The public do not accept the ideology of some climate campaigners, and hence unconsciously reject the science of climate change

The more green groups ask us to “stop flying,” the less the public believes in man-made climate change. Niel Bowerman argues there is a link.

Today is the anniversary of “climategate”. It has damaged the credibility of the IPCC, and climate science in general, and yet scientists could not be clearer that the warming observed over the past century is largely man-made.  Is it time to ask why so many people dispute a scientific theory that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with?

Could it be that some of the public’s distrust of climate science comes not from qualms with methodologies for constructing temperature records, but rather from scepticism of the ideologies of the green groups that use climate science to reinforce their campaigns?

The UK’s recent prime-time Channel 4 documentary ‘What the Green Movement Got Wrong’ was criticised by many environmental groups, not least because it contained several inaccuracies.

Many greens rightly charged the documentary with being ideologically driven, while the documentary claimed “that by clinging to an ideology formed more than 40 years ago, the traditional green lobby has failed in its aims and is ultimately harming its own environmental cause.”  As with most debates, both arguments do contain an element of truth.

The documentary struck a chord with much of the public, who are sick of a bossy, lecturing, elitist and sometimes excessively ideological environmental movement.  Unfortunately this is likely to be one of the reasons for the drop in public belief in climate change. When green groups demand that people ‘stop flying now’ instead of also working to promote viable alternatives, the public begins to reject the science of climate change outright.

If we are to tackle climate change before it is too late, the climate movement must rapidly evolve from being seen as a lefty group taking part in self-deprivation.  Green groups must become part of a larger movement for positive change that spans political boundaries and seeks to inspire and empower, not just criticise and condemn.

Younger groups are already beginning to adopt this new approach.  Ben West, Communications Coordinator at the UK Youth Climate Coalition, said: “Many of us as young people, are excited about renewing the movement and in the possibility of creating something fit and ready to overcome the big challenges of the coming decades, rather than being stuck fighting the battles and stereotypes of our parent’s generation.”

Perhaps the American climate scientists who created their ‘rapid response unit’ would have more luck convincing the public on the science if they could persuade environmental groups to say, “We’re sorry if we sometimes lecture or sound bossy, that wasn’t our intention.  We’re just trying to create green jobs, ensure energy security, and build a clean energy future; would you like to help?”

Niel Bowerman is a research climate scientist at Oxford University, and a former executive director of Climatico.

The UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, led the announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review last week, introducing what’s expected to be one of the most challenging economic periods in the history of the UK. Whilst spending cuts were inevitable from any Government, Ed Milliband, Leader of the Opposition, claims that the Coalition’s Government’s ‘slash and burn’ approach will hit those on the lowest incomes hardest, and risk the prospect of a double-dip recession in the UK.

With significant cuts announced across the board, the prospects for proactively transitioning towards a low carbon economy seem lost in the ashes, along with the Coalition’s claims to be the “greenest Government ever”. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was the hardest hit Government department, an will be expected to reduce resource spending by 29% (including funding for biodiversity protection and climate change adaptation) and capital spending by 34%. Rises in public transport fees are also expected, but the Department of Transport has deferred these until next year. On the other hand, the Department for International Development (DfID) will see a 50% increase by 2015, making the UK the first major nation to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid, as recommended by the UN – a controversial move in light of the major cuts in jobs and services across the UK.

The Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) suffered a number of changes, including:

1. Most controversial, was the Government’s U-turn on the Carbon Reduction Commitment energy efficiency scheme (CRC). The CRC requires small and medium emitters to buy permits to cover their energy emissions, with proceeds handed back to those who cut the most carbon, and penalising those who cut the least. However, the Comprehensive Spending Review shocked participants by announcing that all revenue raised from the emissions trading scheme (£1bn/year), which began earlier this year, will be used to support the public finances, instead of being recycled back to participants.

Steve Radley, director of policy at manufacturer’s group EEF, said: “If the private sector is going to play a greater role in increasing investment and growth it needs clarity. By changing the rules six months after the game has started and landing business with an unsignalled £1bn tax rise, the government has sent an unwelcome signal.”

Business and investment communities have been rallying Government for clarity on carbon policy, and this last minute ‘change of the rules’ is not expected to instill any confidence in the UK renewables market. Many participants also felt that the Government’s decision has punished the preparedness of hundreds of participants, which had already signed up to a number of initiatives, including the Carbon Trust Standard certification and others. Whilst the reputational advantages of performing well in the CRC are still expected to incentivise emissions reduction, the decoupling of the financial gain from recycled revenues has completely altered the investment equation. The pay back period and economics of existing investments will no-doubt be delayed, or even eliminated.

Climate Minister Greg Barker, said the decision had not been taken lightly, but was as a result of the “catastrophic” deficit inherited from the Labour government.

The Government now expects to raise around £3.5B (US$5.5B) over the next four fiscal years from the scheme in a move that means the CRC will effectively act as a carbon tax mechanism. Participants must reevaluate their financial budgets, to collectively raise to £1m each year to meet the Treasury’s estimation of £1bn/year (an implied price of £15/tonne of carbon).

Whilst these changes will simplify the incredibly complex scheme, designed to cut carbon, it has left participants, including the NHS and other businesses facing additional budget cuts, reeling with the potential implications. Whilst it is good news for the environment, it calls into question the equity of taxing small to medium GHG emitters, as the largest emitters, such as power stations, evade their carbon costs through the weak carbon price signals set by the EU ETS. The cap in the EU ETS remains ineffectually low as a result of the recession, and participants frequently make large windfall profits from the sell their share of surplus emissions allowances on the carbon market, over-allocated to them by the European Commission. Furthermore, weak political commitment for emissions reduction in the EU ensures that the carbon price remains low.

2. Osbourne announced a meagre £1bn for the proposed Green Investment Bank, which is expected to offer funding for investment in low carbon projects and industry development. Ongoing debate suggest that the bank will need a minimum of between £2-6bn to yield the investment power appropriate for the development of new energy infrastructure, to support the achievement of the UK’s CO2 targets.

Chris Huhne, Climate Secretary, has suggested that further funds may come in the form of the potential sale of the Government’s one-third stake in Urenco, the company, which makes enriched uranium for nuclear power. The previous Government’s attempt to sell its stake in Urenco as blocked by shareholders, raising questions over how long fundraising from the sale of assets could potentially take.

The final design of the ‘bank is still unclear, and there is much speculation about whether it will be a ‘real’ bank – independent and able to raise bonds etc – or simply a Government funding pot.

3. The Government’s commitment to the programme for the commercialisation of Carbon Capture & Storage has been reduced from the construction of four demonstration plants, to just a single one. However, the announcements confirmed that there is “up to” £1bn of public funds on the table for the first. DECC will have a challenge on its hands in restoring confidence as uncertainty around the policy environment and economics of the CCS projects has led to the withdrawal of all but one of the companies bidding for the Government funds, with E.ON pulling out last week.

Building and running four till 2015 would have cost about £10bn but the government still has the power – voted in with cross-party agreement – to charge a levy on consumer power bills to pay for the CCS demonstration. Watch this space.

4. DECC’s central budget is cut by 20%, though capital expenditure will increase by 28% by 2014-15 – most likely on nuclear decommissioning, carbon capture and storage and the renewable heat incentive for green home heating.

The state of the deficit has delivered a huge blow to the economics of the UK’s ambitions to transition to a low carbon economy. The introduction of a ‘carbon tax’ in the guise of the CRC, will mark a challenging time for the economy, as they struggle to internalise the carbon costs of their operations. The fact that revenues raised will not even feed into the Green Investment Bank signifies a significant lost opportunity, threatening risks to the economic sustainability of the UK economy.

Ed Milliband narrowly defeated his older brother David Milliband for the Labour Party’s leadership on Saturday, boosting the prospects of the environment taking priority at the forefront of UK policy making. During his last 18-month tenure as Minister for Energy & Climate Change, Ed Milliband boasts an impressive track record for progressing environmental policy within the previous Labour government. Notable developments include:

1. Passing the Climate Change Act – Considered to be Labour’s biggest environmental success, the CCA made the UK the first nation in the world to legislate for emissions reductions. Whilst David Milliband and others helped to drum up support for the legislation inside the party, Ed has been praised with strengthening the Act to deliver robust targets and ambitious goals.
2. Ed manoeuvred around existing party policy for the introduction of Feed-in tariffs, modelled on other European schemes, which offer long-term, guaranteed payments for every kw of renewable energy generated. This has successfully incentivised homes, communities and businesses to invest in small-scale renewable energy systems, boosting the UK’s renewable energy generation.
3. Ed also ensured that under his tenure, no further coal-fired power stations would be built without mechanisms to capture and store the CO₂ they produced.
4. The third runway at Heathrow, which deliver significant increases in the UK’s CO₂ emissions, was also opposed by Ed, but he ultimately lost this battle, as Labour became one of the only parties to support the idea.

Concerns have been mounting recently over fears that the Coalition Government could hinder progress for the development of a low carbon economy, potentially through cuts to the feed-in tariff rates, in addition to the previously announced closure of valuable quangos such as the Sustainable Development Commission (and possibly even the Carbon Trust – currently under review).  This bestows a golden opportunity on Ed Milliband  - to take the throne for the ‘Greenest party’. Milliband’s election as leader of the labour Party has bolstered the hopes of many environmental stakeholders, indeed many of whom Milliband will have previously worked with.

Milliband could do far worse than increasing investment and support for renewable energy and energy efficiency measures across the UK, providing thousands of new green jobs, business opportunities and spurring prospects for economic growth and recovery, reducing reliance and imports of fossil fuels and positioning the UK as a global leader in the global race for a low carbon economy.

However, despite his extensive understanding and background in the climate change agenda, a significant opportunity to reorder the party’s priorities was already lost at the Labour Party Conference last week. Whilst the agenda emphasised issues such as the economy and immigration, energy and climate change was nowhere to be seen. It seems Ed Milliband’s first challenge will be to unite his party, and deliver the optimism, passion, revolution, and youth he so emphasised in his leadership speech.

The UK Government has claimed to become the ‘Greenest Ever Government’ since the previous Labour and Conservative leadership.

Following the announcement of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill during the Queen’s Speech on 25 May 2010, David Cameron (Prime Minister) promised the country that he would lead the UK to become a low carbon economy through enhanced energy efficiency and low-carbon energy production, both of which remains to be seen.

The previous labour government had committed a total of £405 million towards promoting a green economy, of which the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) was a large arm of this delivery.  The SDC has made £70m savings every year through implementing a number of Green Initiatives.  The SDC also claims that additional savings of £350m per year through improvements in energy, water, waste, recycling and transport will also be met, regardless of funding, over the next five years.

However, recent announcements of funding cuts have led to the SDC to be axed.  The Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Caroline Spelman has led the cuts, whilst at the same time calling for the Government to ‘step up’ its green ambitions and drive further energy savings.  This contradictory view was not shared by the Chair of the SDC, who is simply disappointed at the announcement.

Many more cuts are on the way.  The budget led by George Osborne on 22 June had created a sense of hope and expectation that concrete energy policies were on the way, but these hopes were simply not met.  Instead, Osborne made slight references to climate change policies, but the lack of detail on policies, financial plans and commitments were heavily noted.

The government’s commitment to renewables has also come under question, with the Micropower Council saying that it is stalling on the introduction of the Renewable Heat incentive (RHI), which would pay householders for generating low carbon heat.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) issued a report yesterday suggesting that a commitment of £10 billion is needed, for investments in pre-construction off-shore wind farm technology if the UK is to meet its renewables electricity target of 30% by 2020. Capital funding for projects is critical to ensure that the UK invests in renewable projects.  The budget announcement was Osborne’s golden opportunity to make the Energy savings the government has promised to deliver.

To add to the frustration, the delay of implementing existing energy policies are being felt in most areas of the UK, particularly in terms of cost and uncertainty for business.

The six month delays to the October introduction date for the Part L changes, which are designed to make homes 25% more energy efficient, are causing losses in both carbon and heating bill savings.  It has emerged that the programme is still subject to approval by the government.

Perhaps more pressing are the delays to the most radical policy which involves defining a replacement for the electricity component of the Climate Change Levy (CCL) by adding a ‘top up carbon tax’ on power generators. This would be a way to establish a carbon ‘floor price’ which is needed to support carbon trading in the EU ETS scheme, which is a major part of the Energy Security and Green Economy Bill commitment.

MP Caroline Lucas has published a statement today arguing that ‘now is the time to invest’, but lack of government financial commitment and delays to current programmes is painting a gloomy outlook at the moment.  Is the UK really committed to becoming the ‘greenest ever government’ as promised at the start of the Coalition?

(Image by: Siva Kumarm)

As the Coalition Government attempts to reform the UK’s finances, fatal spending cuts have continued to penetrate the environmental sector. Despite boasting plentiful resources in marine, offshore wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy, significant cuts announced by the Government this week risk the UK loosing out to countries with poorer natural resources, but an increased willingness to invest in renewable energy.

Plans to cut the energy R&D budget by £34m, announced last week, delivered a massive blow to the low carbon technologies sector, particularly for technologies including offshore wind, geothermal energy, wood fuels and building insulation. Ironically, the announcement came just days before the Government’s independent Committee on Climate Change publically stressed the continued need for public support to develop emerging renewable energy technologies – suggesting a minimum of £50m of public money each year.

Chris Goodall highlights that these cuts to the R&D budget represent a reduction of total public expenditure on low carbon technologies by almost 20%. He adds that “this figure is on top of the cancellation of the £80m loan to Sheffield Forgemasters that would have paid for much of the installation of a new press to make the huge parts necessary for new nuclear power stations.”

Goodall suggests that the Government’s plans will diminish Britain’s ability to compete in the global energy race. The cuts also bring the UK’s spending on emerging technologies to an internationally low 0.01% of GDP – 3 times less than the US and 9 times less than Japan (as a %age of GDP).

Furthermore, there is increased speculation about plans to axe the Government’s independent sustainability watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission. Whilst no official decision has been made, an announcement is expected to be made – ironically – on the day the agency plans to unveil its annual report detailing green improvements to government operations, which would deliver savings of tens of millions of pounds.

Whitehall has announced some significant spending cuts over the last few weeks, and the cuts to low carbon and renewable technologies are likey to have particularly riled environmental stakeholders. Prime Minister David Cameron is going to have a big task on his hand if he wants to prove to UK taxpayers that his Government will be the “greenest government ever.”

It’s been almost a month since the UK’s newly elected, and historic, Coalition Government was formed, introducing an interesting partnership between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties. With over 22 bills announced in last week’s Queen’s speech, the Coalition certainly has its work cut out over the next 18 months.

Without doubt, the biggest concern of this Government is the reduction of the national deficit, which stands at a colossal 12% of GDP. However, the newly elected PM, David Cameron, and his Liberal Democrat deputy, Nick Clegg, have pledged that the urgent need to develop a low-carbon economy will remain a key issue and focus amidst deficit reduction plans. To affirm his commitment, one of Cameron’s earliest announcements included a target to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within next 12 months. In the same vein, the PM has also committed to push the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020.

The Energy Security and Green Economy bill announced in the Queen’s speech last week is expected to deliver some of the pledges made in the Coalition Government’s manifesto (see below). The Bill will focus on maximising energy efficiencies and renewable energy generation through a range of innovative policy measures, including ‘green loans’ for buildings and businesses, designed to increase investment in green technologies and efficiency measures across the UK. Importantly the loans are associated with the building or business and not the individual, enabling owners to transfer payments to new owners if the property/businesses are sold.

However, this Green Deal is the only part of the government’s low-carbon agenda that is currently certain to make it into the final version of the Bill after DECC announced that a host of other legislative measures “may” be included in the legislation. The Department is still finalising proposals for legislation to regulate emissions from coal-fired power stations (with uncertainty around the baseline for performance), provide a framework to govern the rollout of smart grid technologies, lay the foundations for a green investment bank, reform energy markets to enhance security of supply and competition between operators and ensure North Sea infrastructure is open to companies operating in smaller oil and gas fields. Whilst the latter option remains controversial, the Government has made suggestions that it will seek to maximise opportunities for the continued extraction of fossil fuels and opencast mining, ironically exhausting carbon intensive energy resources to build the ‘foundations’ of a renewable and low carbon economy. This has dismayed some environmentalists, who remain skeptical about how this Coalition will set itself apart from the previous Labour Government.

However, the proposals put forward will have to contend with the £6.25bn of public spending cuts also announced last week by George Osborne. Whilst the Department for Energy & Climate Change (DECC) won’t suffer as much as some other Government departments, it is set to lose £85M from its budget, with DEFRA losing as much as £162M. In what he has described as the “fastest and most collegiate spending review in recent history” Osbourne plans to recover the remaining savings in £20.2M cuts to the department’s delivery bodies and a further £26m from other efficiencies, including £6M by targeting lower impact spend in the Regional Development Agencies. In addition, £34M will be cut from business support programmes including moving forward the closure of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP), which provides grants to households and businesses installing renewable energy technologies. A new feed in tariff incentive, launched in April 2010 is expected to replace the LCBP and provide incentives for microgeneration of renewable technologies, however with the launch of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) not expected until next year, there are concerns that some parts of the market are exposed to a lack of policy clarity or incentive.

Leonnie Greene of the Renewable Energy Association said producers of biomass systems, ground source heat pumps and other renewable heat technologies now urgently needed clarity on when the proposed Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme will be introduced.

Whilst many of these cuts are likely to deliver emissions reductions, the Government is faced with the risk of stifling long term green investments, which would inevitably deliver economy wide savings in the future.

Interestingly, two of the government’s most controversial environmental policies – its proposal to enforce a floor price for carbon and reform renewable energy incentives by extending the feed-in tariff – were noticeably absent from the list of measures to be included in the final bill. Whilst the Government has demonstrated some ‘fresh thinking’ on this agenda, there is a sense that there is much thinking still to be done. Inevitably the next 12 months will be critical, and comprehensive consultation, speedy implementation, and strong political direction will determine how well Cameron guides the UK through its worst debt crisis, and critical energy reforms to better position the nation in a future low carbon economy.

The Coalition Government’s vision for decarbonising the UK

1. The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters;
2. The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs;
3. We will instruct Ofgem to establish a security guarantee of energy supplies.
4. Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion;
5. The creation of a green investment bank to support low carbon projects to transform the economy. As part of the creation of a green investment bank, the Government intends to create green financial products to provide individuals with opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy.
6. The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills;
7. Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs;
8. Measures to encourage marine energy;
9. The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard;
10. The establishment of a high-speed rail network;
11. The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow and the refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted;
12. The replacement of the air passenger duty with a per-flight duty;
13. The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits;
14. Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence;
15. Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity;
16. Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles;
17. Continuation of the present government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within 12 months.
18. Intention to seek an increase in the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the climate change committee.

Ministerial Arrangements in the new Coalition Government

Chris Huhne MP has been appointed Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the new coalition government.

Charles Hendry MP and Gregory Barker MP have been appointed as Ministers of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Lord Marland has been appointed as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

As former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and his family stepped down from service, the new Conservative leader, David Cameron has finally stepped in to Number 10 Downing Street. In the most exciting, yet controversial general election for decades, the UK has seen a Cameron and his next in command, Nick Clegg from the Liberal Democrats arrive yesterday to his new London office to discuss plans for the UK economy.

Despite signs of a stock market crisis as a result of the UK’s first hung parliament in 70 years, the value of the Sterling has risen slowly, and the FTSE 100 index has also risen modestly in yesterdays closing results. This is a positive sign that the financial markets are not too phased by the new coalition, and that we are not headed for a stock market crash.

However, not everyone shares this view. In an attempt to understand what does the coalition mean for future policy development, many UK voters and businesses believe that a coalition will slow down the decision making process. As stock markets opened for trade in the early hours of the election results morning (01:00), the general consensus of the traders was that a hung parliament would have a negative effect on trade and consequently devalue the pound. Slow decisions would also mean a loss of revenue for business, unable to make investment decisions due to lack of direction from the government. As a result, this may lead to the withdrawal of business from the UK market.

A major dispute already facing our new parliament in the first day of office is that of nuclear energy. Whilst the Tories are supportive of building nuclear power stations, the Liberal Democrats are against this. Simon Hughes, energy spokesperson for Liberal Democrats states that “A new generation of nuclear power stations will be a colossal mistake, regardless of where they are built. They are hugely expensive, dangerous and will take too long to build.”

Commitments to policy specific investments may prove hard to back, if agreement at the leadership level is not joined up. In the case of nuclear, the coalition has managed the conflicting views and issued the following statement on nuclear:

“We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.”

Furthermore, although both parties agree to reduce CO2 by a minimum of 34%, to meet the targets set by the Labour party in the Climate Change Act (2008), it is not clear on how both parties can deliver this target. For instance, the Tories have stated that they will not support specific ‘low-carbon’ technologies with the aim to let the market decide which technologies to adopt, yet the liberal democrats are more explicit about backing wind-power.

Like Labour, the new coalition agrees to back the 10:10 targets, to reduce co2 by 10% by 2010) and also agree to support the Green investment back which is designed to fund new, low carbon developments. This financing also extends to supporting the ‘greener’ homes agenda, to meet the zero carbon homes target (for new builds) by 2016, as well as the continuation of the feed-in tariff for microgenerators for future clean energy.

What remains unclear is the finance allocated to achieve these aspirations, which is the job of the today’s appointed Environment and Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne to agree with his new peers, treasury and members of the public. As new environmental discussions approach in day two of the new coalition, the agenda for environmental policy will become clearer.

Author: Nyla Sarwar

"Big Heads" seek financing for climate change (Image by: Oxfam)

An ambitious and positive draft text presented at the UN climate summit has failed to impress developing countries, who argue that more finance is needed to support their low carbon development and adaptation in some of the most vulnerable nations.

The so-called “long-term action plan text” believed to be much more positive that the “Danish text” leaked earlier in the week, sets GHG reduction targets for developed countries of around 25-45% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. These targets are expected to be extremely ambitious, and will require the sequestration of already emitted atmospheric carbon, potentially limiting worldwide temperature increases to 1.5C – 2C. The text is now up for negotiation, and demands much stronger commitments from the developed counties, compared to figures already laid out on the table.

UK PM Gordon Brown has been actively engaged in the negotiations to encourage the EU to confirm its more ambitious commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 30% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. It is expected that this will require the UK to contribute 40% emissions reductions by 2020, instead of the 34% share previously committed.

Gordon Brown has also been pivotal in negotiations among EU leaders to provide immediate finance for developing countries to adapt to climate change. Announcing that the EU would commit 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn, $10bn) for adaptation in developing countries over the next three years, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt reaffirmed Europe’s commitment to moving the Copenhagen negotiations closer to a global deal.

The UK’s promise, at £500m ($800m; 553m euros) a year, was the highest. Reports from Brussels suggest the German contribution will be 480m euros per year from 2010 to 2012. Earlier, Mr Brown and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy told a joint news conference their two nations would contribute at least £1.5bn (1.7bn euros; $2.4bn) spread over the three years.

The money pledged is for a “fast start” fund to help the world’s poorest nations tackle rising sea levels, deforestation, water shortages and other consequences of climate change between 2010 and 2012, and reduce their own emissions.

The promised EU contribution will make up a sizeable portion of a proposed global figure of $10bn (7bn euros) annually.

Financial discussions in Brussels saw EU leaders during the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to consider a global tax on financial transactions to reduce the risks of a further financial crisis and raise funding for tackling climate change.

“The European Council encourages the IMF to consider the full range of options including insurance fees, resolution funds, contingent capital arrangements and a global financial transaction levy in its review,” the summit’s final statement said.

Whilst the text confirms the consensus between nations that halting forest protection is crucial, the details of measures to reduce deforestation are still al long way off. Developing countries are still demanding more funding from developed countries, and the details of a long term and fundamental financial package still remains hugely uncertain. The new text also requires developing countries to cut their carbon emissions by 15-30% by 2020 compared to BAU, and developing countries retired from the plenary requesting further time to digest the potential consequences of such commitments.

Additionally, reports suggest that the EU and US have finally agreed to a twin track deal which ensures that the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that forces rich countries to cut emissions – continues at least until a new legal treaty is signed.

“This is very, very complicated. It’s tough because the world is trying to peak emissions. There is a long way to go. We are anxious and conscious of the scale of the challenge that remains,” said the UK climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband.

The text will be negotiated in more detail next week, with details of a finance package and forest protection measures expected to dominate discussions. Developing countries will be calling for tougher commitments, and as Nasa scientist Jim Hansen recently commented – the climate agenda is not amenable to half measures. “It would be like saying, I’ll agree to cut 40% of slavery.”

The clock is ticking. The UNFCCC’s Copenhagen summit is just 7 days away, and recent reports have been encouraging. Shortly after China and the US made announcements on commitments to reduce their GHGS, Commonwealth leaders backed a $10bn Climate Change fund. Proposed by UK PM Gordon Brown, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the fund seeks to provide immediate financial support to those States most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

UK PM Gordon Brown said on Friday that half of the fund should be aimed at helping the most vulnerable states to adapt to climate change, whilst the other half should be targeted at measures to reduce GHGs in the least developed countries.

The first funding would be made available early next year, before any international agreement could take effect, whilst there are suggestions that funds for the most vulnerable small island states would be fast-tracked and made available immediately.

This agreement by the Commonwealth demonstrates how climate change can unite different countries – small/large, rich or poor to find a resolution; and delivers some promise for next week’s summit.

The Commonwealth leaders also agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, though it is widely believed that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.

The Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, added that any commitments they would announce would be “ambitious”, though it is highly likely that will be subject to significant commitments by other influential nations too.  This prisoner’s dilemma characterises the negotiations, and also represents the biggest threat to a global deal.  However, the recent flurry of announcements for GHG reduction commitments from many of the key players has sparked hope that all is not lost yet.

The countdown begins. I will attend the final week of negotiations with a focus on proposals from the developed nations.

The UK’s energy security prospects are once again making the headlines, as Ed Milliband this week announced the top 10 suitable sites for the next generation of nuclear power plants, describing nuclear power as a “proven, reliable source of low carbon energy”.

The announcement comes amidst heightened concerns surrounding the peak oil debate, with the UK ERC claiming that conventionally extracted global oil production could ‘peak’ and go into terminal decline before 2020.

However, the environmentalists have criticised the decision, warning of the “deadly legacy” of radioactive waste, and argued that investment should be focused on renewables instead. Interestingly, one of the oldest and most efficient windfarms in Britain will be dismantled at Kirksanton to make way for the nuclear plant, to the dismay of some locals.

Faced with the prospect of depleting supplies from the North Sea, the UK is now paying the price for its ‘dash for gas’, following the closure of the coal mines in the 1980s. To support the development of this next generation of energy infrastructure, the UK Government has announced a host of measures to reduce the planning constraints that are likely to hamper such large infrastructure projects, and hopes to have the first new nuclear plant operating by 2018.

Professor Barry Brook at the University of Adelaide has welcomed the announcements from the UK government, and encouraged the Australian government to take heed. He highlights that unlike the situation for uranium power, the electricity price is strongly tied to the fuel price for gas and therefore fluctuations in gas prices lead to price spikes in power prices.

Cheap uranium energy, on the other hand, provides a much more secure proposition to meet both energy security and climate change goals; and he adds that

“…there is enough uranium to provide the whole world with zero-carbon power for millions of years.”

Nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating. Along with hydropower from dams, it is the only clean energy technology that has been shown to be scalable.

France is a case in point. It derives nearly 80% of its electricity from 59 nuclear plants and is the world’s biggest electricity exporter. It has the cheapest power rates in Europe, and has the lowest carbon footprint per person.

However, the significance of radioactive wastes and contamination threats should not be underestimated if we really want to promote sustainable development that considers the intergenerational impact and legacy of such technologies. In this vein, it might be argued that the significant funds for these large infrastructure projects would, in fact, be better targeted at scale-up and capacity building for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, tidal and others, which don’t generate such controversial by-products.  For now, the pressure is on in the UK to streamline the planning process to enable the speedy construction required to bridge the expected energy gap.