Already a whole quarter has passed since the frenzy of negotiations that led up to the 20/20/20 Package agreement at the European Council meeting last December. The series of ministerial meetings that occurred back then are being repeated this month. Environment Ministers met last Monday; Economic Ministers will meet on Tuesday 10 March; and European heads of state (the European Council) will meet on 19-20 March.

NGOs are flagging up the importance of developing countries in a global deal

A number of NGOs, including WWF, Greenpeace and Oxfam are using the opportunity to pile on the pressure for the EU to agree on solid financing commitments for an in international climate deal. With the bloc having already committed substantial sums of money towards mitigation action domestically (see the EU section in Climatico’s new quarterly report), much of the NGOs’ focus has been on financing for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.

Although the coming global climate negotiations in Copenhagen will feature on the agendas of the Finance Ministers and the European Council, it is very possible that both meetings will pass without substantial new commitments. The state of Europe’s economy will undoubtedly be the main priority for the Finance Ministers and the Council. Copenhagen is still relatively far away, and EU leaders may want to wait for other countries – particularly the US – to give some clearer indications of their intentions before making further climate funding decisions.

A field of sunflowers in front of the Areva Tricastin nuclear plant in in Bollene, in the south of France. Photograph: Fred Dufour/AFP/Getty images. Source: Guardian.co.uk

The past week saw reports of at least four of the country’s leading green activists accepting that nuclear power may have a significant role to play if we are to avoid runaway climate change. Concerns over safety issues, build-up of radioactive wastes and the proliferation of nuclear weapons were realistically balanced against the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.

Stephen Tindale, a former director of Greenpace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year; and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate, are now all lobbying in favour of nuclear options to support a renewable strategy to decarbonise the electricity system.

Nuclear power currently accounts for about a fifth of the UK’s electricity, compared with the 35% from coal and 35% from gas. It is being argued that more nuclear capacity will need to be added to replace the existing capacity, which is likely to be obsolete in around 15 years. But nuclear is not the only dwindling supply. Around 8 gigawatts - equivalent to about 6 power stations - of coal-fired generating capacity will be out of action by 2015 as Europe’s Clean Air Directive comes into force and older facilities prove uneconomic to upgrade. Taken together, the UK needs to replace a third of its electricity generating capacity in the next 15 years. Even plans for 7 gigawatts of new gas-fired capacity, expected by 2015, and another 5 gigawatts recently given the go-ahead by the Government, will not be enough as estimates put energy demand ballooning by anything up to 20% in the coming decade.

Nuclear power fits neatly with the Government energy policy goals, providing a carbon emission free source of secure energy supply - particularly important in light of recent geo-polictical tensions between Russia and Ukraine last month.

Investments are being planned by EDF (owner of British Energy), E.on and RWE Power, which are expected to create in excess of 15,000 jobs - welcomed with open arms in the current economic climate; but any planned build will only become operational by the mid 2020s at the earliest now.

George Monbiot, who has also changed his position on the nuclear argument, argues that if we want to decarbonise the UK’s energy system quicker and more cheaply, nuclear power must play a significant complementary role, alongside increased renewable energy generation, demand reduction, CHP and energy efficiency. Mark Lynas adds that nuclear power could provide a realistic solution to combating climate change and providing energy security, and as polls suggest that the public are opposing the nuclear option less and less, he calls for the Green movement to reconsider their 30 year dogma on energy generation from nuclear power.

Whilst plans for new reactors are still expected to raise face opposition, the Green movement’s acknowledgement of nuclear as the lesser of two evils will take away some of the sting. Ironically, it is the environmental agenda that made the economics of commercial nuclear expansion work. Regardless of moral reservations, the cost of nuclear power stations compared with their gas and coal-fired alternatives has always been a major factor; but the introduction of an emissions trading mechanism has forced fossil fuel plants to pay for their environmental impact, and the predictable income for nuclear plants provides much-needed clarity for private sector investors.

Whilst the safety and waste worries still remain, the arguments for and against nuclear power seemed to have changed to serve urgent targets.

Nuclear power…

*In an increasingly power-hungry world, the generation capacity of nuclear is potentially enormous

*Nuclear reactors are the best way to produce lots of electricity, reliably, with no carbon emissions

*Except for the purchase of uranium, nuclear power stations offer absolute security of supply 

However:

*Safety records may be far better than they were in the early days, but accidents can always happen

*Despite technical advances, digging a hole is still the only way to get rid of spent fuel rods

*More countries, buying more uranium, means more mining and more chance of nuclear proliferation

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)

After my previous post about Blue-NG’s plans to harness geopressure technology from the UK gas pipeline to generate renewable electricity, raised considerable interest, I have looked into some of the points of discussion and felt a further blog was necessary.

An architect's drawing of the planned site at Beckton, East London

The first of the eight schemes will install a highly efficient power station at a pressure reduction station (PRS) in Beckton, East London. It will utilize innovative Combined Heat and intelligent Power (CHiP) technology, with an expected energy potential of 19.5MWe - enough to power 50,000 homes. Click here to see the BBC’s report on this scheme.

Blue-NG has confirmed that there is no use of geopressure technology to generate ‘clean’ energy as detailed in the previous post, and other reports of the project. Blue-NG confirmed that despite early consideration of geo-pressure options for 2OC’s agreement with the National Grid, this project is now only concerned with CHiP technology to capture heat, and not pressure.  Whilst 2OC campaigned for geopressure to be recognized in the Renewables Obligation, this will only benefit geopressure projects they may develop later; however this scheme will still benefit from ROCS for the use of fuel and heat.

Nevertheless, Blue-NG claim that the CHiP (click here for diagram) is the world’s most efficient generator, reaching a maximum efficiency of 96% and therefore boasts a number of environmental benefits.

It will produce electricity in three ways:

1.     A diesel engine will produce electricity from burning liquid biomass - locally grown and sustainable rapeseed oil sourced from within 50 miles of London. This will replace the gas boilers currently used to pre-heat the gas at PRSs to avoid unacceptable temperature drops (which may freeze pipes and valves) during the normal gas pressure reduction process.

2.     Surplus heat will be captured and used for local district heating

3.     The remaining surplus heat will be used to heat the natural gas in the National Grid’s PRS as part of its normal process operation, to ensure pipes and valves do not freeze as the pressure of the gas is reduced. 

Despite support from Greenpeace, the project has attracted criticism from some environmental organizations, including Biofuels Watch, who remain concerned about the health and sustainability issues relating to production of electricity from biofuels. They claim that the use of biofuels provokes a number of issues, including the displacement of food, human and animals, as well as leading to deforestation in developing countries from which they are imported.

However, Blue-NG highlight that the Section 106 agreement - a condition applied to the project by Newham council, requires them to source their fuel from sustainable sources, and prove that they have not displaced crops. This would allow the council to monitor the fuels used by the plant at any time, although some argue that this may still be difficult to police.

Richard Lyddon, from Blue-NG added that, the company’s sustainable procurement policy, developed with support from Greenpeace, commits them to sourcing rapeseed oil, (which will be processed) from credited farmers within 50 miles of the site.

Rapeseed is currently used as a break crop by farmers, and as a result of the EU abandoning the ‘set-aside’ policy for farmers, 10,000 hectares of land is expected to become available for growing rapeseed in the 50 mile radius from which Blue-NG will be procuring these crops. Lyddon confirmed that the project would only use rapeseed oil, and not palm oil, which was mentioned in an original tender. However, objectors of the project remain skeptical about whether the plan to source such a level of biofuels locally is realistic, and recognize the additional environmental costs of shipping the fuel to site.

Whilst Blue-NG plan to contribute to climate change mitigation through ongoing implementation of their CHiP technology after the 8 planned schemes and the government continues to incentivise biofuels through the Renewables Obligation (RO), many environmental organizations, including Biofuels Watch, remain unconvinced and argue that biofuels are simply unsustainable.

Plans for a third runway at Heathrow got the go-ahead from the transport secretary, Geoff Hoon today, despite the barrage of opposition on environmental grounds from environmentalists, scientists, MPs, celebrities and local residents.

(Credit: John Stillwell/PA Wire)

At full capacity, an expanded Heathrow (expected by 2020) would become the biggest single source of C02 emissions in the country; emitting nearly 27m tonnes of CO2 every year - equivalent to the emissions of 57 of the least polluting countries in the world combined. The new runway will add an estimated 400 flights a day, increasing annual passenger numbers through the airport from 66 million to around 82 million.

Hoon stressed that the expansion of Heathrow is justified on economic grounds and will be essential for future economic growth, and attracting international investment to the UK. However, in order to appease the growing opposition from environmental campaigners and over 50 Labour MPs, Hoon announced the a package of environmental conditions, restricting BAA from using the new runway at full capacity, which it had originally consulted for. However, environmental campaigners brandished these efforts as simple greenwash.

Proposed Environmental Safeguards

-   The third runway will operate at half its capacity when it opens in 2020, raising the total number of flights from 480,000 to 600,000, rather than the 702,000 intended

-   Aircraft using the new runway will have to meet strict GHG emission standards

-   Total carbon emissions from UK aviation must fall below 2005 levels by 2050

Hoon added that the government was satisfied environmental targets could be met, as it would put an initial cap on additional flights from the new runway of 125,000, would ensure new slots were “green slots” used by only the least polluting planes and would set a new target on aircraft emissions - that they would be lower in 2050 than in 2005.

Protests at Heathrow Airport earlier this week. Source: Dominic Rowland

“This gives us the toughest climate change regime for aviation anywhere in the world,” said Hoon. Such

 sentiments on the imminent challenge of meeting the UK’s legally binding target for 80% CO₂ emissions reduction by 2050 have been raised by many and were also echoed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. At a recent press conference held in Berlin, he said that he wanted to “protect the economic future of the country while, at the same time, meeting the very tough environmental conditions we have set ourselves”.

However, many feel this decision reflects the government’s hypocrisy on the climate change debate, arguing that the environmental safeguards don’t go far enough. Campaigners from Friends of the Earth highlighted that the expansion will make the UK’s climate change targets virtually impossible to meet, as the airport will see a 70% increase in passengers by 2030.

In addition, plans for investments in a high speed rail network to link major UK cities to this major ‘hub’ airport were unveiled, amongst talks of opening up hard shoulders on some of the UK’s major motorways to ease congestion in the meantime.

While the PM believes that such an infrastructure project is crucial for the UK during this recession period, it is strongly opposed by the Tories. Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers criticized government’s environmental promises, labeling them “…not worth the paper they are written on” and said her party would cancel the project if they win the next general election.

Jonathon Porritt, chair of the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, was horrified by the decision and said, “This is very regrettable decision ignoring the fact that government does not have the data about the economic benefits and has not done a proper assessment of the impacts and on its climate change targets. It does not add up.”

Strong local concern was highlighted by London Mayor Boris Johnson and over 20 London local authorities, representing more than 2 million people. The airport will also see the demolition of Sipson village, including one school and over 700 houses, exposing further schools and houses to noise and air pollution.

Meanwhile, a host of celebrities, including Oscar winning actress Emma Thompson, and Alastair McGowan partnered with Greenpeace to sign the deeds of a peace of land ear-marked by BAA to build the third runway; in an attempt to severely delay the planning applications for this controversial development.

What remains to be seen now is whether emissions reduction targets are also ‘loosened’ by the Committee on Climate Change and Ed Milliband’s team to help the government meet the carbon reduction targets, despite the additional 27m tones (approx) of CO2 a year the expansion will add.

While there are many stories that could be told about the Global Day of Climate Action, I would like to talk about the rising star of climate campaigning: non-violent direct action, or NVDA.

Today campaigners in over 40 countries marched in a global effort to increase government action on climate change. Climatico had half-a-dozen analysts on the ground to report on the action.

After much walking, chanting, drumming, and shivering, our estimated 10,000-strong battalion of climate marchers rounded the corner into Parliament Square. After a few speeches and some music, we were greeted with two quotes:

“Direct action is the last resort of democracy”

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration.”

Any guesses as to who these were credited to?

Parliament Square by Dominic Rowland

Nope, not a bunch of eco-hippies, but Oscar Wilde and Al Gore (though I can’t find a source for the first).

Later, we heard from John McDonnell, the MP whose constituency includes Heathrow Airport, who gave a rousing speech in which he pledged to participate in NVDA if the government approved the plans to build a third runway at Heathrow.

Finally, Caroline Lucas MEP, came up on stage, inviting us all to a “tea party” (read sit-in) at Heathrow Terminal One.

So we have high-profile politicians calling for NVDA, a situation which is unlkely to have happened without the game-changing court verdict regarding the Greenpeace protesters at Kingsnorth. But will it work? Well there certainly seem to be a lot of people that hope so!

–

Now I would like your input: Is the growth of climate-related NVDA a UK-only phenomenon, or is this a global trend? And do you think that it is an effective mechanism for increasing government action? Leave your comments below…