Mont-Saint-Michel, on the Normandy coast of France, is the sight of new conflict.  The most recent battle is not in a medieval setting, but a modern struggle against two good, but opposed environmental causes.  On one side are those who want to reduce carbon emissions by installing windmills.  On the other side stand ecologists who suggest that windmills churning above the tidal flats of Mont-Saint-Michel would distract from the natural beauty of the medieval monument and potentially destroy the landscape in the future.

France is on an ambitious route to expand its use of windmills in renewable energy.  Currently there are 2500 windmills producing 4500 megawatts per year; the goal is to have 8500 windmills producing 25000 megawatts by 2020.  Windmills are becoming increasingly sought after by EU goals to limit greenhouse gases.  Last week, the EU recommended that it invest $ 70 million in clean energy over the coming decade, tripling windmill construction to produce 20 % of Europe’s electricity.

Those against the windmills near Mont-Saint-Michel have nothing against the quest for clean energy but rather argue that windmills above the ridgeline are not the way to achieve this goal.  Allies have formed across France, and an ambitious campaign to prove the windmills would desecrate the vista has begun.

The mayor of Mont-Saint-Michel, Eric Vannier, has stayed out of the debate for the most part, but 600 locals have pooled finances to hire lawyers to sue local government.  They expect a court ruling in Spring 2010.  If the group wins the lawsuit, “they’ll have to put everything back beyond 30 km (~18.5 miles),” said Corinne Gressier, who runs the group “Windmills: Turbulences.”  But she also realizes, “if we lose, it’s over.”

French law bans windmills closer than 1500 feet from historical monuments.  The current court case in will be on trial in Nantes.  It concerns plans to build 300 foot high windmills on farmland in Argouges, on a plateau a bit more than 10 miles southeast of Mont-Saint-Michel.  The monument attracts about 3 million visitors each year to admire the rock-top monastery.  Andre Antolini, president of renewable Energies Syndicate, told reporters last month that, “at the proposed distance, tourists to the monument would only see tiny blades peeking over the horizon.”

But for protesters like Gressier and the national alliance of environmental groups, the three windmills at Argouges would just be the tip of the iceberg if building is permitted.  There are current plans for an additional 80 towers in farming communities across the entire ridgeline above Mont-Saint-Michel.

The complicating issue is that farmers and village counters tend to embrace proposals to install windmills in their fields because of the payments they receive.  They get stipends for use of the land and villages are provided tax revenue on income from electricity, which is sold to the national grid.  “It’s a flourishing business,” said Jean-Louis Butre, president of the Durable Environmental Federation, based in Paris.

At present France gets about 80 percent of its energy from nuclear reactors and an additional 12 percent from hydraulic generators.  That leaves a balance of 8 percent that must be filled by oil, coal, natural gas, solar, or wind.  Butre explains that if government decided to fill that gap with windmills, it would have so many that they would be part of the scenery in more than a third of the country.

In fact last year, Butre challenged president Sarkozy’s strong push for wind energy in the book “Fraud: why windmills are a danger for France.”  The former President Velery Giscard d’Estaing, a supporter for nuclear power, wrote the preface to the book.  He denounced windmills as an “unacceptable use of public funds, a deceptive public discourse, and often questionable business.”

Now the delegation from Argouges, with support from groups around France, waits to see if they will win the court battle and put atop to the windmill construction near Mont-Saint-Michel.  It remains to be seen how this part of Mont-Saint-Michel’s represents 13 centuries of history will play out.

This month, the European Commission published development roadmaps for seven key low carbon technologies. Thy relate to wind, solar, bioenergy, CCS, nuclear technologies, as well as smart grids and energy efficiency, for the period 2010 and 2020. 

There is a long-standing policy debate over how best to spur innovation in low-carbon technologies. One option is to let markets ‘pull’ technology development along. According to this reasoning, if governments ensure there is a credible price for CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, then companies will start to develop new technologies with lower emissions in response to this market signal. The other possibility is for governments to use a policy ‘push’ and pay directly for early-stage R&D into new and promising technologies.

The roadmaps follow the publication of a EU Strategic Energy Technology Plan in 2007. It outlined a vision where the EU enjoyed global leadership in a range of low-carbon technologies. Each roadmap has been developed by the Commission in consultation with the relevant industries, and attempts to describe, step by step, how each technology should develop over the next decade in order to fulfil the vision of the SET Plan. Development in each of the technology areas is backed by an European Industrial Initiative, which is a public-private partnership working in each of the low-carbon technology areas.

In practice, governments usually opt for a combination of the two. The SET Plan was the EU’s policy push for low technologies, accompanying the market pull of the carbon and renewable energy targets included in the Climate and Energy Package it unveiled in the same year.

While the Climate and Energy Package and its 20/20/20 targets have successfully made it into EU law, the SET Plan has arguably been somewhat neglected by comparison. The Commission’s new communication implicitly acknowledges this by speaking of the need for the SET Plan now to be ‘taken forward to implementation’.

But implementation costs money and, critically, the Commission’s new roadmaps don’t come with any new funding plans attached. The Commission calls on Member States to dig deeper into their own pockets to fund energy R&D – a recommendation that is unlikely to receive a warm welcome from treasuries across Europe as they seek to recover their battered public finances – and proposes to use the European Investment Bank’s lending power to fund research in promising areas.

The communication also refers to the role of other countries in developing low-carbon technologies. As with other areas of international climate negotiations, there are large inequalities in the distribution of low-carbon innovation. While the EU can justifiably point to its global climate leadership committing early to substantial emission reductions (at least, compared to other developed countries), the US is leading the pack in terms of its expenditure on developing low-carbon technologies, from biofuels to smart grids. A number of international negotiations are in progress to improve coordination between developed countries and sure that they all pull their weight when it comes to energy R&D; another set of negotiations again are discussing how developing countries can access these new technologies.

As reported by EurActiv, it is not only global cooperation that lies behind the SET Plan: there is something of a technology race occurring between different developed countries, with potentially large future gains available to countries who lead the development of new low-carbon technologies. The IEA this week released its technology road map for CCS that envisages an investment of US$6 trillion by 2050. Companies who are successful in developing CCS technologies now will be able to profit from this economic activity in future. Similar arguments apply to other low-carbon technologies like renewable generation and low-emissions vehicles.

There is no question that low-carbon technologies will be vital during the twnty-first century: without them mitigating climate change will be intolerably expensive. How many of those technologies will be European in origin depends in no small part on whether the Commission succeeds in finding R&D funding at a scale that matches its R&D vision.

With hopes fading for a comprehensive climate treaty as the clock ticks down to Copenhagen, increasing focus will be placed on interim measures and incremental agreements that can be formalised at Copenhagen.  Coming just six weeks before the summit, the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is hosting its Global Roundtable in Cape Town.  The first time the event has been hosted in Africa, the Roundtable, which opens this evening, aims to partner environmental groups under the umbrella of UNEP with representatives of the financial sector and provide a forum for discussing and setting new agendas for sustainable finance.

 The summits focus, ‘Financing Change, Changing Finance’ is timely, especially in lieu of flagging momentum for a comprehensive agreement at Copenhagen. Governments and political momentum has illustrated its weakness this year in overcoming major barriers to enacting an agreement at Copenhagen, for example Congress’s inability to implement and legislate binding targets on emissions has resulted in many feeling Copenhagen might be a wasted opportunity before it has begun. This does however mean focus may now shift more in favour of the private sector, which has an opportunity to show what collaborative and innovative financing architecture can achieve. 

The volatility of the finance and evolving capital markets means there is no simple step to implementing sustainable financing mechanism, especially with regards to ecosystem services where there is not a fixed or easily measurable metric or asset. However the planetary implications of climate change and global ecosystem loss mean there is momentum to get discussions on the table and integrate climate, poverty and social dimensions into financing mechanisms.

The Roundtable will have wide representation from major financial institutions including Peter Blom, CEO of Triodos, the Financial Times Sustainable Bank of the Year as well as a host of South African and international private banks, financial analyst firms, global players in the insurance business and suite of the leading global environmental NGOs like the WWF. The event is unique in bringing together top calibre financing institutions and venture capitalists with the leading brains behind innovations in environmental finance like Pavan Sukhdev, the ‘Stern’ of ecosystem services, as study leader for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).

The timing of the event and amalgamation of speakers and attendees means there is an opportunity to deliver some hope before Copenhagen in working towards incremental financing mechanisms. One hopes the ‘butterfly effect’ of changing finance can inspire the existing political barriers in building momentum before Copenhagen.

After the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’s defeat in Senate last August, the Australian Opposition, the Coalition (Liberals + Nationals), had until last Sunday to propose amendments before the reintroduction of the bill in November (for previous developments, see here). After a Party meeting lasting more than four hours yesterday, Mr. Turnbull, the Opposition leader, confirmed the partyroom had endorsed his strategy, backing “commonsense amendments” which, if agreed to, “would save thousands of Australian jobs”(The Australian 19/10/09).

Most provisions intend to provide greater exemptions to key industries. Amendments include exemptions for the coal industry, greater assistance to power generators, a permanent exemption for agriculture, greater exemptions for energy intensive industries, and protection for food processing. The detailed list is available on the Liberals’ website. The Coalition won early support for its position last night, with the Minerals Council of Australia backing its amendments. “The proposed amendments will better align the CPRS with other emissions trading schemes around the world, promote investment in low-emissions technologies and provide the necessary flexibility to adjust to the outcome of the United Nations climate change talks in Copenhagen in December,” chief executive officer Mitchell Hooke said. (SMH 20/10/09)

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, set a six-week timetable for negotiation and debate before a vote in November. The bill will be introduced to the House of Representatives this week, and should reach the Senate by mid-November. The government will push very hard for the passage of the bill by Copenhagen and may extend Senate sittings if necessary (SMH 18/10/09). However, the Nationals and some key Liberals strongly oppose the ETS, and threaten to cross the floor if Mr. Turnbull strikes a deal with the government. The legislation might still pass under this scenario, but Mr. Turnbull will face the embarrassment of a Coalition split on the issue just weeks after declaring he would stake his leadership on success.

This week, many South Africans, like millions of other climate conscious citizens around the world, are preparing for the Global Day of Action on Saturday the 24^th.  The day, which is focused on citizen action and engagement, has been organised by 350.org, an advocacy organisation promoting global action to tackle climate change.

Many parts of South Africa are feeling the increasing impacts of climate change such as shifting vegetation zones, erratic rainfall and seasonal temperature anomalies, particularly evident in arid areas.

The aim of global action day is to engage citizens in the science of climate change, hence the reference to 350 which is used as the recommended baseline with regards to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.  Figures for 2009 indicate that levels are already at 390ppm, hence the urgency in curbing emissions growth and aiming for stabilisation at 350ppm.  Although there is much debate within the worlds elite climate modellers’ about correct targets and the use of temperature or concentration, 350.org have used the 350 figure as their campaign theme.  Bill McKibben, organiser of the 350 group is cognisant of the complexity in the climate system dynamics and says the 350 figure gives campaigners a metric to work with.  The 350 initiative has big name support with endorsement from Al Gore, Sir Nicholas Stern and Rajendra Pachuari, it is therefore an effective viaduct between local campaigns and their influence on political action.

The 350 figure will form the centre of many of the global actions planned for the 24^th of October.  South Africans will be engaging in a variety of demonstrations including a meeting at Johannesburg’s Emmerentia dam, where people are encouraged to dress at superheroes to represent the need to save the planet.  At Muizenberg Beach, Cape Town’s surf mecca, giant blocks of ice in the shape of a 350 will be melted and a freeze frame movie made. Cape Town’s largest township, Khayelitsha, located in the Cape Flats region, will be holding a ‘blue under the sea event’ where blue clothing will signify the areas vulnerability to flooding and predicted sea level rise. Activities will also be taking place on the beach front in Durban where sand, art and music will be the focus to inspire action on climate. In addition an open letter will be circulated, lobbying President Jacob Zuma to attend the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

The global day of action, aimed at lobbying the global political agenda is particularly timely and prudent. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently told Newsweek he felt the prospects of states agreeing to anything at Copenhagen was ‘looking worse and worse’.  Consequently the more national citizens can engage with their political leadership the more momentum will grow before Copenhagen. As Gordon Brown, at the recent Major Economics Forum in London reiterated, there is a need to break the leadership ‘impasse’ as there was no ‘Plan B’ in the absence of united firm agreement at Copenhagen.

For Blog Action Day, focusing this year on climate change, I thought to do something a little different and take a look at climate action, and how it relates to climate policy and politics. So I talked with Ada Aroneanu, an organiser with 1Sky, a collaborative campaign bringing together many organisations so as to bring about “public demand for a clear, simple, specific national policy platform that would set America on the road to real solutions.”

I asked Ada how and when 1Sky came into being?

During 2007 several groups who were active on climate change at the local level came to realise that there was a need for a mouthpiece on the federal climate policy level, and that these groups involved in climate action lacked variety. 1Sky evolved out of the coming together of these local groups as well as new groups who haven’t been directly involved with climate change before then (faith, human rights, anti-poverty, etc).

This also coincided with other national events – the ‘Step It Up’ campaign, which formed in 2007, and the 2007 Power Shift in November which saw 6,000 youths lobbying Congress on 1Sky principals.

And what are these principles?

1Sky promotes 3 main principles –

These principles are the prism through which 1Sky analyses policy.

My main interest was how on-the-ground actions might affect policy, so I asked Ada to tell me about some of their past actions and successes.

1Sky actions kicked off with the 2^nd Step It Up action in November 07 which called for a 20% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (below 1990 levels). At the time these numbers were not in the public debate, but following this action they started to be commonly referred to.

Green Jobs Now – a call to create 5 million green jobs. A collaboration with Green for All and Al Gore’s “We” campaign (now Repower America), with about 700 events covering diverse locations – urban sprawl, coloured communities – across the country. This number – 5 million jobs – and the principles of this campaign were incorporated into Obama’s presidential campaign which was nearing its final stages before the elections.

Power Shift 09 brought 12,000 students to Washington. 6,000 went to campaign on the Hill (despite a freak snow storm). There was a lot of face time with politicians over that weekend.

When asked about 1Sky’s current focus Ada told me about two of their summer actions -

Business outreach where 1Sky volunteers contacted local businesses and encouraged them to call their local chambers of commerce and talk to them about their climate change policy; and direct lobbying, with visits to – and rallies at – regional offices of representatives before the vote on the Waxman-Markey bill in June.

Currently 1Sky are focusing on the 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action on October 24, getting their volunteers and mobilizers to participate. Following that they are shifting their focus to placing some pressure on President Obama, calling on him to make America a leader in clean energy. Pushing the president, which will be done alongside pushing senators, comes as – in Ada’s words – “we need to be putting pressure on both branches of the federal government to act at the executive/agency level as well as Senators to act through congress.”

[I believe this focus on the president might also prove to be important in encouraging him to take a more active role in the climate legislation, as he did with health care but only very little with the climate bills, something that many US climate campaigners and analysts have noted.] 

Finally, as the main action in US domestic climate politics at the moment is the bill currently making its way through the Senate, I wondered how 1Sky were dealing with it.

“As it is currently at the committee level, we are working in the states of the relevant committee members. Once it reaches the floor, hopefully before Copenhagen, we will work across the entire country.”

With over 2,000 Climate Precinct Captains across the country, and 40 organisers, mobilizing communities on the ground, 1Sky joins million of people the world over in demanding bold climate action from their leaders.

Speaking at the recent Conservative party Conference in Manchester, held on 5-8^th October, shadow energy and climate change secretary Greg Clark claimed that the UK needed an ‘emergency plan to rescue our energy policy’ within days of a general election.

The current UK energy policy from a glance appears to contain many strong ‘green’ policies, but in some cases, and a certain level of financial commitment to funding these policies.  But unfortunately the impact of these policies is simply too early to tell.   It may be argued that the Labour Party have made several large strides in leading the way forward to the global talks in Copenhagen, by being the first country to call a UN Security Council meeting on climate change, and by being the first country to introduce a Climate Change Bill with the aim to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% by 2020.

Despite the above strides, the Conservative’s argue that UK is in a ‘dire position’ and is in absolute need for a new ‘Green Deal’ which aims to; 

• Provide £6,500 to every household to upgrade the energy efficiency of their home
• Improve the carbon footprint of the least efficient homes and save 9.4 million tonnes of CO2
• Create around 70,000 jobs, including 3,500 apprenticeships
• Open up a market worth £2.5 billion a year
• Authorise five GW of clean coal capacity fitted with carbon capture and storage
• Immediate publication of the planning needed for new nuclear power stations
• Give the right for every community to host wind farms and keep the revenue from business rates generated for 6 years
• Make the national grid extend its network offshore
• Build Marine energy parks
• Lastly, scrap Labour centralised, target led approach to house building

Over the past 12 years the UK government has seen 15 Energy Ministers tackle the climate change agenda.  The most recent drive from government, led by Ed Milliband in concentrated in the delivery if the Low Carbon Transition Plan and more widely known, the UK’s Climate Change Action Plan.

Supported by the establishment of the Department of Climate Change, another Labour initiative, a number of policy commitments are designed to create a low carbon economy, these include;

• Introduction of the Renewables Obligation
• Climate Change Levy (see rates through the HMRC link)
• Carbon Reduction Commitment
• Implementation of long-term legal Frameworks e.g. Committee for Climate Change to measure these changes
• Zero carbon homes target setting by 2016
• Development of a £100m blueprint for renewable energy – to target supply
• Adoption of a Waste Strategy aimed to deliver 9.3 million tonnes of savings of CO2 per year by 2020
• Water and air is recordable cleaner than 1997 levels and waste recycling has quadrupled

So how much of these green pledges are just talk?  The government has pledged big targets to reduce CO2 in the UK, but many of the Party members are aware of the small details on how they will be delivered.  For example, according to a study carried out by ComRes research of 150 MPs, it revealed that 72% were unaware of the government’s target for all new housing to be zero carbon from 2016.  The study further identified that members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group were unaware that a quarter of MPs didn’t know that more than a quarter of UK emissions came from Housing. 

Perhaps the green campaigns from both parties need to target their members, as well as communicating plans to its voters.  There are many successes attributed to the policies employed by the Labour Party to date, however, it is also clear of the recent challenges in delivery, for example, the Part-L planning consultation, the nuclear debate, and the changes to the Carbon Reduction Commitment timescales for its implementation. 

Once a policy is made, does it stand up strongly to meet the realistic outcomes, to time and budget, or simply sound good to the voters in Britain – you can decide, its your vote!

copyright: Fukui Shinbun

Almost one month has passed after Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), was appointed as Prime Minister of Japan in September 16. According to a public opinion poll carried out by Yomiuri Shinbun in September 17, 75 percent of its respondents supported the ‘Hatoyama’ cabinet, the second highest figure after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s cabinet, since Yomiuri started carrying out its popularity surveys in 1978.  Further, surprisingly, the opinion poll showed that 74 percent supported the proposal of DPJ to reduce emissions of Japan by 25 percent by 2020, compared to the 1990 level. Thus, it could be argued that most Japanese expected Yukio Hatoyama to dramatically advance its climate change policy. But has he really changed Japan’s climate change policy that dramatically?

The most dramatic change that Hatoyama has achieved lies in his declaration that Japan would seek to cut its emissions by 25 percent by 2020 as the mid-term target compared to the 1990 level. As the target of the previous Government led by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito was 8 percent, this is a great advance for Japanese climate change policy.

Then, in order to materialize the target, on October 7, the cabinet committee on climate change established two work teams; one to estimate the costs to achieve the target; the other to identify concrete measures of the ‘Hatoyama Initiative’ to support developing countries announced at the United Nations Summit on Climate Change (New York) on September 22. Then, the former team, ‘the team concerning the achievement of the mid-term target’, held its first meeting in October 14. At the meeting, it was decided that a specialist group would be established under the team for estimating costs to achieve the mid-term target, and an interim report on cost estimation would be produced in this month and a final report would be produced in December before COP15 in Copenhagen.

These two may be all that New Prime Minister has achieved for climate change policy so far. Then, has he changed Japan’s climate change policy dramatically? It seems that he has dramatically changed it because he has proposed ambitious target. However, the seemingly ambitious ’25 percent’ includes reductions from buying carbon credits, GHG absorption by forests and plants, etc., as well as the domestic reductions. At the first meeting of the team concerning the achievement of the mid-term target, it was suggested as one plan that cost estimation would be carried out for the following three patterns; among the 25 percent reductions, (1) 10 percent will be reduced domestically; (2) 15 percent will be reduced domestically; and (3) all of them will be reduced domestically. If the total amount of domestic reductions is 10 percent or even 15 percent, it must be rather disappointing.

Thus, it should be said that he has not changed Japan’s climate change policy dramatically so far. However, the birth of the Hatoyama cabinet has clearly increased environmental concerns and made industry motivated to become greener. It is highly expected that new Prime Minister, with greener people and industry, will change climate change policy dramatically or concretely propose radical climate change policy before COP15 in December so that he can be considered as one of the greenest leaders of the world again as in the United Nations Summit on Climate Change in New York.