EcoRadio

Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • Solar shootout in the San Joaquin Valley

     

    The Phase Two tracking system, which went active in late March, uses cadmium telluride (CdTe) modules from First Solar, chosen because they are expected to perform at a lower cost/watt than crystalline modules, according to David Vincent, Western U.S. project director for Conergy. They add 419 kW to the project, and it is believed to be the first commercial thin-film solar tracking system in the U.S.

    Thin-film modules “can outperform monocrystalline in areas prone to hazy, overcast conditions or in industries that generate dust or high degrees of air particulates,” according to Vincent. They are also superior when there is frequent fog, such as in coastal areas. The reason, he says, is the sensitivity of the thin-film cells to a broader span of the solar spectrum, including infrared and ultraviolet regions.

    Thin-film cells also should perform better when dust covers the surface, he added. Another advantage of thin-film modules is that less interconnect is needed between cells, so that there is less rise in resistivity and heat loss on hot days, he explained.

    Early indications, Vincent says, are that the output/DC kW of the thin-film modules is about 10% higher that of the monocrystalline.

    The project, known as the Robert O. Schultz Solar Farm, will handle almost all of the power needs for a water treatment plant that provides 40 million gallons/day for 155,000 residents and businesses of four nearby communities, as well as irrigation water for 55,000 farm acres. The main goal of the project is to stabilize electrical costs, which can spike in summer months because of time-of-use metering, according to Don Battles, utility systems director for SSJID. Also, these are times when solar output is at a maximum.

    To reduce long-term maintenance requirements for the thin-film tracking system, the number of drive motors had to be minimized. The challenge was to effectively drive more than 30 tons of modules and steel following the sun’s trajectory with each 2hp motor. This was done by means of a 30-ton screw jack and engineered counter-balance.

    Power generation data for the crystalline and thin-film modules will be fed from equipment that Conergy installed on inverters to Fat Spaniel Technologies, a nearby monitoring and reporting company. The analysis is put online so that it can be tracked by SSJID’s Battles and his team from offices located more than 20 miles from the solar arrays.

    The data on the Fat Spaniel Web site also allows the group to compare the 1-MW Phase One solar-tracking system with a number of fixed installations, such as a 1-MW fixed-axis rooftop system at a fruit packing firm in Hanford, CA, a system that Conergy also installed. Battles indicates that the output at the water treatment tracking facility is typically 15%-18% ahead, even though he believes the sun is better at the Hanford location.

    The irrigation district expects to save nearly $400,000 a year in utility costs due to the solar system, while getting millions of dollars in state incentives.

    Conergy’s Vincent says that the side-by-side face-off between monocrystalline and thin-film systems is attracting worldwide attention, particularly in Europe where solar has advanced much further than in the U.S.

    The performance of thin-film modules under the hazy, often foggy conditions is attracting considerable interest in the California valley region, according to Vincent. For example, a 188-kW thin-film fixed solar array is being installed by Conergy in Hanford, CA, for Verdegaal Brothers, a fertilizer, warehousing and soil and water amendment supplier.

    Vincent said that the First Solar CdTe thin-film installation takes about 10%-15% more ground space, but provides more energy and is expected to cost 10%-15% less than a monocrystalline array. The facility is expected to offset Verdegaal’s utility bills by 99%, cutting some $60,000 a year, while providing for 82% of the company’s energy needs. Over the 25-year life of the system, which is scheduled to start up in July, emissions are expected to be reduced by 6,145 tons of CO2.

    This article was originally published by Photovoltaics World and was reprinted with permission.

  • Consumer confidence hit by Kevin Rudd’s budget: survey

    The grim response to the budget, which forecast a record deficit of $57.6 billion (4.9 per cent of national output) and a contraction of 0.5 per cent in the fiscal year starting July 1, may also dash any hopes Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has of calling an early election.

    Mounting constraints on the budget and the dour mood of consumers raises the potential for another interest rate cut by the Reserve Bank of Australia.

    RBA governor Glenn Stevens told a business group yesterday confidence measures would feature largely in month-to-month “tactical” decision making by its policy making board.

    It was a clear signal the RBA still intends to cut rates if confidence dives again. Economists expect optimism to be tested as unemployment climbs over the next year.

    Mr Evans said the RBA has policy firepower left, possibly as much as 100 basis points of more cuts if needed, taking the official cash rate target to 2 per cent.

    “I’m pretty sure we’ll be seeing some of those bullets being fired in the second half of this year,” mr Evans said.

    Treasury Secretary Ken Henry is also feeling some pressure after three major fiscal stimulus efforts have strained the budget. He also said this week that Australia needs to guard against further erosion of its balance sheet.

    Mr Rudd dodged direct questions about the extent of the Government’s remaining fiscal flexibility in an interview on Adelaide radio early today, saying only that spending so far had successfully buoyed retail sales.

    Annette Beacher, senior strategist at TD Securities, described the consumer confidence retreat as a disaster given that it followed the release of direct payments of $900 each to a large chunk of the population to boost demand.

    Australian financial markets were not fully pricing in the potential for interest rates being “lower for longer,” Ms Beacher said.

    Also today, wages growth in Australia showed further signs of moderation in the face of the global economic slowdown.

    Australian wages excluding bonuses rose 0.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2009 from the fourth quarter 2008 and rose 4.2 per cent from a year earlier, Australian Bureau of Statistics labour price data issued today showed.

    Economists surveyed ahead of the announcement on average forecast a rise of 0.85 per cent over the quarter and 4.2 per cent from a year earlier.

    “The recent easing (and expected continued deterioration) in employment conditions suggests that wage inflation should remain on a downtrend,” said Besa Deda, chief economist at St George Bank.

  • Poltical stupidity and hydrocommerce madness

    If it’s good enough for international marketeers like Summit Global Management to see water as a “stable, non-cyclical, low-risk investment”, why isn’t it good enough for the NSW State Government?
    Premier Nathan Rees was quick off the mark to announce that Sydney’s water supply is secure for the next 50 years with Veolia Water – a private company – being granted a licence to draw from the Fairfield Sewage Treatment Plant, recycle the waste and sell it. On top of the desalination plant – which coincidentally is also being built by Veolia Water and John Holland Group Pty Ltd – this will, we’re told, have a positive effect on dam levels.
    Media reports confirmed that the 4.3 billion litres of treated water produced by the plant annually will be transported through a 20-kilometre network of retrofitted gas pipes and used at places like Rosehill Racecourse and the Shell refinery at Clyde. What they didn’t mention is that another State Government licence permits Jemena Limited – formed when Singapore Power acquired assets and asset management business from the sale of Alinta Ltd in 2007 – to build, own, manage and operate a recycled water network that will initially transport up to 4.3 billion litres of recycled water a year from Veolia Water’s recycled water plant to industrial and irrigation customers in Western Sydney. They also fail to mention the involvement of AquaNet Sydney Pty Limited, which also is part of the Jemena group.
    All good in terms of our water future? Not if you look more carefully. At the April 2009 Australian Water Summit Maude Barlow, senior adviser on water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly, said:
    “…governments at all levels have bought into the notion that water is a commodity, best allocated by the market, and now increasingly in the hands of largely unregulated private water brokers. This development dates back to the 1994 decision to establish an open water market in Australia … there is no vision and no overall plan to save Australia’s water heritage other than a vague belief in the magic of markets and kneeling to the throne of big technology … The steady slide to a market system of water allocation will have dire consequences: the rich will have preferable access; there will be no incentive to protect source water as it is not profitable to do so; and nature will have to fend for itself … Australia must declare its water to be a public trust … Governments simply do not have the power or right to afford water ownership rights to corporations or private interests, or tradable rights without a mandate from the Australian people who are the rightful owners along with the environment, of Australia’s water resources … privately owned municipal water service providers should be replaced by not-for-profit public systems delivering clean safe water as a public service … corporations should not determine the allocation of water; that is the role of government…”
    During the same summit Ms Barlow noted that:
    “Building big desalination plants, weirs, and pipelines such as the Victoria Government’s North-South pipeline, (being done without an environmental assessment) also gives control over Australia’s water to foreign water corporations. It is ironic that the two big French companies bidding on the Wonthaggi plant – Suez and Veolia – are about to lose their Paris water licenses when they come up for renewal in a few months.”
    Has Mr Rees bothered to investigate why that might be so?
    What Mr Rees doesn’t make any statement about is how these recent allotments tie in with the Water Industry Competition Act 2006. It commenced on 8 August 2008, with the backing of the Opposition, opening the doors for private players – including foreign companies – to control, among other things, drinking water for retail consumers.
    Where was the Government’s mandate to introduce this legislation, which seems to me to be a critical part of the process of privatising by stealth a critical public resource? The NSW Government is only too well aware what voters think about privatising public resources, like electricity: ask former NSW premier Morris Iemma. In a country where water is becoming more scarce, has the Government properly explained the effect of its water legislation to the people of New South Wales, let alone sought or obtained their approval?
    The Act was designed to “encourage competition in the water industry and to promote innovative solutions to the water supply-and-demand balance, particularly in so far as the development of infrastructure for the production and distribution of recycled water is concerned”. Experts like former CSIRO chief research scientist Mike Young are of the view that Australians don’t pay enough for their water, especially during times of shortages, so I assume no water-consuming citizen of New South Wales raised concerns about “industry competition” with the State Government? Where did the impetus for these changes really come from?
    I don’t have a problem with the involvement of the private sector in water recycling, but I do have a problem with the private management of water without very tight government regulation. Water is a commodity like no other. Perhaps Mr Rees should be reminded that the private sector can’t always be trusted to do what’s in the best interests of all people.
    This view I apparently share with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and the Nature Conservation Council of NSW who accepted that there may be benefits from competition for the supply of non-potable and recycled water to the business and industrial sectors, but who do not believe that the potential benefits of retail competition for residential users (in this case, consumers currently serviced by Hunter Water and Sydney Water) outweigh the potential costs of market failure in this area.
    Anyone who follows water developments internationally knows that locking in residential consumers is precisely what international corporations are interested in.
    I suspect the Water Industry Competition legislation has not been widely reported because people don’t yet appreciate the likelihood that recycled water may soon be a necessary source of drinking water, and that the ownership of recycled water supplies and the infrastructure that creates it or which it passes through will then be a very valuable asset.
    While the Government may say it is not really privatising water, but rather delegating the management of utilities or operating them in partnership, the fundamental and very real issue is access to water. The key to access is control, and who ultimately controls the tap, Mr Rees?
    Under the Water Industry Competition Act 2006 a licensed network operator is the owner of its water industry infrastructure, whether or not the land in, on or over which it is situated is owned by the network operator, and that infrastructure is not to be taken in execution of any judgment against a person other than the network operator under any process of a court. Where exactly does this leave the current and any future State Government if it becomes necessary to cancel a licence in the interests of the public?
    Does the State Government propose to call on God as a supplier of last resort if it doesn’t own and can’t get hold of the water infrastructure?
    The Act defines “water industry infrastructure” as water infrastructure or sewerage infrastructure, and “water infrastructure” essentially means any infrastructure that is, or is to be, used for the production, treatment, filtration, storage, conveyance or reticulation of water.
    The Government makes assurances about water quality and public health, the construction and maintenance of water industry infrastructure and consumer protection, but we have received assurances like that before which have ended up ringing hollow, especially where Ministers have the ultimate power to grant and cancel licences.
    One would have thought that before bringing the legislation into operation a Government that was serious about protecting the interests of people and the environment would have actually put in place a water industry code of conduct, a marketing code of conduct and a transfer code of conduct for the transfer of water supplies or sewerage services to, from or between licensed retail suppliers before it handed over to “private” players the keys to our most importance resource.
    To date we have been told that:
    around 30 per cent of the total cash that is generated by the allegedly better performing water utilities will end up in the Treasury (which arguably creates conflicts in terms of government introducing water saving measures);
    Sydney Services Pty Ltd was blocked when it wanted to connect to the Sydney sewage system with a proposal to clean and deliver water to any quality standard, a program which would be financed from water rates from customers choosing its sewage services rather than Sydney Water’s. Why?
    in 2007 Lend Lease Corporation Limited’s subsidiary, Bovis Lend Lease Limited, as part of Connect Alliance, was awarded the contract for the design and construction of the water delivery pipeline for Sydney’s desalination plant. That alliance includes McConnell Dowell, Kellogg Brown and Root (after Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries in 1998, Dresser’s engineering subsidiary, The M W Kellogg Co, was merged with Halliburton’s construction subsidiary, Brown and Root, to form Kellogg Brown and Root); and
    a network alliance formed between Sydney Water, Bovis Lend Lease, Veolia Water Network Services and CLM infrastructure to deliver a program aimed at reducing leaks and main breaks from Sydney Water’s 21,000-kilometre supply network. Where have you heard those names before?
    At the end of the day has the Premier honestly satisfied himself that the legislation in its current form is tight enough to avoid the circumstances previously raised by the Centre for Public Integrity and by the senior advisor on water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly?
    No, I bet he hasn’t. And I bet he won’t, because he can’t.
    Kellie Tranter is a lawyer, writer and immediate past chairperson of the standing committee on legislation for BPW International. Since establishing her own legal practice seven years ago she has dedicated much of her time to promoting social, environmental and political responsibility.

  • WWF justifies pollution rewards

    WWF did not take the decision to support the Australian Government’s new Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme lightly. Our decision to support the announced changes including a 25% was taken because our key objective is to get an effective international agreement at the UN Climate Change Meeting in Copenhagen.
    This will require developed countries as a group to reduce emissions between 25% and 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
    At present the UK, EU, Norway and Australia are the only developed countries which have adopted targets in this range and only Norway and Australia are members of the “Umbrella Group” – a loose group of non-EU developed countries (generally including Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New
    Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and the US) – which are key blocks to an effective agreement.
    Breaking the lack of big emission reduction targets by members of the Umbrella Group was a key objective of WWF. I believe that this has been achieved by Australia by announcing a large target relatively to their present-day emissions.
    Another issue that has arisen is the “comparability of effort” (i.e. the relative effort of different countries). There is no formula for measuring comparability of effort (one of the key problems in the negotiations) but some of those being discussed include emission cuts from Kyoto targets, relative economic impact in 2020 and per capita emissions in 2020.
    Using these forms of measurement, Australia’s 25% compares well with those of the climate champions (namely the EU). For example, the Australian Government’s economic modeling indicates that a 14% cut by Australia would have a greater economic impact than a 41% cut on the
    EU or 6% cut on the USA.
    I am not suggesting that Australia should measure its effort by the standards of others but merely pointing out that a 25% will represent a real contribution to clean development. Indeed the key role that Australia can really play in the international response to climate change is to show that a very polluting economy can make a relatively rapid transition and affordable transition to a clean one.
    The other great advantage of the Government’s announcement is that it succinctly states a national view of the key elements of an effective international agreement. This includes a goal of 450 ppm greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or less; an agreed (credible) global emission reduction trajectory; a 25% or greater cut for developed countries; a 20% or greater derivation from Business As Usual (BAU) for major developing countries with nomination of a peaking date.
    This has not been done with the same precision by any countries outside the UK/EU and so it (hopefully) represents a significant step forward in the process of developing an international agreement in Copenhagen.
    Irrespective of your decision to discontinue supporting WWF, thank you so much for your support in the past, it really is appreciated.

  • China and US held secret talks on climate change deal

     

    “My sense is that we are now working towards something in the fall,” said Bill Chandler, director of the energy and climate programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the driving force behind the talks. “It will be serious. It will be substantive, and it will happen.”

    The secret missions suggest that advisers to Obama came to power firmly focused on getting a US-China understanding in the run-up to the crucial UN meeting in Copenhagen this December, which is aimed at sealing a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions. In her first policy address the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she wanted to recast the broad US-China relationship around the central issue of climate change. She also stopped in Beijing on her first foreign tour.

    The dialogue also challenges the conventional wisdom that George Bush’s decision to pull America out of the Kyoto climate change treaty had led to paralysis in the administration on global warming, and that China was unwilling to contemplate emissions cuts at a time of rapid economic growth.

    “There are these two countries that the world blames for doing nothing, and they have a better story to tell,” said Terry Tamminen, who took part in the talks and is an environmental adviser to the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The nations are the top two polluters on Earth.

    The first communications, in the autumn of 2007, were initiated by the Chinese. Xie Zhenhua, the vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s central economic planning body, made the first move by expressing interest in a co-operative effort on carbon capture and storage and other technologies with the US.

    The first face-to-face meeting, held over two days at a luxury hotel at the Great Wall of China in July 2008, got off to a tentative start with Xie falling back on China’s stated policy positions. “It was sort of like pushing a tape recorder,” said Chandler, “[but after a short while] he just cut it off and said we need to get beyond this.”

    The two sides began discussing ways to break through the impasse, including the possibility that China would agree to voluntary – but verifiable – reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. China has rejected the possibility of cuts as it sees that as a risk to its continued economic growth, deemed essential to lift millions out of poverty and advance national status.

    Taiya Smith, an adviser on China to Bush’s treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, who was at the first of the two sessions, said: “The thing that came out of it that was priceless was the recognition on both sides that what China was doing to [reduce] the effects of climate change were not very well known,” she said. “After these discussions was a real public campaign by the Chinese government to try to make people aware of what they were doing. We started to see the Chinese take a different tone which was that ‘we are active and engaged in trying to solve the problem’.”

    During the second trip to China by the Americans, Xie suggested a memorandum of understanding between the two countries on joint action on climate change.

    Chandler said he and Holdren drew up a three-point memo which envisaged:

    •Using existing technologies to produce a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2010.

    • Co-operating on new technology including carbon capture and storage and fuel efficiency for cars.

    • The US and China signing up to a global climate change deal in Copenhagen.

    “We sent it to Xie and he said he agreed,” said Chandler.

    The ties were further cemented when Gao Guangsheng, the leading climate official, attended Schwarzenegger’s global meeting on climate in November last year. Obama, who had been elected president two weeks earlier, addressed the gathering by video.

    By the time Xie visited the US in March, the state department’s new climate change envoy, Todd Stern, and his deputy, Jonathan Pershing, were also involved in the dialogue. But the trip by Xie did not produce the hoped-for agreement. Both Stern and Holdren declined to comment when asked by the Guardian.

    Those involved agree it was premature to expect the Obama administration to enter into a formal agreement so soon in its tenure. Additional members of the US team included Terry Tamminen; Jim Green, adviser to Joe Biden, now the vice-president who then headed the Senate foreign relations committee; Mark Helmke, adviser to Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee; and Frank Loy, a former state department negotiator on climate. Both Green and Loy have been nominated to jobs in the Obama administration.

    Chandler and Smith believe the effort will pay off in a more comprehensive deal between the two governments.  “Xie came to visit the US when the administration was still trying to figure out its standing on climate issues and it was without very much staff,” said Smith. “I don’t see this as a dead issue at all. I think it’s something you would consider still in process.”

     

  • Science alone will not save us

     

    But there is concern that a government desire to protect science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Stem) subjects by ringfencing funding could, in the long term, affect the ability of these teams to conduct research.

    For Professor Paul Wellings, chairman-elect of the 1994 group of smaller research-intensive universities, it is a question of getting together what he calls a “dream team”, comprising not just scientists, but researchers from the social sciences and humanities, to deal with the nightmare scenario recently conjured by the government’s chief scientist, John Beddington, in which the world is gripped by a “perfect storm” of war, starvation and mass migration.

    Coming up with answers

    For Wellings, it is not enough simply to rely on science and technology to come up with the answers we need. Looking at individuals’ behaviour and getting them to change that is, he argues, as important as new technology.

    While not opposed to ringfencing per se, he argues for a more nuanced approach, with support maintained for social sciences and humanities. The 1994 group estimates that the ringfencing of funding for Stem subjects during the 2008 research assessment exercise (RAE)cost its institutions 20p in the pound per researcher.

    “If we were asked as institutions to help solve major global challenges, and asked what is the ‘dream team’ that we would want to field for doing that,” says Wellings, “as soon as you start to put that together, there are engineers, technocrats and very often people in the humanities and the social sciences.”

    At the sharp end of what he is talking about are people such as Sarah Curtis, a geographer heading a group of Durham University academics working with engineers from Edinburgh’s Heriot-Watt University on a project to discover how storms, floods and heatwaves caused by climate change might affect the elderly and how infrastructure can be tailored to cope.

    “Multidisciplinary work helps engineers and scientists, as well as the professional carers, tackle extreme weather events in the future and keep services running,” Curtis says. “They also need to understand from the people receiving those services what’s important to them and that’s where the social science perspective comes in – really being able to interpret events and problems from different social perspectives.

    “The social science perspective isn’t just about individual behaviour, but helps us to think about the way that people work and interact together. I would argue that what’s important to people and how they tackle problems is not just down to individual characteristics but also to the social circumstances they’re in.”

    She is concerned about an over-reliance on Stem subjects to provide solutions to climate change. “This isn’t just about sharing academic knowledge, but also the public debate as well, because in all honesty I don’t think that natural scientists have all the answers to the problems we’re facing over climate change and neither do I think that social scientists have the solutions. So we are going to have to negotiate across these different points of view if we are going to move forward.”

    Wellings, a population ecologist, says there is a pool of expertise within the 1994 group, with its strength in social science and humanities. He would like to see it drawn upon when it comes to tackling environmental issues. “If we don’t get a grip on climate change we are going to see the world’s largest diaspora, when a huge area of sub-Saharan Africa will be forced into absolute water shortage. At that point 300 million people could walk off the land and towards Europe. There are a family of issues that, if we get them badly wrong, will produce a perfect storm within about 40 to 50 years around some of those big picture issues.

    “So who are the people who understand the culture of these areas and the management of diaspora? By and large, it’s not scientists but social scientists and humanities people.”

    He points to the School of Oriental and African Studies, a member of the 1994 group. “I don’t know what the future of geopolitics is, but I do know that in the future we are going to have to turn to people such as those at Soas, who are experts in languages and anthropology from that part of the world. It will be an inevitable response that we will need a world-class centre of excellence of the sort that we already have there.”

    In the meantime, Wellings, who is also vice-chancellor of Lancaster University, fears there will be less money for academics to engage in speculative research in social sciences and humanities.

    “You can have a pretty shrewd guess there will be substantially less money going back into those departments than there was before,” he says. “And so over the next 18 months you will see a sharp diminution in research activity. Some of that will be a reduction in the number of projects that are being run and some of it will be in the support to postgraduates.

    “Less money will cause colleagues to be more entrepreneurial and in the short run they will be more market-facing, or recruit more international students, but it won’t maintain research capacity and that is the thing that will be eroded. The intellectual need for there to be multidisciplinary research will not go away and that will put tremendous pressure on universities to ensure that the financial resources are there.”

    Wellings, who sits on the board of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is calling for more transparency when it comes to the new funding mechanism that will replace the RAE, the Research Excellence Framework – in particular, in the funding of Stem subjects relative to social sciences and humanities. “In the future, there will have to be transparency about what the likelihood is of resource in each area,” he says.

    A wider research base

    Diane Berry, Reading University’s pro vice-chancellor for research, echoes this argument. “It is clearly important to protect funding for Stem subjects and medicine. However, we cannot afford to conceive our science base too narrowly – we must protect our wider research base.

    “This is because addressing current and future global challenges depends on the successful interplay of all subjects. Furthermore, the boundaries between the natural sciences and the social sciences and humanities are becoming increasingly fluid as research at the frontiers of knowledge becomes increasingly inter- and multidisciplinary.”

    David Delpy, the chief executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, says: “Obviously, there needs to be a balance between arts and science funding. Both are important. However, there remains a shortage in physical sciences and engineering graduates. We agree that when it comes to priority areas such as climate change a cross-disciplinary approach is vital if we are to be successful.” Delpy points to the Research Council UK’s Living With Environmental Change programme as an example of how the seven research councils are working together “to try and solve major problems that face society”.

    “Increasingly,” says Berry, “success in markets, which many people might assume to be dominated by technological advances, depends just as much on factors such as design, economics, branding and consumer understanding.

    “Similarly, effectively tackling some of the most significant health and environmental challenges will depend just as much on changing people’s behaviour as on advances in medicine, physics, or chemistry.”