Climate Feedback

Shrug-worthy, disappointing, too slow, reactionary, lacking ambition, could-do-better: the scientist’s attitude to most UK politicians’ policy statements on reducing carbon emissions.

Today’s “low-carbon transition plan” looks different – although we could have done with it a lot earlier.

In a collection of four strategy documents which together proclaim themselves “the most systematic response to climate change of any major developed country”, the UK government plots out exactly how it plans to meet its legally binding targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

Energy secretary Ed Miliband says that by 2020 he wants 40% of electricity to come from low-carbon sources: over 30% from renewables – overwhelmingly wind power, but also biomass, and tidal energy – and the rest from nuclear and carbon capture and storage. Heat and transport will also see vastly-boosted renewables contributions. By 2020, there will be 3,000 offshore wind turbines across the country and every home will have a smart meter. Every government department has been given its own carbon budget to follow. Thousands of ‘green jobs’ (undefined) will be created.

The ambition on paper is praiseworthy. It leaves only sizeable doubts about whether the government can match deeds to fine-sounding words – and whether they can persuade households and firms that they must pay increased costs on energy bills.

“Eventually the Government must move from analysis paralysis to doing and building," says Stuart Haszeldine, a geologist at the University of Edinburgh. “All the right plans are there, but it’s hard to believe that this is actually going to happen.”

Continue reading 'UK low carbon drive: at last the right sounds; now let's see it happen' at Nature's The Great Beyond blog

Posted by Anna Barnett on July 16, 2009
Categories: Climate Policy, In the News, Richard Van Noorden | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Australia, the world’s largest coal exporter, launched an institute last week to galvanise large-scale demonstrations of carbon capture and storage (CCS) (or ‘clean coal’) technology [see Nature coverage here; press release].

Australia is ploughing AU$100m (£48m) a year into the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI). That money’s far short of the billions needed to finance commercial-scale projects. Instead, the GCCSI is acting as an oversight operation, smoothing the progress of those schemes which have been proposed. It will track projects and identify gaps in the types of projects that have been agreed on – perhaps even brokering new ones. The institute will also coordinate and pool knowledge gained from small-scale CCS pilots and analyze sticking points which are stopping projects moving forward.

If the GCCSI is to be successful it will have to get companies to share the lessons they learn from their tests – including information on what doesn’t work. “No-one really understands what knowledge needs to be shared at this time,” says GCCSI head Nick Otter, when queried on the difficulties that may pose for intellectual property.

It will also have to work carefully with existing organizations, such as the International Energy Agency (IEA)'s carbon capture programme and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) - a network run by the US Department of Energy. These focus more on technical analyses of the technology, and on its surrounding policy and regulation. The CSLF – for a long time scorned on account of its American origins – may try to rejuvenate itself in a London meeting in October, now that it is backed by the Obama administration.

Ultimately networks like these are necessary but not sufficient for getting CCS demonstrations off the ground. What’s needed is a massive amount of public spending.

Richard van Noorden

Posted by Olive Heffernan on April 20, 2009
Categories: Features, In the News, Richard Van Noorden, Technology | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cross-posted from The Great Beyond
Around 400 cities across Europe have signed up to an agreement to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by more than the EU’s overall target of 20% by 2020 (from 1990 levels).

The ‘covenant of mayors’ initiative, ceremonially launched on 10 February in Brussels, is the brainchild of the European Commission. Participating cities – so far including London, Paris, and Madrid – will submit action plans within a year, including an inventory of baseline CO₂ emissions. They’ll have to publicly report once every two years on progress, and will get kicked out of the covenant if external evaluators fail them.

“The new group must not be confused with the World Mayors Council on Climate Change, the United Cities and Local Governments initiative on climate change, the Cities of Ambition climate change group, the climate leadership group of the C40 cities, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, the Cities for Climate Protection group, or any other grouping of cities talking about climate change,” John Vidal notes in The Guardian.

The commission’s Pedro Ballesteros Torres told the New York Times that there was a “name-and-shame” aspect to the covenant (though it doesn’t appear to have any other force). “For a mayor to be told a city is noncompliant would be a very strong thing,” he said.

Continue reading "European cities sign climate change covenant" »

Posted by Olive Heffernan on February 12, 2009
Categories: Richard Van Noorden | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)