Mandatory Carbon Reporting For UK Companies

The government has announced that, from April 2013, top UK companies listed on the Stock Exchange will have to report their carbon footprint annually. It's estimated that it will be compulsory for around 1100 companies.

Furthermore, after review in 2015, it's expected to be rolled out to all large businesses in 2016.

Some may see this as yet more needless red-tape but it has been shown in trials that it's actually benefits companies. Essentially they get to see where their business is losing money due to poor energy efficiency.

More detail here.

Climate Change: Still An Inconvenient Truth

Back in 2006, director Davis Guggenheim made a documentary film called 'An Inconvenient Truth'. It featured former U.S. vice-president Al Gore giving a lecture about climate change.

Not particularly promising material, especially when you consider one of Gore's co-stars was a graph, but it was a critical and box-office success, winning 2 Oscars and pulling in $49m at the cinemas. Not bad for a documentary.

The film was probably responsible for raising awareness of climate change across the globe and making the said graph a celebrity. Dubbed the 'hocket-stick', that graph showed how global temperatures have remained relatively steady for hundreds of years until the late 20th century when it rose dramatically. It's not just the rise that's remarkable but the way in which it dwarfs all temperature changes over the preceding thousand years (or back to the last Ice Age in fact). One simple graph, one big message.

Because of the impact of the 'hockey-stick' graph, it's creator, Michael E. Mann, has become a hate figure for climate sceptics. Meanwhile, the hockey-stick is frequently referred to by sceptics as "discredited". This, despite the fact that numerous alternative methods of piecing together global temperature graphs have resulted in identical curves. But then, the sceptics do criticise those as well.

So I was really intrigued to hear that a climate sceptic physicist called Prof. Richard Muller had put together a team of scientists that he hoped would show how it should be done.

Called the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project, it merged a collection of 14.4m land temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753. Any homogenisation of data from various sources would be automated to remove human bias. In short, it would eliminate any of the 'problems' climate sceptics attribute to all the other analyses and graphs.

As a result, the project received some of it's funding from climate sceptic sources, and even arch climate sceptic, Anthony Watt, said that he would accept whatever results it came up with.

Trouble is, when the project finally produced it's report last week, it concluded that the global temperature IS rising, and that the best explanation was that humans were responsible. Not only that but their graph matched the hockey-stick.

To his credit, Prof. Richard Muller, says that he is now no longer a sceptic: The data has convinced him climate change is real. He hopes that it will finally settle the debate and that the politicians will now sort out what to do. It's a very brave thing to do, as Muller will now join Mann as sceptic hate-figure.

True to form, other climate sceptics, Watt included, are already backing away from the project, and criticising it's methodology. Funny that.

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.

And Now The Good News

In the post Rio +20 summit gloom it's difficult to remember that there is good news out there. I sense there is gathering momentum on a national and corporate front towards a greener future even as the international process falters.

Below are some examples:

South Korea

 

South Korea is the first country in the World to adopt a 'green' (or sustainable) growth strategy.

This trillion dollar economy is investing 2% of it's GDP annually (approx. $23 billion) into the program and has a stated aim of becoming a global leader amongst low carbon countries.

As with Japan, energy independence is essential to their future economy (They import 96% of their energy currently), so they are investing heavily in renewables. This will obviously reduce their carbon footprint.

They also want to create new drivers for economic growth by developing green, exportable technologies. Priorities are:high-efficiency photovoltaic (PV) cells, fuel cells, advanced nuclear power, green cars, smart grid, advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS), water treatment, rechargeable batteries, Light Emitting Diodes (LED), Green IT.

Finally they want to promote a green lifestyle through a green transport infrastructure, as well as sustainable land and water use.

To facilitate this change they have come up with a 5 year plan (2010-2015) and are already making good progress. Korean companies involved in green technologies are expanding, creating tens of thousands of extra jobs. Export income is projected to be $36 billion per annum by 2015.

If S.Korea continues to be successful in this venture, it could be a blue-print that other countries could adopt.

More here.

Saudi Arabia

Last month Saudi surprised everyone by announcing plans to install an enormous 54,000 MW of renewable-generating capacity during the next two decades. That's more than what the U.S. currently have from all their solar and wind combined!

This amounts to about a third of their energy needs, but their main aim is to develop a domestic renewable energy industry.

The sources will be solar PV, Concentrating Solar Power (CSP), wind, geothermal and waste-to-energy.

There has been a lot of speculation about what this all means: Do the Saudis see a time when their oil production goes on the wane? Or maybe they want to cover the scenario where sky-high prices or alternative fuels make demand fall off the proverbial cliff?

Maybe. Or perhaps it's good business sense. Like the Koreans, they see a gigantic new market opening up and they want a piece of it.

More here.

Aruba

On a totally different, but no less important, scale, the tiny Caribbean island of Aruba has teamed up with the Carbon War Room to move the island towards 100% renewable energy.

If they get it right, and they have every chance of doing so with the Carbon War Room on-board, they could be a model for other island nations to follow.

Australia

Shortly before the Rio +20 summit, Australia announced the creation of the world's largest marine reserve. It will cover 3.1 million square km of the oceans surrounding Oz or more than a third of it's coastal waters.

Hopefully, where they lead, the rest of world will follow. Our oceans are essential to the health of the planet.

2nd Hottest May On Record

Miserable as it was in the UK, May 2012 was actually the second warmest, globally since records began in 1880. It was 0.66C above the 20th Century average.

The period January-May 2012 was 0.5C above average, making it the 11th highest such period on record. With an even chance of El Nino coming back this year, 2012 could end up in the top 10 warmest years. Here we go, yet again.

More here.

Rio+20: Epic Fail

So, the Rio+20 sustainable development summit ends with an agreement that the UK's deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, described as "insipid". Yep, that just about sums it up,

Beforehand, it was billed as an historic opportunity to put the world on a sustainable development path whilst ensuring everyone has access to enough food, water, and energy.

It's a fine idea. 7 billion humans on the planet have a massive impact on resources. It makes good economic sense to try to conserve those finite resources. To do otherwise risks price instability, job losses, failed national economies, and environmental collapse. You'd think it was a no-brainer really.

And yet, the final agreement was weak, with no commitments to speak of, no timescales, and nothing legally binding. All we got were empty words.

Why is this I wonder? Most of the politicians seem to understand we're heading for trouble and yet they give us this meaningless document.

Well, look at the mess European leaders are making of the Euro-zone crisis. If they can't even sort out a clear and present danger like that, what chance does a future crisis stand?

But it's more than our leaders' ineptitude that's the problem here. It's also narrow 'national interests' (e.g. not wanting to lose competitive edge), and influence from corporations (e.g. who don't want a slow-down in consumerism).

Forget the fact that business-as-usual will eventually undermine economic growth down the line, we want our profits now!

So there's the problem: Politicians are protecting what they know (a broken system) because they're afraid of what may replace it.

With that kind of approach, it's going to take a major crisis before the powers-that-be even consider changing to a sustainable system. By that time, it could be too late fix things.