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.

Last week the US state department approved an oil pipeline which will carry tar sands oil from Alberta across Canada down to Wisconsin. The move follows long term plans between the US and Canada over energy deals, with tar sands already a key part of the US’s current oil provider. For environmentalists the move is a major setback, with tar sands, considered the dirtiest of all oils permanently and visibility crossing the boundary of the two countries.

Environmentalists both sides of the border and around the world can only greet this with disappointment. It had been thought during the Obama campaign that his rhetoric of “dirty oil” would restrict the development of tar sands to its most likely consumer, the US. However, what now appears likely is that the US has given tacit International approval to the oil sands by creating a permanent pipeline.

Continue reading…

Ice sculpture in Darling Harbour. Image by Kirsten Spry.

There are only a few months left until leaders of the international community convene in Copenhagen to agree upon a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. Prime Minister Rudd has already declared that Australia will not go to the convention empty-handed. So far, Australia’s climate change legislation has faced some hurdles with its CPRS bill. However, with the recent approval of the renewable energy target, there is hope that Rudd will be able to keep his promise.

Following the defeat of Prime Minister Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) 42-30 by the Senate on August 13th, the Renewable Energy Target was split from Rudd’s controversial carbon trading legislation. The new legislation - calling for a 20 per cent renewable energy target - was subsequently approved when brought before the Senate again last Friday.

This new target matches the renewable energy target set by the European Union and means that, within a decade, all Australian households could be powered by renewable energy. While the Greens argue that this renewable energy target should be 30 per cent, it is huge increase from the 8 per cent target in place prior to the bill’s approval.

Upon the failure of Rudd’s CPRS scheme, Minister of Water and Climate Change, Penny Wong, vowed to bring the legislation up for a vote once more in three months time.

“I urge those opposite who have become supporters of renewable energy in recent times to join the bigger fight, the bigger fight against climate change, and I urge them to support when the government next presents the carbon pollution reduction scheme,” says Wong.

With the approval of the new renewable energy targets, Australia is guaranteed at least some legislation on hand in Copenhagen. However, the Rudd government faces an uphill battle in the months ahead to get their carbon trading scheme through.

With one failure already on its books, the carbon trading legislation will need re-tooling over the course of the next three months in order to stand a chance at success.

In its current form, the proposed legislation faced several opponents who will make the same claims in the next round of votes if their concerns are not appeased. These opponents included the Greens, Conservatives and independent senators who blocked the emissions trade scheme due to its impact on the economy, environment, and on jobs for Australians.

With so many groups to appease, can Rudd make the necessary adjustments in time to get his carbon trading legislation through parliament? The timing might be short, but the Opposition has already begun drafting amendments for the bill and Government continues to have talks with the coal industry.

It may be impossible to please every opponent, but hopefully by mid-November, some form of consensus will be reached on an emissions trading scheme for Australia, allowing Rudd to bring a solid example of Australia’s commitment to combat climate change with him to Copenhagen.

As the G20 and UNFCCC meetings draw closer, France’s Green Plan (le Grenelle Environment Round Table) and a couple recent additions are worth a quick review. So a few things:
• The Oceans Initiative (Le Grenelle de la Mer) was originally announced in February 2009, but major action has just started in the past weeks.
• the French government will launch in April an eco loan of up to 30,000€ with no interest rate to increase the use of thermal renewable energy sources and of energy conservation.

Le Grenelle is a rare example of federal-level government-led effort to connect the State, unions, employers, NGOs, and local authorities in a rigorous process to determine approaches to climate change.

The “Grenelle Environnement,” officially launched on 6 July 2007, and combines the state and civil society in order to define new actions for sustainable development in France (through 2012). Action plans were developed around the themes of: climate change and energy, biodiversity and natural resources, health and the environment, production and consumption of ecological democracy, development patterns and environmental employment and competitiveness.

With regards to Le Grenelle de la Mer, four working groups have been formed this month around the themes of:
* Sustainable fishing
* Employment in the marine sector
* Coastal development
* Governance at the local and global level

The working groups will produce a road map before the summer, which will then be submitted to an inter-ministerial committee. The project is viewing ocean and fishing issues as strongly tied to changes in climate in the near and long-term futures.

According to the latest report on fisheries published by the FAO in March, around 28 percent of world fish stocks are over-fished.
One big unanswered question is how France will reconcile the need for sustainable fishing policies with the fishing subsidies, which cost France 27 billion Euros per year, according to calculations by Daniel Pauly, head of the Fisheries Center of the University of British Colombia.

Let’s shift gears to the Grenelle Housing Initiative, which is gearing up for action…

The energy and environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo expects heavy energy –efficient renovations to go above 400,000 per year, to be compared to the current 40,000. He goes on to say that each construction project built prior to 1990 has to be renovated. This represents 27 million housings, including 15 individual houses.

People willing to benefit from these loans have to choose two or three options among the following:

* Insulation of the roof ;
* Insulation of the walls ;
* Replacement of doors and windows ;
* Installation of a more efficient heating system ;
* Installation of a water heating or housing heating system with renewables.

By choosing two, one can benefit from an eco loan of 20,000€; choosing three, one can get 30,000€. Households will have from ten to fifteen years to payback these loans.

To Mr. Borloo, such a scheme would allow households to cut by 70 to 80 percent their heating bills.

Sounds like Frnace has some good ideas to share at the upcoming international climate change meetings.

The government’s chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington has warned that:

“The UK is heading for a “perfect storm” of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources…this will threaten to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from the worst-affected regions.”

The issue of food and energy security rose high on the political agenda last year during a spike in oil and commodity prices. According to the FAO, a further 40 million people were forced into hunger in December 2008, primarily due to higher food prices, which brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007.  The ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty.

Future predictions suggest that demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the population tops 8.3 billion. As prices for staple crops continue to rise (rice, maize and wheat) these price increases will be sustained by rising population growth in developing economies. 

“We head into a perfect storm in 2030, because all of these things are operating on the same time frame, and if we don’t address this, we can expect major destabilisation, an increase in rioting and potentially significant problems with international migration, as people move out to avoid food and water shortages” (Quote: Prof John Beddington)

Professor John Beddington was appointed as Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) on 1 January 2008, was previously awarded the Heidelberg Award for Environmental Excellence (June 1997).  His views are supported by the United Nations Environment Programme which predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. 

Climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate; thus according to the UN ”The agriculture industry needs to double its food production, using less water than today.”

Future predictions to fund Biofuel production over the next 15 years, an extra 30bn gallons in the US alone and the EU has a target for biofuels to make up 5.75% of transport fuels by 2010; Beddington comments at the Sustainable Development UK Conference in Westminster 2009:

“It is very hard to imagine how we can see a world growing enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous increase in the demand for food which is quite properly going to happen as we alleviate poverty.” (Quote: Prof John Beddington)

Perhaps improving agricultural productivity is one way to tackle the problem, but at present, 30-40% of all crops are lost due to pest and disease before they are harvested (Beddington), so we need more disease-resistant and pest-resistant plants and better practices, better harvesting procedures.

It has also been suggested that genetically-modified food i.e. plants that are resistant to drought- a mixture of genetic modification and conventional plant breeding offer a solution, but this too is dependent on better water storage and cleaner energy supplies.  Others state that the uses of GM crops are simply unsafe.

The impact on the UK will be higher food prices and increased fuel poverty, but here in the UK Beddington is currently Chair of a new Cabinet Office task force set up to tackle food security. 

 What are your views on what the UK can do to better prepare for this ‘future scarcity storm’?

While Obama’s visit to Canada rightly made headlines across North America; as the first state visit and one that was open in its discussion of Climate Change measures (even if they Climate Change talks had to take a backseat to the economy. 2009 however, also saw the slow awakening of another key initiative to Combat climate change on the North American continent.

Continue reading…

Solar shop, Ladakh. Photo: Flickr/Ajay Tallam

After a quiet quarter and a fairly dull interim budget, the government today launched an ambitious project as part of its climate change policy, falling under two of the missions laid out in the NAPCC: the National Solar Mission and the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency. Under the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy’s project to increase the use of solar power, Nagpur, a town in the state of Maharashtra, is set to become the first of 60 ‘solar cities’ in India. These cities will source at least 10% of their power consumption from renewable sources and the city will be energy efficient. 

It’s well known that India suffers from acute power shortages. As the temperature rises, so does the demand for power, which stresses the already stretched power grids. For example, states like Karnataka depend on a mix of hydroelectric and thermal sources of power and, like Kerala, are dependent on the monsoon for meeting their electricity requirements. A bad monsoon or unexpected rises in temperature (like this year) invariably mean power cuts and load shedding.

As India’s policy on climate change points out, solar power has great potential in India for many reasons. Firstly, we get a lot of sunshine (over 300 days of sunlight a year); secondly solar power distribution can be decentralised, and in that sense it is ‘empowering people at the grass root level’. Thirdly, it will reduce our acute power woes and finally, India’s need for solar power supports innovation, technology transfer and international cooperation. Electrification of rural areas is also electorally powerful. 

This project has great potential economically. Renewable energy markets are becoming attractive investments - HSBC’s renewable energy wing is looking to invest heavily in solar and wind projects in Asia and as mentioned earlier, Gujarat’s latest investment summit attracted a number of private partners for renewable energy projects. Supported partly by the recession’s cost cutting nature and burgeoning awareness on environmental and energy management amongst people in India, energy efficiency is becoming more and more important as well. The recession may be good for the eco-realty sector as energy efficient and eco friendly buildings are becoming fashionable. Investing in solar projects like this will bring down the costs involved in setting up solar energy sources as well. 

As a government report on India’s energy security recommended in 2006, solar technology is “the only renewable energy source with sufficient potential to meet almost all our energy needs, we should give high priority to [the] development of solar technology”. The plan doesn’t give too many details into the hows and whys, but it comes at an opportune time when power, economic efficiency and the environment are becoming priorities on the Indian consumer’s list.

Milliband has annouced plans to give 400,000 UK homes a ‘Green Makeover’ by 2015, extending to 7 million homes by 2020.  Milliband outlines his vision for all UK homes to have reduced demand for energy, and as a result, reduced emissions by 2030

 This plan will feed into the governments carbon reduction plans outlined in Climate Change Act 2008 to ensure an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.  Currently, homes account for 27% of the UK’s carbon emissions through heating and power and this refurb can cut emissions from homes by a third! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment)

 Under the proposals,  Minister for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Milliband outlined that cavity wall and loft insulation will be available initially for all ‘suitable’ homes. Financial incentives for householders will also be granted for low-carbon technologies such as solar panels, biomass boilers and ground source heat pumps, paid for by a levy on utility companies.   

Although there are no upfront costs to the household, a main incentive alone, over time, these energy saving materials will pay back the investor, through savings gained in reduced heating bills.  In addition, the Renewable Heating Incentive will encourage local community to develop small-scale energy networks to feed into the national grid from their power-generating facilities.  This can benefit the household by generating electricity for local consumption, whilst profiting from sales to the national grid for excess electricity production; a win-win situation.

 The ’Great British Refurb’ has been welcomed by most organisations, including Nathan Argent, head of energy solutions at Greenpeace UK who comments:

“A programme to upgrade the housing stock alone would require £3.5-£6.5bn per year until 2050.  Tackling energy efficiency is the fastest way to cut emissions, boost our energy security, revitalise the economy and create tens of thousands of jobs. And, obviously, this will cut household bills too. But this plan needs much more investment right now. The government needs to put their wallet where their mouth is.” (Source: www.guardian.co.uk/environment) 

Paul King, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) also comments:

“As Lord Stern said yesterday” energy efficiency in homes and buildings should be part of a green stimulus. Financial incentives are needed to encourage major green refurbishments – the precedent has already been set with stamp duty rebates for zero-carbon homes”.  (Source: www.guardian.co.uk/environment) 

 As with every consultation and new product launched by the government, there are cynics of the scheme, including comments made by the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC) and the Energy Saving Trust (EST), accusing the government for not tackling the carbon issues directly, boldly or soon enough. 

This stimulates the question if Milliband is targeting the correct sector for stimulating a green refurb change?  Since direct global carbon emissions from the UK’s 100 largest companies amounted to 480 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent - about 73% of the UK total, as revealed in a report ‘The Carbon 100‘ published by Henderson Global Investors.  The question that remains is, will the impact of the green refurb simply be enough to reduce CO2?  (http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=10094)

Following President Obama’s request to the EPA to reconsider whether states should be allowed to set stricter tailpipe emissions than set by the U.S. government, the New York Times speculated that Obama’s action signaled a move toward broadening the role of states. The Times argued that the new administration is supportive of “progressive federalism”, a movement made by state governors and attorneys general to enact, among other things, tougher laws on consumer protection and environmental initiatives than provided within the federal framework. If we are headed toward a new movement in progressive federalism, will we then see an influx of state-led environmental initiatives? And, if not, what role will the state’s initiatives play in Obama’s agenda?

The possibility for an influx in state-led initiatives exists and the presidential honeymoon period seems an ideal time for governors and attorneys general to put forth their own agendas for change. However, the current economic crisis will likely curtail any such state aspirations. Many U.S. states are running significant deficits including a state of crisis in California. Therefore, enacting environmental initiatives by states will likely prove extremely difficult if not backed by federal funding. 

Furthermore, this move by Obama does more to counteract bad Bush policies than signify a new direction for the EPA and state rights. The article by the New York Times failed to mention that the rejection of California’s request to set tougher emission standards by Bush’s EPA was the first of its kind in 40 years. Prior to this, the EPA allowed states to exceed requirements set forth by the federal government. This action by the Obama administration, then, was not only an attempt to strengthen tailpipe emission standards; it also serves President Obama’s interest in reversing dangerous precedents set forth by the Bush administration.

In addition to counteracting Bush policies, revisiting California’s request to the EPA falls in line with Obama’s Energy and Environment agenda. Darren Hutchinson, Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, argues that Obama’s support for state-led environmental reform only occurred because states were seeking to tighten – not loosen – tailpipe emission standards. In this instance, according to Hutchinson, Obama “is using states to promote more progressive ideas than the national politics would tolerate.”  

If Hutchinson is correct, which I suspect that he is, then we will likely only see support by the Obama administration for state-led initiatives that are in line with his agenda such as greening the United States image. Efforts by states to retaliate against Obama’s climate change initiatives will likely be met with much less support by the Obama administration. For all of these reasons, a strong push toward progressive federalism seems unlikely at this point in time. Rather, we will likely see a mix of both state and federal initiatives, provided that the states’ initiatives fit in to Obama’s vision for the United States.

The Community Sustainable Energy Programme will provide a total of £9 million to for the installation of microgeneration technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines and energy efficiency measures including loft and cavity wall insulation.

Microgeneration is talked about in the UK Energy Act 2004, and defines it as the generation of energy ‘of a capacity of less than 50 kW.’  It includes technologies such as:

• Solar photovoltaics
• Solar thermal hot water
• Wind turbines
• Heat pumps
• Automated wood pellet stoves
• Wood fuelled boiler systems
• Micro-hydro turbines

Since an estimated 38% of current UK greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the energy supply sector, and existing losses in the current electricity supply system amount to around 65% of the primary energy input, mainly due to heat wasted during centralised production. Micro-generation and other decentralised technologies have the potential to dramatically reduce these losses.  It can make energy savings when fossil fuels are used, as the heat generated by localised electricity production can be captured and utilised for space and water heating. (Source: Prospects for and barriers to domestic micro-generation: A United Kingdom perspective; Allen, Hammond and M.C. McManus)

Through CSEP local community organisations can adopt this relatively expensive technology at a subsidised price. The benefits of this government grant are not just in the hands of politics and businesses; this scheme will increase community awareness of climate change and how changes to our behaviour can reduce it; offer increased skills base of local trades (for example, building-services working on renewable energy projects); offer consumers a reduction in energy bills and a reduction in reliance on imported energy and increased independence from commercial energy supplier; create stronger partnerships within local communities with lasting social benefits, and encourage the growth of local enterprise in new technologies.

This all sound too good to be true? Barriers to domestic micro-generation in the UK are in the process of technological innovation, energy policy options, and the current status of the micro-generation industry. Perhaps the requirements for this technology to be mainstream is simply not strong enough, based on low levels of energy outputs this will generate, high costs to consumers, and difficulties in installing a high number of systems.

The true extent to how the CSEP will tackle these barriers will remain unknown for some years, but the extent to what needs to done is here today.  Apply for your microgeneration grant today!