csp) which typically involves an array of tracking mirrors (heliostats) that concentrate light on a central tower to boil water and drive turbines (See photo).

Concentrated Solar Power

CSP has been around since the 1980s. The largest power station is currently in Mojave desert, California (354MW). The world's CSP power stations are largely split between the US and Spain. These 'Solar power towers' are more cost effective than PV, offer higher efficiency and better energy storage capability (Storage will be the subject of a later post).

Germany has the largest PV station (80+ MW) in the world with Canada close behind. Other leaders are Spain, Portugal and Czech.

PV makes up less than 1% of the world's energy. There are many competing technologies but, as yet, no clear winner. This fierce competition is leading to rapid improvements in the efficiency of solar cells and driving down costs.

Home PV: Germany led in this until recently with 4,150 MW installed (Thanks to government incentives). Spain then took over, using a similar scheme, and now have 45% of the world's domestic PV. France, Italy, South Korea and the US are also seeing rapid growth. Globally, the market could reach 16GW this year. As a result of all this, PV production has grown by an average of 40% every year since 2000 and seems likely to go on growing strongly.



Pros and Cons
The pros and cons are very similar to those for wind: Solar energy is plentiful, clean, renewable, available almost everywhere, and creates no greenhouse gases.

Like wind, it is currently more expensive than the other, established methods of generating electric. But, of course, coal powered stations were also costly when they first appeared. This is what happens with all new technology: It starts out very expensive and gets cheaper as time goes by.

The real drawback is that solar energy is intermittent e.g. It dips when there's cloud cover and stops altogether over night. So there need to be other, more constant, energy sources available to fill the gap. Fortunately, grid operators are used to matching supply to demand, so it's no big deal at present. But, as intermittent renewables like solar and wind reach 20% of the overall total, it'll begin to get trickier. That's still a few years away though and there are likely to be a number of solutions available when that day finally comes.


The Future
It's been worked out that if just a small percentage of the planet's deserts were used for generating solar power, it would be enough to provide all the world's electric for the foreseeable future. Earlier this year a plan was presented to Australia by a group of scientists, engineers, and economists that offered them a 100% renewable energy economy by 2020 (See here) and that included a lot of CSP. So there's huge potential for solar power.

However, fulfilling that potential will depend a lot on the willingness of governments, both national and local, to make it happen. Some countries, like Germany and Spain, are going all-out for renewables generally, whilst others seem to be dragging their feet.

Solar Updraft Tower

Keeping that in mind, home PV seems likely to continue growing rapidly if governments continue to offer incentives. CSP is a revolution waiting to happen in the tropics and sub-tropics.

Other stuff waiting to take off includes solar paint (which promises solar at a third of the usual cost), solar thin film (which offers such applications as solar windows), concentrated PV which concentrates energy on a single cell for cheaper PV, and, my personal favourite, solar updraft towers which combines 3 well known effects to produce a really novel design.

All very exciting but will it actually happen.....?

-- oOo -- 

More about solar power here.

More about CSP here.

Chinese Whispers

There are rumours going round that China are working on something big concerning carbon emissions. Whatever it is, isn't likely to be finalised for 2 or 3 months but there's a possibility of an announcement at the Cancun Climate Conference that starts next week.

If, as the rumours suggest, the Chinese are planning to put their Copenhagen Accord pledge (to cut CO2 emissions by 40-45% against 2005 levels by 2020) into law, that could be a major boost for the conference and may trigger a whole series of similar commitments.

Fingers crossed.

More background here.

Hydrogen Cars Headed For Leicester

A UK company called Riversimple are preparing to pilot their 2-seater hydrogen powered car in Leicester come 2012.

They will be working with the local council to rent 30 of their vehicles out as car-shares, company cars, and for private use. The scheme will run for 12 months. If successful, Riversimple hope to go into production in 2013.

Interestingly, they want to challenge everything about personal transport, from the design of the car to ownership. For example, instead of just selling their cars, they want to offer a number of "service packages", rather like mobile phones. So you might rent your car for a period, then either return it or extend the rental at a reduced price. The aim would be to reward people for using a vehicle for longer (which would lower Riversimple's costs).

See a video of the car here.

UK Companies Want Government To Prepare For Peak Oil

A group of leading UK businesses has called on the government to make plans to protect the country in the event of Peak Oil.

Peak oil will be that moment when worldwide oil production reaches it's absolute maximum, after which it will begin to decline. It is of major importance because, with demand for oil set to increase for the foreseeable future, Peak Oil, or even the prospect of it, would trigger massive, worldwide, inflationary effects. It has the potential to cripple nations, especially those dependant on oil.

Little wonder then that these companies, which include Kingfisher, Stagecoach and the Virgin Group, are concerned that the government has some sort of plan. They have produced this recent report in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, warning that it may have brought forward Peak Oil and we could all be feeling the effects as early as 2015. They say we should speed up our switch to more sustainable fuels as a matter urgency.

Hydrogen Planes?

I came across this BBC report recently that suggests that the aviation industry has now given up on switching from kerosene to hydrogen as a fuel.

Excuse me? Did I read that right? Apparently, yes. For the past 10 years, the whole industry has been seriously looking for ways of moving away from fossil fuels to hydrogen.

Ironically, it appears they've had to shelve the idea because the process of creating hydrogen - hydrolysis - emits too much CO2. There was nothing wrong with the hydrogen itself, and they were quite prepared to re-design jets to accomodate the larger volume of fuel (we might have seen jets looking like Thunderbird 2), it's just it requires a lot of electricity to produce and, at the moment, that's mainly from coal.

So, the search is now on for a biofuel that a) comes from a sustainable source, and b) doesn't require the use of land being used for food.

The underlying reason for this search is not so much about battling climate change as it is looking after aviation's interests. The industry realises it's future is too dependant on a fast depleting fuel and needs to protect itself from, firstly, volatile fuel prices, then rising prices and finally, the effective end of oil.

Unilever Aims For Sustainability

UK giant Unilever, the second biggest consumer goods producer in the world, has announced it intends to halve it's impact on the environment by 2020, whilst doubling it's sales.

The company, who produce such familiar brands as Persil, Walls, Ben & Jerry's, Knorr, Liptons tea, and Hellmanns, announced a number of targets:

• cut by 50% the environmental impact of its products in terms of water, waste and greenhouse gases.

• source 100% of its agricultural supplies from sustainable sources.

• improve the health and well-being of one billion people across the world.

• double its use of renewables to 40% of total energy use.

• reduce water consumption by 65%  and waste by 70% on 1995 levels. 

They will publish annual reports to show their progress towards these targets.

Their chief exec explained that they see their new approach as "the only way to do business long term", and their plan spells out their reasons quite clearly.

Let's hope they're just the first of many to take this route.

More detail here.

Global Warming May Cause Colder Winters

According to some new research done using computer models, global warming may actually cause colder Winters in the northern hemisphere.

It's been common knowledge in the scientific community that climate change will cause some strange local effects but this tops them all.

More details here.

8th Warmest October On Record

The combined global land and ocean temperatures for October 2010 made it the 8th warmest on record, 0.54C above the 20th Century average.

The period January to October 2010 was equal warmest on record (despite the cooling effect of La Niña).

More here.

The Future Of Energy Part 2: Wind Power

In part 1 of this series, I made a case for reducing our dependance on fossil fuels as much, and as soon, as possible. In the rest of this series I'll be looking at ways this might be done.

This time round I'll be talking about the role wind power might play.....

Current State Of Play
By the end of 2009, wind produced 2% of the world's electric, double what it was just 3 years earlier.

It provided 20% of the electricity in Denmark, 14% in Ireland and Portugal, 11% in Spain,  8% in Germany, 3% in the UK (with plans to have 15% by 2020), and 2.4% in the U.S.

Worldwide the 5 biggest producers are, in descending order, the United States, China, Germany, Spain, and India.

Ironically, Texas, the oil state, is also the U.S.'s leading state for wind power. It has more than double the UK's output, and if it were a country, it would rank 6th in the world!

Currently, the world's biggest offshore windfarm is off Kent, UK, with 100 turbines. This will soon be dwarfed by 'farms being built and planned elsewhere.

Offshore windfarms are costlier to build than land based, but the extra cost is offset by an improved supply.

Worldwide, the rate of growth in wind power is accelerating with dozens of countries investing heavily in the technology. However, because fossil fuel demand is also growing, wind may only provide 8% of all electric by 2018.


Pros and Cons
Wind energy is plentiful, clean, renewable, available almost everywhere, and creates no greenhouse gases.

However, it is currently more expensive than other, more established ways of generating electric. Well, it is new technology, and like all new tech, the cost is still coming down steadily. So the comparison isn't particularly fair.

Another issue is that you don't have control of the supply: The wind may drop off when you need it most, or be blowing a gale when you don't want it. But electric grid operators are used to meeting varying demand for electric on a round-the-clock basis. So they don't consider varying supply to be a problem, as long as it's part of a balanced mix of sources and wind makes up no more than 20% of the overall supply.


The Future
As I've said, costs are coming down steadily and wind will become increasingly competitive compared to the established technologies. I'd hope that this will mean that wind will be contributing more than the forecasted 8% of the world's electric by 2018.

However, there's that 20% upper limit to consider - Since wind energy is so intermittent, it may be uneconomical to manage beyond this point - So wind could only ever be part of the overall solution.

Looking further into the future, high altitude wind power (HAWP) shows promise. It is based on the fact that, the higher you go, the stronger, steadier and more persistent the wind gets. Traditional turbines wouldn't be able to exploit this, but things like tethered kites and balloons could. That might sound a bit....low tech, but there's some serious money chasing this one and, it's claimed, HAWP can out perform the current generation of turbines, both in terms of cost and output.

Early MARS Prototype From Mageen

There are several companies developing HAWP, including Joby, Mageen, Drachen, KiteGens, and Makani. Most seem to be at the concept or prototyping stage but Mageen are looking to roll out their MARS rotary balloon system to remote rural villages in India next year. Commercial applications still seem to be a few years away but we appear to be seeing the beginnings of a revolution.

                                  -- oOo --

More information about wind power here.

More about HAWP here.

Leading Businesses Want Low Carbon Economy

A report from business leaders in the UK and India has recommended that the two countries work together to build low carbon economies.

The companies involved include Rolls Royce, HSBC, and Marks & Spencer. They believe - based on their own experiences - that businesses can be sustainable and profitable. If this were extended to entire enonomies it would help to "combat the impacts of rising energy prices, enhance energy security and reduce the risk of human induced global climate change" and it "increases resource efficiency, productivity and competitiveness, and leads to the creation of high quality jobs across a range of sectors".

So there you have it: Hard-nosed CEOs saying that we can cut carbon, be sustainable, and not ruin the economy!

The report was aimed at the UK and Indian governments, and both have reacted very positively, recognising the huge potential for jobs, growth, and environmental protection. The UK Environment Minister Greg Barker saw such a bilateral collaboration as a means to demonstrate to the rest of the world that moving to a low carbon economy was "compatible with continued economic growth". In his opinion, that was the only real issue holding back the success of climate talks.

Well, what are you waiting for, Mr Barker? Time to get things rolling.

More background here.

The Future Of Energy Part 1: Fossil Fuels

We are hooked on fossil fuels.

We currently consume around 4 billion tonnes of coal, and 3000 billion cubic metres of natural gas annually, and 86 million barrels of oil per day. The result is around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.

Furthermore, demand for all 3 is predicted to increase by around 2% per year until 2030. So, in the absence of a worldwide climate change agreement, carbon emissions are set to increase by about 40% over the next 2 decades.

Of course, all this assumes supply continues to meet demand. And, in the case of oil and gas, this is by no means certain. If demand for oil did outstrip supply, it would be disastrous for the world economy because we are completely dependant on a cheap, plentiful supply.

Then there's the matter of energy security. Countries need to protect themselves from sudden price hikes caused by natural disaster (e.g. Hurrican Katrina), political instability (e.g. in South America, Middle-East or Russia), and profiteering from the likes of OPEC.

Finally, there's the looming problem of climate change. The world is getting warmer (See here) and, whether you believe we're the cause or not, adding these vast quatities of known greenhouse gases to atmosphere can't be helping matters.

So, for all these reasons, we need to urgently increase our efforts to find replacements and get them scaled up in time to meet those challenges.

We also need to stop subsidising oil and coal, and improve energy efficiency.

The ultimate aim is for the demand curve for fossil fuels to first level off then fall steadily to more acceptable levels. The sooner we can do that, the better.

Time To Stop Subsidising Fossil Fuels

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has called for governments to stop subsidising the price of fossil fuels.

It said in it's report that some $312bn are being spent this way, most of it from developing nations. This doesn't even include the subsidies to the oil companies themselves (estimated at another $100bn).

If we did away with them, the IEA say, the rise in fuel prices would result in global emissions cuts of around 5.8%. The subsidies undermine the competitiveness of renewables, hold back more fuel efficient technologies, and speed up the depletion of scarce resources.

Some of the developing countries involved claim that it makes energy more affordable but, the report says, very few schemes actually benefit the poor. In fact, the subsidies have "traditionally been granted to politically-connected industries with close links to politicians".

Time to stop this practise and use the money elsewhere. Renewables for instance.

More here.

Free Solar Panels - Things To Consider

Whilst looking around on the web for reviews of companies offering free solar panels, I came across this.

It's a consumer guide to micro-generation. It's particularly useful for anyone thinking of having free solar panels installed, including a check-list of things you should be asking. It's written for the UK (by Consumer Focus) but it might be worth a look by those outside the UK as some of the points it raises would apply almost anywhere.

Climate Change: The Geological Society Chips In

As a geology graduate, I've long been aware that there's much to be learnt from the geological record about climate change. The wealth of evidence not only allows geologists to work out what's happened in the past (and why), but, by comparison, it also lets them figure out what could be in store for us in the coming decades.


This report, which is only 7 pages long (plus 6 pages of references and recommended reading), summarises the Geological Society's position on climate change in layman's terms. Well worth reading.

Success At Nagoya

Good news at last! Two weeks of biodiversity talks in Japan have just ended in success. It was touch and go for a while but, after the timely intervention of Japanese government, agreement was finally reached between 190+ countries. 

The agreement covers 20 goals to be achieved by 2020 and include:

• Cut the rate of loss of natural habitats, including forests, by at least half
• Increase terrestrial nature reserves from 13% to 17% of the world’s land area
• Increase marine and coastal nature reserves from 1% to 10% of the world’s seas
• Restore at least 15% of the areas where biodiversity is classed as ‘degraded’
• Safeguard at least 75% of threatened plant species in collections

If they're fully implemented it would be a big step towards us handing over a viable planet to future generations. That's a big "if" though. So far we've not had a good record on these sort of agreements: All the Kyoto signatories are likely to miss their carbon cutting targets come 2012 (some by miles); and the 2010 biodiversity targets have been failed miserably.

So, all we can hope is that the world's governments have finally got the idea. This is no longer simply a 'green issue'. This is way bigger than that.

Will Cutting CO2 Send Us Back To The Dark Ages?

It's a frequent claim of climate sceptics that we will all somehow be plunged into the Dark Ages if we attempt the sort of emission cuts that will be necessary to stop climate change.

There's rarely any attempt at explaining these claims, it's just left there, as if it were a given.

So, I'll attempt to fill in the blanks for you. I think they're trying to imply that we'll all be forced to live a simpler, low tech life to achieve the sort of cuts required. No TVs, cars, planes, mobile phones, PCs etc etc.

If that's what the sceptics are driving at, then, as usual, they are mischief making.

Yes, if we were to ban the use of oil, coal and natural gas tomorrow, or attempted to remove 80% of emissions by the day after, we would be in trouble. But that's not going to happen is it?

What we'll actually have is a lengthy period of transition from the dirty fuels of the past, to the cleaner fuels of the future.

It'll be a period in which:

• The efficiency of the things like solar panels, wind turbines, and biofuels, will be massively improved.

• Other, known technologies like tidal and wave power, ground-source and air-source heating, and Concentrated Solar Power will come to prominance.

• Further technologies will emerge thanks to greater investment (Some really interesting ones are already at the experimental stage).

• The huge subsidies handed out to the oil and coal industries by some countries can be switched to renewables.

• Companies worldwide can become more energy efficient and therefore save costs (e.g. The container ship industry, which is set to contribute 3% of all emissions in the future, has identified a number of ways it can save fuel and therefore CO2).

• Collectively, we will need to learn to recycle everything to preserve scarce resources and save energy. Everything from household rubbish to sewage to discarded electronics.  

• Manufacturers will reduce the amount of packaging they put on their products and ensure what's left is recyclable.

• Governments will encourage widespread micro-generation (where homes produce some or all of their own energy using solar power etc.).

• Carbon capture and storage is likely to become widespread, perhaps converting the CO2 into limestone which can be used for building materials and so on (we have a pilot scheme going on here in the UK).

These are just some of the likely highlights. Together they will cut emissions massively whilst continuing to meet our growing energy demands. Anyone who doubts that under-estimates human ingenuity.

But, I suppose you may be asking: Why bother at all? Why go to all that expense?

Well, leaving aside the potentially disastrous consequences of climate change, we'll have to do much of this anyway when oil and natural gas start running out.

Estimates of when demand for oil will exceed supply (known as Peak Lite) vary considerably, but it's inevitable. These resources are not unlimited afterall. So it makes sense to prepare sooner rather than later, in case peak lite is only just around the corner, because that would be economically disastrous.

India And Brazil To Lead World In Protecting Biodiversity

Many countries are looking to 'green' their economies independantly of the Nagoya talks going on at present. They are interested in calculating the economic value of the various 'services' provided by Nature within their borders as the basis for future policy making. The fact that countries as vast as Brazil and India are going down this route, is very good news.

It appears the message that protecting the environment is a necessity rather than a nice-to-have is finally getting through.

Read more here.

Car Sharing: The Search Goes On

Regular visitors to this blog might remember I'm trying to cut down my car miles by car sharing with my wife. However, because our work hours don't match in the afternoon, I have to make my own way home (Just over 4 miles).

Buses are out because it'd take too long (and it's more expensive than driving). So I've been cycling back up to now.

However, I recently had a go a running back. Bad idea. The distance was no problem, it was the rucksack for my office clothes. Nightmare. Completely ruined my centre of gravity and resurrected an old footbal injury. Spent the next week limping about.

Oh well,you live and you learn.

September 2010: 8th Hottest On Record

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for last month was the 8th warmest ever.

The period January to September 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was tied with 1998 as the warmest on record.

All this despite the cooling effects of La Niña during September.

Three months to go till we find out whether 2010 ends up as the hottest year as many scientists were predicting.

More here.

Nagoya: More Fine Words And No Action?

A 2 week convention on biodiversity started today in Nagoya, Japan. The aim of the meeting is to set new targets for preserving the planet's biodiversity (i.e. The number of plant and animal species).

If past environmental meetings are anything to go by, there will be many moving speeches about how we must act now to avert impending disaster but little will actually be achieved.

However, all is not lost.

The new hope is that, by estimating the value of the 'services' provided by our natural environment, politicians, businesses, and the public will finally realise the actual cost of our actions.

Yes, they're actually trying to put a price on Nature.

This approach certainly appears to be focusing the minds of governments and companies alike. Suddenly, there are all sorts of projects out there to protect forests and halt fishing in designated areas, even without a global agreement. But it remains to be seen if these will continue to be the exceptions rather than the rule.

Regardless of the outcome of Nagoya, there needs to be a genuine commitment, from all nations, to preserve biodiversity very soon. Up to now, countries have been more than willing to agree targets only to miss them by a mile. We can't afford to do this anymore, otherwise Nature will soon be handing us a bill we cannot afford.

************

More on biodiversity's services here and here.

Energy Saving Tip #5: Microwaves vs. Ovens

Microwave ovens use about half the energy of ordinary ovens since they only heat the meal and not the space around it. They are at their best when heating small portions or for defrosting.

For larger amounts, the hob (i.e. the oven top) is usually more efficient.

Climate Change: Time For A New Approach

Over the last few months I've become increasingly convinced that the UN Climate Conventions, in their current format, aren't going to work.

There are too many agendas being brought to the negotiating table: Rich nations don't want their economies undermined; China and India want to sustain their growth; Oil nations want to continue supplying; Island nations want dramatic emissions cuts; Poor nations want finance to cut their emissions; and so on.

How can you get a workable agreement from all that?!

So I've come to the conclusion there needs to be a different approach: To break the whole problem down into more manageable pieces (e.g. Stop deforestation, make container vessels cleaner, and do the same for aviation) and attack them all separately. It's like that old riddle: How do you eat an elephant? Answer: A little at a time.

The end result would probably have more chance of working than some watered-down successor to the Kyoto treaty or the useless Copenhagen Accord.

Then I came across this paper from, of all things, a conservative think tank called Policy Exchange. The paper is called Negotiating the Next Climate Treaty and talks a lot of sense.

It says the current emphasis on setting short term reduction targets is counter-productive and should concentrate instead on establishing permanent obligations.

It points out the contrast between the limited success of Kyoto (short term targets) and the overwhelming success of the Montreal Protocol (which took on ozone depletion by setting up permanent obligations), suggesting that the next climate treaty should be modelled on Montreal.

It goes on to explain how this might be done: By dealing with each greenhouse gas individually (e.g. CO2, methane, HFCs, PFCs, and nitrous oxide) using, where appropriate, the expertise of the industry that produces or uses them to find replacements or reductions; By dealing separately with industry sectors like aviation, shipping, cement manufacturers, and car manufacturers; And by providing massive funding for R&D into things like renewables, carbon capture, and more efficient energy usage.

It's 42 pages long, so if you don't fancy reading the lot, try the Executive Summary, Introduction, and Outline of a new approach. You'll find it an eye-opener.

Will Cancun Climate Conference Fail?

With less than 2 months to go until the sequel to the Copenhagen conference starts in Mexico, it seems expectations are already pretty low for success.

The last major preliminary talks in Tianjin, China have just closed with the U.S. and China slagging each other off. The U.S. is accusing China of refusing to allow outsiders in to verify their carbon savings, whilst the chinese accuse the US of trying to sideline the U.N.

Great start.

About the only good news from Tianjin is that the rich nations are close to agreeing £63 billion a year funding to poorer nations to cope with the effects of climate change.

How Would You Cut The Nation's Carbon Emissions?

Ever wondered what it would take to reduce your country's CO2 footprint? Well, the Guardian newspaper came up with this interactive calculator to give you a chance to find out. It's based on the UK's economy but, obviously, the same principles should apply anywhere, just with a different mix.

Of course, once you've come up with the new targets, you've got to figure out how you'd achieve them, and what the consequences of your actions would be. For example, in cutting 23% from our footprint, I decided to close down 8 coal fired power stations, whilst increasing wind, solar, wave and tidal power substantially. The closure of coal stations would mean job losses in the power-stations and mines but be partly offset by jobs from the renewable energy.

There's no doubt reducing emissions would cause pain but it would be good for us all in the long term. As Stern Review said in 2006, cutting carbon emissions will be painful and expensive, but not nearly as painful and expensive as just letting global warming go unchecked.

It won't all be pain though. Renewables would improve a nation's fuel security, so they wouldn't be hostage to supplier nations (such as we've had from the oil and gas producing countries), and would be insulated to a degree from fuel price fluctuations (which will be an increasing problem in the next few years).

Renewables also offer the potential for many thousands of new jobs in those countries that invest in their renewables industry.

So, instead of seeing carbon cuts as as a threat, we should see them as an opportunity.

Free Solar Panels

Last month, I was talking about a way people in the UK could get money from the government (Feed in Tariffs) every year for 25 years just for installing solar panels.

Now, I see that there's a UK company that offers to install your solar panels for free! That's right: So long as your roof is more-or-less south facing and big enough, a company called HomeSun will install it for free AND provide free maintenance for 25 years.

So what's the catch? Well, at the moment, I've not spotted one. They make their money by getting the Feed in Tariffs paid to them rather than you. You still get savings on your electric bill (up to a third off) and, if you decide you want to get the tariffs yourself at some stage, you just buy the system back off HomeSun at a reduced cost.

On the face of it at least, this looks like a game changer. It could encourage huge numbers of people to get solar panels who'd otherwise never consider them. Initial take-up may be slow though. I think many will hold back until they know HomeSun are for real. Once the company gets past that barrier, things should snowball.

Royal Society Issue Guide To Climate Change Science

The Royal Society is a 350 year old, UK based fellowship that has 1400 members from the fields of science, maths, engineering, and medicine. Their stated aims are to increase access to the best science, inspire interest in scientific discovery, invest in innovation, influence policymaking with the best scientific advice, and invigorate science and maths education.

One of the many things they do is publish documents that explain the science behind major issues of the day.

A few days ago they released Climate change: a summary of the science. This gives an excellent summary of where the science is, at the moment, stripped of all the politics, the mis-direction, and the outright lies, that surround the subject.

One of the useful things it does is break the science down into 3 categories: Where there's wide agreement; where there's wide concensus but continuing debate; and where things are not well understood.

If you have time, click the link above, and give it a read. It's only 13 pages long.

Fifth of the world's plant species under threat of extinction

A recent study by the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew and the Natural History Museam has concluded that 22% of all plant species are threatened by extinction, mostly due to human activity.

This is bad news for all of us because plants provide food, water (indirectly), fuel, oxygen, building materials, medicines, and coastal protection (e.g. mangroves), underpin ecosystems that we depend on, and absorb CO2. In short, they are essential.

So far, politicians have only paid lip service to biodiversity (agreeing to targets then missing them by miles), but there now seems to be a sense of urgency. Next month there will be a major conference on biodiversity in Japan. Let's hope governments start taking the subject more seriously and put a halt to the decline in plants AND animals.

See more here about the study. A link for the Nygoya conference.

Face Facts, The Planet is Warming

According to both land and sea based instruments, global temperatures have been rising for decades. Below is a typical graph of the data:

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

These surface readings are supported by satellite measurements:

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

As the temperature rises, oceans warm up and therefore expand, causing sea levels to rise.......

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

....meanwhile, the vast majority of the world's glaciers are melting.....

Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art

....as is the Arctic sea ice.

Image from NASA

Graphs like this are being produced by NASA, the UK Met Office, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and many other reputable organisations. They all contribute to a mountain of evidence that the World's climate is, indeed, warming. 

Climate change is with us already. It's time we finally admit it.

Arrghh!

I'm currently trying to chase 3 carbon footprint reducing ideas at the moment, and I'm being frustrated in all of them:

1) Car sharing/Cycling: As you can read here, I've been working on this for a while now, trying to cut out as many journeys to work as possible. Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons beyond my control, I've not managed to cut more than 2 journeys a week. And I can't see this changing for months.

2) Changing My Car: Ideally, I'd trade my car in for a hybrid like a Prius or Honda Civic, but an efficient diesel would do. Unfortunately, as I'm the one who has the family car now, suitable (second-hand) replacements within budget, are rare.

3) Loft Insulation: Earlier in the year, only about a third of our loft was insulated, and even that was just 10cm (The recommended minimum is 25 to 30cm). That third is now up to 25cm but the rest remains completely uninsulated. The reason is that it's piled high with our belongings/junk. To get the job done we'd have to move the junk elsewhere (and we have no room for it - That's why it's in the loft!), take up the floor-boards, lay the insulation, raise the level of the floor (because the insulation would be too thick), then put back the floor-boards. Unsurprisingly, I've been putting the job off.

It will get done though, and hopefully before the Winter sets in. Watch this space!

Making Money From Renewable Energy (Eventually)

So you've had a look at solar power, wind power, or air source heating for your home and the figures just don't add up. Generally speaking, if you live in the UK, they all cost so much to install that they'll take many years to pay for themselves if at all.

This kind of puts domestic renewables out of reach of the majority of the population.

The previous government seemed to have spotted this and saw an opportunity to help the UK meet it's  renewables targets: Enter 'Feed in Tariffs' and the 'Renewable Heat Incentive'.

How Does It Work?

The idea with both schemes is as follows: You get your system installed and register it with the government. You then get savings on your energy bills (thanks to the system) plus an annual payment from the government for having installed it, plus a payment from your energy provider if you export any of the electric you generate into the national grid.

Example

I install solar panels that produce 2Kw, of which I use 75% and feed the rest into the grid. For this I would get £175 savings on my annual bill, £14 for exporting the electric, and £744 from the government for generating electric. A total of £933 per year, of which £758 is new money which would shorten the time it would take for the system to pay for itself. Note: I get even more if I use all the electric - £1026 (including £245 fuel savings a year).

How Long Will It Take To Pay For Itself?

Using the above example, the pay-back period works out like this: The system costs £10k to install (based on the Tesco price). Without the scheme, it would take 41 year to recover the cost of the system (£10,000/245); With the scheme, it would take just under 10 years. These periods would be cut if fuel prices increase.....which, of course, they will.

More Information
The Feed in Tariff (which is for electric generation only) started in April 2010 and you can find out more information here. Whilst the cashback calculator is here (Allows you to see if wind power will work for you as well).

The Renewable Heat Incentive starts in April 2011 but anyone who's installed a renewable heat system since July 15th 2009 will likely be eligible. More information here.

Ice Anybody?

This Summer, Arctic sea ice was at its third lowest extent since satellite records began in 1979. In those 3 decades, the sea ice has declined by 20 to 25% and shows no sign of reversing. It's predicted that the Arctic Sea will be ice free during the Summer months by 2050. Since dwindling polar ice will, in itself, lead to further warming, this prediction may prove to be conservative.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the world's glaciers are also in decline (According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service). Disturbingly, this effect seems to be accelerating. For example, in Peru, home to 70% of the world's tropical glaciers, they've lost around 22% of them in the last 30 years. They could lose the rest over the next 20 years.

If all this isn't proof global warming is already under-way, I don't know what is.

August 2010 was the 3rd Hottest August On Record

More Here.

Cool Roofs and Polar Ice Caps

The U.S. is pioneering a method of reducing global warming called 'cool roofs'. It basically consists of replacing existing roofs with ones which reflect a high proportion of solar energy that hits them back out into space, and therefore prevents it from adding to climate change.

Sounds weird doesn't it? But it's based on an existing effect that the polar ice caps already provide for us.

Unfortunately, the Arctic ice cap is fast disappearing (20 to 25% lost since 1979). As a result, more solar energy is staying down here and heating up the atmosphere.....which, in turn, leads to more loss of ice, and so on.

So, I guess, the ice caps need a little help until we get round to curbing CO2. Hence, cool roofs.

Strictly speaking, cool roofs come under the heading of 'geo-engineering' which, as you may know, I don't agree with. However, this one seems comparatively harmless and is based on something Nature already does for us.

Cool roofs come with an added bonus: Use them in a hot climate and you'll find that you need less air-con. That's because the roofs prevent your building heating up as much. So they have a dual effect on climate change.

Sadly, I don't think they'd be as good in cooler climates. You'd probably have to turn your heating up in the Winter.

Another, more general, problem, might be trying to keep the roofs reflective. Most of them are white or pale colours, so they'd tend to build up grime and bird mess. What then? I guess the on-going maintenance costs will be more than out-weighed by the savings made on turning down your air-con.

The EU plan on backing a similar scheme to the US in the near future.

Climate Change Scientist Talks To Sceptics

This is an interesting TV program where a leading IPCC climate scientist (Stephen Schneider) talks to an audience of 52 climate sceptics and answers their questions. Thankfully the audience isn't full of deniers but a reasonable cross-section of ordinary people with serious doubts. Stephen comes across as articulate and open-minded.

The whole thing is divided into 3 parts which total about 50 minutes.

Australian Election: Labour Back In Charge

It's been nearly 3 weeks since the Australian electorate voted for a hung parliament. Since then the 2 main parties have been wooing the Independants in an attempt to form a majority. Now, finally, Labour have enough for a 1 seat majority. So Julia Gillard continues to be Australia's first woman PM, just.

The significance of this is that it will allow her to press ahead with plans to cut carbon emissions, something that Labour have long wanted but have been blocked by the opposition. This could mean the introduction of carbon trading.

However, it'll be a race to get the carbon cutting measures in place before Labour almost inevitably lose their slim majority through a bi-election or defection to the other side. Watch this space...

Electric Bikes

Whilst I was looking for ways of cutting down on car journeys to work (I went for a combination car sharing and cycling in the end), one of the options I considered was an electric bike. I thought some of you might like to hear what I found out.

The term 'electric bike' can refer to a bicycle or scooter. I didn't really bother with scooters but they were priced from £1500 to £4000 and look pretty cool (See here for more).

Electric bicycles are useful if you've got hills on your route (as I have), don't want to arrive at work in a sweat, or have a longer journey than you're prepared cycle. You can still get some exercise when you want to though, as you've still got pedals and the motor is under your control.

They're priced at between £390 and £1900. There are plenty of models to choose from and even include folding varieties.

If you want to, you can even adapt your existing bike for around £350. Though I'm not sure how universal the kits are.

They seem to have a range of between 20 to 35 miles on a single charge. Each charge costs around just 5 to 7 pence. The batteries give around 2000 charges and cost about £190 to replace.

The bikes are limited by law to 15 mph. Kids under 14 are not allowed to use them.

Disadvantages: They don't usually go up hills without some help via the pedals (so no free ride there!); The battery makes the bike noticeably heavier than the non-electric equivalent; Relatively short range per charge; Relatively expensive way to buy a bicycle; Because of their relatively high price, they may be a preffered target of bike thieves.

Ideal for the commute to work. A possible cheap alternative to buying a moped.

More to look at here.

Are Carbon Footprints Just A Middle Class Luxury?

It often occurs to me that being green is only really of interest to those who can afford it. For the rest of the population, organic food, free-range meat, local produce, hybrid and electric cars, solar panels, and Segways are off the radar. When money's tight, you just don't have the luxury of buying free-range, organic chicken.

So aren't we getting a bit precious about carbon footprints if there are all these people out there who can't do anything about it? Well, actually, no.

You see, the way I look at it, those who can't afford to be green aren't the problem, it's those of us with a disposable income who are.

How so? Well, it's us that have the 4x4s, the multiple cars per family, who buy the latest gadgets, chuck stuff out the moment it looks a bit used, take several flights a year, and rarely use public transport. In short, we're the ones who have the huge carbon footprints, so it's only right we sort ourselves out.