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.