Featured Climate Change Newsletter

Now obviously the best way to get your climate change news is to subscribe to this site via the RSS feed ;-)

However, there are actually other sources of news out there that may be worth your while subscribing to. Whilst no one likes spam, there are a few very on target climate change and renewable energy newsletters.

This week, please take a look at: Energy & Enviro Finland -- It isn't as perochial as you might expect, its actually quite a good source of information on technological progress and eu policy.

This months highlights include an interview with the Director General of the EU Commission on the Environment, entitled The revoloution of Production and Consumption. On a technological perspective a look at Finlands' role in fuel cell development has been launched, a large scale national strategy is being touted as an economic opportunity and environmentally progressive policy.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Video of The Week:Local Action on Climate Change A Sino-US Dialgoue (UC Berkeley)

This weeks video of the week is once again taken froma series of lectures given at UC Berkeley on cooporation between the US and China. A wide ranging series of talks, this program, viewable via GoogleVideo covers the potential for local and regional action on climate change, outlining some progress made so far along with some of the inherent limtations of sub-national progress.

This panel of state officials, scholars, and NGO representatives looks at the example of states and municipalities that have made bold moves to promote sustainable energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even when their national governments have been reluctant to do so. The China-U.S. Climate Change Forum was organized by the Berkeley China Initiative, which is forging closer ties between U.C. Berkeley and China by bringing together key experts on important international and bilateral issues. Growing concern over climate change makes this topic an obvious choice for the first of this series of annual events. This panel will highlight the mutual vulnerability of China and the U.S. to climate change, and the indispensable role of scientific research in understanding the problem and developing solutions. The Forum is co-sponsored by Peking University's College of Environmental Sciences and UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism, International and Area Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, Center for Chinese Studies, Energy and Resources Group, and Berkeley Institute of the Environment. Financial sponsors include the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, the Energy Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

Bioenergy in Africa, a good idea? I seem to be getting more and more skeptical about this. Many of Africas' nations have difficulties with producing enough food crops, capital resources and technology to produce the crops are also likely to be a challenge, are these fuels going to be exported to Europe producing further emissions or used domestically? Biofuels are not a bad thing but perusing them as a major source of energy without a strict and science led policy framework could be one huge own goal for first world environmentalists and third world economies.

Bioenergy pact between Europe and Africa

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Up in Smoke: Climate Change Burns the Planet

I have finally decided to blog this story about wild fires in the US and the link to climate change. Generally, i hesitate to publicise plain bad stories, i'd rather mention the success of new technologies, the insanity of current politics or the greenwashing of big business: actually reporting on the destruction to our planet that climate change is causing is, well, a bit bleak...this is serious shit people! Anyway...

Scripps recently sent out a press release about some research that they are headin up, the key finding of which are 1. that forest fires have increased dramatically in the pastcouple of decades

"The results point to a marked increase in large wildfires in western U.S. forests beginning around 1987, when the region shifted from predominantly infrequent large wildfires of short duration (average of one week) to more frequent and longer-burning wildfires (five weeks). The authors found a jump of four times the average number of wildfires beginning in the mid-1980s compared with the 1970s and early 1980s. The comparison showed that the total area burned was six and a half times greater. Also in the mid-1980s, the length of the yearly wildfire season (March through August) extended by 78 days, a 64 percent rise when comparing 1970-1986 with 1987-2003."

2. that this is likely to become uncontrolable as the climate warms.

"If climate warms markedly over today's levels, intensified fuels management and fire suppression are not likely to be effective in much of the western U.S., he said."

and

3. that the whole pacific northwest is likely to become a source of co2 in the near future, not a sink as it currently is; another damn posotive feedback!

"The authors conclude that the increased frequency of large and devastating wildfires may significantly change forest composition and reduce tree densities, transforming the western U.S. forests' role as a storage "sink" for sequestering some 20 to 40 percent of all U.S. carbon to a source for increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

NIMBYISM for the Rich: Forget the yard, I don't want it in the ocean!

I have just been told about an article over at USNews.com about the continued battle over wind power in the US. This time it's because of the airforce and radar! So if you are listening Iran, Syria, Korea...if you are edgy then worry no more just install some wind turbines and us military opporations will be rendered lame without arial support! Or maybe this is just political bullshit.

I would like to recap the story of cape wind at the many and varied obstacles that have been thrown in its way but I simply don't have a memory capable of recalling all of the anti-windfarm ingenuity that has been throw at it!

It really is starting to look like when it gets built an old energy paradigm will be over and a new age will be ushered in. I attribute the battle this significance because of the extent of the politicking and because it is a battle been fought against a background of exponential worldwide windpower growth and just as rapidly growing awareness of the impossibility of sustaining our current fossil fuel powered economies. Whether by way or reason or force climate change will -- hopefully sooner rather than later-- lead us to an exeptance of the new energy economy. . . ..

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Land based carbon offsets, a feasible way to save the planet?

A second conversation i had this weekend was about carbon offsets. I really need to write something clear about my views on this as several people running forestry offsets have approached me. Many of these people are well intentioned but, in my opinion, misguided.

The following debate sets out a few of my primary concerns, comments welcome. Thanks to Ru Hartwell for his time, in engaging in a meaningful debate, it is often easy for people to push aside any concerns about there work, even for environmentalists who are genuinely concerned about its impact.


Initial Letter From Ru

Please could you check us out at http://www.treeflights.com/ . We 're trying to provide an easy way for airline passengers to take more responsibility for their emissions.We're also aiming to be a more honest about offsetting than some of the other groups out there. Any feedback would be welcome.

My Initial Response

Thanks for your email, i had a look at your site. I really like the projects that you are carying out, they certainly sound good for the local environment. You are also honest about the value of trees as a carbon offset, and as you say this is in stark contrast to other biomass based
carbon offets. I just wish you would find another way to raise funds for our valuable projects. I`m sure i dont need to explain the inherrent difficulties of verifyig offset over the relavent timescale but i will point out my 2 main concerns.

1. Fossil fuels are millions of years old and are safely locked up. Biological carbon offsets artificially seperate the short term carbon cycle...trying to increase the proportion of carbon in biomass such as trees cannot possibly be gaurenteed over the coming years, will climate
change kill the trees that are being planted? Will the trees dry out the soil and increase decompositio of high carbon soil?

2. renewable energy carbo offsets can be effectively verified so if you would like to run a carbon offset business then why wuld you take on land use offsets and take up an additinal risk? And why would i help to promote such a risy proposition when low risk alternatives are available?

I think you are doing great work, just not at fighting climate change.

Ru's Initial Response

You've given me quite a lot to deal with there. I take your concerns very seriously and will try to deal with them one by one. Fossil fuels are millions of years old, true but given our human propensity to exploit them (at current staggering rates) to describe them as "safely"
locked up is not valid.Do you think we're going to stop using that stuff before the last drop is gone?Basically all of the carbon in those fossil reserves has one ultimate destination - our atmosphere. You are so right to say that its better left where it is but I don't think its realistic to
hope that we'll leave it there. Yes, a tree is not as secure a sink as an underground fossil reserve but the point is that that reserve is not safe either.

There is an Oak tree in Estonia that is 1500 years old. We grow only hardwoods that ultimately can be processed for construction timber that with the appropriate preservation techniques may lock up the CO2 for even longer. But you are right, sooner or later that stuff is going to get back into the atmosphere.

We plant 8 species,apart from increasing the biodiversity, we do this so that if some can't cope with climate change others will. The planting sites are all shallow soil, mountainous locations of little fertility and (I suspect ) low carbon content. and most evidence indicates that forested land is better at water retention than non-planted land . Furthermore trees can also sequester carbon into the soil beneath them. Can renewable energy offsets be so effectively verified.? When the calulations are drawn up are the embodied energy costs taken into account.?How much CO2 is released to smelt all the aluminium and steel in those turbines?Is anybody counting? (I've generated all my own power from renewable sources for 20 years).What about all that copper cable used to transmit the electricity around.Loads of gas was released when that was made.

I've got 20,000 trees in the nursery and enough land to plant them on.Conservatively they'll fix 5,000 tons of CO2 .I know its a meaningless drop in the ocean of climate change and I know it's temporary.

From the perspective of climate change do you think it would be better for me to bin them, Calvin?

I share many of your concerns,

My Second Response

First off two points about this conversation: 1. You make me feel like a bastard criticising what is a great project in many ways and what comes from good intentions 2. I get fairly regular emails from various enviromentalists/businesses and have been contacted by 3 carbon offset companies, although the temptation is always to say good work to all these people for there well meaing actions I restrain myself and try to give an honest account.

At some point i`m going to have to write something cogent and reasonably substantial to present my views on carbon offsets more clearly than i can through a spontaneous email, a couple of my contacts are verging on being offended by my lack of faith, because i know them and trust them but don't trust there projects.

Anyway, onward...

Fossil fuels are millions of years old, true but given our human propensity to exploit them (at current staggering rates) to describe them as "safely" locked up is not valid.Do you think we're going to stop using that stuff before the last drop is gone? Basically all of the carbon in those fossilreserves has one ultimate destination - our atmosphere. You are so right to say that its better left where it is but I don't think its realistic tohope that we'll leave it there. Yes, a tree is not as secure a sink as an underground fossil reserve but the point is that that reserve is not safe either.

The point you make here is--to my undderstanding--that underground reserves are not entirely safe and that we should therefore not expect offsets to be entirely safe either, it is certainly implicit if not explicit. But i will leave that an apporach it from a clearer angle. I know people who will fly on holiday then use a carbon offset and calim carbon neutrality...some will by more to compensate for the delay in removing emmited co2. Carbon neutral for them--and for most people--means that there encouragement of the exploitation of fossil fuel reserves has been countered by a reduction of emand from others or a permenant sequestration of aid carbon. Carbon underground isnt safe i current times and this is due to people paing fossil fuel companies, as the antithesis of fosil fuel companies that certainty-->uncertainty arrow has to be reversed by offset companies that aswell as the fixed-->atmospheric arrow it is what my friends pay for. To elaborate further, the uncertainty that you describe is part of the behaviour that you and other organisations are offsetting.

There is ofcourse the added complexity that people may understand this and adjust there behaviour with regards energy usage, just as much as if they couldnt use offsets. This is a matter of judgement, it is impossible to know how much profligate energy usage that carbon offsets permit by reducing guilt and how much benefit there is as people act just lke they would even if they couldnt offset, its a nasty balancing act.

There is an Oak tree in Estonia that is 1500 years old. We grow only hardwoods that ultimately can be processed for construction timber that with the appropriate preservation techniques may lock up the CO2 for even longer. But you are right, sooner or later that stuff is going to get back into the atmosphere. We plant 8 species,apart from increasing the biodiversity, we do this so that if some can't cope with climate change others will. The planting sites are all shallow soil, mountainous locations of little fertility and (Isuspect ) low carbon content. and most evidence indicates that forested land is better at water retention than non-planted land . Furthermore trees can also sequester carbon into the soil beneath them.

There isn't anything substantive in this to be argued with, a applaud your use of 8 species of hardwood trees, the advantaes of this over many other carbon offset orestry schemes are significant. End of the day, my point about uncertainty when compared to energy efficiency and renewables still hold. Although, a significant, but hard to qauntify amount of your projects carbon will be locked up for the next few hundered years where our fight for mitigation is most intense.

Can renewable energy offsets be so effectively verified.? When the calulations are drawn up are the embodied energy costs taken into account.?How much CO2 is released to smelt all the aluminium and steel in those turbines?Is anybody counting? (I've generated all my own power from renewable sources for 20 years).What about all that copper cable used to transmit the electricity around.Loads of gas was released when that was made.

This is where i clearly state: i am no expert i am expressing my relatively informed opinion only, this is all i have to base my decisions on. My response to your questions is: good questions but yes, these are indeed far easier to qauntify than forestry offset programs. Cradle to grave emmissions of renewable technologies are tricky but doable to a fair degree of accuracy. Some tech offsets probably dont take these into accont but the best in class surely do.


I've got 20,000 trees in the nursery and enough land to plant them on. Conservatively they'll fix 5,000 tons of CO2 .I know its a meaningless drop in the ocean of climate change and I know it's temporary. From the perspective of climate change do you think it would be better for
me to bin them, Calvin?

If you are doing this as a paid for offset then i cant answer the question, i refer you back to "there is ofcourse an added complexity.." above. If you are planting them because you have funding from another source and you are trying to help local species then there is a real offset that is an added bonus...its just dificult to qauntify. My personal opinion is that if there is a way to get funding for forestry schemes as comunity projects or conservation projects for rare species then this carbon ofset is a great bonus from this...if you are simply after building a business on carbon offset then i, personally, for what it is worth, would strongly reccomend looking int energy efficency or renewables in developing countries with sustainable development spinoffs.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

E85: The Future or an obstacle to It?

Hello all...what do you think of how E85 is being presented in the US? Seems to me that there are more fundamental issues around that what the fuel is, such as why so much is being wasted. Bellow is a conversation I have been having with someone over at the centre for American progress...Note the person with the hummer run on E85 on their website (I kid you not!). Opinions welcome.

The Initial Email

I thought you might be interested in a cross-country Road Trip my organization is sponsoring: www.KickTheOilHabit.org/RoadTrip

The goal is to get from DC to LA in a FlexFuel car, only stopping at stations with E85 pumps. Given that there are only about 750 stations that offer E85 out of the 170,000 gas stations in the U.S., itÂ’s a pretty significant challenge. TheyÂ’ve come pretty close to running out of gas a few times.

Furthermore, the Kick The Oil Habit campaign calls on the 6 major oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, Valero, and ConocoPhillips) to double the number of E85 pumps over the next year and provide E85 at half of all gas stations within a decade. Thus, the Road Trip not only highlights and encourages the usage of E85, but it targets the major oil companies and looks at their ability to influence the oil industry.

Anyway, I hope youÂ’ll take a look. The URL is http://www.KickTheOilHabit.org/RoadTrip

My First Response

Hi Laura,
Thanks for the emaiI, i will take a look. In return, would you please spend a moment and look at this article by Lester Brown? You probably know who Lester is, but if you don't let me just say he is one hell of an influential sutainability/agriculture academic. He is worth taking seriously.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/Lesterter_brown_ethanol.php

"There are alternatives to using food-based fuels. For example, the equivalent of the 3 percent gain in automotive fuel supplies from ethanol could be achieved several times over-and at a fraction of the cost-simply by raising auto fuel efficiency standards by 20 percent.
investing in public transport could reduce overall dependence on cars."

Laura's First Reply

Hi Calvin! Thanks for getting back in touch with me and for sending me the blog post pertaining to Lester Brown. I have a quick response to some of the points mentioned in the blog post:

(1) The ultimate goal of the Kick the Oil Habit campaign is to end the United States' dependence on oil, so simply improving the fuel efficiency of cars and investing in public transportation doesn't address that. Furthermore, ending U.S. dependence on oil is a major aspect of the campaign as this dependence has political, economic, and environmental effects.

(2) Secondly, Ethanol can be made from a variety of sources - not just food. Corn and Grains are common sources, but so are Switchgrass and Biowastes. Furthermore, Ethanol can be made from Sugarcane. Brazil used sugarcane and has almost completely stopped importing foreign oil. Also, while we recognize that there are problems with Ethanol, and we by no means think that it is a perfect solution, we also acknowledge that farming is a dying industry. By using Ethanol, we provide the opportunity to potentially revitalize the farming industry, helping to create new jobs and increase food production.

(3) Lastly, although we are specifically focusing on Ethanol with the Kick The Oil Habit campaign and the Road Trip, we greatly support all forms of alternative energy and commeeveryone'snes efforts for seeking better, for environmentally sound resources. In addition, all forms of
alternative energy help wane the United States' dependence on oil, and that is the ultimate goal of the campaign. However, we are calling for an increase in the use of ethanol because we believe it is an immediate step that we can take in the right direction. It is something that will
have a effect now, rather than ten or twenty years down the road, after the technology has been developed, tested, and then marketed to the general public. Ethanol can be used today! We just have to increase the availability of it to all Americans.

My Second Response

1) The ultimate goal of the Kick the Oil Habit campaign is to end the United States' dependence on oil, so simply improving the fuel efficiency of cars and investing in public transportation doesn't address that. Furthermore, ending U.S. dependence on oil is a major
aspect of the campaign as this dependence has political, economic, and environmental effects.

Why have the goal of reducing dependence on oil? To: A. reduce climate change B. increase energy security C. reduce pollution D. strengthen the economy.
defensence of Efficiency: The Cheapest Way to Power your Economy is to Save Energy not Find Alternative Sources.

Which of these do fuel efficiency address? A. Yup B. If you used 20% less fuel you could cut that out of your requirements furthe th middle east--how much do yu get from there, its a start anyway. C. Yup D. the economies transport sector suddenly costs 20% less...its like low oil prices.

(2) Secondly, Ethanol can be made from a variety of sources - not just food. Corn and Grains are common sources, but so are Switchgrass and Biowastes. Furthermore, Ethanol can be made from Sugarcane. Brazil used sugarcane and has almost completely stopped importing foreign oil. Also, while we recognize that there are problems with Ethanol, and we by no means think that it is a perfect solution, we also acknowledge that farming is a dying industry. By using Ethanol, we provide the opportunity to potentially revitalize the farming industry, helping to create new jobs and increase food production.

Attack on Ethanol/Biodesil: From waste materials they are great baren'tent there better ways?

Why convert biomass to biofuels when conversion is so inefficient? Surely burning the fuel in CHP plants then using the electricity to power cars is the way to go...in terms of area of crop per mile of travel this is far superior. The point about farming is always of amusement to non-us observers...the great bastion of free trade and its subsidies. But sure, go ahead use biomass as a fuel, but use it wisely for electricity and heat, take efficiency seriously, very seriously. Don't try and run a fleet of SUV's on any sort of biofuel, it will be bad for your nation and bad for other nations supplying the biofuel. A straight swap to liquid-biofuels for the current us fleet would not work, it is a dangerous distraction.


(3) Lastly, although we are specifically focusing on Ethanol with theKick The Oil Habit campaign and the Road Trip, we greatly support all forms of alternative energy and commeeveryone'snes efforts for seeking better, for environmentally sound resources. In addition, all forms of
alternative energy help wane the United States' dependence on oil, and that is the ultimate goal of the campaign. However, we are calling for an increase in the use of ethanol because we believe it is an immediate step that we can take in the right direction. It is something that will have a effect now, rather than ten or twenty years down the road, after the technology has been developed, tested, and then marketed to the general public. Ethanol can be used today! We just have to increase the availability of it to all Americans.

Your goal of reducing Americas dependence on oil is a worthy onI, i`m very gald there are people working on this! In the UK we have diesel cars that to 60mpg...not hybrids, not expensive, not impractical. If the US could move its MPG from where it is now (20mpg guess) to 60mpg and save money in the process! As the US is world renowned for its technoloIy i firmly believe that with new materials and a little time that US car manufacturers could have this figure>80mpg at the same cost or less, then go for biodesil from waste sources, and electric hybrids, once you need less energy overall!

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Change: we should be scared, according to...FOX news?

Fox News, Guardians of the planet!

I love this article because it shows how far the debate has moved...ffs this is really on fox news; climate change is'nt a mad theory perpatrated by commie scum!

Scientists worldwide are watching temperatures rise, the land turn dry and vast forests go up in flames.

In the Siberian taiga and Canadian Rockies, in southern California and Australia, researchers find growing evidence tying an upsurge in wildfires to climate change, an impact long predicted by global-warming forecasters.

A team at California's Scripps Institution, in a headline-making report this month, found that warmer temperatures, causing earlier snow runoff and consequently drier summer conditions, were the key factor in an explosion of big wildfires in the U.S. West over three decades, including fires now rampaging east of Los Angeles.

Researchers previously reached similar conclusions in Canada, where fire is destroying an average 6.4 million acres a year, compared with 2.5 million in the early 1970s. And an upcoming U.S.-Russian-Canadian scientific paper points to links between warming and wildfires in Siberia, where 2006 already qualifies as an extreme fire season, sixth in the past eight years. Far to the south in drought-stricken Australia, meanwhile, 2005 was the hottest year on record, and the dangerous bushfire season is growing longer.

"Temperature increases are intimately linked with increases in area burned in Canada, and I would expect the same worldwide,"said Mike Flannigan, a veteran Canadian Forest Service researcher.

Nadezda M. Tchebakova, a climatologist at Russia's Sukachev Institute of Forestry, said southern Siberia's average winter temperatures in the 1980-2000 period were 2 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the pre-1960 norm.

"Snowmelt starts much earlier in the spring,"she said by telephone from the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk."Precipitation is decreasing. This combination of elevated temperatures and decreased precipitation should provide conditions for greater fire occurrence."

As she spoke, newly ignited blazes raced through the conifer forests of Evenkiya, a summer fishing and hunting region north of Krasnoyarsk.

The Sukachev institute's satellite data show that more than 29 million acres _ an area the size of Pennsylvania _ have been burned in Russia already this year. Orbiting cameras see a red-and-green checkerboard in Siberia, of"hotspots"among endless evergreens.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an authoritative U.N.-sponsored network of scientists, has long predicted that summer drying and droughts would worsen forest fires, which in many regions are primarily set by humans.

Global temperatures rose an average 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century, and warming will continue as long as manmade"greenhouse gases,"mostly carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning, accumulate in the atmosphere, the panel says.

"The change is much more rapid than initially forecast 10 or 15 years ago,"Brian Stocks, a retired Canadian Forest Service scientist, said of the fires."It seems people are finally beginning to take a look at it."

The Scripps study, in the journal Science, was unique in collating detailed data from 34 years of U.S. western wildfires with temperature, snowmelt and streamflow records. Wildfire frequency varies widely from year to year, but the California researchers found a clear trend: The average number of large fires almost quadrupled between the first and second halves of that period.

They also looked at land-use changes and forest management practices, but concluded they were secondary factors in the upsurge of fires. There were"many more wildfires burning in hotter than in cooler years,"they reported.

Such detailed data don't exist on a global scale. Doing a similar study in Russia would be difficult because Soviet-era records are unreliable. And specialists caution that wildfires remain complex phenomena. In many regions, slash-and-burn farmers, arsonists and others start most fires, and fire professionals say modifying human behavior is key.

But although humans are the prime cause,"coupled with climate change, things are becoming worse,"said Johann Goldammer, director of the Global Fire Monitoring Center at Germany's Freiburg University.

A nonhuman cause, meanwhile, may be on the rise. Warming in high northern latitudes is expected to generate more lightning, igniting more forest fires, notes the report by Amber J. Soja of the U.S. National Institute of Aerospace, Tchebakova and other U.S., Russian and Canadian scientists.

Their paper, upcoming in the U.S. journal Global and Planetary Change, looks at how current reality compares with still other effects of climate change previously foreseen for northern, boreal regions _ Siberia, Canada, Alaska.

"The forest in Siberia is shifting northward, and the forest-steppe (mixed forest and plain) is replacing it in the south,"Tchebakova said."Those were the predictions."

In Alaska, the international team found a decline in growth of white spruce trees and a spread of forest insect infestation _ also both predicted in computerized climate-change scenarios.

Goldammer pointed out that boreal forests may be crucially linked to the fate of the global environment, since the forests and their peat soils hold about one-third of Earth's stored carbon.

Forest and peat fires release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, adding to climate warming, which in turn will intensify forest fires, further worsening warming in a planetary feedback loop.

"This is a carbon bomb,"Goldammer said of the northern forest."It's sitting there waiting to be ignited, and there is already ignition going on."

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

BP and GE team up to develop CCS but no national leadership in sight.

BP and GE, two of the largest companies in the world. Have just anounced a joint program for development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. The scale of the projects are huge yet modest compared to what is required--and on a longer timescale--why is there simply no govornmentl leadership on this?

Anyhow, the plan is for 15 powerplants over the next decade...if you look at china's growth in coal power then you know we need those now and we need hudereds.

The full press release is bellow. I have blogged about this technology repeatedly, just search my site for CCS to find out how repeatedly.

BP, GE to Build Hydrogen Power Plants, Cut Emissions (Update1)
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc and General Electric Co., two of the world's four largest companies, agreed to develop fossil- fuel-fed power plants in California and Scotland that bury carbon dioxide underground, as part of a drive to reduce emissions.

The two companies may form a venture to build as many as 15 power plants in the next decade, including those previously announced in Carson in southern California and Peterhead, Scotland, GE and BP said in a joint e-mail.

BP, based in London, and GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, will jointly develop and build hydrogen power projects to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

In one approach, the projects will strip the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and pump it into oil and gas fields, curbing output into the atmosphere, where it prevents heat escaping into space. The remaining hydrogen can be used to make power.

``Tomorrow's energy mix will include hydrogen, and GE and BP are taking the lead in ensuring progress begins today,'' David Calhoun, vice chairman of GE, said in the statement.

BP said last year it will invest $1.8 billion over three years on solar, wind, hydrogen and carbon sequestration, focusing on new technologies that can replace oil- and gas-based generation, which accounts for more than 40 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

In January, BP said it had identified at least 30 sites around the world that would be suitable for carbon-capture power stations.

Scottish Proposal

The proposed power station in Scotland would produce hydrogen from natural gas stripped of its carbon dioxide. The hydrogen would fuel a 350-megawatt power plant. The carbon dioxide would then be re-injected into an offshore field, extending its life by about 20 years.

A final investment decision on the $600 million Peterhead project would require incentives from the U.K. government similar to those enjoyed by wind farms, Vivienne Cox, BP's head of gas and power, said last year. Thirty projects would cost $18 billion, based on estimates for the Scottish project. Not all the sites identified are owned by BP, the company said.

``The combination of our two companies' skills and resources in this area is formidable, and is the latest example of our intent to make a real difference in the face of the challenge of climate change,'' BP's Cox said today in the statement. GE Energy, with 2005 revenue of $16.5 billion, makes power generators and other equipment.

Temperatures may climb as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius (10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) in the next 100 years because of global warming, according to the Web site of the U.K. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Website Looking S&^* ? Get firefox!

My website seems to have done its ohh so retarded lets reformat myself thing again. As per usuall this is specific to internet explorer...some of you still use this archaic technology; havent you heard of firefox? If you can find the toolbar then you can click on the firefox link, download it for free and earn me a whole 1$...win win.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

BP: Profits Blowing in the Wind? 900 Turbines Please!

BP have just announced plans to buy 900 wind turbines over the next 5 years. The first of these turbines have been sucurely ordered and the rest are secure under a long term contract. In total a peak of 2015Mw are planned. 15000Mw where installed last year so by most standards this is a fairly hefty investment, perticularly since it's bp's first foot in the water.

The note of caution being that only 300 of the 1.5Mw turbines have been ordered definitively and the large numbers of larger turbines are simply expected to be bought.

Press release bellowLONDON, July 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Clipper Windpower and BP Alternative Energy today announced that they have entered into a strategic alliance for a long-term turbine supply agreement and the joint development of five of Clipper's wind energy projects in the USA. The five wind projects, with an anticipated total generating capacity of 2,015 MW, are located in New York, Texas, and South Dakota. Under the long-term supply agreement, BP has secured a mix of firm and contingent orders of up to 2,250 MW of additional Clipper turbines in its global wind portfolio.

The Clipper/BP Alternative Energy joint development portfolio will be developed over a five year period. Each project will deploy Clipper's advanced Liberty wind turbines. The projects will be jointly owned by the two companies with Clipper serving as the project operator in two projects and BP Alternative Energy serving as the project operator in the other three.

Turbine Supply Agreement

As part of the long-term turbine supply agreement, BP Alternative Energy has committed to the purchase of 100MW of Liberty turbines in 2007 and 200MW in 2008 which it will use on other projects in BP's global wind business. These orders represent the initial firm deliveries under the long-term supply agreement for up to 900 Liberty turbines over the next five years.

Equity Interest

In recognition of the long-term strategic relationship between Clipper Windpower and BP Alternative Energy, BP has acquired a five year share option for a 10% equity interest at 3.77 pounds Sterling per share in Clipper Windpower (subject to final approval of the Clipper Shareholders).

Clipper Windpower CEO James Dehlsen said: "This strategic alliance provides both Clipper and BP an unparalleled opportunity to capture a major foothold in the US wind energy market. It enables Clipper to secure a pipeline of turbine deliveries in the next five years. The consideration for the proposals will assist in the execution of these deliveries. With active negotiations for other turbine and portfolio sales currently taking place, it is possible that further contracts will be announced before the Clipper EGM and at that stage an update will be given on our business plan."

Steve Westwell, CEO of BP Alternative Energy, explained: "We believe the Clipper turbine is a break-through in reducing the total cost of renewable energy and we are pleased to be the first large customer for this innovative technology. Our strategic relationship with Clipper represents an important step in expanding BP's low-carbon power business."

Financial Terms and Disclosures

BP has agreed to acquire a 50% interest in the project portfolio along with an option to acquire an interest in Clipper Windpower Plc representing 9,596,681 ordinary shares in the capital of the Company and a turbine supply option, for a total of $30 million. In addition, BP has agreed to pay Clipper up to US$30 million upon successful completion of the development projects. BP will also make a US$30 million down payment for the 300MW Liberty turbines for delivery in 2007/2008.

A notice convening an Extraordinary General Meeting has today been sent to Clipper Shareholders. The EGM will be held on 7 August 2006. Completion of the strategic alliance will take place subject to, inter alia, the passing of a special resolution enabling Clipper to grant the equity option to BP. Clipper has obtained irrevocable undertakings to vote in favour of the necessary special resolution from directors and connected parties and certain other shareholders in respect of 48,053,138 Clipper ordinary shares representing approximately 50 per cent. of the issued share capital. It is a further term of the five year Option arrangement that Clipper has undertaken to BP to permit BP the right to participate in future equity issues, subject to the necessary approvals by Clipper Shareholders at the relevant time and subject to an upper limit of 20 per cent. of the Clipper issued share capital (including shares arising on the exercise of the Options).

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Webcast: China-U.S. Climate Change Forum (Inez Fung, John Harte, Xiangming Xiao)

What's at Risk? Climate Model Predictions and Physical and Biological Impacts.

I have just found a whole series of webcasts from Berkeley, these webcasts cover a range of topics, a superb series on Sino-US dialogue on climate change being of greatest interest to me.

For more such dialogue check out a recent addition to my blogroll.

Hopefully many of you will share my interest, the details of the first in this series of webcasts are given bellow. The program may be watched here.

"This panel of climate scientists describes the state of scientific
knowledge regarding changes in the global climate system, the role of
humans in causing these changes, and the likely impacts on earth's ecosystems.
Panelists include:Inez Fung, University of California at
Berkeley and LBNL; John Harte, University of California at
Berkeley; Xiangming Xiao, University of New Hampshire.

The China-U.S. Climate Change Forum was organized by the
Berkeley China Initiative, which is forging closer ties between U.C.
Berkeley and China by bringing together key experts on important international
and bilateral issues. Growing concern over climate change makes this topic an
obvious choice for the first of this series of annual events.

This panel will highlight the mutual vulnerability of China and the U.S. to climate change, and the indispensable role of scientific research in understanding the problem and developing solutions. The Forum is co-sponsored by Peking University's College of Environmental Sciences and UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism, International and Area Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, Center for Chinese Studies, Energy and Resources Group, and Berkeley Institute of the Environment. Financial sponsors include the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, the Energy Foundation, and the Hewlett Foundation."

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Taking the Lead on Climate Change? Western Governors' Association

The point of the US having a Federal government continues to allude me.

1. Health care for all would be a good justification for such a system, but this is privatized isn't it?

2. A national army to protect the country-- not a bad idea but the US army is costing its people more than any other service and is being employed offensively...You don't really need tanks and aircraft carriers to defend yourselves from terrorists.

3. Environmental standards/leadership...umm

These thoughts where brough about by developments in the renewable energy arena, developments being lead by the Western Governors' Association (WGA). Leadership is simply lacking from the federal level...any of you thought that your state would be better off without involvement in the corrupt union? There are many countries smaller than individual states.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In April of 2004 the WGA held the North American Energy Summit--as I found out at the Southwark climate summit, the reason for this pretencious name is that a communique comes out of a summit--they have a point. Two months later the governors launched the clean and diversified energy initiative, this initiative lead to three goals being adopted:

1. Develop an additional 30,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2015 from both traditional and renewable sources.

2. Achieve a 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020.

3. Ensure a reliable and secure transmission grid for the next 25 years.

Goals having been set an advisory committee was established to find ways of meeting these targets in an affordable and timely manner. The report from the clean and diversified energy advisory committee can now be downloaded from here.

Really, the amount of work that the WGA have carried out is truly impressive. A whole series of their reports are available to download and the cover a broad range of topics from economic instruments to approaches to individual technologies.

This is all so far ahead of where the federal government are that is almost unbelievable. I just hope this work ethic spreads to the other state govornments despite inaction from the top.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Audio of the Week: Duke University Climate Podcast

This week's audio of the week is from Duke University where the following proffessors spoke:

• William H. Schlesinger, moderator - Dean of the Nicholas School and James B. Duke Professor of Biogeochemistry
• Thomas J. Crowley - Nicholas Professor of Earth Systems Science, Nicholas School• Martin Hoffert - Professor Emeritus of Physics, New York University
• Fred Krupp - President of Environmental Defense
• Jonathan Wiener - Perkins Professor of Law and Professor of Environmental Policy, Duke University

This was a very interesting program, for more of these on a range of topics, not only environmental check out the university channel podcast.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Website of the Week: Radio Ecoshock

Are you interested in the environment?

No: Probably on the wrong site...
Yes: You need to check out Radio Ecoshock!

The on demand climate change audio archive: http://www.ecoshock.org/DNclimate.html
The front page: http://www.ecoshock.org/

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

10% Renewables for New Buildings in Scotland?

New buildings in Scotland may soon require microgeneration to supply a proportion of their energy. This possibility is raised in the recently published document "Scottish Planning Policy SPP 6: Renewable Energy: Consultation Draft" that can be downloaded here.

The exact wording is:

"Consultation question: The Scottish Executive is minded to require planning
authorities to ensure that certain new developments include on-site renewable energy equipment which will reduce predicted annual CO2 emissions
by a given percentage. We would welcome views on adopting 10% as a minimum policy standard; on the developments it should apply to; and the manner of its implementation."

So the strength of this measure is still to be decided. If this applied to all new buildings then it would be a significant policy, if it applies to simply all commercial premises then it could still be important but if it is only a selection of large projects then the impact will be minimal.

This proposal comes shortly after the passing of the "Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill". This bill was one of a small number of private members bills to be passed into law during the past few years...basically Mark Lazarowicz a labour MP from Edinburgh put forward a proposal to promote micro-renewables throughout the UK, he did this directly to the house of commons rather than the usual route through parliamentary channels i.e in cooperation with the people at DEFRA and DtI. This unusual route only seceded due to the broad base of cross party support and the inadequacy of government action.

Thanks to Sustainablog for Highlighting this.

postscript; climate change, RenewablesA, NewsA

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

How is the UK energy review being recieved? Not Well!

The Sustainable Development Commission criticise the brining forward of Nuclear Power:

"Earlier in the year, the Commission published its detailed research on
the potential role of nuclear power in securing the UK Government's key energy
objectives. We came to the conclusion that UK does not need to replace its
existing nuclear power programme, and that the disadvantages associated with
nuclear power outweigh its advantages"

The world renowned Tyndall Centre are even more scathing, of the document as a whole not just the element of nuclear power:

“Today’s Energy Review has a highly disproportionate focus on electricity
supply as opposed to heat and transport – neglecting the other 82% of UK
energy use. It has the traditional over-emphasis on large, centralised and
big power supply using conventional engineering thinking. There is no real
action proposed to realise the substantial potential of alternative means of
generating low-carbon power, such as micro-generation of electricity at the
community-level and the widespread implementation of combined heat and
power.”

As for the headline of my previous post on this subject "Haven't I seen this energy system before?" the Tyndall Centre seem to entirely agree, the govornment have gone for a centeralised system with renewables tagged on this is a long way from the visionary approach we need so desperately.

“The energy review represents an outdated analytical approach in which
central electricity supply dominates, and is less visionary than the
Government’s extensive and expert-led 2003 Energy Review. By contrast, what
was needed was a systematic assessment of all energy sectors, both in terms
of supply and demand. Only when a balanced approach is taken can issues of
energy security and climate change be adequately addressed. This whole
system approach informs the Tyndall Centre’s Decarbonising the UK scenarios
published last year – that show comprehensive and integrated pathways to a
low carbon future for the UK.”

In 2003 Margarett Beckett the then Head of the department of the environment (DEFRA) stated.

"It would have been foolish to announce that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment in both energy efficiency and renewables. That is why we are not going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations now."

Finally, the Carbon Trust believe that the govornment are going nuclear in order to cover up their own policy deficiencies. An imporved renewables obligation could effectively fill the gap that nuclear power is leaving in the energy supply market. (Via the Green Part Website)

New research by the Carbon Trust shows that the impending retirement of
old coal and nuclear power stations will open up a gap of at least 14GW
between supply and demand by 2015 – equivalent to almost a fifth of the UK’s
capacity requirement. The Trust believes renewable energy could make up the
balance but is being failed by the current system, 'the Renewables Obligation'.

Update

The Centre for Alternative Technologies, a well respected research and education organisation has just come out against the govornments direction and its lack of ambition.

CAT’s Development Director Paul Allen said: 'Claiming that nuclear power is
the way to fill the pending energy gap is a myth. Numerous reports have shown we can meet our climate change targets without new nuclear, but we must be smart about it.'The simple fact remains that using energy more efficiently is
absolutely essential and must form the cornerstone of any proposed solution. A
massive 'energy re-think' programme, such as super insulating every home in
Britain or re-localising food production will not only save us money in real
terms, it will strengthen local economies, create new products, create
employment and is considerably cheaper than simply generating extra energy. The nuclear industry has a track record of escalating costs, and underachievement of
its targets.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

If Al Gore was US President...

Ok So this isn't strichtly climate change related, but what the hell, untill i start getting paid for this website and theirfore feeling bad about abusing it i`m just going to post things that i find interesting and amusing. This is definetly the latter.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

UK Energy Review: Haven't I Seen that Energy System Before?

The UK Govornment has just released it's energy review, the latest in a series of reviews to have been published in the last few years in the wake of the 2002 energy white paper--widely seen as one of the most important documents on UK climate policy of the last 10 years.

If you would like to read about the approach the UK govronment is taking on climate change then the document can be downloaded. I havent had a chance to read it yet but as with many of these reports the preface by Tony Blair tells us some important things about govornment direction.

Their are two sections in Tony's preface that are in bold. The first one is...

"But we now face two immense challenges as a country – energy security
and climate change."

Environmentalists are increasingly aware of govornment doublespeak. Although energy security may be addressed synergistically with climate change through the development of distributed energy systems this is NEVER, but NEVER what is ment by the term. Energy security is the way in which a fossil fuel addict talks about the nessecity of getting his next fix.

As with the G8 talks, energy security is being set up in opposition to climate change mitigation, in the UK context things are even clearer, enrgy security means access to russian natural gas.

The clearest statement of Tony's misguided assesment on things is the following line.

"This document ... makes clear that wind, wave or solar power, let alone less established technologies, are not yet enough by themselves."

Some environmentalists would not be supprised by this claim, but research on the topic is unanimous, he is wrong. Energy efficiency, increased building standards and distributed energy can provide for our energy needs using technology that we have today-- in an affordable manner and without a radioactive lagacy.

I almost forgot point out the real news headline behind all this talk about renewables not being enough...Tony has a thing for nuclear, an unsavory relationship that is no good for anyone but his lover, the nuclear industry, role on the subsidies!

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Wave of Support: Electric Blue

A wave power report by the BWEA and NPower has just been released. The aim of this report is to identify some of the key challenges facing marine renewables and suggesting a strategy to overcome these problems. Wave power has huge potential, it is a valuable contribution to the ever increasing range of renewables that policy makers have to choose from. Although in the long term it may rival wind power as a source of energy in coastal areas, there is still a long way to go in terms of development and comercialisation.

A previous report by the carbon trust described the potntial of marine renewables in the UK.
This report describes what is required to attain this potential.

A clear signal from govronment that they are taking this opportunity seriously is one of the key recomendations made in the report.

"A consistent theme in conversations with industry stakeholders was the
need for Government to demonstrate a longer term commitment to the wave and
tidal industry across the whole of the UK. To this end, this report
recommends that statements on many of the recommendations outlined below
could be drawn together in a single strategy document, setting out the
Government’s belief in the industry’s potential"

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

News highlight: Aviation to pay its dues?

At long last some progress on Aviation emissions. The EU parliament has just voted, resoundingly, in favor of inclusion of aviation in the its own emissions trading scheme.

What this means is that Aviation will have to stay within emissions limits, it will not be able to trade with the regular EU ETS due to complexities relating to the Kyoto Protocol, the ultimate basis of the EU ETS and a system from which aviation is exempt.

This is a severe limitation and one that needs to be urgently addressed at the UNFCC level. It is however good to see action on aviation emmissions atlast, despite the imperfections in these measures.

Next stage, the EU parliament...This is where things have a tendency to be derailed so watch this space, it aint over yet. For more background check out EurActive.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate policy updates: highlights from Carbonara the EU ETS blog

One of the blogs that i read on a regular basis is Carbonara. Here are a few highlights.

1. Hundereds of businesses participate in a major energy audit.

The UK’s Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) is running a 100 day carbon-cleanup campaign, and 400 companies are participating. One company, Fulcrum Consulting, is keeping a diary of the experience for the BBC.

2. The UK take more stringent action than expected for phase two of the EU ETS

The UK Government has opted to propose a cut of target carbon emissions of 8 million tonnes pa, at the upper end of the range they were said to be considering. The Government also decided to auction 7% of CO2 permits, unlike the German Government’s decision not to auction any permits. The FT calls these targets “unexpectedly tough”. Here are the reports by the FT and the BBC.

3. EU Release ETS Data

The EC today released officially the 2005 CO2 emissions data and compliance status of the organizations covered by the Emissions Trading Scheme, available from here.

4. UK Homes to Require Energy Ratings

According to a report in today’s FT, the British Government is to require all house sales from June 2007 to include an energy-rating:The “energy performance certificate”, which each house seller will have to pay for, will give average costs for heating, hot water and lighting, as well as overall ratings for energy efficiency and carbon emissions.These average costs will be based on standard assumptions about occupancy, heating patterns and geographical location, according to details of the certificate announced yesterday. The legislation in the UK will come into effect two years before European requirements in 2009.

5. Lighting efficiency could save 10%!

Ever read about the work of Robert Socolow from stanford and his wedges? They all look impossibly big and challenging. Here is a simple one.

The global energy bill could be cut by nearly 10% by simply adopting energy efficient lighting systems.10% may not sound vast, but lighting accounts for nearly a fifth of the world’s consumption, and a cut of this size would eclipse the savings made so far by switching to solar and wind power.The International Energy Agency yesterday released a report on energy efficient lighting, Light’s Labour’s Lost.

6. Domestic Energy Usage on the Rise.

The Energy Saving Trust has just released a report, The Rise of the Machines (4.83MB PDF), showing that between 1972 and 2002, electricity consumed by household domestic appliances doubled, and is anticipated to rise by a further 12% by 2010.Electricity used by consumer electronics, currently totalling 16% of domestic electricity consumption, is predicted to double by 2010.

7. Real, Dangerous and Severe now there is a suprise.

A panel of climate experts convened by BBC News has concluded that climate change is a genuine threat.After their discussions each member answered 20 questions, with a fairly cynical consensus over the inspiration for the conference, a book entitled The Revenge of Gaia.They did also agree that ‘Climate change is real, dangerous and significant in our own lifetimes’.

8. Carbon Market News

Issue 4 (June 2006) of Tendances Carbone is available for download. This is the monthly newsletter of Powernext Carbon and the Climate Change Task Force of Caisse des Dépôts. The newsletter includes information on recent carbon emissions and energy prices, along with weather and economic activity indexes. (Link is to the English edition.)

9. Japan forge ahead with carbon capture and storage.

Japan may bury carbon emissions underground, according to this news report.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Wind Power: Report of The Week

This week's report of the week is European Wind Energy at the Dawn of the 21st Century a report that introduces progress in wind power so far and highlights challenges for the future.


Other reports on wind power that may be of interest:

European Renewable Energy Council
"20% by 2020"

Global Wind Energy Council
"Wind Force 12: A blueprint for producing 12% of the worlds electricity by 2020"

World Business Council on Sustainable Development
"Pathways to 2050"

Greenpeace
"Europe Needs a Target for Renewable Energy"

On a more general note, this is a facinating report on reneables so far.

REN21
"Global Status Report 2005"

Postscript; Climate Change, ReportA, RenewablesA

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Wind power, a look on the bright side.

Climate change is a rapidly evolving problem, the more closely we look the less we like what we see. As emissions need to be dropping precipitously and dramatically they are rising slowly and steadily.

On the bright side there are several trends that anyone in the environmental movement would have to be blind not to see. Decarbonising society is on the agenda; organisations are being setup that have never before existed and projects are capacity building. We are near the beginning of what promises to be a race of competing exponential growth curves.

"We are near the beginning of what promises to be a race of competing exponential growth curves."

Growth in the global economy and growth in the solutions to climate change; technological,
social and structural solutions. One technology that is yet to boom and simply must over the next very few years is carbon capture and storage, another more successful example is wind power.



Looking at a breakdown of the worlds' current energy production you could be forgiven for thinking that wind power will only ever be a marginal player as it only currently produces a tinge fraction of the worlds energy. You would be very wrong. Wind power is now 10% the cost that it was in the mid 1980's, fossil fuel prices are going up, and climate change is a real threat--we are looking at a perfect storm.

The diagram bellow gives some indication of why the cost reductions have been so dramatic and why huge growth is more likely than not.



Currently standing at 60 GW the Global Wind Energy Council are aiming to reach 1,254 GW (12%) of installed capacity by 2020. Are they mad or do they stand a chance? Well last year there was 15GW of growth in the sector; a 25% growth rate is not a bad place to start. In fact if a 25% growth rate persisted then we would have 60 * 1.25^14 = 1364 GW by 2020.

The Chinese government have just increased their target for renewable energy to 10% by 2020--this will only be revised up, the EU are being presurised to make 15-25% renewable energy target by 2020 and an American research project looking at20% in the long termis currently running. The fact that wind power is actually the cheapest for of power in several areas means that this hugely ambitious target stands a chance and would represent a huge and notable achievement in decarbonising the global economy, albeit one of the many such steps required.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Global Climate Campaign: Join The Movement

Nov 4th is a day of international action on climate change. Coordinated by Global Climate Campaign, over 20 countries took part last year, from large demos to small gatherings, from huge NGO's to small campaign groups? Interested in joining the movement? Get in touch.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Events Update: London Critical Mass and Southwark Climate Summit

Last Friday I joined in with Critical Mass for the 3rd time--the second deliberate time. It was good fun and good exercise as usual.

For those of you who aren't familiar with critical mass, the concept is quite simple: the last Friday of every month people gather in a pre-defined location--usually on bikes but any form of non motorised transport is encouraged. Then everyone goes for a cycle/rollarblade/skateboard /etc., around the city. For legal reasons there isn't a 'leader' but on my 3rd critical mass I certainly know a few 'key people' although the level of guidance varies, the mass can veer off in any direction. The idea is to 'take back the streets', to promote the optimum form of transport and encourage others to get out their cars and on to there bikes. The mantra 'it's a party not a protest' seems to have some justification as there is always a really good vibe, with plenty of music and overwhelmingly positive responses from pedestrians.

On Saturday I attended Southwark Climate Summit, in place of Phil Thornhill of CCC who had been invited by Harriet Harman. There seems to be quite a contrast in the activities I`m involved in at the moment; one moment I`m involved in anarchist environmental activities such as critical mass (anarchist definition) the next I`m at climate meeting with government ministers...This pattern has repeated over previous months. Its been good, I like the variety.


A low light photo of Harriet Harman (not that ministers lurk in the shadows) , explaining that she is just catching on to the importance of climate change and that this summit is her first major contribution.

Technical difficulties delay what is otherwise a very interesting event. The event format was very conducive to discussion, short talks by 4 speakers followed by extensive discussion...notes of suggestions and then a final summary at the events end of future activities.

As always I was balancing between trying to make a useful contribution and dominating discussions. In the end I thought there where two useful points that it would be worth making. When we came to discuss international efforts my question followed someone who was talking about setting an emissions goal.

My comment #1: "I would just like to agree with the previous speaker in terms of the severity of the threat we face, rising sea levels are certainly one of the most serious problems likely to result from climate change. As mentioned 2 degrees Celsius is often taken stated to be a key tipping point in terms of the loss of the Greenland ice shelf, the melting of which would lead to seal level rise of around 8 meters...now the technology that I have mentioned at several of these meetings is carbon capture and storage, what I would like to say to Harriet and the other MP's here is this, it is essential that these new power stations being built in China are carbon capture and storage compatible, this is not THE solution to climate change but without it, it is physically impossible, impossible, for us to keep carbon dioxide concentrations bellow 450ppm, these power stations have a lifetime of 50 years, we must make sure they use ccs or at least that they are made compatible with this technology so that fitting it is not prohibitively expensive in the future"

My Comment #2: "I would just like to support the great work that X? Is doing with distributed energy systems and energy efficiency in Southwark, I think that if Tony Blair where to take a look at this approach then he might realise that there isn't actually an energy gap to need filling with nuclear power!"

So that's 3 MP's made aware of CCS, quite a few to go. Mp's present Harriet Harman, Simon Hughes and Tessa Jowell.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Climate Gangsters Party

Climate Gangsters Party, June 24th 2006; US Embassy, Grosvenor Sq, London.
Hosted by Campaign against Climate Change.

This party had a lot goig for it, we had 3-4 different acts, including Rob the Dub of Peace not War and a good selection of talented musicians, we were allowed in the park, the costumes where good and the weather was perfect. Speaking to Rob aftweward i was very encouraged that we could build the event and get a good number of people to it; we just need to make sure that we have amplification and that the police dont have a problem with this. The general idea behind the party is that it becomes a interesting event i its own right and becomes largely self sustaining, this is a way off but unlike the first event the vibe was really posotive so hopefully the word will start to spread.

These are happening monthly, the next being on July 15th, and having a G8 theme due to the date.

Be there: 15th July Grosvenor Sq, London, 2pm-6ish G Ate My Planet Party

Home del.icio.us Digg This!