Tory MEPs Want To Undermine EU Emissions Targets

Back in March I was complaining that the EU was planning on passing up a golden opportunity to cut it's carbon emissions by 30% by 2020.

Since then, it appears 30% is back on the table and the EU is about to vote on it (23rd June). However, the vote will be a close thing, and Conservative MEPs from the UK are planning to vote against it. This is in defiance of PM David Cameron and his 'greenest ever' government who have already set the UK on the path to 30% by 2020.

This would be incredibly embarrassing to Cameron, so I hope he orders them to vote Yes instead. Those who argue against 30% conveniently forget that the recession means that the EU is now almost guarenteed to hit it's existing target of 20%. It also means there's no incentive to the worst polluting companies to reduce their emissions because carbon credits are so cheap.

It's time for the EU and Cameron to grow back-bones.

A Zero Carbon Britain By 2030?

The other day I found a website that claims to have a plan to cut Britain's carbon emissions to zero in less than 20 years.

Zero Carbon Britain proposes radical changes that would see the UK cut it's energy demand by over 50% (by making all homes more energy efficient, and reforming transport), planting new forests, the widespread use of soil sequestration (using biochar), and using a wide range of renewable sources of energy (but mostly offshore wind) to replace fossil fuels.

It's an ambitious plan but is it workable?

Well, their report lays it all out, point-by-point and even tries to anticipate potential criticisms. So let's just assume it's technically possible.

What's stopping it, or something like it, from happening here, or anywhere else in the World then? The politicians.

Basically they'd see it as a vote loser. After all there's a sizable chunk of the public that don't believe climate change is happening, or that it won't have much effect, or that we can't do anything about it. Then there are all those people who have yet to be convinced either way.

If you present these sort of people with a plan that is going to cost hundreds of billions and mean a lot of changes in their lives, they're going to be outraged.

This is a problem, because things have got to the stage where radical action such as Zero Carbon is becoming increasingly likely if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Basically, we've delayed too long. If we'd acted effectively back when, say, the Kyoto Protocol was being adopted in 1997, we'd have had far less to do now, and the total bill would have been cheaper. Now, every year that passes without action, just makes the job tougher and the cost higher.

So how can this situation be turned around? Well, to be honest, a lot better minds than mine have tried to figure this one out and failed.

I guess the central problem is that people find it difficult to believe that climate change is happening at all. When they look out the window, it looks the same as ever. That's the thing with climate change, it's a gradual process: Average temperatures creep up; sea-level rises little by little; polar ice sheets and glaciers disappear a bit at a time. There will be no single, dramatic event that provides a wake-up call to humanity. But, let's face it, that's what everyone's waiting for isn't it? Everyone knows in their guts that so many scientists, from so many disciplines can't be wrong but we just don't want the emissions party to end.

This is where governments usually step in. They make hard decisions for us all the time: Over pensions, austerity cuts, taxation, wars etc. Yet little is being done over this issue. Fear of voter backlash? Failure to truly understand the gravity of the situation? Incompetence? Or in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry? Take your pick.

The fact is, the answers are out there. Governments only have to find the courage to use them.

Cutting Carbon In The Office

Having run out of ways to cut the family's carbon footprint, I've now turned my attention to where I work.

Technically, my employers are responsible for my carbon footprint at work but that doesn't stop me cutting anything I have influence over.

The most obvious energy guzzlers around the office are the PCs and printers. Fortunately, my company's very conscious of it's energy costs, and has stickers all over the place, asking people to switch the lights off when they leave the office, turn the air-con down, and switch off their PCs & printers when they go home (You'd be amazed at how many people just leave their work computer on 24/7).

Beyond this, I've taken to putting my PC into stand-by and switching my monitor off whenever I leave my desk for more than a few minutes. I've also been talking to the network manager about PC power management software I've come across on the web like Data Synergy's PowerMAN and Granola by Miserware. I have the latter installed on my home netbook. You wouldn't know it's there but it saves power while you use it (22% for me currently), and extends the battery's life between charges.

Examples of other ways I try to lessen my impact are:

• Use a mug to get my tea from the canteen instead of the usual polystyrene cup (The mug is re-usable, while the cups just go to land-fill).

• Never use paper towels to dry my hands, instead using the roller towel or even the hand-dryer (Paper towels are way less environmentally friendly).

• Re-use all sheets I print off by using the reverse side for notes, and when I'm done with it, I stick it in the recycling bin.

I've even been asked if I'd like to be an internal energy auditor/champion by someone who's setting up the company's energy efficiency and reduction project. I said yes of course! It maybe a few weeks before anything happens but it should be fascinating.

How We've Reduced Our Carbon Footprint: What Next?

Earlier this year I described how my family's managed to cut our annual carbon footprint to just 2.68 tonnes per head, or about 10.7 for the family. That is about a quarter of the average in the UK.

This hasn't been done by spending a small fortune on things like solar panels or by going out of our way to be green (like giving up our car). It's been done by a series of simple and cheap steps that virtually anyone could do themselves. So cheap, in fact, that those steps have paid for themselves very quickly through savings on gas, electric, and petrol.

The bottom line is that we not only have a small footprint, but we're also saving hundreds of pounds every year into the bargain.

But what now? Can we make any more progress?

To be honest, there was only one cheap and simple thing left to do: Insulate our loft.

That's done now, probably taking another 0.5 to 1.0 tonne off our total, and should pay for itself through savings on the heating bills within 1 or 2 years.

After that, well, it all gets a bit expensive. Stuff like solar panels, air source heating, or wood pellet stoves would take up to 10 years to pay for themselves. Maybe I will, maybe I won't.

The point is I've shown that it is possible to cut your family's carbon footprint down substantially, with few sacrifices in your lifestyle, whilst actually saving money.

Give it go, you might surprise yourself.

Germany Dumps Nuclear

Angela Merkel - German PM

Okay, I know it's been a week since the Germans announced they were going to axe nuclear by 2022, but I thought it deserved a second look.

As you may know, I'm pro-nuclear, so you might expect me to say they've got it wrong. But, no.

Sure, I think it's a bit weird for a country that is in no danger of tsunamis and has relatively small earthquakes, to have reacted this way to the Fukushima disaster. And yes, I think Germans have been unduly influenced by the prejudices of the Greens. But, Angela Merkel was listening to the people, and that's usually a good thing for politicians to be doing.

In fact, it was a pretty epic decision as, up to that point, the German government were fully committed to nuclear. They had even over-turned the previous goverment's decision to scrap all nuclear plants by 2021.

So what now for Germany? Well, they've made a pretty big commitment here: Nuclear power currently provides about a quarter of German electricity. That's a huge short-fall to make up. Especially as they've decided to do it using renewables. It looks like the plan is to cut energy consumption by 10% and make up most of the rest from wind power.

That's still a big ask. It will require major changes. But I believe the Germans are up to it. After all, they handled re-unification. Replacing nuclear power should be easy by comparison.

Diary of a Noobie Prius Owner (Part 2)

Part 1 here.

When I first came up with this diary idea, I thought I'd have enough material for several posts. But, as it turns out, the Prius isn't a whole lot different from any other car. So I think this'll probably be the only sequel...

I've now owned the Prius for 2 months and I'm still loving it. My mpg around town varies between 50 and 58 depending on traffic conditions. The average is probably around 53,5. About double my old car. That means I can probably go about 2 months between visits to the petrol station.

The driving experience is great. It's quiet, smooth, has surprising acceleration when I need it (thanks to help from the electric side of the engine), and there's no mucking about with gears (It's an automatic). I seem to have become a lot calmer driver as a result of all this. An unexpected bonus!

I also like all the storage space, the Satnav, the reversing camera, and cruise control. All very useful. There's also the 'Parking Assist' feature which can park the car automatically. Not tried it yet, but I suspect it would take so long to set up, you'd just annoy your fellow road users as you blocked the road or car park.

Energy Monitor

Something I've been curious about is what the colour coding on the Energy Monitor screen means. You'll notice on the picture opposite that there's a box labelled 'Battery' and it's green. Most of the time it's blue. Occasionally it will be pink.

Basically it's an indicator of the battery's charge level. Green = highest, Blue = middle, Pink = lowest. There's no ideal colour because the Prius manages the charge itself, keeping the battery at an optimum level to extend it's life for as long as possible. It aims to ensure the battery's never fully charged or discharged: Switching to the electric motor when the charge is high; and using the engine to recharge the battery when it's low. Toyota's own tests indicate that the battery should get to over 180,000 miles with no appreciable loss of efficiency. No wonder the warranty lasts for 8 years. More detail here.

Part 3 here.

Shale Gas: Yes or No?

A few days ago, a Commons committee recommended that the UK should go ahead with something called 'Shale Gas' in Britain. I doubt many Brits have even heard of it, much less know what it's all about. By contrast, I would imagine an awful lot of Americans know all too well what it is.

This blog will attempt to explain what shale gas is, why it's considered so important, and why I think the commons committee got it wrong.


What is Shale Gas?
Shale gas is simply natural gas that is found in a common-place rock known as shale. The reason people make the distinction is the method of extraction: It is very different, and it is that difference that makes it controversial.

Ordinary natural gas is quite easy to extract: Once you've found the stuff, you just drill down to it, and it comes out of the rock under it's own pressure. The reason it can do that is because the rock it's in is permeable (e.g. There are tiny, inter-connected spaces between the grains that make up the rock) which allows the gas to escape easily.

By contrast, shale gas is trapped because shale is relatively impermeable: The grains it's made up of are so small (Think mud and silt sized), there's almost no inter-connected space.

This was frustrating to oil and gas companies. They knew this was locking up vast quantities of natural gas because it had long been known that shale was often rich in natural gas, and the rock is found all over the planet.

However, as oil extraction technology continued to improve, somebody realised that two of it's techniques could be combined to get at shale gas: Horizontal drilling; and hydraulic fracturing (or 'fracking' as it's more commonly known).

Horizontal drilling is a way of boring along the line of the shale bed. Fracking is a method of injecting fluids into the resulting borehole under such high pressure that it causes widespread fracturing in the shale. This allows the trapped gas to escape.


Why Is Shale Gas So Important?
Natural gas prices are rising steadily because of high demand. There could be such huge reserves of shale gas that it could actually push prices down as more and more of it comes on line. The U.S is doing just that.

Some countries may get a measure of energy security and independence if their reserves are big enough. The U.S. is already seeing these sort of benefits. Before shale gas they were looking at importing almost all their gas. Now it looks like they could produce around 20% of their needs by 2020.

With the prospect of so much natural gas about in the near future, it could be used to move away from higher carbon fuels like coal. The U.S. administration is already considering this as a less controversial way (To Republicans) of cutting emissions.

Cheaper fuel bills; More energy security; and the chance to cut carbon emissions. What's not to like?

Where's The Catch?
The fluid used for fracking is a cocktail of chemicals. The recipe can vary, but many of the ingredients are toxic to humans, some are even carcinogens. Most of the fluid is actually retrieved from the borehole after fracking, but enough can be left behind to contaminate the water table and maybe pose a health risk to the local population. In the States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking very closely at the potential effects of fracking, but we'll have to wait until late 2012 for preliminary feedback.

US government and natural gas industry figures show that shale gas extraction leaks more methane than conventional gas. Methane is known to be around 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Research has found that, because of all this, shale gas is actually worse than coal in terms of carbon emissions. And that's assuming that best practises are used. The EPA wants the industry to report methane emissions, but a number of companies have sued the EPA to prevent reporting. Make of that what you will.

The bottom-line is that, if the gas companies aren't using best practise, then shale gas could be a lot worse than coal. So much for using it as a way of transitioning away from coal.

Shale Gas: Yes or No?
It's against this sort of background then, that the Commons Committee has decided to give it's blessing to shale gas extraction in the UK. Whilst the EPA are unlikely to have even a preliminary report on the effects of fracking before the end of 2012 (after 2 years of work), this committee has managed to come to a decision in less than 4 months of questioning experts. They argue that all we need is strong regulation....

Does that mean that the U.S. has weak regulation then? How arrogant. Remember that the methane leakage happens despite best practise. As for contamination of water tables, that is highly complex, which is why, I suspect the EPA will take so long to report. The threat posed by fracking is not black and white, yes or no. It depends on the local geology. Much of which is hidden from view, hundreds of feet down. It is ridiculous to give blanket approval for something varies from site to site. Even more ridiculous to assume you can regulate what happens many metres below the surface.

So, yes, I do think the committee have got it wrong. I think they should have called for a halt on shale gas exploitation until they've seen the results of some serious scientific research (like the EPA's). This is not an issue for knee-jerk, lets-go-for-the-money, decisions which I believe these politicians have given us
Summary Finding From Commons Committee
More on the problems with shale gas.
More on shale gas.
More on fracking.