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.

The French schooner, Tara, set sail from Lorient harbor on 5 September 2009 for a three-year scientific voyage to map the effects of climate change on marine organisms. The 150,000 kilometer (81, 000 nautical mile) journey follows and expands upon the trail of naturalist Charles Darwin’s 1831-1836 trip on the Beagle.

Tara’s trip will produce a study of the clouds of tiny ocean flora and fauna that produce 50 % of the world’s oxygen supply. Marine microorganisms account for 90 percent of the oceans’ biomass and absorb the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide. “Without these microorganisms man would never have come into being. If they disappear, so do we,” asserted Eric Karsenti, the Tara’s 60-year-old scientific leader, as the crew prepared for their departure.

The journey will take the French boat into all the world oceans and from the ice caps to the tropics. The main aim is to obtain measurements of the impact of warming that these microorganisms are undergoing and to incorporate them into future climate simulation models.

The double-masted yacht, Tara, took a previous climate change related voyage. She charted shrinking ice sheet in the Arctic Ocean between Siberia and Greenland for 18 months between 2006 and 2008. The current mission, dubbed Tara-Oceans, will be divided between the 36-meter yacht and various on-land laboratories. About 100 scientists world-wide will be involved in the process of analyzing and interpreting the gathered samples and data.

The head of Tara Expeditions, Etienne Bourgois, said that “this mission will plunge us into the invisible world of marine ecosystems, one of the least explored realms of oceanography.” Such an expedition has not been undertaken on a global scale in the past. The team will be tracking microorganisms, such as diatoms, as well as more complex organisms, like marine viruses, jelly fish, larvae, fish, and coral, which make up the base of the marine food chain. As ocean species die out it has a potentially huge effect on the entire food chain, which varies significantly from area to area.

To date there is not a good understanding of the effects of climate change on marine organisms. For example, some species of plankton may bloom in warmer waters and others might die out completely.

The Tara-Oceans voyage is largely financed through the fashion house Agnes B. Additionally, Tara Expeditions has signed partnership agreements with Agence France-Presse (AFP) among others.

The mission is being lauded as one that will truly allow people in the mainstream to understand what issues ail the world’s oceans, especially as connected to climate change. The concept behind the voyage is to inform better science, but to also actively involve large companies in France and by extension the public more generally. AFP chairman, Pierre Louette, describes AFP’s heavy investment in the project: “in contributing to science and consciousness by distributing this news across the whole world, AFP is faithful to its own mission.”

Bordeaux vineyards — might they be found in Scotland in future years?

Leading figures in the French wine producing communities are urging the French government to push for a strong agreement at the United National climate summit in Copenhagen this December.  Their motivation is that failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is estimated to devastate their sector in the coming years.

“As flagships of our common cultural heritage, elegant and refined, French wines are today in danger,” 50 leading names from the world of French wine and food wrote in an open letter in the 12 August in the French newspaper “Le Monde.”  The letter went on to describe that “marked by higher alcohol levels, over-sunned aromatic ranges and denser textures, our wines could lose their unique soul.”  Among the signatories to the letter were: Marc Veyrat, a chef with three Michelin stars and Franck Thomas, who was voted the best sommelier in the world. “We will have new wine-producing regions in zones where one doesn’t normally cultivate vineyards like in Brittany and Normandy,” said Jean-Pierre Chaban, a climatologist at France’s National Institute for Scientific Research. “It will spread to Great Britain. One can imagine vineyards in southern Sweden and Scotland.”

And well…According to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there are now 416 vineyards in England and there are 2,732 acres of vines under cultivation – an increase of 45 per cent in the past four years.

The “World Conference on Climate Change and Wine” took place in Barcelona during February 2008.  During the conference over 350 wine producers from 36 countries learned that wine production indeed emits large quantities of CO2 gases.  Tony Sharley, a company scientist for Banrock Station Wine in Australia (and lauded for their sustainable techniques), taught the group that “the reforestation of areas close to the vineyards” may also help reduce the carbon footprint.

But many producers are skeptical of how much good reforestation can really do.  “The consequences of global warming are already being felt. Harvest season already comes ten days earlier than before in almost all wine regions,” warned French expert Bernard Seguin.

Fine French wines are produced in small territories and taste depends strongly on factors such as mineral content of the soil. For example, a Burgundy produced in California will not taste nor smell like a Burgundy from Burgundy.  Many of the vines in production are old and will not produce satisfactory wine when they are young.  Thus, replanting the same varieties further north will not produce the same superior product. 

While admitting that some French regions, such as Bordeaux, Alsace and Moselle, were “were making wines near their climactic limit,” wine-maker Jacques Lurton added there was “still room for maneuver.”

Indeed, he predicted a change in style of wine over the next 20 years, with perhaps a Bordeaux Cabernet Sauvignon becoming closer to those wines currently being made in the Napa Valley, California. 

Yes, as the French winemakers and chefs warned in the open letter, “our [French] wines could lose their souls” if action is not taken to halt climate change.

Though much of the letter (original available here) addressed to French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, read poetically, there is a very real call to action. The signatories want the government to push for a global deal to cut industrialized countries’ greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 and set up “solid aid mechanisms” for developing countries.

Though this issue has been brought to the forefront in the recent month due to a publication by Greenpeace, the concern and the statistics to back it up are not entirely new. 

Prices up at French Pumps in 2010?

A government panel has suggested that France should aim to tax greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. This tax is lauded as a mechanism to encourage clean and greener habits among the French population. But the big questions remain: how effective will the tax be and who will it affect?

The panel concluded that: “carbon dioxide emissions are a threat to life on this planet…among the many necessary responses, a significant tax on carbon dioxide emissions is one of the most pertinent and efficient.”

France aims to divide its greenhouse gas emissions by 4 by 2050; a tax seems enviable to achieve this level of reduction. Economy Minister, Christine Lagarde, sees implementation of such a tax as “the beginning of a wider process of reflection and consultation [on climate change].”

The carbon tax plan would see France bill 32 € (~$46US) for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2010. The levy would be raised progressively on a yearly basis until it reaches 100 € in 2030. Effectively, this regulation would add 7-8 cents to the cost of a liter of fuel. The tax is proposed to apply to all sectors that are not part of existing emissions trading programs.

The plan is drawing hot opposition from intensive fuel users, especially small-scale farmers and fishers. “We haven’t received any objection to the tax in principle, but there will be lots of fighting over the details of course,” said the Panel’s head, Michel Rocard, on France Info Radio.

Under the proposal, the extra cost per household would be around 300 € per year. There is a strong debate concerning how to compensate low income households; such as those that qualify as “fuel poor.” Rocard recognizes that, “there are whole jobs, farming, fishing, and taxi drivers where we need to find ways to make the jobs economically possible in spite of this tax.”

A key part of the debate is how to compensate poorer households, workers in certain sectors, and those for whom driving is a necessity because they work odd hours or live in rural areas. The small business union, CGPME, said in a statement that “for [the tax] to be accepted by households and companies…it must be compensated by an equivalent fall in taxes elsewhere.” The Panel did suggest that extra costs would vary according to household size and location.

Sweden, which is the current EU presidency, does have a carbon tax in place, as do Denmark and Norway.

The Panel’s report will provide the basis for legislation, due to be debated after the French parliament’s summer break.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s messages have become greener in recent months.  Looking at the record, it appears that this turn may have come about when his time as EU President put him directly in line with the conflicts between member countries concerning climate change issues.  Generally these disagreements center on how to best divide the responsibilities and costs for adaptation and mitigation measures.  As far back as 2007, Sarkozy called for a national “Carbon tax” on “climate change pollutants” and suggested a European tariff on imports from countries falling outside of the Kyoto Protocol.

The head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, recently visited France.  Sarkozy reportedly stated that the ”challenge of a world agreement on climate change must be met.” Following the meeting at the Elysee Palace, Pachauri said the French president was committed to pursuing a green agenda and “really wants to do something in this area.”  “He would like to see that Copenhagen is a success and he is going to work with the others leaders to do that,” said Pachauri.

It is true that Sarkozy has called on President Obama in recent months to follow the EU in the climate change arena.  For example, he scored big with his supporters when indeed the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to the Waxman-Markey (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) Bill.

But critics cite some red flags – Sarkozy recently expressed a strong preference for Claude Allegre to head his cabinet’s Ministry of Science, Industry, and Innovation. Allegre, is a celebrated geophysicist, in the French and American National Academies of Science.  Yet, a former climate change champion, he has recently reversed his opinion and no longer believes that human activity is responsible for any of the climate change modifications at hand.  He at best is seen as an “enemy” to scientists lauding that further exacerbation to climate change can be halted by changes in human behavior and energy consumption specifically.

It will be interesting to see how Sarkozy progresses as we enter the Copenhagen negotiations, after showing some erratic behavior on the climate change front.

The Matterhorn, as seen from Zermatt, Switzerland, March 2009. Skiing in Zermatt, Switzerland this past winter it was obvious that snow levels were decreasing at an unusual rate, as discussed in the Convention report.

A major publication from the EU’s Convention on the Protection of the Alps last week, revealed the dramatic effects of climate change on the Alps region.

The Convention on the Protection of the Alps was established in 1991 and is headquartered out of Bolzano, Italy. The Convention report published on 17 June 2009 is its second magisterial report. It reveals that the northern ranges of the Alps are suffering serious flooding while southern ranges are generally seeing huge reductions in snow fall. Average Precipitation levels have decreased 10 % in the south-east of the region.

Marco Onida, secretary general of the Convention, recognizes that “the European climate is dividing in two…the result will be havoc for the Alps and the communities and wildlife that rely on the area.” The Alps’ most famous peaks, such as Mont Blanc, The Matterhorn, and Monte Rosa, mark the division between the wet north and Italy and Slovenia in the dryer south of the region.

The current analysis of changes to be made to the Swiss-Italian border is a prime example of such geo-political changes driven by climate change. The Italian military has been tracking changes as glaciers on the border melt over the last thirty years. Italian Brig. General, Carlo Colella (Florence) suggests that in some places the border could change up to 100 m. It is also believed that Italy will gain territory as the glaciers in the Southern Alps are melting at a faster rate.

The border in question was last changed in 1861 when Italy became a unified state. Now the Italian government is involved in changing their national legislation to allow such a border change; Switzerland requires no such change to law. Colella acknowledges that “after the border change with Switzerland, the Italian-French border will come under consideration.”

Outside of creating complex border issues, climate change in the Alps has begun to have profound implications for agriculture and tourism. Northern villages already face flooding and water shortages and decreased snowfall in the south have already started to hit the tourism industry. Additionally, Alpine species are being driven further up the mountains; thus, exotic and invasive plant species are starting to take hold lower down in the Alpine system.

The Convention report points to the environmental burden, especially with regards to expediting climate change, from the increased demand for artificial snow by the tourism industry. This is a necessary step in order to sustain the winter sports industry, which is the economic mainstay of the area. But it is a catch-22 scenario, under which generation of artificial snow further burdens already stressed water and energy supplies.

Ultimately, changing patterns of rain and snowfall, shrinking glaciers, and raising temperatures are seen by the Convention report as the greatest challenges to Alpine villages. The Convention report cites Italy’s 178 mile-long Tagliamento (in the northeast of the country) as the only Alpine river to not suffer drastic modifications to date. Dr. Onida said that “the Alps are the water tower of Europe, but much of the water is no longer reaching the places downstream where it is actually needed for ecosystem [stability], agriculture, and energy [generation].” He does acknowledge the very real struggle between agriculture and tourism for scarce water supplies.

Only time will tell how national borders will change and whether climate change will lead to intense battles between tourism and the survival of Alpine villages. The eight Alpine countries – France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Slovenia, and Hungary – are taking action through the Alpine Convention. There may be time and the means to manage and mitigate some of the most extreme effects of climate change in the Alps.

The second two-week round of UN-led climate talks, held in Bonn, met with some critical feedback, though there were notable highlights in the dialogue.  One such highlight was the pitch four of the world’s largest air carriers made for a worldwide emissions limit for all airlines as part of the deal to be reached in Copenhagen this December.

The Aviation Global Deal Group (AGD), which includes British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Air France/KLM and Virgin Atlantic, presented what they deem an “ambitious, equitable, and effective” regime of emission caps for all airlines.  This proposal is an effort to include the industry in a climate treaty that 192 nations aim to agree upon this December.  The UN estimates that airlines account for about 3 % of global emissions.  The airline industry has not been subject to GHG regulations up to this point.

Executive secretary of the UN’s climate-change agency, Yvo de Boer, does admit that “it’s very hard to say if aviation will be included” in a final agreement in Copenhagen.  Regardless, airlines are expected to be included in EU regulations in 2012.  The USA has also proposed future legislation on airline CO2 output.  The AGD specifically discussed capping carriers’ GHG output based on annual fuel purchases.  Companies overshooting their target would have to buy permits from those emitting less than their allocation.  Revenue from auctioned permits would go towards helping developing countries adapt to climate change and developing cleaner air travel technology.

Yet, the Bonn talks were described as yielding little true consensus. France’s climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde, said that compared to previous sessions, in Bonn “the attitudes were more constructive, but the level of ambition was lower.”  His specific criticism was that it is now commonly accepted knowledge that global emissions have to be halved by 2050 (compared with 1990 levels), implying an 80 % reduction by industrialized countries. It is also generally agreed that the emissions levels in developing countries must start falling by 2025 at the very least.   But in Lalonde’s opinion, “no one is signing up” – in which statement he is also rather critical of the EU’s involvement.

The driving issues, such as who should cut their emissions and how soon, as well as the question of technology transfer to poor countries, require specific road mapping exercises – for example the proposal by the AGD.  Just last month in a major meeting in Paris (reported in a previous Climatico article), representatives from France and Germany were ardent in their call for flexibility in the mechanisms by which climate change mitigation occurs, so long as it does indeed occur.  Perhaps it will be industry partnerships of multi-national firms that ultimately pushes – or flies—  climate change negotiations over this precarious negotiation standstill?

Sigmar Gabriel (left) and Jean-Louis Borloo point towards more flexibility in achieving CO2 target levels globally.

This week France and Germany suggested that rich nations should collectively guarantee deep cuts in GHG by 2020. That stance is nothing new. But the flexibility suggested on the pathway to such collective cuts certainly is a huge step forward in attitudes regarding climate change negotiations.

The Paris meeting held this past week is one of three gatherings of 17 key nations (among them, China, France, Germany, India, Russia, and the USA) in the climate change debate, just ahead of a pivotal UN climate change summit in Copenhagen this December. These 17 nations, which met in Paris, emit 80 percent of the world GHGs, mainly from burning fossil fuels.

As December approaches, French Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, recognized on the first day of the conference, “there can be more flexibility among us.” He said that France and Germany see no reason why developing nations can not collectively sign up to cut emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Borloo went on to say that a collective goal would undercut criticism by newly industrialized countries, like China and India, over inaction by developed nations. German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, added, “the longer it takes for industrialized nations to have a common position, the longer we will have to wait until China and India move [on climate change].”

In this French-German “suggestion” flexibility became a sort of framework as the Paris conference progressed throughout the week. For example, countries, like the USA, which have said that they cannot reach such steep goals by 2020, could contribute to a collective pact in different ways, such as financing development of green technologies. Borloo praised the pace in reaching agreement over a “green-fund” of approximately 100 Billion USD per year to help developing countries limit pollution and develop adaptation plans for unavoidable climate change.

Even though the spirit remained positive throughout the conference, there was some criticism of how certain countries are dealing with the issue of climate change. Notably, U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, said that he wanted Washington to do more. The Obama administration has suggested a 14-15 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020. Legislation now facing the U.S. Congress would reduce these emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

A main focus of the Copenhagen Climate Congress this past March was to bring consensus to the concentration levels of CO2 at which the world must stabilize in the coming years. During the Paris Conference, Barolo did not talk much about whether progress had been made on the critical issue of the size of GHG emission cuts that scientists say are vital to reducing climate change impacts. But, the idea that change, no matter the level of political flexibility required, must take place.

“The world’s destiny will probably be at stake in Copenhagen,” Borloo said. “Copenhagen is not a retrograde vision; it’s not the start of negative [economic] growth, but a new start for strong, sustainable, sober carbon development.”

We will see how attitudes progress during the next meeting in June in Mexico.

Last year France was axed from the Grand Prix calendar after the French motorsport federation withdrew support of the Magny-Cours track, citing lack of funds.  Formula 1 CEO, Bernie Ecclestone, ruled out returning to the rural venue, with his sites set on a Paris race date to grace the Formula 1 calendar.

Things were looking up for Formula 1 racing fans earlier this year though.  In March 2009 plans to construct a new  €112 million track at Flins-Les-Mureaux, north-east of Paris, were announced.  The site beat out competition from four other venues on the French shortlist; it was the cheapest of the sites.  

From the beginning this news has stirred up controversy over the potential pollution wafting into the city from construction and the races.  Now the controversy is going towards all-out political battle at the highest echelons of power.

In one corner is France’s PM, François Fillon, who has competed in the LE Mans Legend historic sports car race and takes a keen interest in the FIA.  He fully supports the proposed site of Flins-Les-Mureaux.  But French Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, and the Secretary of State for Ecoology, Chantel Jouanno, are much less than enthusiastic. 

Borloo and Jouanno say that construction and racing at the site is environmentally irresponsible.  Though much of the rhetoric revolves around air pollution and related climate change, the real issue is Parisian drinking water.  A drinking water table that supplies about 500000 Parisians, passes directly under the race track site.

This past weekend, hundreds of environmentalist demonstrated in Versailles against the track.  Their banners read: <<F1: Non, Organic [Framing]: Oui.>>  Many analysts agree that there is merit to reconsidering the site, but also stress that the issues are being taken out of context and are reflecting a larger political issue.

Alain Prost, the former quadruple World Champion and strong supporter of the new track, told Le journal du Dimanche newspaper: “things need to be clear at the government level” He acknowledges that public debate is possible, but current plans to stage the Grand Prix there in 2011 would be greatly complicated.  The review process is also complicated because of memories of failed plans to build a track near Disneyland Paris in recent memory.

Track architect, Jean-Michel Wilmotte, insists that the circuit will actually be “the world’s first totally ecological race track.”  Minister Borloo is also being criticized for vetoing the project without hearing conclusions from independent experts.

This seeming political game becomes even more complex because most Formula enthusiasts believe that Flins-Les-Mureaux is the only chance of France returning to the Formula 1 Calendar in the foreseeable future.  The question simply becomes: to what extent might France pollute in potentially dangerous ways to win back their race?

Resort in the French Alps that would close under the assumptions presented in the Department of Tourism

The French Ministry of Economy’s Tourism Department has released a report on climate change that warns against significant losses to France’s buzzing tourist industry.

Tourism made up about 6 percent of France’s Gross Domestic Product in 2008.  According to National statistics bureau INSEE, 82 million tourists visited France in 2007.  This makes France the world’s most popular tourist destination by number of visitors, while it is third with regards to revenues after the USA and Spain.  But this could be changing, and fast.

The Tourism Department’s report is based on expectations of a 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (37.40^oF-39.20^oF) rise by 2100.

The report highlights three main threats to France as a top tourist destination: 1. melting snow; 2. water shortages; and 3. disappearing beaches.

Under the presented scenario, winter sports would no longer be possible at resorts at an altitude of 1200 meters (3900 feet).  For example, the 35 ski resorts in the Alpine region of Haute-Savoie would be reduced to 18.

A rise in sea level is expected to exacerbate coastal erosion, which already affects one-fifth of France’s tourist areas.

The report also addressed loss of tourism in France’s overseas departments.  Notably, New Caledonia and Polynesia are likely to lose the coral reefs that constitute their main tourist appeal.  

There is also discussion of social tensions that could arise from climate change.  As chilly Northern France benefits from global warming, it is likely to become a more popular holiday destination for northern European visitors.  But, those are visitors who would have otherwise been on Rivera will likely opt for the north changing economic patterns.  With regards to tourism, climate change, population growth patterns, and economics go hand in hand.  The report is extreme, it asks, “will we choose to irrigate golf courses or fields of maize?”

The first step is realizing that there is a potential problem.  Yet, what will France do with these warnings?  Will the report (which is not yet publicly available) strike a chord in the greater population?  Time will tell and we’ll report…