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.

The UK’s Department for Energy & Climate Change (DECC) this week announced a £20m injection of government-backed venture capital support, for the deployment of recent advances in innovative, low carbon technologies.

Whilst private funds for early stage commercialisation and technology development have fallen significantly as a result of the economic downturn, this investment demonstrates the rising priority and commitment of the UK government to the climate change agenda. The funds will level the playing field for new and emerging technologies, to support capacity building, develop skills and demonstrate capabilities of renewable energy sources to meet the insatiable needs of the global economy.

This announcement complements initiatives announced in the UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan in July 2009, aimed at reducing the UK’s emissions by 34% by 2020 (18% of 2008 levels); and ultimately 80% by 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. At the heart of the Act and the Low Carbon Transition Plan lies the carbon budgets, which have been assigned to all Government departments responsible for regulating different sections of the UK economy; with a requirement to produce a plan to demonstrate how they intend to stay within the assigned budget. If the Government fails to ensure that the UK can live within its carbon budgets, it will have to purchase carbon credits from international emissions trading schemes.

The UK has committed to procure 40% of energy needs from low carbon sources by 2020; an extension to the legally binding commitment in the EU Renewables Directive, which obligates the UK to generate 15% of total energy (electricity, heat and transport) from renewable sources by 2020.

The Low Carbon Transition Plan introduces a range of efficiency measures, including the ‘pay as you save’ insulation scheme, as well as a Clean Energy Cash-back Scheme, which aims to incentivise the generation of green power by individuals and organizations by providing a fair structure to sell green energy back to the National Grid. Ed Milliband, has talked about the inspiring communities by encouraging the UK’s top 15-20 cities, towns and villages to compete at the forefront of green innovation, to initiate the UK’s green revolution. Whilst climate change is a driving force, significant policy drivers include resource and national security, as the race to limit dependencies on finite resources begins.

The UK is keen to cement its position as a leader in the run up to the 15^th Conference of Parties (CoP-15) in Copenhagen in December, and Ed Milliband has called for the same decisive approach to climate change as the G20 demonstrated earlier this year on the global economic downturn (McLachlan, 2009).

Discussions held at the UN’s climate change summit last week, and the Pittsburgh G20 summit; provide a broad practical framework of what may constitute a succinct ‘Copenhagen treaty’, but Jeffery Sachs argues that the climate change issue may be too complex to solve in a ‘Kyoto II’ type agreement in December. Instead climate negotiations should aim for an interim agreement on general principles, financing and technology transfer, with practical programmes and steps, which can be introduced and further developed for immediate action. Sachs (2009) adds

“There is still time for a three-part package: a political framework, a financing package, and a series of practical steps announced by all major regions to tilt the trajectory on emissions.”

The political framework would outline the fundamental agreement - that all countries have “common but differentiated responsibilities”, and that drastic quantifiable emissions cuts are required to stay under a 2C rise. A financial package from the most developed nations should support the least developed countries to invest in clean technologies, and adapt to the disastrous impacts, especially since the majority of poor populations reside in tropical regions vulnerable to the major effects of climate change.

In addition to all the negotiations, Sachs adds that governments should announce a meaningful set of immediate practical programmes to reduce emissions on a large scale. The initiatives introduced by the UK Government in its Low Carbon Transition Plan do just that, but the bigger challenge remains to encourage the fundamental participation of the US, Europe, China, and India to do the same.

Bangladesh Floods (source: oneworld.net)

Last year the UK pledged £75 million to Bangladesh, often cited as one of the countries that will be hit very hard by climate change. Even modest sea level rises could flood 20% of land. The cash will be used for things like raising homes in high-risk flood areas, provide flood-resilient crops, and a national early warning system for cyclones.

Gordon Brown made a widely praised speech a few weeks ago promising that the $100bn needed every year for adaptation would come “separately from and additional to our promises on aid”. He did leave a small loophole in there though, saying that 10% could come from existing budgets.

It turns out however that the £75m for Bangladesh was announced previously under existing DFID budgets, so has already been accounted for and doesn’t therefore qualify under the additionality principle, which I suppose is fair enough. A little confusing though…

This additionality principle is something which NGOs have been calling for ever since financing for adaptation was set to become a reality. The argument runs as follows: since rich countries bear the bulk or responsibility for causing climate change, adaptation finance for poor countries should be over and above what has already been promised to them in terms of aid that is not related to climate.

Meanwhile, the Tories have not explicitly committed to Brown’s pledge that adaptation financing will be additional to ODA. It is perhaps telling that in their Green Paper on development (launched last week), they say they will “mainstream” adaptation, but makes no mention of a cap, like the 10% proposed by Brown.

Copenhagen's famous mermaid (source: about.com)

The leading think-tank Chatham House held a conference on Monday and Tuesday this week, entitled “The Politics of Climate Change Agreement”.  There were some high-level speakers, including Joan Ruddock (DECC minister), the head of UNEP, and the chief negotiator of Papua New Guinea (he who told the USA to “show some leadership or get out of the way” at Bali).There was a vein of optimism running through the discussions - after all, who would have thought three years ago that the US would (almost) have a cap-and-trade bill, that India and China would have mitigation plans, and in 2008 investment in renewable energy would exceed investment in both nuclear and fossil fuels.

The main focus of the conference was what needed to happen politically to get a good deal at Copenhagen. The position of most developing countries is that annex 1 countries must provide binding targets for emissions reductions by 2020, consistent with keeping us on a 450ppm pathway or below. Secondly, there will be no deal without clear commitments by rich countries on adaptation financing. There was general agreement that Gordon Brown has broken the logjam on this with his speech last week finally putting a price tag of $100bn a year.

These are both likely to be forthcoming, but the extent of rich country cuts are still unclear - the Waxman-Markey bill in the US is unambitious, and recent figures put out by Russia and Japan were also disappointing. An aggregation of commitments so far gives a 16-26% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This is not good enough, as the IPCC says we need 25-40% cuts by 2020 to stay on the 450ppm pathway.

On the rich country side, the US in particular wants developing countries to commit to binding emissions cuts (cf. previous stand-offs with India), which many of them see as unjustifiable. This will probably be the major sticking point at Copenhagen. The piece of UNFCCC jargon for developing country emissions cuts is “Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions” (NAMA) by poor countries, which implicitly mean a move away from business as usual. This move is critical, because even if OECD emissions were zero, developing country emissions would still need to fall in order to meet 450ppm.

It is clear that we need a political deal at Copenhagen, even if the technical aspects take another year to hammer out. Regional or national negotiations targets around CCS and industry will be important, but a global political agreement is needed to hold it all together. The worst outcome would be a deal with vague or insufficient emissions reductions, including lots of greenwash around REDD. In conclusion, four essential elements for a good deal probably include (i) emissions targets for rich countries consistent with staying below 2 degrees warming, (ii) NAMAs for developing countries, (iii) a decent institutional framework, (iv) financing for adaptation.

The transport sector once again takes centre stage, as the European Environment Agency criticizes the green credentials of motor vehicles, freight transport and rail networks. Highlighting the need to shift investments in the current economic climate to more sustainable and energy efficient modes, Professor Jacqueline McGlade, EEA executive director, added that

“…trends in transport are pointing in the wrong direction and will continue to contribute to air pollution, rising emissions of greenhouse gas and many negative environmental impacts.”

Jaguar Land Rover has just received a £330m bailout from the European Investment Bank to safeguard its 15,000 jobs an make investments in low emission technologies. The loan, the repayment of which will be guaranteed by the British government, is for a research and development project on reducing emissions. Jaguar Land Rover has been seeking Government assistance for some time and has recently put its workforce on a four-day week to avoid job losses.

The UK government received renewed pleas for an industry bailout from the motoring industry this week. Lobby groups are hoping April’s budget will include a ‘scrappage scheme’ - where car owners are given a financial incentive of about £2,000 to swap their old vehicle for a new greener model.

Whilst no decision has been announced, it is believed the scheme, which increased sales by 40% in March, attracting half a million buyers when it was introduced in Germany; is being taken seriously by MPs.  Statistics showed yesterday that sales of cars in the UK have dropped almost a third year on year. However, environmental campaigners highlight that the transport sector has been slow to introduce more environmental vehicles, and said that the money could be better used to fund sustainable transport solutions. There was also a fear that funds could be diverted from existing budgets set aside by the government for investment in green technologies, such as the £400m earmarked in the pre-budget report for an “environmental transformation fund”, which supports the development of new low-carbon energy and energy efficiency technologies in the UK.

A new report, The State of Green Investing 2009, by Progressive Investor, a green investment newsletter, has increased confidence in green investments, backed by positive signs from the stock market. The US report adds that the green industry is “at the nexus of stimulus support by governments around the world”.

Author: Adeline Dontenville

Expectations for the development of a ‘green stimulus’ to help revive the global economy have been downplayed in the past few days. Indeed, the London summit’s draft statement leaked at the weekend makes only the smallest reference to climate change, and appears to be vague on the subject of how green the £1.4tn stimulus package agreed by world leaders should be. (Guardian 31/03/09) Despite UN environment officials’ call for the London summit to link tackling financial crisis to combating climate change, many observers argue that it would be too complicated to discuss the environmental issue at length at the G20 meeting and that the G20 is not the right circle.

Yet the UK had made quite clear its intention to send signals that there is no contradiction between addressing the financial crisis and addressing climate change. Prime Minister Gordon Brown had stated his commitment to this agenda, saying in a speech at Davos that “we must use the imperative of building a low carbon economy as a route to creating jobs and growth, the path that will see us through the current downturn”. However, British ministerial sources indicated yesterday that there will be no mention in the communique of what proportion of the new jobs stimulated by the economic recovery package will be low-carbon roles, as it might be seen as a form of covert protectionism by some members of the G20. (The Guardian 31/03/09). Besides, the date of the launch of the Low-Carbon Prosperity Task Force at a press conference two days ago had not been randomly chosen. The existence of this Task Force, which will work with government and UN officials to develop a set of practical projects and policy proposals around the world, might channel world leaders’ attention to other matters at today’s summit. Low-carbon growth may then simply be reduced to agreement on attempting to ‘mainstream’ some environmental considerations in any new infrastructure.

This situation has led many stakeholders to try to increase the pressure on decision-makers. Lord Stern, the government’s former climate change adviser, yesterday tried to influence the G20 by arguing that the worst recession since the 1930s gave the world the opportunity to lay the foundations for growth over several decades, based on low-carbon technology and energy efficiency. A YouTube podcast presents his arguments. Professor Robert Watson, chief scientific adviser for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, also voiced concern about the limited commitment to a low-carbon economy: “I think it [low-carbon recovery] deserves a higher profile. Everybody seems to be focusing on short-term recovery and getting long-term regulation of the banks right. I haven’t heard anything that suggests the green recovery and climate change are a major part of the [G20] agenda.”( The Guardian 31/03/09) His concerns were shared by Climate Camp protesters who pitched their tents in the City yesterday, and called for G20 leaders to address climate change issues and stop carbon trading. (BBC news 01/04/09) Finally, the chief executives of 52 companies (banks, airlines, utilities, oil companies and car manufacturers) called on the leaders of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations to put low-carbon growth at the heart of economic stimulus measures and commit 20% of their economic stimulus packages on low carbon growth.

As the Danish Prime minister said in February, green talks at the G20 summit might just be about trying to facilitate the process towards Copenhagen in December (Reuters 18/02/09). In particular, following the G20 meeting of environment and energy officials which took place mid-March in Japan, concern has been raised about the acknowledgement of “common and differentiated responsibilities” among Western and developing countries. Therefore, today’s outcome might be an important factor in determining China’s stance on climate change commitments as argued in this blog. As the Guardian points out, green talks during today’s summit will essentially ensure that developing countries and above all China gets a clear message from countries such as South Africa, Mexico, France, Germany, Britain and the US that they are all committed to tackling climate change and that China will not be put at a disadvantage if it shapes a low-carbon recovery.

Under the Government’s Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme, announced last May, from next year every organisation that consumes more than 6,000 megawatt hours of electricity in 2008 or about £500,000-worth will now buy carbon allowances.

The mandatory cap and trade scheme will affect 5,000 large companies and local authorities in Britain and is aimed at slashing the country’s total carbon emissions by an extra 1.2 million tonnes a year by 2020. (Source: The Times, March 31, 2009)

However, in a struggling financial climate, can UK businesses afford the time and expense in delivering what may be viewed as ‘another layer of bureaucracy’? 

Unfortunately, in the UK’s recently launched economic rescue package, there appears to be “negligible” spending on green measures – as campaigners claimed in a report published today.

According to Andrew Simms from the New Economic Foundation, only 0.6% of the promised £120m government stimulus package to offer businesses the incentive to create and deliver a low-carbon economy was delivered. 

Compared with the £775m bonuses paid to staff at the Royal Bank of Scotland and £2.3bn handed to the car industry, the environmental sector has been short changed.

Gordon Brown has claimed that around 10% of the stimulus package is directed towards “environmentally important technologies”, thus this figure not only conflicts with the amount of 0.6% offered, it also does not meet the proposed funding targets by Lord Stern, a target of 8% of Gross Domestic Product annually in green stimulus spending.  (Source: guradian.co.uk – March, 30 2009)

As businesses are driven by the new CRC target to invest in carbon saving measures, it appears that the UK green stimulus package is not doing the same.  In fact Boris Johnson was seen to be halving his Environmental team in London this week, setting the tone for difficult environmental times ahead.

But is the CRC really compromising the bottom line of businesses, or in fact creating financial savings through less energy consumption over time?  It appears that the financial impact of the CRC scheme will grow in the longer term, with an introductory phase due in April 2010, under which all allowances will be sold at a fixed price, and from April 2013, allowances will be allocated through auctions, with the number of credits available being reduced over time.

The proceeds of these auctions will be paid back later to businesses (based on their performance during that year) and ranked in a league table based on carbon reduction actually achieved. (Source: The Times, March 31, 2009)

Leading scientists from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research claimed this week that the level of carbon budgets for the UK, recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) last December were too weak to limit the temperature rise to 2C and stop dangerous climate change.

Following new evidence which emerged from a major climate conference in Copenhagen last month, warning that climate change is likely to be worse than expected and will hit us harder and faster; the scientists claim that the Committee’s report was based on “naively optimistic” assumptions and scenarios. The report recommends a 34% cut by 2020 but the scientists stress that a minimum reduction of 42% (the Committee’s most stringent scenario) must be made through cuts in the UK, rather than buying offsets abroad. The UK must lead by example, maintaining its reputation as a leader in climate change policy on the international stage.

The Tyndall scientists say the committee’s report is “inevitably and significantly compromised” because it focuses on limiting temperature rise to 2C above pre-industrial levels, which the EU defines as dangerous. The Committee was forced to use “highly optimistic and sometimes unclear assumptions” to hit the 2C target, they say.

Another criticism of the report was its claim that GHGs would peak at 2016, despite little evidence to map this trend, which the Tyndall centre felt would more realistically be at 2020. But could this be too late for the 2C target? The CCC argues however, that the 2016 peak was supported by a number of studies and based on an assumption that a global deal to tackle climate change would be reached in 2009.

The report, commissioned by Friends of the Earth, will be presented to the Environmental Audit Committee this week. The proposals are backed by more than 90 Labour MPs - including four ministerial aides - in a parliamentary petition; and hope to encourage the government to adopt more stringent carbon budgets in its decision later this month.

Andy Atkins, Friends of the Earth’s executive director, said:

“This advice from one of the world’s leading climate research centres cannot be ignored. If we are to play our part in avoiding dangerous climate change, the government must commit the UK to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42 per cent by 2020 without buying pollution ‘offsets’ from abroad. The UK has one of the best renewable energy potentials in Europe. Investing in green power and cutting energy waste can create tens of thousands of jobs and help lead this country out of recession.”

This reference to a solution which includes investment in GHG mitigation and green jobs comes in a week which has seen Shell announce that it will pull out of renewable energy projects due to their weak economics, and the closure of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (a government grant programme which supports investments in renewables) angers environmental campaigners.

On a more positive note, further details on the UK’s first national emissions trading scheme - the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) - were announced this week. The Scheme captures hotels, schools, banks and over 5000 other organizations and is expected to reduce over 4MtCO₂ per year by 2020.

The implementation of initiatives to help the UK meet the targets set out in the Climate Change Act were never going to be easy, and this is just the beginning. In such depressing economic times, we’re all looking to the Government to inspire us with some confidence and motivation to drive the green revolution.

The Government’s response to the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendations is expected later this month.

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