George Osborne Undermines Carbon Targets

So. Let's get this straight: The Prime Minister said at the start of his term that he wanted his government to be the greenest ever; The UK is already commited in the climate change act to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050; To meet that target the Commons' energy and climate change committee says we have to 'decarbonise' the energy sector by 2030

And yet, our posh-boy Chancellor, George Osborne seems intent on undermining those commitments by doing his best to encourage a second dash-for-gas in this country: A £500m subsidy for new gas exploration; lifting any requirement for new gas-fired power-stations to have CCS fitted before 2030; and now he's insisting that gas be a key part of our energy strategy beyond 2030!

The energy and climate change committee say that if this happens we will miss our 2050 commitment.

It's time for the PM to step in and prove his green credentials (if he actually has any) and give Osborne a good slap. Osborne is pandering to right-wing back-benchers and maybe lining himself up for party leadership. This and his general incompetence in his role as a chancellor makes him a liability. Get rid of the idiot.

London 2012: The Sustainable Olympic Games?

Right from the moment London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics, the British were aiming to make it the greenest Games ever.

They have been pushing hard to make the construction of the stadia as low carbon as possible.

They've also been adding renewable energy wherever possible, with about 11% of their needs being meet.

They've found some innovative ways of reducing the amount of water used by the Olympic park and it's visitors.

Then, of course, there's transformational effect they've had on the area.

The site of the Olympic park is in what was once an area of derelict buildings and toxic wasteland. It has now been converted into the largest new urban parkland in the UK for a century. They have removed all the rubbish, 'washed' 2 million tonnes of poisoned soil, cleaned up the river, and turned the whole area into a wildlife 'corridor' for the likes of kingfishers and otters. It's been a fantastically successful scheme.

London 2012 may not be carbon neutral or sustainable (in the true sense) when you consider the carbon footprints of all those visitors, but they've raised the bar significantly for future Olympics to try and match. They should feel proud of what they've achieved.

Here is a really good BBC report on what's been going on.

--ooOoo--

Wow, what an opening ceremony! Good to watch (Not the usual pretentious, boring nonsense), quirky, funny, very British, spectacular in places, and great music. It made me feel proud of my country and my home town. Well done, Danny, you did a fantastic job mate!

The most moving part of the ceremony for me wasn't the lighting of that wonderful olympic flame (what a unique idea!), but the tribute to those poor people who died in the 7/7 terrorist attack the day after London won the Olympic bid. 52 people for whom the 7th of July 2005 seemed like just another day, instead it was their last. 52 people who, amongst many other things, would never enjoy the opening ceremony with the rest of us.

So, when they showed their faces on the TV, I cried.

For me, the London Olympics, and it's legacy, is for them.

Sustainable Development

Last month's Rio +20 summit got me to thinking about sustainable development (SD). What is it? Why do it? Is it possible? What would it look like in practise?

What is Sustainable Development?

The classic definition is that it "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Bruntland Commision, 1987). In other words: It's about the current generation developing economically and socially without screwing things up for future generations.

Why Do It?

These "future generations" we're talking about here aren't complete strangers from some distant time, they're our kids, our grand-children, our own flesh-and-blood. We need to give them a fighting chance in what may prove a pivotal century for humanity.

We can't go on as we are. It's just not possible to have perpetual growth on a finite planet. At the moment we are using 1.5 times the Earth's ability to regenerate/absorb what we use in a year. Within a decade we'll need 2 Earths, and if everyone were to live like the average American, we'd need 5 Earths.

This isn't just limited to CO2 emissions, there are many other areas where we are stretching things to breaking point e.g. Deforestation and over-fishing. Add in an ever increasing world population and our kids may be facing a 'perfect storm' of problems that will make their lives a misery.
 

Is SD Possible?

Given the above, we really have no choice but to go for SD. However, since it implies that we have to scale back development to live within the planet's limits, this will ring all sorts of alarm bells in some quarters.

In particular, developing countries will be concerned that they will have to put the brakes on economic growth (China and India would not like that at all), whilst developed countries would be worried that their economies would have to take the biggest hit as they're the ones over-consuming in the first place.

Companies, generally, wouldn't want it, as they'd see it as a threat to their business models: It could mean substantial change to the way they operate and would imply unwanted extra costs.

And, of course, the general public wouldn't like it as it's human nature to resist change, particularly if they think it might threaten their lifestyles.

For these reasons, SD would have to balance 3 elements: Economic; social; and environment (See diagram below). Where these 3 come together (If they do at all) is the solution.

 

Given the scale of change that will required, the incompetence of governments when dealing with global issues, and the amount of resistance it is likely to meet at all stages (Which is why Rio +20 failed), it seems unlikely that we will ever see a serious move towards SD.

However, it is undoubtedly possible if we all recognise why it's necessary and work together for the common good.

What Would It Look Like In Practise

Firstly, everyone must be clear about what's at stake - Business-as-usual will be a complete disaster for the natural environment, the world economy, and us as a species - This will mean that the world's governments must put short-term self-interest to one side and get fully behind SD. Politicians know exactly how to get their countries behind them in a crisis, especially with cross-party support. So this is clearly doable.

What happens next would be up to greater minds than mine. But I'd guess it would include, amongst many other things: 

• a big drive to reduce waste of all kinds (energy, food, land, packaging etc). 

• more recycling and reuse. 

• a push for every business to adopt LEAN principles or similar. 

• a halt to deforestation and a start to reforestation. 

• an end to over-exploitation of food-sources (like fish). 

• modularisation of consumer products so that they can be upgraded rather than discarded, and easily dismantled for recycling when they break down.

• a reduction in unnecessary consumption. 

• promotion of an 'only replace it when necessary' mentality.

It will mean change, and there will be a lot of pain along the way, but the end result will be worth it. Our sacrifices will lay the foundations for future generations to prosper.

--ooOoo--

Footnote: Not all businesses view sustainable development as a threat. Quite the reverse in fact. A growing number are seeing SD as the only way to ensure their long term survival. In fact every time a climate or SD conference comes up these days, the politicians are being pressed by people representing over 200 large international companies to get an agreement sorted out.

Here are a just a few examples of business-led initiatives I've featured in the past: Here, here, and here.

Jetstreams, Climate Change, and Rubbish Weather

How the Jetstream is created

Recently I've been trying to find out if climate change could have any effect on the jet stream (a high altitude, high speed wind that circles the planet and has a strong influence on UK and US weather).

I had this thought that, since the jet stream has been causing this long run of bad weather we've been having lately in the UK, would climate change actually make this happen more often in years to come.

Last week, the New Scientist magazine (dated 07/07/2012) had an article that covered this exact subject ("Running Wild" by Steve Battersby).

The science (described by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University, New Jersey) goes like this: Because the polar regions are warming up faster than any other part of the world, the temperature difference between the poles and the tropics is reducing. This has the effect of slowing the jet stream down and making it meander about more. These meanders can 'lock-in' a certain pattern of weather for a region for weeks or even months on end. Hence the unseasonably, cool, windy, and wet weather Britain has been experiencing this Spring/Summer.

So we could be in for a lot more of the same in future. The flip side of this is that the same mechanism can also lock-in extremely hot weather, like the Summer of 2003 which killed at least 15,000 in France.

It's not a particularly nice prospect either way. And this is just the start of it.

Does Insulating Paint Work?

No, says this article and this.

Which is a shame because insulating solid walls (i.e. not cavity walls) can be very expensive (£10k + for external work). So it would be far simpler and cheaper to slap on a few coats of this insulating paint (aka thermal paint) and be done with it.

However, it seems that it's too good to be true. Hell, if it were true, I'm sure many governments would be making it mandatory to use it when re-decorating exterior walls. It would cut national carbon emissions enormously. Ah well.