Climate change: consummate concern

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'. Author of 2006 review speaks out on danger to economies as planet absorbs less carbon and is 'on track' for 4C rise

Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more "blunt" about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: "Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then."

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are "on track for something like four ". Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, "I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise."

He said some countries, including China, had now started to grasp the seriousness of the risks, but governments should now act forcefully to shift their economies towards less energy-intensive, more environmentally sustainable technologies... Full story from link below:

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse' | Environment | The Observer

Efficiency elide

Debates on UK energy policy focus almost exclusively on energy generation/production and often neglect even to mention energy saving and energy efficiency. It’s always going to be cheaper to save energy and be efficient than it is to generate it - not only does it cut household bills and increase the profitability of businesses by reducing their outgoings, it also cuts pollution rapidly, is a very good job creator, can increase comfort, cut noise levels, and can sometimes be done using materials normally thrown away...So whilst we are so wasteful of energy why consider building large numbers of new power stations of any kind? Why is our primary focus not on creating a lower energy, energy thrifty culture? Basic, already existing technologies can be used but the challenge is to combine these with thrifty attitudes and behaviours.

The energy generation debate at present often zooms in on nuclear and wind. Nuclear power is low carbon emission in operation but we’ve had it since the 1950s and it has done nothing to stop climate change. The UK currently has nuclear 16 reactors in operation at 9 different sites - and it’s had more in the past. We've come to rely on fossil fuels and population has increased as has our level and intensity of consumption but expanding nuclear power for decades - and expanding power generation by all methods - has been part of unsustainable plans for industrial and economic expansion. This attitude still prevails. Until we change from unsustainable economic expansion to properly and fully applying sustainable development - including an energy policy with energy saving and efficiency as its primary focus - then we won’t tackle economic, social and environmental problems such as climate change.

The scale at which we waste energy is vast, so the scope for energy saving is huge. For example the Energy Saving Trust said that UK households waste £1.3 billion by just leaving TVs and other electronic devices switched on... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/9355870/Energy-Saving-Trust-households-waste-1.3bn-for-leaving-gadget-switched-on.html#  . In hard economic times and with energy prices rising you'd think people would be more careful with their consumption but apparently they aren't, so we’ve made little progress towards a energy thrifty culture. Research in 2006 found the UK was top of the European energy waster league. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6075794.stm

Part of the problems is the fact that my local paper can’t even write a balanced and correct piece about nuclear power, let alone cover energy issues in the round as it should do. People are often ill-informed as a result.  Here's my case against nuclear power: http://tinyurl.com/c75rvbg .Here's  a  post arguing for energy efficiency, combined heat and power and decentralised energy: http://tinyurl.com/cxagb4o.  Some thoughts on local renewable energy developments here: http://tinyurl.com/bm5m764.

Tackling transport

Seven of the candidates to become Bristol's elected mayor have raised doubts over the controversial bendy bus scheme. Three of the candidates at a hustings meeting in Broadmead last night even said they did not support the £50 million route into the city centre from the Long Ashton park and ride site at all (full story and online comments here). Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), especially BRT2 and bendy bus use is highly flawed, badly designed, not cost-effective, and will impact on the city, the environment, and local people negatively. Bendy bus technology has potential problems with: insufficient effective motive power; slower speed and acceleration due to the extra weight; overheating leading to stalling, or even a fire if diesel fuelled; in crowded areas with narrow streets and tight turns the accident rate may exceed than conventional buses. Bendy buses are supposed to be highly fuel efficient but this must be dependent on the city and the system they are running on and so in practice I have doubts that they will be more efficient in operation than double deckers here in Bristol. Good to see the stance in clear opposition to BRT taken by several mayoral candidates. George Ferguson has given me more reasons to give him my second preference vote, with Daniella Radice getting my first preference vote.

Anthropocene Animation

A 3-minute journey through the last 250 years of our history, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to the Rio+20 Summit. The film charts the growth of humanity into a global force on an equivalent scale to major geological processes. The film was commissioned by the Planet Under Pressure conference, London 26-29 March, a major international conference focusing on solutions. planetunderpressure2012.net  

For more go to anthropocene.info

Technology tale

I'm an advocate of scientific and technological thinking. Many currently define technology far too narrowly though - and most often in terms of applied science, business and commerce. For more effective problem solving and opportunity taking we should be thinking more broadly and making connections - its more creative and more likely to anticipate consequences or potential consequences of actions.

Technology is not just about rational problem solving either, there are political, organisational and psychological dimensions. Technology is the sum total of our practical knowledge and it predates science, industrialisation, capitalism...Its something we need to learn to be more selective and controlled about adopting, through proper, thorough technological assessment processes.

Forestry and fuel

Biomass does, up to a point, have potential to supply us with some of our heat energy and electrical power. This could be direct, in our homes, via good quality wood burners using sustainably produced logs. It could also be through biomass power stations, preferably combined heat and power ones. Not all biomass fuels or power stations are environmentally friendly though - it depends how you define and obtain the biomass. I was interested therefore to see this story Go-ahead given for new biomass power station where Govt has permitted a biomass power station at Royal Portbury Dock.

'The DECC said the plant would be fuelled mainly by imported virgin wood, dedicated energy crops and locally-sourced waste wood.'

Why cant we expand out forestry industry and fuel this power station fully ourselves instead of importing virgin wood? Wouldn't that be combining good, job-creating local economic development with fuel security and more environmentally friendly practice?? An expanded forestry industry would also have the benefits of soaking up pollution as the trees grow and providing wildlife habitats and opportunities for recreation. Get a proper energy and economic strategy - join the dots!!

Super Science

Check out this program on the BBC. In the 2012 Richard Dimbleby Lecture, leading geneticist and Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse explores the wonder of science and how it enhances our culture and civilisation.

He investigates how science can not only help solve the world's big problems, but also be harnessed to improve health and quality of life.

One of Britain's most eminent scientists, Sir Paul is the president of the Royal Society and chief executive of the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation.

Safe systems?

The Evening Post headline 'Oldbury deemed safe' is misleading as it makes no sense to declare something 'safe' ie free from risk. This is not what the assessments of UK nuclear power stations have tried to do. What does make sense is to talk about degrees of risk ie the probability occurrence of various hazards. 'No major weaknesses' in UK nuclear stations is not the same as safe - better to say that certain risks have been found to be low probability. The development of life on Earth is thought to be an extremely low probability event - but here we are!

Efficiency drive

This sort of energy efficiency and renewable energy scheme (here) is long overdue but whilst the headline is current and active saying 'Ten-year energy efficiency drive will create jobs' the first sentence of the story immediately damps that down, referring to 'council plans to develop' the scheme.

Its good to see this project but £2.5 million over ten years, less than a quarter of a million per year, does not amount to a 'multi-million pound' scheme in my book - unless the council is going to get much more money from a range of other sources (are they?).

Work on 6000 homes and buildings is a decent start but Bristol has hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings, which gives some perspective to this. The 1500 jobs figure sounds more like hope than realism given the amount of money per year mentioned here.

Though the council setting up its own energy company to operate at arms length is a good move I'd ideally like to see many community based energy companies in the city - and I just hope the council is more dynamic than it has proved to be and gets on with it! Having said that they have been and are not helped by central govt policy, so lets see that change for the better.

These developments should be driven by our need for energy security, community resilience and what best science says about the rate at which we need to be cutting fossil fuel use and carbon emissions - if you work back from what they say to the consequent energy efficiency and renewable energy plans you get investment figures that are much higher and orders of magnitude more installations.

Bristol: Carbon City

Really Cllr Kent is deluded - he blows his trumpet very loudly indeed when he says Bristol will get the transport system it deserves. Cllrs love it when they can announce they've got money for something almost no matter what it is. For a start building a new road will ultimately add to the congestion and pollution existing now at high levels - its already very costly to business in pounds and costly to people in health and the environment in lost quality and quantity. Bus Rapid Transit is often not the best technology - and persistently asking just a few questions at public meetings on BRT reveals environmental decision making 'systems' that are simply not joined up thinking. Whatever happened to building a low carbon city with a high quality of life for all, the aim of Bristol Green Capital?

See http://www.bristol247.com/2011/12/15/bristol-to-finally-get-transport-system-it-deserves-15367/

Zero Carbon Britain Day Saturday July 16th

...There are, in fact, a lot of things we can do to reduce our emissions. A list of what you can do is too long for this post but I would suggest insulating your house, unplug things that arent needed, cut flying. Get a more efficient car, boiler, light bulbs, fridge etc. Use a shower not a bath, uses less water and less energy to warm the water. Choose local food and services Eat more vegetables, and be more choosy about meat, chicken has less emissions than beef, the smaller animals are better...

Green Reading: Zero Carbon Britain Day Saturday July 16th



More here http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

Optimism on sorting Bristol's transport problems

The Bristol Evening Post says 'Bristol's metro is not as far off track as you might think'. I hope they are right and can help build up momentum for change on this issue. As many of my blog posts show I'm in favour of a Greater Bristol Integrated Transport Authority that implements a sustainable transport plan. History points to lack of agreement and cooperation between the local authorities though. If agreement and cooperation is reached they still need to get the process of decision making right: exploring the situation; formulating problems, opportunities and systems of interest; identifying feasible and desirable changes; taking actions; and re-exploring etc as appropriate. They need to fully involve as wide a range of people as possible right from the start, ensure good quality, comprehensive information is widely disseminated, get genuine cross-party and cross-organisational cooperation, agree the right goals, get finances sorted, assess technologies fairly and broadly, find a combination of technical, behavioural and socio-economic change that will consistently take us in a firmly sustainable direction... Its nothing like as straightforward and obvious as this Post report - which has a strong technocratic, techno-optimist slant - suggests.

Community Energy: 29 June Meeting in Knowle

Joining up Bristol’s local community energy groups’ - Bristol Energy Network and the Centre for Sustainable Energy Present….

A meeting to hear a talk from Dan McCallum, Awel Aman Tawe Community Energy Successes from South Wales and to discuss what community groups can learn from their experiences

· Learn from what other groups across Bristol and the South West about what they are doing to help reduce energy use in their communities
· An opportunity for groups and individuals to share their projects and experiences
· Meet people from other energy groups across the Bristol and across the South West
· Find out how the Bristol Energy Network and CSE can support your project

Wednesday 29th June 2011 6.30 to 9pm, Knowle West Media Centre, Bristol. Refreshments and light food will be provided.

To book please e-mail Kirsty Mitchel, Kirsty.mitchell@cse.org.uk or phone 0117 931 4100
www.cse.org.uk/events/
www.bristolenergynetwork.org/events
All community groups are invited

Living a one tonne life: update on research

Update on this research received: Could a ‘One Tonne Life’ Make it Possible for Households to Reduce CO2 Emissions to a Level That Would Avoid Climate Change?



· Transport emissions drop more than 90%



· CO2emissions produced in the home halved



· Food carbon emissions reduced 84% by going vegan



· Manufacturing of house and goods prevents ‘One Tonne’



Stockholm, Sweden; Monday, 13thJune 2011: “One Tonne Life”, a collaboration project between A-hus, Vattenfall, Volvo Cars and other partners has shown that households could reduce their carbon output from 7.3 tonnes per person to a stable 2.5 tonnes per person, living a comfortable everyday life. Furthermore, more extensive changes prove that it is possible to get this figure down to just 1.5, a level that could help us become carbon neutral and avoid serious climate change according to ‘A One Tonne Future’.



In January 2011, Swedish family, the Lindells, embarked on this six month groundbreaking project to find out if they could reduce their carbon emissions to hit this important target. They were helped in a variety of ways, not least with a climate-smart house featuring solar cells on the roof that were used to recharge the electric car parked in the driveway. The family – father Nils, mother Alicia and children Hannah and Jonathan – undertook this inspiring journey which involved moving to a new, climate smart house and examining each of their everyday habits to find out where they could reduce or, indeed, eliminate their carbon emissions.



The family report that with their energy smart house, appliances, energy meter and electric vehicle, reducing their emissions to 2.5 tonnes did not require any major compromise in their everyday lifestyles. After that, however, things got tougher and living at the 1.5 tonne level was a tough compromise.



The family made most progress in transport and electricity consumption. Emissions from transport dropped by more than 90%, mainly due to the family’s Volvo C30 Electric being recharged with electricity from hydro-power. The family’s house, built by A-hus, produces its own electricity and,with supplementary renewable electricity from hydro-power, carbon dioxide emissions from purchased electricity reduced to almost zero. All told, carbon dioxide emissions from the family’s home were more than halved compared to their emissions level in their previous home.



The family also made immense progress through their eating habits. By meal planning and being more informed about the food we eat, varying the choice of meat and eating more vegetables, it is possible for people to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Towards the end of the trial period, the Lindells ate only vegetarian dishes, and dairy produce was replaced with soya and oat-based alternatives.



In order to reduce their emissions still further, in the final 1.5-tonne week the family reduced the size of their home by closing off one room. They went without TV, shopping and eating out. However, their “rucksack” of 900 kilograms stopped them from reaching the one tonne target. This “rucksack” consists of the CO² emissions that take place when various products are manufactured, such as the house, solar panels, car, furniture and clothes. However, they demonstrated that it is possible to get very close to one tonne, however it does involve a change in lifestyle and the information to make the right changes.



Key features of the One Tonne house



The wooden “One Tonne Life” house has triple-layer walls with exceptional insulation, minimal air leakage and low-energy windows and doors. Through its solar photovoltaic system the house is a net producer of energy. All electricity not consumed by the family was fed into the national grid or used to recharge the electric car. The family’s Volvo C30 Electric emits no carbon dioxide at all when recharged with renewable electricity.



Household appliances account for up to half of a normal household’s total energy consumption, the house is equipped with the latest energy saving appliances from Siemens. To help track progress the Family had an ‘Energy Watch’ system that registers the power usage and compiles data for analysis. This allows consumption to be followed in real time or over a selected time period and learn how their personal habits influence electricity consumption. Experts from the Chalmers University of Technology followed the family in order to ensure a reliable calculation of the family’s carbon dioxide emissions. Methodology can be found here.



Further information and access to the project’s Flickr and Youtube account can be found here http://onetonnelife.com

Historic climate change deal...observations

Interesting story to say the least, with much of this climate change deal being most welcome. However amongst the quotes in it is this one where a 'senior government figure' said: "This country is now the world leader in cutting carbon emissions. We are the only nation with legally binding commitments past 2020." Excuse me but the UK has not cut its carbon emissions yet AT ALL, not even after 25 yrs of being 'signed up' to sustainable development!! See here and here on how UK carbon emissions have risen by 12% instead of falling by 15 or 16% as politicians have wrongly and misleadingly asserted. Its easy to talk the talk and spin your 'successes' and that's how conventional politicians work -but only real practical actions that achieve good outcomes solve problems.

The deal also includes 'carbon capture and storage technology – which would extract carbon dioxide from coal and oil plants and pump it into underground chambers'. This is not an established technology and of course it allows the ongoing use of mass quantities of fossil fuels which cause climate change.

Historic climate change deal with legal powers agreed by Cabinet Environment The Observer

'Safely' closing Oldbury nuclear power station costs £954m

Nearly a billion quid to close the damn thing. Taking decades, during which it produces no power whatsoever. Leaving a legacy of nuclear waste for many, many future generations. It always has been a joke to refer to nuclear as cheap, clean and green - the figures speak for themselves. It would be irrational to build more.

THE cost of decommissioning Oldbury Nuclear Power Station has been set at £954 million, latest figures have shown.

A revised document just published by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) gives the estimated sum for taking the plant out of action and clearing the site once it stops generating electricity.

But it will take about 90 years to achieve the "final end" status.

Oldbury is the oldest operating nuclear power reactor in the world, having started producing power in 1967. It has already exceeded its expected generating life by a couple of years and one of its two reactors will close down for good this summer...

Peoples message: energy saving and renewable energy not nuclear power

Message I've just received from Friends of the Earth: 21,000 of you have now signed our petition for a safe and nuclear-free future . This fantastic support for clean, green power is backed up by a recent poll. 75 per cent of people want energy saving and renewables (like wind and solar) to be Government's top energy priorities. The petition has already travelled far and wide. But with big decisions about energy coming next month we want to organise an attention-grabbing hand-in to the Government. Please send us your ideas - as big and bold as you like. The message is clear : Energy saving and renewable resources can provide all the energy the UK needs. There's no need to gamble on nuclear. So put on your thinking caps! What's the best way to get our message across to Government?

Lucas: lessons on nuclear power from the Japan disaster

The lesson from the Japanese disaster is that you can never design out every possible human error, or natural accident, or unpredictable event. The problem with nuclear power is that it’s just so inherently risky. If a catastrophe does happen, then the impacts when we’re dealing with nuclear power are uniquely catastrophic, if you like, in a way that they’re not if we were dealing with the alternatives around renewable energy and energy efficiency, and so on. Of course, all of our thoughts are with the people of Japan, and particularly with those incredibly brave people who are at the plants now trying to bring them under control, but I just think that when we’ve got alternatives that are safer and cheaper, it does raise the question as to why we would run the risk with nuclear.

-“Wave and wind energy can’t be cheaper than nuclear, can it?”

Yes it can, and it is. If you look at the documents, that’s quite clear. Sometimes it doesn’t look that way of course, because nuclear’s very clever about not putting on its books the cost of decommissioning nuclear power at the end of its life. But if you add in those nuclear decommissioning costs, then nuclear is a lot more expensive. If we’re looking in Britain at the best way of being able to meet our carbon objectives, in terms of getting our emissions down to deal with climate change and keep the lights on, then it’s far cheaper, and government’s own statistics show this, to be investing in renewable energies and energy efficiency rather than nuclear. Of course the nuclear industry right now is engaged in a massive fight-back, trying to present itself as this nice clean energy of the future. I think the situation with Fukushima just shows us that that’s not the case, and it’s never been the case.

You can’t design out unforeseen circumstances. When they built those nuclear power stations 40 years ago, they never expected an earthquake of that size. Here in Britain, just back in the 1950’s, we had storm surges which were extraordinary and killed 300 people in East Anglia – you cannot predict what’s going to come in the future, and if there are alternatives, we should be using them. If it were genuinely the case that we had to make the choice between climate change and nuclear power, then of course the situation would be different, we’d have to look at it again. That’s not the choice we’re being faced with right now. You can never “design out,” whether it’s a terrorist attack, whether it’s human error, and when you’re dealing with something that’s as inherently risky as nuclear, it doesn’t make sense to take that risk.

Caroline Lucas MP, Green Party leader, on BBC Radio Sussex – 16 Mar 2011

Nuclear emergencies in Japan

Japan has 53 nuclear power stations, making it third largest nuclear power user in the world. As a result of the earthquake and tsunami there are emergencies at 5 of them, 10% or so of the total in the country. Its incredible that nuclear stations have been built - and on a large scale - in a place where many earthquakes, large and small, often occur. Its incredible that these nuclear stations - with their systems (protected by systems) which protect systems... - have failed unsafely on this large scale. We have been told that nuclear stations are designed to do the opposite, hardly failing at all and when they fail they fail safely. Its incredible that a country leaves itself so heavily dependent on this energy source - or any single energy source. Or, given the extremely dodgy history of the nuclear industry, and given the goals that motivate industrial societies, is it so beyond belief??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12722719

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12723092

FT.com / House & Home - Enlightened energy

Hmmm...we have a south facing roof that might be suitable...so should we invest in solar photovoltaic panels or look into 'rent a roof' schemes? Interesting piece on this issue in the Financial Times.

“If you’ve got a bit of spare cash, it’s better to invest it in solar photovoltaic than putting your money in a building society,” says Charles Couzens, executive director of Ecos Trust, a Somerset-based charity that provides advice on sustainable building. He points out that you can get a healthy financial return of between 6 and 9 per cent, tax free.

The sea change for photovoltaic (PV) panels and other green electricity sources has come about through the introduction of feed-in tariffs in Britain in April 2010. This means that anyone installing small-scale electricity generation in homes, schools, hospitals or businesses can claim a substantial tariff – 41.3p a unit – for what they produce. And they get a further 3p a unit for any surplus electricity exported to the grid – as well as saving the cost of buying electricity in...

...in Germany, a national system of feed-in tariffs has turned a mostly cloudy country into a world leader in domestic solar panels. More than 250,000 people are employed in the industry and Germany is exporting components around the world...

...But what about people on lower incomes or those with young families who are unlikely to have enough money to spare? There is an alternative – a number of companies in the UK, and in other countries too, are offering consumers the chance to have solar panels installed and benefit from the energy they produce without having to pay a penny for them. Under most of these “rent-a-roof” schemes, the householder makes savings on their electricity bills, but gets nothing of the feed-in tariffs – these accrue solely to the panel owner...

FT.com / House & Home - Enlightened energy