Nosedive for BAA

Joss Garman, John Stewart and Leo Murray outside the RCJ yesterday.
As a member of the Woodland Trust who supports the campaign for aviation to pay for the environmental damage it causes, I have kept an eye to see whether I would, along with 5 million others, turn up on BAA's environmentalist blacklist.

BAA, owned by Spanish construction and services group Ferrovial, went to the High Court in London to restrict the actions of campaigners, various environmental organisations and those due to attend the annual The Camp for Climate Action located near the airport between August the 14th and 21st.

Coming more from the stable of discourse rather than direct action, I nevertheless have a strongly held admiration for those who take to the runways to make their voice heard. They are the frontliners, the ones who make others - and clearly BAA - sit up and listen, even when they do not want to. And it has to be said that Joss Garman and Leo Murray of the anti-avaition group Plane Stupid, more than any other environmental organisation, have firmly placed the issue of flight CO2 emmissions on the radar. They have proven to be a great stumbling block in BAA's smooth flightpath of profit at the expense of the planet.

So much so that BAA felt compelled to take their own radical action, seeking an injunction to curtail protestors from disrupting Heathrow during the week-long climate change camp which is due to commence next tuesday. Their hit-list of objectional protestors included, against others, Airport Watch which is an an umbrella group of various organisations including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Woodland Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

But it didn't wash. Yesterday the proposed injunction against Heathrow Campaign Against Aircraft Noise(HACAN), No Third Runway Action Group(NoTRAG), AirportWatch and Geraldine Nicholson (Chiar, NoTRAG) was dismissed. Instead Mrs Justice Smith at the High Court imposed a vastly limited injunction covering trespass and nuisance upon just three named organisers - John Stewart (HACAN), Josh Garman and Leo Murray. All three had previously offered undertakings to the court that they would not engage in disruptive direct action. The The Camp for Climate Action planned for the 14th to 21st August is allowed to continue and remains injunction free.

This was an ambitious pitch and corporate flexing of muscle by BAA. It was in essence a challenge against some of our basic human rights: freedom of thought, conscience, expression, assembly, peaceful protest and freedom of association. However, despite demanding the whole cake they ended up with only the crumbs. Mrs Justice Swift in her decision ensured this was a victory not only for human rights but also for common sense.

The Camp for Climate Action
Plane Stupid
AirportWatch
Heathrow Campaign Against Aircraft Noise(HACAN)
No Third Runway Action Group (NoTRAG)
Woodland Trust

Switching to Renewables - the easy, equitable and cheapest option.

Major polluting energy plants and heavy CO2 emitters such as this one could soon be a thing of the past

Two new reports have recently been published, both addressing energy needs and capacities for the near future. Both point to the same premise: committing to renewable energy is both feasible and financially prudent. Good for the planet, good for the people, good for the pocket.

The first report examines our domestic potential to to reduce our carbon emissions to zero within 20 years.
Named Zerocarbonbritain, the report is a result of over a year's consolidated research by the Centre for Alternative Technology. It sets out the policy drivers required to achieve zero carbon Britain by 2027, and presents the scenario for using only proven (renewable) technology. Quite simply, the technology already exists to make the UK carbon neutral (without the need to resort to nuclear), but what is required is political determination and changes in the way we, as a society, view energy.

An ambitious, bold plan, but most importantly, it can be done.
Here and now. Here's how:
3 steps are needed to achieve zero carbon Britain by 2027 -
1. policy implementation of Contraction & Convergence and the use of Tradable Energy Quotas (carbon credit cards)
2. powering down our fossil fuel use, and
3. powering up our use of renewable energy generation

Moreover, it's an equitable solution to climate change, energy security and global equity.

The essential policy driver needed is the implementation of Contraction and Convergence (viewed by Lloyds of London as "the best hope we have"), a co-ordinated plan to reduce carbon emissions by allocating a equal share per capita basis from a limited budget, as proposed by the Global Commons Institute.

C&C In a nutshell:
Contraction: An international cap on emissions is set for the next 20 years, the amount allocated annually reduced year on year until it reaches zero in 2027.
Convergence: Each nation receives receives a national share allocation which is then divided equally per person. Over the 20 years, the allocations are reduced to a point that everyone on the planet has an equal share.

These share allocations, called Tradable Energy Quotas’ (TEQs) can be traded, bought and sold between individuals and businesses. Each year the cap on TEQs is reduced, so there are fewer to share, in line with the national budget. Gradually, individuals and companies would have to learn to make low and zero-carbon choices, due to the cost or inconvenience of doing otherwise. TEQs are tradable, and represent a source of income for cash poor households. Essentially carbon credits become a kind of parallel currency. Very quickly we would be scrapping the petrol engine, improving building standards, changing the way we produce and consume food and investing heavily in renewable energy. All it needs now is political backbone to make this a reality.


In the future you might need more than your credit card when you go to pay for your petrol, your carbon card would also have to be handy
[photo credit: www.tutor2u.net]

Nuclear v's Renewables. Still wonder which offers the best energy return on energy investment? Here's a well presented argument from Zerocarbonbritain Chapter 8:

Today’s approach to fossil-fuelled energy provision follows the pay-as-you-go principle. Like renting a house, each day’s use is paid for, but with no lasting accrual from those payments. It represents an ongoing cost.

Pursuing the housing analogy, building new nuclear power stations is like paying to build a house, paying rent to live in it (the cost of fuel and maintenance), and finally being evicted after 30 years, with the obligation to pay for the dismantling of the house and then passing to future generations the obligation to continue paying indefinite further rent. It is an ongoing, open ended liability.

Renewables present the opportunity to build and own a home outright. This home will require a significant initial investment and take time to complete. But once built, the benefit of the infrastructure is free excepting maintenance costs. Investment of this sort provides society with an enduring asset.

The second report examines the global economics of worldwide adoption of renewable technology. In the first global analysis of its kind, Future Investment - A Sustainable Investment Plan for the Power Sector to Save the Climate, the report demonstrates a powerful economic argument for a shift in global investments toward renewable energy (including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and bio energy) within the next 23 years, and away from fossil fuel, coal and nuclear power. Savings of US $180 billion per year are predicted from switching investment to renewables from fossil fuels.

According to this joint report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), investing in renewable energy as the source for electricity in our future will save 10 times the fuel costs of a "business as usual" scenario, saving US$180 billion annually and cutting CO2 emissions in half by 2030.

The report, which stresses the urgent need for decisive action now, gives the financial rationale for Greenpeace's earlier report Energy [R]evolution.

Number crunching:

An extra global annual investment of $22 billion in clean and renewable power plants is needed on top of current expenditure. This equates to less than a tenth of the annual subsidies currently received by the coal and gas industry.

Fuel cost savings: > $202 billion per year. This means the up front investment will pay for itself ten times over.

The global market for wind turbines was worth €18 billion in 2006, the total renewable industry $50 billion. Under an energy revolution scenario, the renewable energy would be worth a massive annual market volume of $288 billion by 2030.

+++OOO+++

Future Investment - A Sustainable Investment Plan for the Power Sector to Save the Climate

Energy [R]evolution

Zerocarbonbritain

Centre for Alternative Technology

Contraction and Convergence

Global Commons Institute

Tradable Energy Quotas’ (TEQs)

G8 - success or disaster?

Although touted as a success by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, it's hard to see exactly where the success of last weeks G8 summit lies. I suppose it all depends on your hopes or fears, optimism or pessimism of outcome. Maybe for the German Chancellor and host so little was expected to be gained, that what little was achieved could be touted as a success. It all depends on whether you consider this a talking shop or a catalyst for definitive action. So, what exactly was the outcome? Er well...

G8 leaders agreed to pursue "substantial" reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, stopping short of Angela Merkel's attempts to secure concrete numerical commitments on emission reductions, including her key aim to cut gases by 50 percent by 2050. Only 6 of the countries agreed to negotiate a new global climate pact that would extend and broaden the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. Russia and the US did not sign up to the non-legally binding pledge by Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Canada and Japan.

As a compromise, however, all eight nations agreed to make substantial - but undefined - emissions cuts. The eight countries also agreed to launch negotiations on climate change under the United Nations umbrella starting in December 2007 to be wrapped up by 2009.

And that's about the sum of it. Not exactly a sense of leaders rising to the challenge to respond to what Al Gore calls a "planetary emergency" by the G8 - who represent 13 percent of the world's population and 43 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Here's what Al Gore had to say on the agreement:

"It was a disgrace disguised as an achievement," Gore said at an event in Milan, where he praised Merkel for her efforts. Leaders at last week's G8 summit in Germany had not risen to the challenge. "The eight most powerful nations gathered and were unable to do anything except to say 'We had good conversations and we agreed that we will have more conversations, and we will even have conversations about the possibility of doing something in the future on a voluntary basis perhaps.'"

No hard targets. No real substance. A missed opportunity. But Bush clearly swallowed something painful, even if it wasn't a commitment to define US emission cuts - he ended up with stomach ache anyway.

Understanding IPCC reports

The other night I headed over to the Institute of Physics to hear Professor Jonathan Gregory give a lecture to a packed house on The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change. Prof Gregory is one of those scientists who comes armed with a string of positions (Snr. Scientist at the Walker Institute for Climate System Research, Prof. at the Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Met Office Fellow in the Climate Change Group at the Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter - I'm sure there are more) that makes you wonder whether he is capable of being in many places and doing many things simultaneously (he is a scientist afterall). He is a man who is precise in his choice of words and concise in his explanations.

So, with that kind of background, it is no surprise that a man of those credentials is also an IPCC lead author. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the world leading authority on climate change) was established in 1988 to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. 2007 brings the completion of the 4th Assessment Report. There are three working groups who compile individual reports for the Assessment Report: Working Group 1 addresses the 'physical science basis', Group 2 the' impacts, adaptation ann vulnerability', Group 3 'mitigation'. Prof Gregory is a lead author for the Working Group 1 (whose report was published February 2007), who were tasked with turning their immense brains, knowledge and analytical skills to the physical science basis of climate change.

Here is how it works:
A core of scientists (Working Group 1 was written by 152 lead authors from over 30 countries and reviewed by over 600 experts) are tasked to assess existing peer reviewed literature on climate change, give information on how confident they are of the calculations, compile the report and a summary for policymakers. It is only after that do the scientists sit down with the government representatives to decide whether the summary correctly reflects the report. The Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers was approved by officials from 113 governments. So, if you are in doubt as to whether or not climate change is really happening, these are the guys who listen to. They take the hard data, the existing literature, the physical theory, the numerical modelling, the research papers, the observations, the computations, the projections and circulation models - all in all the most up-to-date information - from all over the world. Once this is assessed the IPCC brains provide information on how confident they are of the calculations. It is not opinion, but analysis. And to ensure everyone is talking the same language and understands each other, a calibrated language is used (that in itself took a bit of doing to agree, as you can imagine).

IPCC Calibrated language
very likely > 90% probability
likely > 66%
unlikely < 33%
very unlikely < 10%

Unequivocal Fact: Global Warming is happening
There is one fact which none of the scientists and experts disagree on. The warming of the climate system is unequivocal. This is not contested. The 11 of the past 12 years are the warmest on record (the exception is 1996). So anyone who claims they are still unsure as to whether or not global warming is in fact taking place must surely be privy to some remarkable data that flies in the face of what can only be considered conclusive evidence.

The Greenhouse Effect
The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun. Without these gases, heat would escape back into space and Earth’s average temperature would be about 60ºF colder. The gases in effect insulate the earth, rather like an invisible blanket. Because of how they warm our world, so the earth heats up underneath - rather akin to the heating up under the glass of a greenhouse - these gases are referred to as greenhouse gases. What is happening is that inside the greenhouse - planet Earth - is beginning to overheat.

Back to Prof Gregory: he gave an array of slides demonstrating the observed changes, and those that have proven consistent with expected (simulated) responses - which also demonstrates that much of the earlier future mappings have been pretty spot on.

Where such changes are inconsistent with other explanations, he explained, attributions can be made. Thus, where natural forcings alone do not explain the variations over the past 50 years, most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid 20th Century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic green house concentrations. In other words, there's >90% probability that it's all down to us - increase in temperature has resulted from the influence humans have on the natural world - from the burning of of fossil fuels and deforestation. So, there we have it - we are in all likelihood destroying the very world we live on by our own actions. Using that well worn analogy, if you were told by a medical expert you had >90% chance of dying of cancer very soon unless you stopped smoking now, what would you do? Go with the 10% off-chance that you may be okay? Or take action...

Future Simulations
Such extensive analysis of the changes in ice sheet volume, sea ice, glacier and ice cap reductions, salinity, precipitation, water vapour, green house gases, temperature, ocean heat, sea level rise, thermal expansion etc. has been put to good use. A family of future scenarios (on a business as usual premise) to the end of the 21st Century with a range of increase in temperature between 1 and 4 degrees has been computed. It does not make for pretty viewing. Even on the most optimistic scenario (and the most unlikely) of just one degree increase, does not absolve our responsibility to address what for future generations will bring even higher increases. Increase of temperature may bring positive feedbacks, such as die-back of forests, and with the loss of those sinks comes the release of even more greenhouse gases, contributing to even further and more rapid increase of temperatures.

Future warming of temperatures, in the calibrated language of the ever cautious scientists, is virtually certain, heat waves more frequent, and heavy precipitation very likely. By 2090 it is very likely that there will be no summer sea ice in the Arctic. That's a lot of dead polar bears. As for the cooling of the Gulf Stream from the increased loss of ice? Sudden collapse, as current analysis of the computations stands, is however very unlikely.

We need people like Prof Gregory and all the other lead authors and scientists to make analyse the data for us. I cannot pretend that I understand all of it, but, in the only way I can explain, I am satisfied so that I am sure that these IPCC scientists and experts know what they are talking about. Such data is inevitably our primary materials upon which we must act.

As for impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, and for that matter, mitigation of climate change - well, these two areas are the subject of reports that have been published by Working Group 2 and Working Group 3. What I need now are equally informative lectures on both those reports.

For the 2007 Working Group Reports (1, 2 & 3) go to: ipcc.ch
The reports by the three Working Groups provide a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change. It is currently finalizing its Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007", also referred to as AR4 which will be available in November.

Energy Crisis

There seems to be a chill wind blowing these last few days - one which I cannot seem to inure myself against. I've mulled over how to blog for a few days now, and decided that although my focus is predominantly on the positive, sometimes it's impossible to ignore those moments where progress seems for whatever reason to have stalled.

Last week's Energy and Planning White Papers gave no cause for joy. Indeed, consisting mainly of reiteration of this government's current positioning, they seem to pose more questions than offer solutions. What could have been a prime opportunity to demonstrate leadership in taking steps to addressing our pending energy crisis was effectively sidestepped. Now with 17 EU countries adopting feed-in tariffs to kick-start their markets for microgeneration, we - a country that is just about to enter into net-import of our energy supplies - still refuses to give any form of assistance. Ah, there is one exception. The grand gesture of a one-off supplemental payment of £12 million under the Low Carbon Buildings Scheme - which will doubtless be fully utilised within a week, if earlier applications are anything to go by. Indeed, the largest PV company in the UK is currently looking at laying off staff. And this is a country that, as David Miliband stated this weekend at the Hay Literary Festival, subsidises it's transport sector (read: road expansion) to the tune of £80 million a week. Yes, that's £80 million a week. That's over £4 billion per annum. Mr Miliband, you yourself stated three times that we must take heed of Stern's advice - that to invest in prevention of climate change will be less costly to address now than later. So, Mr Miliband, it begs the question: where is the Climate Change Prevention Pot? There seems to be no evidence of any finances being set aside (or indeed distributed) to assist people in their transition from a fuel based economy to a low carbon economy and controlled energy descent.

There are two good reasons that this needs addressing now. One is that peak oil is about to sweep the world into an energy deficit within a matter of but a few years. The second, equally valid reason is that if we continue to hungrily devour our remaining fossil fuels until they are exhausted we have virtually no chance of retaining our greenhouse emissions at 450ppm - and thus leave ourselves at extremely high risk of runaway climate change.

Nuclear is still on the agenda as a solution in the UK, which is no panacea. After all, Nuclear energy in the UK amounts to but a mere 3.6% of our energy supplies. Even with 100% increase in efficiency, and the first of the new generation being rolled out in 2016 at the earliest, it's going to be a matter of too little too late. With energy deficits of 3 - 5% annually from possibly as early as 2010, this seems at best an ill-thought out plan. It's been calculated that for every £1 invested in renewables equates to £7 investment in Nuclear for the same amount of energy (remember - this is a government that says it will not subsidise Nuclear but will leave it up to market forces. So, who exactly is going to back such an expensive and dangerous venture?). The figures do not add up, especially when other long-term global solutions exist, such as Concentrating Solar Power which would supplement and complement large scale renewable projects as well as decentralised solutions such as microgeneration. This government talks about there being no one solution (true) but it is doing very little to give support to any but the one solution that is the least attractive of all. There is of course Russia - they could give us oil, coal, gas, uranium. All those juicy carbon emitters - and all from a country that all too recently proved it was perfectly capable of flexing it's muscles and turning off the tap whenever suits. Problem is, there is no coherent national strategy, no demonstration of a viable energy policy - at a time when governmental leadership is not just a political but a a moral imperative.

David Strahan, in his thoroughly researched and thoroughly readable book The Last Oil Shock poses the most pertinent of conundrums. Running out of oil should at least be good for climate change, you might think - but the reverse could be true. A growing shortfall of global oil production is likely to send the crude price skywards, and a mad dash to fill the gap could bring even higher carbon emitting alternatives. Strahan examines the most up-to-date evidence, presents the hard facts and proffers some potential future scenarios. Read it and decide for yourself.

The mood of environmentalists has changed. George Monbiot also spoke at Hay, and there was a sense of exigency, a darker tonality that I had not detected before. He was to speak on Solutions, but changed his content on the day. He warned of his concern about our pending energy crisis. His request was for us to become active citizens. Action that is lacking from the top - from our government - must come from the people now. He urges us all to go demand from our MP's that strong action be taken. Time to prepare for our future is now - and we need our government (and all governments) more than ever to help set out a clear road map to navigate the stormy times ahead.


* David Strahan, The Last Oil Shock, 2007, published by John Murray Ltd
* Interactive Oil Depletion Atlas
* What Stern Really Got Wrong, David Strahan, Prospect, May 16th 2007
* George Monbiot, Comment is Free: Our blind faith in oil growth could bring the economy crashing down

Women Demand More Action on Climate Change

Yesterday afternoon I was invited to a reception at Portcullis House for the launch of the Women's Manifesto on Climate Change, jointly produced by the National Federation of Women's Institutes (NFWI) and my favourite charity, Women's Environmental Network (WEN).

Globally, women are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to our different social roles and status. In the UK and in other developed countries, increasing costs for energy, transport, healthcare and nutrition are likely to affect women, including single mothers, more than men. In developing countries, women are already suffering disproportionately more as a consequence of climate change:
70% of the world's poor, who are far more vulnerable to environmental damage, are women
85% of people who die from climate-induced disasters are women.

This is no radical feminist tract, but a simple rallying call to the Government to take strong leadership and enable women to make a greater impact on reducing carbon emissions. A recent climate change survey conducted by NFWI/WEN of more than 500 women (amazingly, the first ever) clearly demonstrated that women care greatly about environmental issues, and are the primary household purchasers. Of the decisions made by women within the home, 93% of household food, 84% of clothing, 82% of household products, 75% of holidays, 74% of home furnishings and 61% of car purchases are made by women. My own eco-emporium, lazye.co.uk, was founded on the premise that women - as the primary purchasers and primary carers - have a key role in tackling climate change as consumers, educators and 'change agents'. This survey presents hard evidence to support such belief.

The survey demonstrates that 80% of women are very concerned about climate change (compare this with a recent EMAP survey findings of 84% women, but only 64% men) and 75% are apprehensive that government action to tackle climate change will not be taken soon enough.

According to the climate change survey, what women of the UK want most is:

Much more action in tackling climate change
97% believe the Government and industry are not doing enough.
Top priorities for action -
86% demand the Government to invest in more renewable energy
86% want manufacturers to design more environmentally friendly products
81% demand tougher carbon reduction targets

More help and guidance to reduce our impact on the environment
85% want more green products and green labelling of goods
85% want lower prices for environmentally friendly products
82% more government grants and incentives to reduce carbon emissions

More women's involvement in UK Government (87%) and international policy making (86%), to find solutions to climate change.

Greater representation of women in industry boardrooms (79%) and scientific careers (78%) to address climate change issues from a women's perspective, and as MP's (74%)

Remarkably, 94% have already begun to make lifestyle changes and are willing to do more in the future. As Penney Poyzer pointed out, behavioural change on individual level is crucial, and what is clearly demonstrated by this report is that the women of this country have the will to tackle climate change. What is needed now is the way.

I have signed as a signatory of the Women's Manifesto on Climate Change asking that

The UK Government take a strong lead

Equal involvement of women and men in decision-making

Investment in renewable energy

More environmentally friendly products

Tougher CO2 emissions targets.

If you too care about the above, you can lend your support by signing up to the manifesto, or to find out more, check out WENor NFWI websites. Even better, donate or sign up and become a member.

[photo credits: Burkina Faso Tearfund, Masai Women call for more to be done to tackle climate change, I-Count 2006 Greenpeace/Dave Walsh]

Clean Coal - too good to be true?

Today sees the release of a report supporting Clean Coal as a low carbon energy solution. I have here as my guest Energy Specialist Neil Crumpton, FOE Campaigner, Climate and Energy Team.

In a nutshell, what is clean coal?
Clean Coal is new coal technology where 90% emissions are capable of being captured and stored underground. A further benefit of Clean Coal is that air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, acid gases, dust and other toxins are much reduced.

What is FOE's position on clean coal?
As long as Clean Coal includes Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) we would be like to see demonstration projects. Clean Coal without CCS is approximately 20% more efficient than existing coal technology. However, without CCS it is still nearly twice as polluting as gas fired power stations and possibly three times as much as Combined Heat and Power plants (CHP). However, Clean Coal WITH CCS can capture 85-90% of the gases emitted, but this still needs demonstrating at large scale.

FOE would like to see a few clean Clean Coal with CCS demonstration schemes, preferably on industrial sites with good CHP potential. Therefore, the benefits of CHP and carbon capture are combined - both would be capable of sharing the same CO2 pipeline and the heat from the power station. A really well designed demonstration scheme on an industrial site could share the CO2 pipeline to an oil field in the North Sea (where the CO2 would be stored) and provide heat from the power station to nearby industrial processes. Hot water from the power station could then be usefully used by local industry.

Is this a better option than renewables?
No, but it could have a supporting role for our interim energy needs. If viable, it could be complementary to renewables in achieving substantial CO2 emission reduction in the short term. It could also potentially be useful in the transition to a low carbon economy based on renewable power over the next decade. Additionally, it could certainly avoid any new nuclear programme as Clean Coal would provide base load generation.

So, would it be correct to say - until Clean Coal test sites incorporating CCS with CHP plants have proven successful, FOE remains cautious?
Yes

The report released today, Clean Coal by Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies controversially states that FOE backs Powerfuel's new test site at Hatfield in Yorkshire. What do you say to that?
We have not even heard of Powerfuel's scheme, let alone supported it. This report completely misquotes our Executive Director Tony Juniper on the merits of renewables in relation to clean coal. This report is simply pro-nuclear anti-renewable propaganda.

Thank you Neil for putting us in the picture.
It's been a pleasure

Friends of the Earth

International Climate Conference

This weekend, Saturday 12th and Sunday 13th of May, in London hosts the International Climate Conference. It's free and it's informative with expert speakers ranging across a wide remit of topics. You can come and go as you like. Last year I went with a couple of specific questions I wanted to find answers to on issues that I felt I didn't know enough about, sat in on a few talks, dipped into a few workshops, bought a couple of books, and left far the wiser with my questions answered. It's one of those situations where you wish you could be in many places at once - such is the choice of seminars and workshops.

Topics include: Climate Science How bad, how fast?; Climate Change and Development; Climate Change, the biggest issue of Global Justice and human rights?; Green Taxes vs Carbon Rationing; CC & Aviation; CC & Transport; Solutions; Raising Awareness in Eastern Europe; CC & workers rights; Personal Action; Contraction & Convergence; CC & Health; CC & Faith; Can we avoid dangerous CC & maintain growth?; Carbon Trading; CC & Biodiversity; Bio-fuels; Future of Coal; Climate Disinformation; Nuclear: another energy is possible; CC & Deforestation; CC & the GLA; CC & Islam; Peak Oil; Carbon Trading; How to get a strong Climate Bill; Prospects for the Bali Talks and the Kyoto process post 2012; The Climate Camp; Carbon offsets, the debate; China and India, the emissions time bomb; Climate Campaigning in the Arab World and more....

The Conference is being held at the London School of Economics, Houghton Streeet, London WC2 (click for map)

For more details of the Conference, for speakers and seminar & workshop timetable go to Campaign Against Climate Change - www.campaigncc.org

Monbiot: Giving Up On Two Degrees, IPCC Report

Sometimes I read an article, book or blog that addresses an issue so succinctly, argues a point concisely, presents a universal truth that is being ignored or overlooked - and I make a mental note to raise it in my blog. Then, life comes along and other demands take over and the moment has passed. But this is one article that has struck such a chord with me, that I have returned to re-read. I urge anyone who is concerned about what the target level of greenhouse gas emissions should be to read George Monbiot's article, Giving Up On Two Degrees

Monbiot, in his usual well researched fashion, sets out why we need higher targets - and targets that must be met sooner. Infact, not only is our government relying on out-of-date figures, so is the European Union. Working on the basis of a 50% chance of preventing more than 2°C of warming, a global cut of 80% by 2050 would be required.

Monbiot explains that this is a cut in total emissions, not in emissions per head. If the population were to rise from 6 to 9 billion between now and then, we would need an 87% cut in global emissions per person. If carbon emissions are to be distributed equally, the greater cut must be made by the biggest polluters: rich nations like us. The UK’s emissions per capita would need to fall by 91%.

As Monbiot points out, what the recent IPCC report shows is that we have to stop treating climate change as an urgent issue. We have to start treating it as an international emergency.


This latest IPCC Report, "Mitigation of Climate Change" was published on the 4th of May. Here is a brief summary of the key findings of the report:
1. the world has until 2020 to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change,
2. achieving this would reduce the world's annual gross domestic product by 3 per cent in 2030,
3. cuts in emissions of GHGs can be achieved with existing technologies,
4. bringing that technology into widespread use is likely to require extensive changes in public policy,
5. US$20,000 billion must be spent by 2030 on the world's energy infrastructure to help reduce costs.

The report also estimates that carbon emissions will cost between US$100 per tonne. Multiple strategies are proposed to prevent the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change at a reasonable cost. These include measures such as switching to renewable energy and biofuels, taxing fossil fuels, incentives for improving the energy efficiency of transportation, buildings and industry, as well as changes to agricultural and forestry practices. The key findings of the report have been agreed unanimously by more than 100 governments, including those of the US, China, India and the European Union and will form the basis for international policy. They will also provide the framework for discussions, set to begin this December in Bali, on a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change, whose main provisions expire in 2012. Whilst the latest IPCC report makes it clear that the world has a substantial challenge, it also shows that there is an emerging consensus.

*Giving Up On Two Degrees
* IPCC Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change"

Contraction and Convergence: An Incontestable Truth

You've watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, now here is the sequel - An Incontestable Truth. I attended the launch of the DVD by Colin Challen MP of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change yesterday. The DVD and online video explains a simpler way forward for determining global use and limitation of carbon emissions. Don't be put off by the term, Contraction and Convergence - it sounds complicated, but it's not. At heart it is a beautifully simple and equitable concept.

Contraction and Convergence is supported by the likes of eminent environmentalists, such as Sir Oliver Tickell, writers such as Mark Lynas and the insurance industry (who clearly have a vested interest in making sure we get it right!). Hear the simple theory explained and various individuals talking as to why they believe the Contraction and Convergence is the just, equitable and necessary way forward for Post Kyoto Protocol negotiations. It's online now at: An Incontestable Truth.

Increasing our CO2 emissions is comparable to water pouring from the tap and filling a bath. The bath is like the atmosphere from where the emissions are accumulating - and without pulling the plug, the water will not drain away. That is what is happening now. The plug is firmly stuck - which normally allows the CO2 emissions to drain away. Thus, just as CO2 emission are threatening our environmental stability, so the flow of water is threatening to overwhelm. The only way to ensure that the bath does not overflow is to turn off the tap soon enough. Same with CO2 - we have to stop the increase of emissions. That's where Contraction and Convergence comes in.

The key focus of Contraction and Convergence is the stabilisation levels for CO2 emissions in the atmospheres - how high the bath water should be allowed to go. Once that's worked out then you can negotiate between countries as to how much each country should have on a per capita basis. In other words, one unit per person. Those countries that use less (developing nations at most risk of climate disaster) than their units allocated, can sell them to countries that use more, and can use the money to invest in zero carbon technologies.

That is what Contraction and Convergence is designed to achieve - an international agreement for that purpose. An equitable, just, simple and fair system.

Watch the video and as all MP's have been sent a DVD, ask your local MP to support it. And if they do not - demand to know why not.

C&C video: An Incontestable Truth

Budget 2007

Gordy's green measures in a nutshell:

Transport
• Duty on fuel will rise by two pence per litter (ppl) for 2007-8, with the change being deferred until 1 October 2007 (which will continue until 2009)
• Vehicle excess duty (VED) will be increased on the most polluting cars (band G) to £300 in 2007-8 and £400 in 2008-9
• Low carbon vehicles in band B will be subjected to a reduced VED of £35
• 20ppl biofuels incentive has been extended until 2009-10

• Tax breaks on Liquid Petroleum Gas will be increased
• Rules will be relaxed to help small biofuel producers bring products to market and remain efficient
• A two per cent discount will be given to company cars using hi-blend bioethanol will be permanently reduced on biofuels used in off road transport such as trains.

Household
• Householders generating their own wind or solar power through the use of technology, and selling it back to the electricity companies, will not be subject to either income or capital gains tax on any payments received
• An additional £6 million will be used to help develop low carbon homes
• Pensioners without a central heating system can receive an additional discount of up £300 when installing a new system
• Any new home (up to the value of £500,000) deemed to be "zero-carbon" will be exempt from stamp duty
• Any homes meeting this criteria over £500,000 will receive a reduction in stamp duty of £15,000

Waste
• From 1 April 2008, until at least 2010-11 the standard rate of landfill tax will be increased by £8 per tonne
• The lower rate which applies to inactive waste will also be increased to £2.50 per tonne
• The fund available to redress the cost of landfill sites on local environments will be increased by £5 million taking the total to £65 million for 2007-2008

Other highlights
• £800 million to help support overseas development in the areas of environmental protection and the reduction of climate change
• Increase funding of research and development into environmental technologies through public-private partnerships to £800 million by 2008
• To encourage the use of low energy light bulbs the government has suggested to the European Union that a reduced rate of VAT be applied to energy efficient products
• An enhanced capital allowance will be payable to companies that develop energy saving technologies but are not in taxable profit to encourage growth in this area
• A competition will be launched to develop a full carbon capture and storage programme

Conclusions
Whilst these cautious proposals are a welcome, yet so much more still needs addressing. Transport for one has been sidestepped. Growing aviation was not addressed (especially in light of yesterday's open skies aviation deal which will bring an anticipated 50% increase of transatlantic air travel over the next five years), nor was the need for investment in better public transport infrastructure to encourage drivers to forsake the car for attractive alternatives. There is still the need to tackle waste at source - introduce a plastic tax and retailers will reduce their packaging overnight. In the home, further incentives will be needed to help off set the high initial costs of installation, and existing stock has not been brought under the same umbrella as new homes.

This Budget reminds me of 1970's transport caf food. It was served up with a bit of wilting garnish on the side - gave a bit of colour but was in reality of little additional substance. Problem is, now that I understand the nutrient value of a good bit of greenery, I want the full-on salad experience to go with my meat. Gordon, if this is an indication of your leadership on environmental issues you need to think more like that other Gordon. Be more like Mr Ramsay: bold, brave and without the bulls**t.

UK Climate Change Bill, Green Politics and You Tube

Meanwhile, back in the UK, environmental politics have been riding high on the political agenda this week. Sunday brought green flight proposals from the Tories, Monday evening saw Labour's Gordon Brown announce his environmental proposals to the Green Alliance, Tuesday 13th brought the laying of the all party endorsed draft Climate Change Bill.
~~~~

The Conservatives have launched their Greener Skies consultation on how to use environmental taxes to reduce the rapid growth in carbon emissions from aviation. Shadow chancellor George Osborne unveiled his environmentally responsible 'frequent flyer' package consisting of fuel duty, VAT on domestic flights, and scrapping of air passenger duty in favour of a tax per flight based more closely on carbon emissions. Aimed at frequent fliers rather than those enjoying an annual holiday abroad, the approach is based on a "pay as you burn, not pay as you earn" approach.

As things stand at the moment, carbon emissions from aircraft are taxed less than virtually any other form of carbon, yet because they are released high into the atmosphere, they can do most damage. The current Air Passenger Duty is not directly linked to carbon emissions and does not provide incentives for airlines to use more fuel-efficient aircraft.



To watch David Cameron speaking about the Greener Skies initiative, see: webcameron.
~~~~

Gordon Brown outlined Labour's policy framework on Monday evening, focusing on energy. Low-energy light bulbs are to become a requirement by 2011 and standby lights on appliances should be phased out. He is offering subsidies on insulation, advice on helping households reduce their carbon footprints, and incentives for a high-efficiency forms of decentralized generation, including micro-generation and combined heat and power.
Planning applications are to be improved to speed up the process for major infrastructure projects, such as wind farms and waste disposal facilities; recycling targets are to be cranked up and landfill emissions to be squeezed down. Investment in transport innovation was also promised, but no specifics were given, and mention was made of a personal ‘carbon calculator’ scheme in the pipeline.

To watch/listen/read Gordon Brown's speech "Meeting The Challenge", go to: Green Alliance
~~~~

13th March brought the publication of the draft Climate Change Bill, the first of its kind in any country, and accompanying strategy setting out a framework for moving the UK to a low-carbon economy.

Key Points of Climate Change Bill
Official targets: Establish five-year "carbon budgets," beginning in 2008, to reduce emissions by 60 percent by 2050.
Independent oversight: Create an independent body, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), to advise government on reducing emissions.
Legislative power: Increase government's power to introduce and implement new trading schemes for domestic emissions.
Accountability: Have the CCC produce an annual progress report for Parliament; require government to report to Parliament after every five-year carbon budget.

All great news, but - and these are big buts:
- Is this commensurate with the scale of the problem? Recent evidence suggests higher targets are needed.
- International aviation and shipping are not included, thus failing to recognise the full extent CO2 emissions
- This Bill still fights shy of setting the necessary annual targets - it merely proposes targets set for 5 year periods, which would present reporting after the government's term of office. Annual targets are vital if we are to stay on track. There is a danger that the five year approach will enable responsibility for failure to be shunted on from one government to another.


To watch David Miliband speaking about the Climate Change Bill, see his short video Greener Living on You Tube.

How do the parties stack up? See The Independent's article Which Political Party is the Greenest?

For a critical analysis of the problems lying ahead see George Monbiot's recent article The Target Wreckers

Mandatory Renewable Energy Targets

They say a day in politics can be a long time - a week even more. None more so than the last 7 days, when much progress in the EU has started to take shape. The battle centred around the acceptance of binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by drawing 20 percent of power from renewable sources by 2020.

First off 7th March, in the UK. After a telephone call with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, Tony Blair finally accepted the need for a binding target to help establish EU leadership in the worldwide fight against climate change.

8th and 9th March, Brussels: 2 days of EU negotiations netted a binding compromise agreement. Greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced by 20 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2020, with a 30 percent reduction to be implemented when other nations follow suit. Mandatory targets were agreed: 20% energy is to come from renewable sources like wind and solar power by 2020 (Currently renewables account for less than 7% of the energy mix used in the EU). 10% of cars and trucks will run on biofuels made from plants by 2020.

The compromise:
1. Individual targets will be allowed for each of the 27 EU member states to meet the renewable energy goal, with less stringent targets for East European countries who lag behind the rest of the EU in developing renewable energy (Poland, for example, obtains more than 90 percent of its energy for heating from coal).
2. The inclusion of nuclear energy. Despite stiff resistance from Austria, Denmark and Ireland, Mr. Chirac succeeded in lobbying hard for the inclusion of nuclear power as a noncarbon energy alternative (95% of France's energy comes from nuclear).

Detailed rules specifying how the agreement will be enforced have yet to be drawn up and The European Commission, which drafts legislation for the European Union, will be charged with coming up with individual countries’ targets in coordination with those nations. Doubtless much legal wrangling lies ahead.

Nevertheless, these are significant foundations. The importance of mandatory targets are two fold. Firstly, mandatory targets mean teeth: violation of targets will result in prosecution at the ECJ and imposition of heavy fines - a necessary deterrent to ensure targets are met. Secondly, it finally opens the door to the renewables industry. Despite the lack of subsidies that conventional energy receives (to the tune of $250-300 billion annually worldwide), renewables will be able to compete in the energy sector and investor confidence in the renewable market place is assured.

UK Green Building Council

Green buildings are the homes of our future, and I for one want assistance on how to transform my draughty, energy guzzling, Georgian terraced home into a heavenly haven of carbon neutrality. To go completely off-grid - in the centre of London. Now that would be a challenge!

But what of new-builds? Although my heart lies with a well seasoned building of 140 years plus, there are many out there seeking new developments. Where to turn for assistance on that front? Well, the UK has just launched it's own UK Green Building Council (ukgbc.org) at the recent Ecobuild show. Drawing together some of the foremost influential companies in the building sector, the intention is to unite the industry around a set of core goals by developing a roadmap with clear targets on how to achieve a step change in sustainability across the entire built environment, including urban planning, carbon emissions, waste and water.

The UK GBC will act to ensure sustainability is ‘built-in’ to all stages of the cycle from funding and procurement to design, construction and product manufacture, to operation and maintenance.

Having been contacted by individuals seeking builders with knowledge and understanding of sustainable practice, it is clear to me there is a very strong need for reliable and accurate information regarding sustainable construction. It is not only the property developer but also the building companies that want to know what works and what doesn’t. A key role of the UK GBC will be to share best practice and knowledge with not only the building sector but also the general public.

The Council, which is industry led, independent, not-for-profit, membership based organisation, will also promote the development and application of the UK’s world leading environmental assessment tools. It is their aim to provide a single, powerful, pan industry voice to Government.

Nine countries have now joined the World Green Building Council (W-GBC) with a further 30 countries actively considering establishing GBCs – see worldgbc.org. This could help to ensure that the transformation of the construction sector becomes a global phenomenon.

And of course, what of the architects? Yesterday evening I attended a talk at RIBA given by Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, entitled "Building a Sustainable Future". There, he highlighted the ultimate objective - to strive for a zero carbon built environment, with the need for architects and builders to incorporate renewable technologies and promote energy efficiency. It was his stated belief that "if we can develop efficient ways of farming solar energy we can provide for the future."

Given that over 50% of carbon emissions are come from buildings and another 10% come from the materials used in those buildings, it makes sense that the starting point is to put one's house in order. Sir David King, it transpires, is busily doing just that - on a Greek island. 10 meters above sea level. I strongly suspect he will be investing in a set of nifty pv panels.

You can register on the ukgbc.org website for regular updates.

To read a stimulating debate on architecture and the environment see George Marshall's blog, Climate Denial, where he takes the architectural establishment to task: Anti Environmental Architecture

[Photo credit: Bedzed]

London, my London

London is to become the greenest city in the world. Hurrah. Ken Livingstone has announced a radical climate action plan to cut carbon emissions by 60 percent within 20 years.

No stone shall be left unturned (or should that be no piece of litter) in his attempt to make London the first city in the world to have a really comprehensive plan to cut its carbon emissions. Plans include slashing carbon output by reducing demand and wastage across the whole spectrum from individuals to households, businesses and local governments. The plan is far more ambitious than the draft Climate Change Bill the British government will publish on March 12 setting in law a commitment to cut national emissions of the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by 60 percent by 2050 (The IPCC report claims 80+% cuts are necessary by 2050, environmentalists and scientific community say 90% by 2030 - why not pitch higher?). So hear this fellow Londoners - if you haven't already, time to turn off your TV and lights and switch to low energy light bulbs. Lest you forget, you are about to be bombarded with messages to encourage you to do so. But thankfully it is not all 'go change a lightbulb'. Substantial subsidies are also being put in place for you to insulate your homes.

Green initiatives will be promoted for businesses and local governments, who will be awarded green badges of merit for (literally) cleaning up their acts. Which is good news for the many businesses who are cottoning onto the financial as well as environmental benefits of establishing good green credentials.

That is not all. The bedrock of the plan is a major change in the production and distribution of the city's electricity. The aim is to switch over one quarter of the city's power supply from the old and hugely inefficient national grid to locally-generated electricity using far more efficient combined heat and power plants (CHP). Unlike traditional power stations where up to 70% of the original energy output is wasted in lost heat or during transmission, a CHP unit captures and uses the heat produced. By moving power generation closer to our homes and offices where it is needed, efficiency can be greatly improved and therefore reduce the total amount of energy needed.

The plan aims to cut London's carbon emissions by 20 million tonnes a year by 2025, but the real goal is a reduction of 33 million tonnes or 60 percent below 1990 levels. An ambitious plan indeed, and a plan that will need the assistance of the government in the form of stable, long-term carbon prices and tough building regulations applied to new and existing buildings.

The aptly named Mr Watts, climate change adviser to Ken said "Londoners don't have to reduce their quality of life but they do have to change the way they live." Lead the way Ken.




Full Report: The Mayor of London’s Climate Change Action Plan - 'Action Today to Protect Tomorrow'

For more of what Ken is up to at City Hall: Mayor of London

Food & Freezers

Time for an update on my direct action: life without my freezer. If you have been following this particular self-imposed restriction, you will know that (with the assistance of some hungry mates) it was finally emptied in time for the beginning of the New Year.

Amongst other reasons, I was curious to see whether or not it would make much impact on my eating habits. Interestingly, 7 weeks on, it has made surprisingly little difference. Yes, I initially found myself being more careful as to what I bought as I no longer had that fall-back position of chucking it in the freezer if it looked like those lamb chops would not get to the grill over the next few days. But it was a minor adjustment, and life without a freezer soon settled in as the norm. The thing is, life without it has had little adverse impact on my day-to-day mastications. The fact that I do not miss it supports my theory that we seem capable of adopting patterns of behaviour with remarkable ease - and before we know it, they become the accepted norm. Take supermarkets. Now, shopping in them really cannot be explained away as normal - and yet, 42 million people use them at least once a week (that's over 85% of the population).

Such is my aversion, I have not stepped near the sterile chiller cabinets of a Freshco or the likes for, ooh, years. But I am lucky. For one, I have no kids (my child-bearing friends tell me that this reason alone justifies their defence of duress). Living as I do in Bloomsbury, central London, surrounded on three sides by Kings Cross, Clerkenwell and Islington, my forage does not take me far to secure seasonal/locally sourced/organic/low carbon emission sustenance. I can even bankroll the Zapatista rebellion by buying their coffee. There is a smattering of well-stocked health food-stores, some wonderful deli's, my local Sunday Farmers' Market, and if the lure of the all-in-one proves too much, Planet Organic is close by.

On a Friday and Saturday, I can toodle over to Exmouth Market, pick up a bag of mushrooms hand-picked in Kent that morning, um and ahh over which of the Neal's Yard cheeses is at its' ripest, take a refill of the best organic museli ever tasted from Unpackaged (what a spanking idea this is - you pay less if you return with the same packet) as well as topping up on my dwindling supply of Ecover washing-up liquid.

Even better are the local eateries. Oliver Rowe's hunt for food reared within the boundary of the M25 ends up on a plate at Konstam at the bottom of the hill, the eco-friendly Acorn House restaurant is just around the corner, Medcalf tips it's hat to seasonal, sometimes organic and the award winning super duper Duke of Cambridge is but a 10 minute meander in the other direction. These places are well known, and very popular - justifiably so.

Yet, there is one restaurant that is quietly forging ahead without a PR company to blow it's trumpet or a marketing plan to put itself on the map. If anything, The Ambassador has a bit of a renegade streak. Yes, it's important to them to work closely with their suppliers. They work with small outfits, artisans and family producers. All their meat is rare breed from small farms and if not actually certified organic, is as good as, with Herdwick lamb and Galloway beef from the Farmer Sharp stable of sustainable suppliers. Veggies are seasonal and local, with little knowledge of a pesticide spray. Water is Belu - because, as Clive says "what they're doing just makes sense". He even has it delivered by pallett instead of having just a dozen cases at a time. It's a bit more work, but he acknowledges it contributes to keeping delivery emissions a little lower - and hey, it helps with his costings too. The remarkably good wine list has a fair smattering of organic and biodynamic wines (and a generous choice by the glass), wines from small producers - wines with good stories.

The Ambassador is run by Clive Greenhalgh. He started off at The Eagle long ago. He earned his stripes as front of house at The Brackenbury, alongside chefs Jonathan Jones (now of the Anchor & Hope) and Trish Hilferty (now of The Fox), before running The Chiswick. So this is a man who knows his food and wine. And that's where his money has gone in this venture, not on flashy surroundings. Wooden tables and bistro chairs are virtually the only adornments, giving it the quiet air of a Hopper painting. Everything seems to be happening just out of range. As indeed it is – the kitchen is there at the rear, not hidden, but not exactly obvious either. He's got a good chef in there too - Toby Jilsmark, a Swede who brings an interesting influence. His geographical heritage has imparted the practise of making best out of limited ingredients, layering flavour to a dish that looks deceptively simple. Take the humble carrot. It may arrive on your plate, alongside a meltingly delicate hunk of braised veal (see The Good Veal Guide ), pureed as well as sitting prettily pert and peeled. Thus you have the delightful sensation of contrasting texture as well as heightening of the flavours. This is skilled and thoughtful craft. Not , I have to admit, what I can be bothered to do at home.

Back to that renegade aspect. The problem is, I bet you didn't know any of that ‘caring for the food’ stuff is there. But that’s just it. Clive does not want you to remember The Ambassador for it's sustainable credentials. You won’t get to know of much of this unless you ask, and ask some more. He and his team just quietly get on with what they do, caring all the while. He wants you to come back simply because "the food tastes nice, it's served well, and is fairly priced." Gosh, I nearly forgot - it's all that too.

For full article: see The Ecologist Blog: Fish Food and Freezers
[photo credits: Ecologist feature banner, lunch dish at Konstam]

USA is warming to Climate Concern

Last week was a busy week in USA.

First off was Al Gore's announcement of the launch of Save Our Selves - the Campaign for a Climate in Crisis. The SOS Campaign will be spearheaded by a 24-hour concert on 7/7/07 across all 7 continents that will bring together more than 100 of the world's top musical acts. Television, internet and wireless coverage has already been secured in 120 countries, with more to come. Live Earth concerts will take place in the Brazil, Shanghai, Japan, Johannesburg, London, Sydney, the United States and Antartica. It is designed to trigger a global movement reaching people in every corner of the planet through television, film, radio, the Internet and Live Earth.

The Live Earth audience, and the proceeds from the concerts, will create the foundation for a new, multi-year global effort to combat the climate crisis led by The Alliance for Climate Protection and its Chair, Vice President Al Gore.

The campaign's identity is cleverly based on the international Morse code distress signal: three dots, followed by three dashes, followed by three dots. Founder Kevin Wall (previously Executive Producer of 2005’s Live 8) explained: SOS is the most urgent, universal message we have, and SOS will use that signal as a continuous distress call to prompt individuals, corporations and governments around the world to respond to our climate crisis with action. "SOS is creating an unmatched communications platform to take on an unparalleled crisis", he said. "Our message must saturate the globe if we're to succeed, and we will.”

Live Earth are not only issuing a rallying call to the world but are also ensuring that they do so sustainably. They will be implementing a new Green Event Standard that will become the model for carbon neutral concerts and other live events in the future.

••• − − − ••• Live Earth

Next up over in Washington, by way of a response to the none too productive United Nations climate negotiations in November, the British-led Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) set up a meeting in the hope of stimulating progress in a less formal setting. The two-day meeting brought together legislators from the Group of Eight industrialised countries - United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany (current president), France, Russia, Canada, and Japan - plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.

And indeed, although no decisions were binding, progress was made with the expectation of influencing the 2012 Kyoto Protocol succession plan (GLOBE have launched the G8 + 5 Climate Change Dialogue). Delegates agreed that developing countries will have to face targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions as well as rich countries and a global market should be formed to cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions.

The Americans were in an upbeat mood too with Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman supporting legislation limiting US emissions.

One Englishman who attended both events was Steve Howard of The Climate Group - an independent, nonprofit organization based in London dedicated to advancing business and government leadership on climate change. To see a short video of him speaking about what action needs to be taken now, see Green TV.

Politicians Sign New Climate Pact

The Romance of Rail Travel

The romance of rail travel never fades. Childhood memories of waking aboard a sleeper from Scotland and looking out at misty sidings in the depths of English countryside, hugging knees with barely containable excitement of what more was to come. An early morning train as a student, rattling through the summer sun-kissed fields en route from Vienna to Rome. A confused conversation in Basque with an old lady carrying a mesh crate full of noisy chickens, in readiness for the market at San Sebastian. A sophisticated late night dinner on a train to Berlin, with linen napkins, silver crockery and the promise of a romantic long weekend with my companion. A life-changing declaration of love in the waiting room at Abergavenny.

Most recently, the early train to Aigle from Paris via Lausanne; the rising dawn slowly revealing frost and snow capped mountains - and the promise of more snow at our destination, Whitepod.

Travelling by rail is part of the adventure - it starts the very moment you step into the station. Watching who comes, who goes, what they carry, what they say, how they move. Conversations are in other languages. Are they regulars or are they interlopers? What is their adventure? Do they understand the romance of travel by train too?

Think of films with memorable train and train station scenes; Cary Grant’s passionate encounter with Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest, Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard’s temptation in A Brief Encounter, Bobbie running to her father in The Railway Children, Platform 9 1/2 at Kings Cross Station.

And what of the very architecture of a station? Of course, the lure of grandeur appeals greatly – the majesty of the Belle Epoque interior of Le Train Bleu restaurant in Gare de Lyon, with it’s frescoes illustrating the cities that travellers passed through when travelling south to Lyon and the Mediterranean. In the UK we have Paddington station built by Isambard Kingdom Brunel in 1854, with it’s magnificent wrought arches supporting a glazed roof over the main train shed stretching almost 700 feet long. I eagerly await the arrival of Eurostar at the foot of the gloriously eclectic St Pancras Chambers. Oysters and champagne above the concourse and journey times of just over two hours to Paris are promised before the end of this year.

So check the station clock, grab your bags, find your platform, take your seat, settle in and as your train leaves the bustle of the city behind, allow your eye to stretch further and your thoughts to slow down. Look out over fields with houses dotted in the distance and sheep grazing in meadows. Dip into a book, snuggle up, watch a DVD, chat, snooze, dream, enjoy. Let it be a lifelong affair, each trip an opportunity to renew the romance and savour the experience.

The era of the train has returned.

~ Rediscover the wonder of travelling by train: The Man at Seat 61
~ The Lazy Environmentalist Blog from Whitepod.
~ carbon footprint of a return train journey from London to Paris per person: 41 kg (0.041tonnes) (See My Carbon Footprint for travel carbon calculations)
[photo credit of trains in snow:
Fevrier 2003]

Energy Revolution II: Tony Blair, Clean Energy & Cuba

On Tuesday Tony Blair announced his support for a major international clean energy project. Hurrah, I say - roll out the renewables. But, wait. The focus is not on established carbon-free technologies such as those set out in the Energy Revolution report. Mr Blair's focus is on a solution not yet perfected and fraught with high costs and high risks: carbon capture and storage.

Although the goals of the project have not yet been finalised, Mr Blair is pushing for international agreement for the investment in the research and technology needed to perfect the capture of carbon dioxide produced from burning coal and store it under the ground or the seabed to prevent the release into the atmosphere. 'Clean' coal, it seems, its Mr Blair's answer to all our energy problems - bury the dirt and then it miraculously becomes clean. It begs the question Mr Blair: why are you not backing true clean technology - technology that does not release carbon dioxide in the first place?

The Energy Revolution Report has established that it can be done, with considerable reduction in carbon emissions. Is there any other plan out there that can better a result of 50% reduction of energy CO2 reductions by 2050?

Extensive gas infrastructure projects are well underway in the UK, such as the 196km pipeline connecting new gas import terminals at Milford Haven to the national transmission system. The pipeline will run from Felindre near Swansea, across the Brecon Beacons to Tirley in Gloucestershire. Similar pipelines are being put in place to enable the UK to adjust to being a net importer of gas. An industry boosted by strong long term governmental support and generous subsidies, has just announced this morning that gas prices are due to drop soon thus boosting further demand from imports. Whilst this is good news for the price conscious consumer, this does not bode well for our long-term clean energy needs.

Production and consumption of conventional energy use creates enormous environmental problems: alongside acceleration of climate change there are the additional problems of pollution to land, water and air, as well as to humans. There is an inverted logic to the solution presented: "lets dig up more fossil fuels from our planet, bag the bad gases and hide them safely out of sight and mind. Fingers crossed they do not come back to haunt someone else." We will never really know whether or not it would work, but hopefully we are not going to be around to find out. As a business venture, I for one would not give it my financial backing, and not when there are safer options out there.

Energy is essential to our everyday living and working. It provides us with fundamental services: lighting, heating and cooling and mobility all require energy use. It is difficult to visualise our lifestyles without it. Society as we know it would grind to a halt - essential services such as heath, education and welfare would break down rapidly.

Such an energy crisis did take place. In 1990, following the Soviet collapse, Cuba's massive subsidies of oil were halted. Their GDP dropped by nearly a third, transportation came close to standstill and food became scarce. The impact on individuals was most clearly demonstrated in terms of weight: the average Cuban lost 20 pounds in the first year. Remarkably, Cuba not only survived, but successfully managed to make the emergency transition by turning to local organic agriculture (called oganoponico), renewable energy, and large-scale mass transit.

Our challenge is to make the transition to clean energy whilst still meeting energy demands. Whilst Cuba was forced by dint of unanticipated circumstance, we are forced by knowledge of future circumstance - of the need for drastic greenhouse gas cuts and the pending peaking of oil.

This can be done. We are not in the same position as Cuba, but we can draw important lessons from their experience. We are not in an emergency situation - yet. We have the luxury of a little time, which allows us to be proactive rather than reactive. Stern tells us to act now rather than later is the cheaper route. It can also be the equitable route. Incorporation of renewable energies such as Concentrating Solar Power can greatly assist developing nation economies as well as sustain our energy needs. We have a short window of opportunity to put in place appropriate plans, global solutions to benefit us all to move forward into what will indeed be a new energy revolution. Decisions that will be made over the next few months have the capacity to determine our future energy needs and our future environmental impact.

Mr Blair, I ask you, read the report and act on it.


Energy Revolution Report

How Cuba Survived Peak Oil

Katherine Hamnett: Kept in the dark
Concentrated Solar Power is the secure energy supply of the future, so why haven't we been told about it?

[pictures credit: Energy Institute, Treehugger]