EcoRadio

Category: General news

Managing director of Ebono Institute and major sponsor of The Generator, Geoff Ebbs, is running against Kevin Rudd in the seat of Griffith at the next Federal election. By the expression on their faces in this candid shot it looks like a pretty dull campaign. Read on

  • Europe lags behind with a sleight of hand on emission targets

     

     

    You would imagine a tougher target for 2050 would require more action sooner but it appears our politicians are happy to kick that problem into the long grass for future politicians to wrestle with, with the increasing impact of climate change they have so thoughtfully bequeathed them. The deal also continues to ignore the fact that we should be debating a target for 2015. If a system like Kyoto is to continue then this would be the next milestone in the emissions timeline.

     

    Far from being in the lead, the EU, like most countries, is a laggard when it comes to responding effectively to the threat of climate change – but it is very good at presentation. Our targets use a 1990 baseline. Nothing wrong with that, except it is a very convenient date for countries that benefitted from the huge collapse in Soviet economies in the 1990s, which of course now includes Europe.

     

    The combination of this unearned reduction with a handful of one-off reductions in industrial gases in a few countries delivered Europe its Kyoto target ahead of schedule and we are set to achieve a 10% reduction by the end of this decade – helped along by the current recession. The 30% target is therefore only a 20% target measured from current levels. Again this may sound reasonably challenging. But this also masks the reality that Europe will allow itself to buy in emissions credits from overseas for up to half of this target. Meaning Europe’s own emissions need be reduced by only 10% over a decade.

     

    The European Union has, over a number of years, claimed to be leading the world in reducing emissions. It has introduced a range of policies to try to curb emissions but these have been slow to start and dedicated climate and energy policies have delivered few savings to date. This is evident not only from the emissions record so far of the EU but also from the continued unbroken link between emissions and economic growth or decline.

     

    Investment in energy infrastructure also appears not to have deviated significantly from “business as usual”, with many more coal-fired power stations being proposed in Europe. Cap and trade regulation has been implemented on 50% of emissions, however, they have been set too leniently, leading to large surpluses in emissions permits and low prices.

     

    More investment is now being made into renewable electricity but this is still too insignificant on its own to achieve a significant reduction in all energy-related emissions. The harder tasks of reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations and industrial plants and de-carbonising our transport and heating systems has yet to begin in earnest. As a result, emissions in recent years, the effect of the recent recession aside, have been more or less static.

     

    Only tougher targets will provide the impetus for serious policy change and investment on the ground. There are many reasons why Europe can and must step up to the mark in Copenhagen. Sandbag, the climate NGO that I run, will be launching a briefing paper in Brussels next week explaining why Europe’s targets are nowhere near as tough as they think they are and calling for a recalibration and higher ambition.

     

    The current politics of Europe are not easy and there are some countries who are arguing against even the current levels of ambition. But rather than trying to cling on to the vestiges of leadership using clever accounting, Europe should be honest about what the numbers mean and accept that it can and must go further.

     

    The sleight of hand has not gone unnoticed by other countries and if Europe continues to fail to pull its weight it will be impossible to win the support of developing countries who rightly point out we have a massive historic responsibility to lead the way.

     

    • Bryony Worthington is the founder of Sandbag, a not-for-profit website that allows its members to buy up carbon emissions trading permits

  • China and India agree to cooperate on climate change policy

     

    The two nations will also form a joint working group that will meet once a year to coordinate policies. And they will cooperate on renewable energy and research into the effects of climate change on Himalayan glaciers.

    But the timing of the announcement highlights the importance of maintaining at least a show of unity on the climate issue, despite heightened tensions between the two nations. China and India are among the leaders of the G77 bloc of developing nations, who have consistently argued that they should not be obliged to set internationally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gases because richer nations have a far greater historical responsibility for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    But with China now the world’s biggest emitter and India the fourth, one of the central goals of the Copenhagen summit is to find a formula that encourages these nations to make verifiable commitments to tackle climate change while leaving room for their economies to develop. The United States hopes to make progress towards a breakthrough when Obama meets China’s president Hu Jintao in Beijing on November 16-17 and then plays host to India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh at the White House on November 24.

    But many inside these Asian nations are wary of efforts to make emerging economies break ranks. Earlier this week, the Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh was castigated by the local media and opposition parties for supposedly considering a softening of India’s negotiating position.

     

    Ramesh has since clarified there is no change in Indian policy or its alliance with other developing nations. At the signing ceremony for the memorandum yesterday, he stressed: “There is no difference between the Indian and Chinese negotiating positions and we are discussing further what the two countries should be doing for a successful outcome at Copenhagen.”

    New Delhi has also sought reassurance from Beijing that China will not sign a bilateral deal with the US that runs contrary to G77 goals. At the signing ceremony, Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice-chairman of National Development and Reform Commission and the country’s top climate change negotiator, tried to soothe such concerns: “We regard India as a sincere, devoted friend and the MoU [memorandum of understanding] on climate change will take our cooperation on the issue to a new high.”

    Indian and Chinese climate campaigners welcomed the show of solidarity. “This is a good sign that developing nations are sticking together despite pressure from developed nations,” said Siddharth Pathak, climate and energy campaigner of Greenpeace India. “They will not allow themselves to bullied by other countries.”

    Shirish Sinha, the head of the climate change programme at WWF India said the two nations faced common challenges in ensuring energy security and reducing poverty that set them apart from wealthier economies.

    “It is largely in the interests of both countries given the pressure coming on them to take action, to really come together,” he said. Despite the apparent hardening of positions and the lack of time before Copenhagen, climate negotiators said they had not given up hope of a positive outcome.”

    “I think the Copenhagen talks will eventually come up with something. So many people have been working on it for such a long time, and the whole world is watching, there will be something,” said Liu Bin a climate expert at Tsinghua University and Chinese negotiator.

    “I am getting a little more hopeful,” said Chung Rae-Kwon, the climate change ambassador for South Korea. “I think we are getting progress in finding an agreement.”

    South Korea has proposed a compromise under which developing nations would register domestic actions to slow the growth of emissions. Although these targets would not be internationally binding, they would be subject to outside verification.

    It is unclear, however, whether a suitable formula can be found in time to persuade India, China and the United States to sign up at Copenhagen. Preparatory talks last month in Bangkok ended in acrimonious squabbles.

    “Time is running out,” said Yang Fuqiang, the director of the climate change and energy programme of WWF China. “It’s possible that all we will get at Copenhagen is a political declaration and an agreement to extend the process.”

    A key to any agreement is for the US Senate to ratify a climate bill before the country’s negotiators go to Copenhagen. Former vice-president Al Gore, who is spearheading efforts to get a bill passed, told an audience in Beijing yesterday that he was confident of success, but he cautioned against over-expectation.

    He said any global pact reached in Copenhagen was bound to disappoint many people, but it would be a step forward that could be strengthened at a later date once the business community received a signal that they would have to change their ways. “I choose to be optimistic,” he said.

     

  • Combating climate change costs money

     

    So far, the government has pushed for much of this money to be supplied by a global market in carbon credits – yet this will allow rich countries to offload the burden of cutting carbon emissions on to the world’s poorest while generating huge profits for banks, investment funds and financiers piling into a “climate cash cow”.

    At the same time, rich countries have been pushing for these funds to be managed by the World Bank – an institution that they control, as well as the largest multilateral lender for fossil fuel projects in the world. Developing countries are right not to trust that this will deliver finance fairly. Providing this money through a UN framework is the only fair and transparent way to ensure this money makes a real difference on the ground.

    The MEF countries must take responsibility for the fact that they have caused climate change, and lead in cutting their emissions first and fast, by at least 40% by 2020 – and without carbon offsetting, a con that just means avoiding taking real action through dodgy accounting.

    It’s now only a matter of weeks before the UN talks in Copenhagen begin. The price to pay for failure to the world’s poorest people is vast and growing daily. The cost to the culprits for climate change, the world’s richest, is not. Money talks – and right now cold, hard cash will go further than anything else to get us the strong and fair agreement we need.

    As part of Friends of the Earth’s Demand Climate Change campaign, it is asking everyone to sign its international petition to world leaders for a strong and fair climate deal at www.demandclimatechange.org.

  • Our Nuclear Tragedy

     

    If you’re a citizen of that country and increasingly concerned about climate change and the need to find alternatives to fossil fuels in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, then you might reluctantly conclude that there’s no alternative but to replace nuclear reactors that are due for decommissioning.

    If, like me, you are the former chair of the Sustainable Development Commission, which battled in vain for years to persuade the government that there are far better ways of meeting objectives on climate change, then all these pretexts for resuscitating our moribund nuclear industry remain utterly unconvincing.

    The commission came to that opinion after nearly two years of research. We reviewed all available data on costs, waste, uranium, emissions reduction, safety, proliferation, security risks, and the impact of any new reactors on energy options. As dispassionately as we were able, we highlighted both the benefits of nuclear power and the disbenefits in each of those areas. The majority of us (with two of 18 commissioners dissenting)came to the conclusion that the disbenefits clearly outweighed the benefits.

    A lot of it comes down to who you believe. For those with long memories, it’s still difficult to attach much credibility to the promises of the nuclear industry. Two years ago it was the consensus view that companies bidding for new reactors would require no subsidy. Six months ago that bold (and some would say preposterous) assertion was put aside with a much more honest acknowledgement from E.ON, EDF and others that substantial amounts of public money would be required after all. Indeed, the case was made that the government would have to stop subsidising renewables in order to prioritise nuclear.

    This change of heart may well have been influenced by the fiasco at Olkiluoto in Finland, where the new reactor is already massively behind schedule and over budget. This is the same reactor design that will apparently be rolled out here in the UK. Even the staunchest advocates of nuclear power concede that it’s extremely difficult unearthing the true story about its cost. We do know, courtesy of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, that UK taxpayers face a bill of at least £70bn over the next 20 years or so for cleaning up the legacy of our existing nuclear facilities. Faced with that kind of reality, as we move into a period of inevitable austerity, it remains incomprehensible to me that the Treasury has now set aside its traditional scepticism about nuclear power.

    For me, nuclear power is the lazy option. Stick up a few more reactors, don’t say too much about costs per kilowatt hour (let alone costs for each tonne of CO2 abated), dump the responsibility of dealing with the waste on future generations, and don’t worry too much about the state of the grid or the impact on renewable energy.

    I can’t deny that the alternative course of action (reducing total energy consumption by at least 40%, massively ramping up investments both in large-scale renewables – including the Severn barrage – and small-scale microgeneration, making a proper go of Combined Heat and Power and “Energy From Waste” schemes, and relying on combined-cycle gas turbines for base load generation) is the harder option in terms of the quality of leadership required. But those still wavering about the balance of pros and cons should not underestimate the knock-on effects of any commitment to new nuclear. It will undoubtedly slow investment in new renewables. It will reassure politicians that they don’t have to do the heavy lifting required to put energy efficiency at the heart of any strategy. It will weaken efforts to move towards localised distributed energy solutions (why else do you think the industry and pro-nuclear civil servants fought so hard against feed-in tariffs for so many years?), and it will “lock us in” to today’s hugely inefficient generation and transmission system for the next 40 years or so.

    And the tragedy is it won’t make much difference anyway – even if the reactors do eventually get built after inevitable delay. If every OECD country follows this route, instead of pursuing the alternative mapped out above, then emissions of greenhouse gases will keep rising at a dangerously fast level, average temperatures will soar, the Greenland ice cap will melt far faster than anticipated – and all those shiny new reactors will be several metres under water. Oh, for a little bit of realism.

  • World must shift to low-carbon economy by 2014 or face dangerous climate change, says WWF

     

    With low-carbon industry only able to grow at a certain rate, a delay in taking action will make it almost impossible for countries to roll out the technology in time to cut emissions by the amounts needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

    The research by analysts Climate Risk (pdf) also said countries must take action across a range of industries at once, including renewable energy, technology to capture the carbon emissions from fossil fuel power stations, preventing deforestation and improving energy efficiency.

    If countries fail to tackle emissions across all sectors, they will end up getting the lowest-cost industries up and running first and not developing other areas until they are affordable.

    This would make it impossible to meet targets to reduce emissions, the study warned.

    The report, published as representatives of 17 countries meet in the UK for the Major Economies Forum as part of efforts to secure a new global agreement on cutting emissions at UN talks in Copenhagen in December, called for long-term investment strategies to support clean technology.

    Policies are also needed to improve energy efficiency standards, pay people set tariffs for generating power from renewables and end subsidies for the use of fossil fuels.

    Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF-UK, said: “Clean industry sectors can only expand so far, so quickly.

    “If we wait until later than 2014 to begin aggressively tackling the problem, we will have left it too late to ensure that all the low-carbon solutions required are ready to roll out at the scale needed if we intend to keep within the world’s remaining carbon budget.

     

    He said the report highlighted the need for a “complete industrial shift towards a low-carbon future” which must begin with a fair and binding deal on climate change in Copenhagen in December.

    An over-reliance on carbon trading – which by putting a price on pollution encourages cutting emissions where it costs least – would lead to a step-by-step approach to developing a low carbon economy that would leave the world struggling to reduce emissions on a sufficient scale and speed to prevent climate change, the study said.

    The report also said that, even without a price on carbon, renewable energy could become competitive with fossil fuels between 2013 and 2025.

  • A history of CO2 emissions

     

    But historical emissions, like per capita emissions, are a bone of contention in haggling between countries trying to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen this December. Developing countries argue that any CO2 cuts agreed by developed countries at Copenhagen should incorporate the principle of historical responsibility. In other words, the rich should pay in the near future for its considerable past contributions to global warming.

    Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries’ populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

    It’s also worth bearing in mind that many developed countries’ share of emissions go back before this data begins. As the leader of the industrial revolution, the UK in particular was responsible for significant carbon emissions in the 19th century.

    To get a sense of how such emission debts are influencing the Copenhagen negotiations, consider the rationale given by Yu Qingtai, China’s climate change ambassador, when explaining that China would not drop its demands for tough CO2 cuts from developed countries: “We have all along believed that due to the historical responsibility of the developed nations, they must continue to take the lead with large reductions beyond 2012.” Some commentators say that if social justice is to be achieved at Copenhagen, it’s impossible to argue against rich countries paying for their historic responsibility.

    • DATA: Historical total CO2 emissions

    • Can you do something with this data?
    Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group or mail us at datastore@guardian.co.uk

    • Get the A-Z of data
    • More environment data
    • More at the Datastore directory
    • Follow us on Twitter

    Cumulative CO2 emissions, 1900-2004

    Units: Million metric tons of carbon dioxide
    Country
    1900-2004
    Afghanistan 77.1
    Albania 219.2
    Algeria 2161.2
    Angola 249.7
    Antigua and Barbuda 15.3
    Argentina 5505.7
    Armenia 253.1
    Australia 11929.4
    Austria 3928.9
    Azerbaijan 1933.5
    Bahamas 137.5
    Bahrain 392.5
    Bangladesh 562.6
    Barbados 35.5
    Belarus 4031.9
    Belgium 9336.3
    Belize 12.4
    Benin 28.7
    Bhutan 6.3
    Bolivia 260.1
    Bosnia and Herzegovina 666.1
    Botswana 74.7
    Brazil 9136.3
    Brunei 258.3
    Bulgaria 3106.4
    Burma (Myanmar) 300.8
    Burkina Faso 23.7
    Burundi 6.1
    Cambodia 20.5
    Cameroon 161.6
    Canada 23668.6
    Cape Verde 4.7
    Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) 160.8
    Central African Rep 8.4
    Chad 6.5
    Chile 1673.5
    China 89243
    Colombia 2137.5
    Comoros 2
    Congo (Brazzaville) 60.5
    Congo, Dem Rep 170.4
    Cook Islands 0.9
    Costa Rica 127.6
    Croatia 743.2
    Cuba 1225.5
    Cyprus 169.7
    Czech Rep 9399.6
    Denmark 3355.7
    Djibouti 11.5
    Dominica 2.2
    Dominican Rep 402.8
    Ecuador 575.7
    Egypt 3079.2
    El Salvador 135.2
    Equatorial Guinea 38.2
    Eritrea 9.1
    Estonia 1015.2
    Ethiopia 93.5
    Fiji 32.8
    Finland 2390.5
    Former Serbia and Montenegro 2221.9
    France 28515.3
    Gabon 148.2
    Gambia 6.6
    Georgia 559.1
    Germany 73625.8
    Ghana 157.8
    Greece 2531
    Grenada 4.3
    Guatemala 213.4
    Guinea 44.8
    Guinea-Bissau 6.5
    Guyana 65.8
    Haiti 38.1
    Honduras 115.5
    Hong Kong 1005.3
    Hungary 3856.6
    Iceland 89.8
    India 25054.3
    Indonesia 6167.9
    Iran 7589.7
    Iraq 2186.1
    Ireland 1583.4
    Israel 1434.2
    Italy 17641.9
    Jamaica 306.3
    Japan 42696.2
    Jordan 338.7
    Kazakhstan 9970.3
    Kenya 285.3
    Kiribati 1.1
    Korea, North 3889.2
    Korea, South 9004.4
    Kuwait 1605.3
    Kyrgyzstan 415.7
    Lao People’s Dem Rep 18.8
    Latvia 546.3
    Lebanon 407.9
    Lesotho 4
    Liberia 37.8
    Libya 1158.3
    Lithuania 860.6
    Luxembourg 634.8
    Macedonia, FYR 394.8
    Madagascar 56.8
    Malawi 32.7
    Malaysia 2373.2
    Maldives 6.6
    Mali 17.2
    Malta 65.2
    Mauritania 62.6
    Mauritius 52.1
    Mexico 11458.3
    Moldova, Rep 718.3
    Mongolia 284.3
    Morocco 812.3
    Mozambique 102.7
    Namibia 27.3
    Nauru 4.5
    Nepal 46.1
    Netherlands 8569.4
    New Zealand 1268.1
    Nicaragua 99.6
    Niger 31.2
    Nigeria 2179.3
    Niue 0.1
    Norway 1728.4
    Oman 398.3
    Pakistan 2303
    Palau 3.1
    Panama 167.3
    Papua New Guinea 76.2
    Paraguay 84
    Peru 1044.5
    Philippines 1833.2
    Poland 21262.9
    Portugal 1691.4
    Qatar 586.8
    Romania 6759.2
    Russia 89688.3
    Rwanda 14.7
    Saint Kitts and Nevis 2
    Samoa 4
    Sao Tome and Principe 2.1
    Saudi Arabia 6221.8
    Senegal 106.4
    Seychelles 7.5
    Sierra Leone 25.8
    Singapore 1109.7
    Slovakia 3157.1
    Slovenia 598
    Solomon Islands 4.8
    Somalia 19.6
    South Africa 13241.7
    Spain 9946.4
    Sri Lanka 250.2
    St. Lucia 6.7
    St. Vincent/Grenadines 3.2
    Sudan 203.1
    Suriname 82.2
    Swaziland 18.1
    Sweden 4107.6
    Switzerland 2320.9
    Syria 1096.7
    Taiwan 4736.6
    Tajikistan 511.1
    Tanzania 106.4
    Thailand 3287
    Togo 28.2
    Tonga 2.6
    Trinidad and Tobago 694.3
    Tunisia 490.3
    Turkey 5112.8
    Turkmenistan 1738.5
    Uganda 47.8
    Ukraine 22840.5
    United Arab Emirates 1660.4
    United Kingdom 55163.7
    United States 314772.1
    Uruguay 280.4
    Uzbekistan 5979.5
    Vanuatu 2.8
    Venezuela 5004.4
    Vietnam 1312
    Yemen 323.1
    Zambia 178.8
    Zimbabwe 614.2