In the Green

Personal carbon trading rises again!

MPs have taken a break from proclaiming the death of the Labour party, and today lent their support to the personal carbon credit idea advertised by Ed Milliband 18 months ago. And when I say lent their support, I mean, they said the government should go ahead with it. Here is their report, released today.

Climate policy is all well and good, but I can't say I'm thrilled with this. I wrote about this proposal back in 2006 here, highlighting the fact that their proposed cap and trade system for individuals could be achieved with a tax and rebate ("feebate") scheme. But don't take my word for it: here is Greg Mankiw discussing a feebate in the NY Times last year. In my view, a feebate system avoids the costs and complexity of a cap and trade system, but retains the progressive nature.

But for those new to this discussion, I'll just summarize the issues. The idea is to reduce emissions from domestic energy and transport sources. The MPs from the Environmental Audit Committe (EAC) have proposed that this should be done via a cap and trade system, where each person in the UK is given an equal ration of carbon allowances, which can be "spent" on energy and transport emissions. Allowances that they don't use can be sold on a trading market, thereby offering an opportunity for income for people who are economical with carbon. These are generally people from lower incomes, thereby making the system progressive. Those who need more credits (or tourists) need to buy them from the market. The price of a permit represents the marginal cost of carbon reduction. A massive IT project to say the least - but supporters point to the Oyster card system to suggest it can be done.

A feebate system, on the other hand, places a fixed tax on the enegy and transport products on the basis of their embodied carbon. This incentivises switching to lower carbon products, much in the way as the permit price in a cap and trade system does. All revenue from the tax is then redistributed back uniformly to all tax payers. This means that more economical people are better off under the feebate system than before - which also makes the system progressive. This system, of course, requires transparency from the government.

Sadly, in all the UK government's material about personal carbon trading, I've not seen a convincing discussion about why it would be better than such a feebate. In today's EAC report, I find their argument weak.

For starters, they don't even compare trading with a feebate system - they compare it with green taxes without rebates (which we know are regressive). So they've skewed the argument in their favor to begin with. They also claim that, "We have been unconvinced of the Government’s real commitment to implementing meaningful green taxation." (p.11). Which is a bit rich, coming from MPs.

They then claim:

[I]ndividuals are used to dealing with and absorbing price fluctuations from taxes, and need the provocation of a personal carbon allowance to make real decisions about their lifestyle.

[P]rice elasticity of energy consumption is very low in this [household] sector, which means that carbon prices would need to be very high to have a significant impact on behaviour and emissions.

Pray tell, what is the mechanism that incentivises carbon reduction under the personal carbon credit scheme? Could it be...PRICE?! How they seem to think that the price impacts under a personal credit scheme are more effective than a green tax is beyond me. This is Microeconomics 101: in theory, the impacts are identical, and their argument is bunk.

Now, I say "in theory" because it is possible that a useful advantage is that:

Cap and Share offers personal carbon trading’s sense of empowerment and entitlement. (p.12)

There's a chance that it trading could make people more proactive because they can count their permits like beans. Now, this could make an interesting behavioural economics study, but the EAC have no such results to offer. As they admit, it is "not something we should have to rely on in order to implement a scheme" (p.13). Oh well.

Finally, they claim that the benefits of a personal carbon credit scheme over a tax system outweigh the costs. According to the BBC, "the cost of introducing the scheme would be between £700 million and £2 billion, and would cost £1bn-£2bn a year to run." (When I get further information, I'll compare these costs to their proposed emissions cuts.) I don't have estimates on the cost of a feebate system, but it would likely be implemented easily into the existing VAT and tax return system: no ID cards, no trading market, no mess.

So for now, colour me unconvinced.

EU to scrap biofuel targets?

Apropos this week's RTFO and Jeremie's post on it, this in The Guardian Weekend:

The European commission is backing away from its insistence on imposing a compulsory 10% quota of biofuels in all petrol and diesel by 2020, a central plank of its programme to lead the world in combating climate change.

The 10% target is "binding" under the proposed legislation. But pressed by its scientific advisers, UN authorities, leaders in Europe, non-government organisations and environmental lobbies, the commission is engaged in a rethink.

"The target is now secondary," said a commission official, adding that high standards of "sustainability" being drafted for biofuels sourcing and manufacture would make it impossible for the target to be met.

A commission source indicated that the EU executive would not object if European governments ordered a U-turn [on their own targets].

Bush to announce climate action

Don't expect much beyond the business as usual, I'm afraid. Check out DeSmogBlog for updates on this.

Spanish wind over 40%

A quick note just to let you know that a few days ago week in Spain wind farms supplied over 40% of all electricity consumed. Even though it was only for a brief period, this is interesting if it is considered that sevaral studies indicate 20% as the critical level of wind energy that can be managed by current electricity systems.

Bring out the lawyers!

As an update to the ongoing saga of Canadian climate politics, according to the Globe and Mail, federal government lawyers have found a loophole to excuse Canada from undertaking its Kyoto commitment:

Signatories to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol outlined a series of options for penalizing countries who don't meet their targets by 2012, including requirements to buy credits or take on even deeper targets in the future.

But federal government lawyers argue in their submission these rules have no teeth. "These consequences are not legally binding as they have not been adopted as an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol by agreement of all Parties," the document states. (link)

The background to this is the ongoing to-and-fro between the Liberal Party and the Conservative leaders about whether Canada should stick to its Kyoto targets - which it's woefully far from doing. The Liberal party claim that the Conservatives are in breach of a bill that requires Canada to meet its targets, the Conservatives say it will damage the economy and that the bill was nullified by last year's Throne Speech:

It is now widely understood that, because of inaction on greenhouse gases over the last decade, Canada’s emissions cannot be brought to the level required under the Kyoto Protocol within the compliance period, which begins on January 1, 2008, just 77 days from now.

Isn't minority government politics great?

A few more choice quotes on the Conference

After finishing yesterday's post on the skeptics conference, I found this:

How many scientists doubt global warming? It's looking like it could be about 20 -- compared to the more than 2,500 globally who have reached the conclusion that climate change is really happening. That's pretty strong evidence of a scientific consensus.

"The meeting was largely framed around science, but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so," the Times reported. (link)

And this:

Talking to speakers here ... [I've] found they're loosely sorted into three categories, based on their views: 1. Those who say global warming is not happening at all 2. Those who say global warming is happening, but it's not due to human activity 3. Those who say global warming is happening and it is due to human activity, but climate action will surely destroy our economy

But the more I've listened to these speakers, the more I've realized that for most of them, it's not about the science. Panels don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore or comparing climate activists to socialists who want to destroy capitalism. Deniers are part of a political culture that frames the world in terms of left and right, so they've absorbed global warming into that broader paradigm of partisan politics.

Climate conference of skeptics

Today was the last day of the The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change organized by the The Heartland Institute in New York. The Heartland Institute is a think tank that promotes "free-market solutions to social and economic problems" and "market-based approaches to environmental protection"; and one of the aims of the conference is to "generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science". (This sounds eerily like the 'Teach the Controversy' strategy by creationists in the US.)

It's not difficult to imagine what the conference entailed - the same rag-tag group of skeptics, with the same old arguments. Reading the speaker list, it appears that the conference may even have been too off-the-wall for some of the scientists seen in the Great Global Warming Swindle - Lindzen, Friis-Christensen, Svensmark are notably missing (may be for other reasons, of course). And for a climate conference, there are an awful lot of economists, lawyers, businessmen, and "analysists" presenting. See RealClimate for some more background on the conference.

DeSmog has been blogging from the "Denial-a-palooza", dropping some interesting updates:

While Heartland wants to position the conference as a "smashing success," the New York Times, CNN - even that raving left-wing apology sheet the Wall Street Journal - have all lifted their delicate hands and snickered. CNN, in a spot that left the cool dudes at Newsbusters apoplectic, went so far as to call the assembled skeptics "flat earthers."

Andrew Revkin from the NYT complained about having had to cover the conference, rather than hang out with his wife and kid:

When I’m forced to cover the edges of the discourse (and I know each edge would like to think it’s the new middle), that threatens to obscure the enormous body of established science that is not in dispute, which should be enough to inform smart policy.

He goes on to comment on what was presented:

[The] group — among them government and university scientists, antiregulatory campaigners and Congressional staff members — displayed a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate.

On Sunday night, the dinner speaker was Patrick J. Michaels, [who] projects a three-degree Fahrenheit warming by 2100 — but disputes the value of cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases.

At lunch on Monday, the message from S. Fred Singer, a physicist who runs a group challenging climate orthodoxy, was that climate change was mainly driven by vagaries in the sun.

[Other] presenters critiqued computer simulations of global climate and the quality of temperature records. Others focused on the societal and economic impact of both climate change and proposed responses, including limits on carbon dioxide. Some speakers focused on past warm periods in which civilization flourished, and cold periods in which people struggled against famine.

Any of that material sound familiar to you guys?

The conference finished with their "Manhatten Declaration":

We recommend

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as "An Inconvenient Truth."

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

And finally, the "Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" was unveiled. A summary, it turns out, of a non-existant report. Rabett Run has started an open review of the document, and Stoat seems to have promised to comment on it soon.

Government opposition to Feed-in Tariffs softens

I often though about writing a post about UK Renewable Obligation versus Feed-in-Tariff  (which is also an important part of my research).  I am not going to do it now, but let me just quickly say that there is a quite wide literature which shows how RO is a less efficient policy measure than FIT for renewables deployment (basically lower deployment at a higher society cost) and particularly not effective for microgeneration. The recognition of the effectiveness of FIT has moved from Europe (where many countries have implemented FIT schemes in the last years, following Germany success) to the US, where many states are considering and introducing FIT for the first time (have a look at the messages in this yahoogroup for a good update on US states moves).

In spite of this evidence there is (maybe was?)  a widespread believe that UK government will never consider the introduction of FIT. This probably for many reasons, but the main one I think is the allergy in this country for any policy measure which goes against (or look like going against) the "invisible hand"..

So, I am quite surprised today in reading this.  Maybe the flop of the Low Carbon Building Programme has got to do with it? or it is the first success of the lobbying efforts for FIT?

In any case let's see what will happen. Here we are just talking of a consultation, so a lot still has to be done. Also, RO will definitely remain in place, not clear how the two measures would be able to coexist..

Carbon tax instituted in British Columbia

Quick post with some remarkable news from Canada - the BC government has initiated a carbon tax scheme in the province. It will start at CDN$10 per ton carbon, and rise to $30 over five years. Households will be given a one-time $100 rebate, and low-income households are eligible for an annual Climate Action Tax Credit to offset the increased costs of the tax. In addition, the provincial government has promised that the tax will be revenue-neutral - and be offset by decreased provincial income taxes.

The tax takes affect July 1 (Canada Day, funnily enough) for individuals, but industrial polluters are given some time before they face the tax - interestingly, the opposite to what happened in Europe. In addition, oil and gas production, and aluminum and cement sectors sectors will be exempt.

The tax is low - but the revenue-neutrality and rebates for low-income households is a good setup. The exemption of oil/gas, aluminum and cement is no doubt political (as was the case here in Europe) - these are high-energy and globally competitive industries that would suffer internationally. It again raises the question of how to deal with these sectors in the context of a world where not everyone has a carbon tax in place. Border tax adjustments anyone?

Read more here and here.

London Accord Launched: Cash In, Carbon Out

The London Accord is an open-source collaborative research project between loads of top financial institiutions, universities and Forum for the Future (where I work part-time). All the time and effort was put in for free. I think of it as an applied carbon energy review. It analyses the financial and carbon saving oppurtunities for investing in many low-carbon technologies/options.

There are 25 or so reports. I was an author on report D3 - Investments to Combat Climate Change - Exploring the Sustainable Solutions - it was a tough peice of research as we took on the job of ensuring that important 'non-climatic' impacts were considered. These range from thethe biodiversity impacts of biofuels or the polluntants released in the making of solar panels, to the habitat benefits of carbon sink protection. There's pretty much something for everyone in there.

Also, a big thanks to all of you that provided information and answered my questions. It will be interesting to see what all this infomation will be used for, hopefully to make great investments in a low-carbon economy.

No certification, no biofuels!

Today, a group of MPs asked for a moratorium on biofuels targets, since there is still no robust certification for biofuels.  These targets were set by the European Commission, which requires biofuel incorporation in fossil fuels for transport of 5.75% (by energy content) by 2010 and 10% by 2020.

The group of MPs released a paper called "Are biofuels sustainable?" acknowledging that not all biofuels provide sustainable greenhouse gas emission reductions, but that on top of that, some biofuels lead to rainforest destruction, soil degradation, water pollution, adverse impacts on biodiversity and participate in food price increase. No wonder so many NGOs keep calling for a biofuel certification to be rapidly put in place.

Last Monday was also quite a big day for people interested in biofuel certification (which is, incidentally, the topic of my PhD).

First of all, Stavros Dimas, EU Commissioner for the Environment, acknowledged that "the environmental problems caused by biofuels and also the social problems are bigger than what [he] thought they were".

The same day, the Royal Society issued a report saying that the UK government had to rethink its biofuel policy, since it does not ensure that biofuel use will reduce GHG emissions.

Quite respected and usually non-controversial people challenging the whole biofuels strategy, this is a rather new trend (the OECD also recently issued a pretty anti-biofuel report entitled "Biofuels: is the cure worse than the disease").

The EU Commission is about to issue by the end of the month a final proposal for the forthcoming "Directive on the promotion of renewable energy sources". While the EU Council asks for sustainable biofuels, the EU Commission is challenged by NGOs such as Friend of the Earth  that say its current proposal will not ensure biofuels are truly sustainable  (cf. this webpage and its related links).

The only hope now is that the EU Commission will provide the basis for a truly stringent and ambitious biofuel certification. Without such certification, the free market will without any doubt go for cheap destructive biofuels.

Today's answer from Andris Pielbag, EU Energy Commissioner, is not very reassuring. To him, the UK House of Commons report is wrong in saying that the current biofuel policy is negative.

Luckily, the UK is today extremely far from reaching the European targets.

To be continued...

Meet me in the lobby

A rather snappy one for a deadline-filled Friday: have you heard about the Worst EU Lobbying Awards, won jointly in 2007 by BMW, Daimler and Porsche? The former two being - from my observation of events in the last three years - the strongest backing to the EU's policy on hydrogen and fuel cells for transport. Not a very reassuring thought.

This initiative, organised by Friends of the Earth and other major non-profits, has appeared in parallel to the European Transparency Initiative (ETI), and the pressures for a compulsory registry of lobbyists and their funding sources.

Also, a bit of film reviews for the weekend: I watched a documentary, Manufactured Landscapes, by Edward Burtynsky, who apparently is a very famous photographer. Now, I am no art critic, but I loved that this film takes a very visual/pictures-better-than-words view on environmental damage and its consequences for people and the landscape in China (and Bangladesh).  No Michael Moore making conclusions for you or Al Gore alternating boring (at least that's what I thought) slides with sentimentalist snippets - just striking images to mark our beauty-craving minds. 

Topical links

So, the Government has done some talking about nuclear again. And this time its words are more serious than last time, but not so serious that any actual action has been proposed. As I'm sure you're aware, the main stumbling block to new nuclear (apart from the fact that much of the public is inconveniently opposed) is cost. The government is committed to not interfering in the electricity market by promising long-term contracts for generation, but private capital won't flow to nuclear unless there is some kind of certainty about future prices.

In the FT yesterday, and on the EU Energy Policy Blog, David Newberry suggests bridging this stalemate with a clever finanical instrument that could raise capital and hedge against future low prices. I'd be interested in comments on his 'kWh bond' and will comment on it myself when I've got my head around it.

My other topical link is to a chemicals industry blog entry that gives us the news that China is freezing energy costs in teh wake of $100 oil. This kind of move is bound up in all kinds of equity issues, much as India's cheap car announcement is, but if it prompted similar action around the globe it could prevent some of the much needed bite from high oil prices. I think it could be worth watching the extent to which governments are prepared to subsidise oil in other growing economies, as it could undermine scenarios that suggest high global energy prices will prompt fuel-switching and behavioural change amongst consumers. Incidentally, the post also tells us that China will beat most of the developed world to a ban on plastic bags - though it's hard to believe that this is just to prioritise oil use as the author suggests.

Tiny car by Tata motors

Today, India's Tata Motors announced with great fanfare their new Tata Nano, now the cheapest car in the world at $2500. In the second most populous country in the world. And with that, the hearts of millions of environmentalists around the world cried a milllion little green tears.

Ok, I'm being a bit sarcastic. I'm not trying to belittle the environmental concerns regarding this car; my first reaction to this car is just to shrug - but it was bound to happen anyway, right? The market gives what the market wants.

The car has a small engine, and apparently an impressive fuel efficiency of 54 MPG - better than the Toyota Prius! We should welcome its use in the US and EU. It apparently satisfies Euro 4 emissions standards (although Euro 5 is required in 2008), but my first guess is that it wouldn't pass western safety standards - though I'm ready to stand corrected.

The environmental concerns relate primarily to the increased uptake of cars in the developing world, by making it substantially more affordable. But we need to be careful not to make judgement (if only indirectly) about whether people in developing countries should be "allowed" to drive cars, in spite of their fast-growing emissions. In the eyes of the developing world, this smacks of parentalism and doesn't get us anywhere. They are not stupid, and want to have the same luxuries that have been afforded to us for so long.

Of course this car makes own transport more affordable, and will be very popular. But personal car use has skyrocketed in the last decade, and the catalyst has been increasing wealth - not cheap cars. In the end, this car should not affect our view on building clean transport both in the developed and developing world: fuel taxes, congestion charging, efficiency standards, new technologies, better public transport, and zoning.

Petition for binding cuts in Bali aimed at USA, Japan and Canada

The actions of US, Japanese and Canadian negotiators are undermining binding cuts being included in the Bali roadmap. Quite rightly, this has been condemned by many and will annoy the European Union. Avaaz - a grass roots NGO - has responded by starting a petition to be presented at the conference and to appear as a full page ad in the Asian Financial Times. In 12 hours over 30000 have already signed. If you wish to add your support to it, follow this link sign the petition.

Shell Out

There is not that much to be said about this story, except that it should not go unnoticed, but I'll continue a little anyway. Shell has ditched most of its solar power operations this week, following the sell-of of its solar production business last year, saying that it was not making enough money. BP has quietly invested in tar sands, an area that appears central to Shell's strategy for the future.

Previously:

1997: Shell renewables launched
1999: BP sells of tar sands operations
2000: BP goes beyond petroleum
2001: Shell Solar's chief Chief Operating Officer says: " "We believe that solar power is going to be one of the fastest growing primary sources of energy," and promptly starts to develop a low-cost mass production method.
2005: Shell says that renewables "need the capital investment...of a world-scale business. That is the only way renewables will  become big enough to make a difference."
2006: Shell divests its solar production facilities in favour of a memorandum of understanding with Saint Gobain to produce Thin Film panels.
2007: Lord Oxburgh, former Shell Chairman predicts $150 per barrel and says "oil majors must invest more heavily in developing viable alternatives to oil and gas".
2007: Shell sign pre-Bali Communique on climate change, explaining that: "The cost of inaction far out weighs the cost of taking action now."
etc. etc. etc.

It's no surprise that BP and Shell are consistently going where the proven money is, and ditching less profitable operations, whlst saying big things about environmental commitments. It's no surprise that their investments in renewable have been operated like investment funds, shedding ventures once the initial rapid growth has slowed. It's no surprise that  all their little efforts have been trumpeted more than their core business activities to generate some impressive greenwash.

It's interesting that BP took so long to move into tar sands, but this might be explained by its frustrations in Russia (which came later than Shell's) and its traditionally higher long-term oil price estimates. Then again, not that interesting.

The thing about this story is that it's so revealing about the profitability of renewables investments in the current climate. It also appears to reveal the conviction of the majors that they will not have to worry too much about climate legistlation spoiling their oil tar fun for years to come. This is desparately disappointing for everyone who knows that we need the big guys to see renewables as part of their core business in the near future. A switch is needed away from renewables being a peripheral part of the portfolio to be bought and sold as necessary to meet short term goals.

I hope that Shell get what they have asked for in Bali -  a truly "ambitious, international and comprehensive legally-binding United Nations agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [to] provide business with the certainty it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies”.

(just to dampen this final note of optimism, maybe someone would like to post about all the red lines the US are doodling on the draft text in Bali)

The UK renewable energy targets for 2020: all talk and no action once again?

Every household in Britain could be powered by off-shore wind farms. This is what John Hutton, secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform told on BBC1 Politics show on Sunday. This would help achieve the 20% renewable energy target for 2020.
As a reminder, only 2% of UK total energy use currently comes from renewable sources (and it does not necessarily mean that these 2% are sustainable!).

I am very sceptical that this will happen.
First off all, let's not forget that the Labour is not very keen to commit the UK into a binding target for 2020. What's more, off-shore wind farms are very costly. Unless they can benefit from subsidies or British people suddenly become very environmentally-aware, I don't see how off-shore wind can develop that much.

I recently attended a conference entitled "Countdown to 2010 - Meeting the UK's 10% renewable power generation target". Gaynor Hartnell - Deputy Director of the Renewable Energy Association - reminded the audience that the UK still hasn't achieved the 2000 target! And all speakers agreed that the UK will never reach the 10% renewable energy target by 2010. It is just too late.

There are many reasons why renewable energies do not progress very fast. Primarily, little is done to reduce energy demand; therefore, energy consumption keeps rising every year and renewable energy generation needs to rise at least as much for its share to keep up. Secondly, most renewable energy projects are renewable electricity projects based on on-shore wind farms, which are very difficult to put in place (due to lengthy procedures, hostility from local communities...). There are plenty other economic, political and social hurdles on the way of renewable energy.

By revealing plans that are so much focussed on off-shore wind, the UK government is playing a very deceptive game in that it looks unwilling to make people more empowered and aware. As a matter of fact, off-shore wind farms are far from inhabitants so that the projects are not too long to put in place. Therefore, off-shore looks like a good and easy option for a government.
What's more, off-shore wind farms are a form of centralised energy generation. That's why to me, they cannot give households a real free will in terms of energy choice and they do not incentivise energy sobriety. If Gordon Brown really wants so many carbon neutral houses to be built, why doesn't he encourage more decentralised generation?

So far, renewable targets in the UK were just words and proved to be a total failure in their implementation. Has the UK missed the train?

Good Health to Trade

Continuing my obsession with unleashing the power of international trade for environmental good, or something like that, here are a couple of stories that have cropped up recently:

American Biodiesel: not giving it away, but selling at a price that's practically giving it away

The European Biodiesel Board (EBB) this week announced that they're going to lodge an official complaint to the European Commission about the dumping of US-produced biodiesel on the European market. EBB is the association of European biodiesel producers, so it's clearly their job to promote European biodiesel over imported alternatives. However, they usually do a good job of selling the global environmental benefits of policies that would benefit their members - having called in the past for certification of all imported biomass (not just that used for fuel) and the application of GHG-related policy measures to fossil fuels and biofuels alike (see here and here).

This time their complaint is based on the subsidy that allows US biodiesel producers to claim $300 / tonne produced even if the end-product is sold to Europe rather than consumed domestically. Let's see, if producing UK biodiesel costs  $791 / tonne, then the subsidy makes US biodiesel for export viable even at a production cost of $1,090 - wow. And once it arrives in the EU it can take advantage of the $446/tonne UK fuel duty discount for biofuels, or the equivalent but more generous measures that apply in other Member States.

So what happens now is that EBB has to draft an anti-dumping complaint (click here to try it yourself) and the EC could launch an investigation, lasting up to 9 months, and instigate anti-dumping measures. Let's hope the European biodiesel industry lasts that long.

EU calls for Abolition of Tariffs on Old Rope

Last week, the EC's Trade section issued a statement calling for the reduction or abolition of tariffs and other barriers to trade in environmental goods and services as part of ongoing negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda. This isn't quite the reduction in tariffs on the cleanest products, and restriction on imports with high embodied pollution that I'm guessing most of us want to see. Most of the products targeted for tariff reduction are of the Type A variety - goods that provide direct environmental services, combatting problems such as climate change and local environmental pollution. The statement omits most of the obvious Type B environmental goods - those that provide an environmentally-benign alternative to popular consumer goods (such as the best biofuels that provide demonstrable benefits compared to fossil and non-fossil alternatives). In particular, the 150+ 'environmental goods' singled out in the joint communication by the EU & several other states mostly refer to equipment that either directly combats pollution or represents a state-of-the-art efficienct improvement compared to older like-products (e.g. electricity meters or components of wind, geothermal or solar facilities).  Curiously though, Type B products are represented in the form of textile fibres and twine made of jute - on the grounds that they have environmental benefits compared to the synthetic alternative. Not bad - we're still waiting for a sustainability-based differential tariff on biofuels though, or other goods that could be either great or terrible for environment depending on how they're made.

The troops head to Bali

As you all probably know, the UNFCCC COP 13 meeting is this week in Bali. The government negotiators are there to decide (among other things) on the climate regime after the Kyoto Protocol period runs out in 2012, and the role of forestry sinks in such an agreement. As is the case with all of these meetings, they are accompanied by side-events attended by researchers and NGOs alike. And while I could by cynical about the air miles and carbon being emitted, I have been assured that each and every one of them is there out of complete necessity. <cough>

The less fortunate of us can follow the proceedings at a distant at the Earth Negotiations Bulletin website.

A key issue is the role of developing countries in a post-Kyoto regime - they were exempt from Kyoto, and the Americans don't seem to want to sign up to anything without them. But American arguments aside, it is inevitable that developing countries will take part in a climate agreement in future. How they do it in Kyoto + 1 is anyone's guess. To be honest, I'm not holding my breath for much. Certainly not something that heads us towards the goal of a peak in global annual emissions in the next decade, and reaches a 50% cut by 2050.

But regardless of what total reductions are achieved, I believe keys to bringing developing countries into future climate agreements lies in three factors: fairness criteria, a forward-looking perspective and multi-tasking. The first relates to the economic burden placed on the developing countries in a future agreement, the latter two relate to how they participate. Hoping that I don't descend into middle-management speak, this is what I mean:

The developing countries are well aware of the pathways by which the West got rich, and they are keen to emulate it - carbon intense or not. While it is highly important that they reduce carbon, when it comes to debating this point we (negotiators/bloggers/commentators) should take into account the relative wealth and relative historical contributions to global warming (nationally, and at the individual level).

This may seem like an obvious point, and is based on fairness principles that we apply to our own citizens (i.e. progressive income taxes). Not affording such fairness to developing countries in a climate regime is hypocritical and would not lend itself to their participation. Yet I constantly see the opposite comments in articles, blog discussions, and commentary. This ranges from "who cares about the UK's emissions, China builds a new power plant a week" to

China and India ... [may] suffer the largest share of world damages from climate change. These countries should therefore be motivated to ... reduce greenhouse gas emissions for their own national interest, [without] additional inducements. (link)

Both these comments fail to take into account issues of equity, relative sizes of the two countries, and how international climate agreements work.

The Kyoto Protocol was a only a first step towards reducing greenhouse gases in the long-run. It will need to be succeeded by many future agreements. Criticizing it for only reducing emissions in its 4-year compliance period is ridiculous. However, future agreements should look both at the near-term (i.e. the 5-10 years after Kyoto) and the long-term (i.e. the 20 years ahead). Not only does this put the near-term emissions reductions into perspective, but it also allows us to get away from the polarizing effect of the short Kyoto Protocol compliance period - the black and white 'in vs. out' that has created stand-offs between the Americans and the G-77. Extending the agreement horizon means the Americans can be assured that China and India participate, but affords flexibility as to when and how they participate (i.e. sectoral or intensity targets) - and develop necessary institutions for carbon trading.

Finally, it would be hard to find someone against more effective and politically feasible climate measures - which in principle is what multi-goal integrated environmental policy could achieve. Of course, this is by no means an easy task, and integrated policy could mean a million things. As some of you may know, the air quality co-benefits of climate policy are one of my research interests. Catering to domestic air quality issues could not only increase their incentive to participate, but make it cheaper to achieve their goals. But it's not as simple as quantifying the health benefits of carbon abatement - end of pipe control measures can often achieve the same results with much lower cost. Integrated policy, however, offers many possibilities: co-funding from GEF or CDM approval for pollution control measures that reduce carbon, technology transfer for clean coal and renewable technology, and credits for reducing air pollutants that affect the climate (like black carbon).

Google renewables

Google announced today that it would be spending "tens of millions on research and development and related investments in renewable energy", jumping into the fledgling industry that will no doubt make some people a lot of money in the next decade or two. They appear to be investing in a range of technologies and companies, but highlighted two - eSolar (for solar thermal) and Makani Power (for "high altitude wind" energy) - they were working with so far.

This is part of Google.org's work with climate change we mentioned a while back, and is certainly notable. The question, of course, is whether they can get money out of it. Renewables are notoriously speculative investments (I still hesitate to touch the PowerShares Clean Energy fund).

But past all of that, I must say that looking at Makani's website (and Google's PDF), the technology sounds a lot like dot-com era vaporware. They highlight why high altitude wind is desirable and have an impressive team of good-looking MIT types, but how they plan to harness it is nowhere to be found. I had to read through this Wiki to read up some imagined solutions.

But what can I say - that's how capitalism and R&D works. I wish them the best.

Are you kidding me?

Earlier today I found this article from Platts, which I found astonishing.  According to a report published by E3 International around 18 million EU emissions allowances have been surrendered for compliance more than once ("double counting"). Surprisingly this was the only article I found on this topic so far. Hopefully "someone" will investigate such allegations. Even though EU emission allowances are only worth few 0.08 €/tonne CO2 these days, doesn't this sound a little bit like counterfeit money? Last time I checked, people were going to prison for this. But that's just me....

UK to abandon the 20% renewables goal?

Chiara evidently is well connected, given that her comment a few posts ago hit upon an issue that has come to light in a leaked government document seen by the Guardian today.

In the document, Gordon Brown seems to be advised that the 20% renewable goal set by Blair for 2020 is "expensive and faces 'severe practical difficulties'". If he follows the advice, UK will likely then campaign with other sceptical countries to reduce the 2020 renewables target (to be set in December).

This is due to the high cost of renewables, and the logistics of coming to agreement with shipping companies and the MOD about offshore sitings. But as Chiara pointed out earlier, the government is also concerned that the target may undermine the existing carbon reduction target and emissions trading scheme. Renewables, of course, are not the only potential carbon-free power generators - nuclear being the big one.

Perhaps someone can tell me otherwise, but I'm not really convinced that the potential "conflict" between the renewables target and the carbon target is grounds to abandon it. As we discussed before, there are good reasons to have both. The government hasn't even shown (with modelling or cost estimates) that the renewables target will disrupt it. Why haven't they asked someone to do that exercise?

With a 20% carbon reduction target for the economy, I would expect under an emissions trading program that the electricity sector would be reducing much more (say, 40%) than its share - given the availability of carbon free options. Concrete, iron and steel, and aluminum do not have as many options, and will likely abate less (or be exported abroad - but that's a different topic). In any event, gas and renewables will likely be a large part of that abatement, regardless of the renewables target - unless nuclear is explicitly allowed a way back in. So it is worth noting that the nuclear industry has much to gain from this potential U-turn.

Furthermore, could the abandonment of the renewables goal just be the start of abandoning further targets - like the 20% goal for 2020? Brown has done U-turns on a number of Blair's other initiatives, this could yet be another. The leaked document shows they are deeply concerned about the prospect of losing the position as "climate leader", so perhaps this is still safe. Whether it is achievable, of course, is another thing. I am still pessemistic.

Green twist to the Nobel Prizes?

This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to German scientist Gerhard Ertl for his work on surface chemistry. The BBC and Globe and Mail both highlighted the environmental applications of his work: catalytic converters, hydrogen fuel cells, and the understanding of why the ozone layer is diminishing.

There was already an environmental link for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, with both climate change campaigners Al Gore and Sheila Watt-Cloutier being nominated (separately, I assume). The relevance of the environment to peace and security is obvious, so I see there being a good case for both of them.

Do I think Al Gore should get the peace prize? I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth,  so I can't comment on the movie itself. But he certainly has had a large role in bringing global warming (and global warming science) to the forefront of our minds and political discourse - 2007 has definitely been the year for climate change.

The movie has its fans and opponents: the RealClimate crew say he got the science right, others say he didn't. This week, a judge in England ruled that the movie could be shown in schools, although it must be prefaced by guidance highlighting some factual errors, and the alternative arguments. The factual errors identified, however, are largely related to the current and future impacts of climate change - not the assertion that humans are largely responsible to recent warming.

Given Al Gore's links to the US Democratic Party, I am concerned that his winning the Nobel Prize for Peace would only serve to further politicize the climate change debate - in the US particularly. He often presents a stark and alarmist view of the future under global warming, his popularity is driven by his obvious charisma and personality, and finally, he isn't a scientist. Climate change is a topic worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (and one in Chemistry or Physics), but right now my vote would be on Watt-Cloutier. We find out tomorrow!

USDA Blames High Price of Fuel on Elevated Fuel Prices

With food and energy prices on the rise, it's very tempting to blame the situation on a global thirst for biofuels. There are other culprits for current high prices though: drought in Australia and flooding in Malaysia to name but a few. So maybe we should give biofuels a break.

This Biopact article certainly thinks so, pointing out that in Brazil, higher output of price-competitive sugar cane ethanol output has helped to slow inflation by reducing dependence on expensive fossil fuels. Inflation was down in September compared to August, with food prices leading the deceleration (lê aqui).

In fact, as USDA Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner points out, rising food prices have more to do with increases in the cost of fossil energy (think transport, packaging etc.) than demand from corn ethanol [thanks Energy Blog].

But according to this paper, production of ethanol from sugar cane yields an energy output of 7.9 times the fossil input, compared to only 1.3 for ethanol derived from corn. So while Chuck might be factually correct about food prices being more closely related to oil than to corn ethanol production, he should really go further and point out that, faced with high oil and food prices, the US has encouraged production of the commodity whose two principal inputs are large quantities of the fossil fuel and food whose prices are rising - barely addressing one problem while marginally worsening another.

At a general level, the interactions between fossil fuels, biofuels, food crops and their combustible, animal-nourishing co-products is far from straightforward. As ever, the way forward is surely to follow the advice of Peter Mandelson* and stop penalising the most energy efficient biofuels from around the world. But then we're back to problems with deforestation, orangutan and more. Er... I wonder how much algae futures are fetching on the Chicago exchange at the moment.

* EC Trade Commissioner

Europe's 20 per cent target needs tougher legislation

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)  delivered its position paper on the future Renewable Energy Framework Directive at the Amsterdam Forum (forum on sustainable energy policy), saying that the 20 per cent target can be met provided that there is strong legislation.

Coming ahead of a stakeholder discussion of the issue with the European Commission, EREC details the measures needed in the electricity, heating and cooling, and biofuels sectors to fully tap the renewable energy potential in all sectors and all Member States. Efforts to downplay the renewable energy target by stressing the greater significance of the greenhouse gas reduction target - for instance by including nuclear energy to count towards the renewables target - need to be turned down, says the Council.

EREC Policy Director Oliver Schäfer says: 'One of the most important issues now is the rapid proposal and adoption of the framework directive. We only have 13 years left to fulfill the target, so we need to implement the necessary legislation rapidly. We expect no more time to be wasted by the Commission or Member States due to lengthy negotiations.'

Schäfer further warns that while some Member States have been calling for an EU-wide trading mechanism, such a market requires both sellers and buyers. 'So far Member States calling for an EU-wide trading mechanism only expressed an interest in buying, not in selling. If trading is allowed, several Member States will reduce their efforts and count on buying 'guarantees of origin' abroad at the latest possible stage', he says.

Harmonization of support schemes in the renewable electricity sector is premature at this stage, nevertheless, a list of criteria applying to all support mechanisms should be set. Furthermore, EREC advocates strong sustainability criteria applying not only to biofuels but also to biomass.

The European Commission must also give itself the means to impose fines on Member States if it becomes clear that they will not reach their national binding target, says EREC.

'It is high time to address the heating and cooling sector which has been neglected far too long,' says Schäfer, concluding, 'The EU target will only be met if legislation is adopted timely.'

It's easy when you don't have to do anything

The APEC conference is underway in Sydney, and as expected climate change is on the agenda. While it still appears to be agreed that the UN will still be the forum for the eventual successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the US and Australia still remain keen to wrestle the control of the climate change discourse away from the overly keen EU. APEC is a good forum for this, because the EU isn't included - but China is.

A draft statement at APEC is being worked out that seems likely to set "aspirational" targets of improving energy efficiency of APEC members by 25% by 2030. While this doesn't replace any post-Kyoto agreement, this is undoubtedly a means for Australia and US to shift the discussion away from absolute targets to efficiency targets.

Trouble is, this target of 25% energy efficiency (energy per unit GDP) over 25 or so years is no different from the BAU. Blogger Simon Donner (here and here) has pointed out, however, that this rate of improvement is actually slower than the world has seen in the recent decades. So, surprise surprise, the aspirational targets, are pointless. No pricing of carbon means nothing being done.

China doesn't seem pleased about this move away from Kyoto-style agreements. They are still keen on being exempt from a climate agreement while they are in their development. I see now that the deal has still gone ahead.

Thanks to Deltoid.

Piers Corbyn: you are my sunshine

I've been meaning to write about this for a while, but I wanted to wait until a particular date (see below) to make my point. Anyway, some of you may have seen the articles everywhere a few weeks ago pointing out an article by Lockwood and Frölich that solar activity could not have been the cause of global warming in the last 20-odd years. The Guardian summarized the research here, although Eigil Friis-Christensen and colleague had made a similar point already here a few years ago. The point is, basically, that greenhouse warming theory is not inconsistent with solar warming theory - it's just that solar activity cannot possibly explain the recent warming we've had.

Surprise, surprise, Durkin is the first to write in to the Guardian, bring up the old arguments and not really getting the whole point. He asks a lot of questions, which had he bother to answer would realize he's getting it wrong. Plus he likes to think of himself as the one to bring solar warming to the public attention. Well done, Martin, perhaps you'd like to bring to their attention Milankovitch cycles as well? Lockwood responds, pointing out that Martin doesn't much meat to go on anymore.

But then in comes Imperial's own Piers Corbyn with his own letter to the Guardian. Piers complains about the use of the Sun's 11-year cycle by the study:

The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world's temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun's activity. So what does he do? He "finds" that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time.

The trouble is, the 22-year cycle is a misnomer - as it is just the 11-year cycle reversing polarity. It is the 11-year cycle where the oscillating of the strength of the magnetic fields, sunspots, etc occurs. The polarity of the magnetic field is not what is not what is affecting the climate. It was justified for the authors (Lockwood and Frölich) to use the 11-year cycle. A great discussion is found here at Tamino's blog.

Corbyn continues:

The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science.

To which Prof. Keith Shine replies in another letter:

CO2 absorbs and emits infrared radiation. This can be measured in the laboratory. It can be measured by pointing instruments at the sky. And the emission, and effects of its absorption, is measured continuously by weather satellites orbiting the Earth.

But the most interesting part of Corbyn's letter is here:

I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings - made months ago - for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast?

Firstly, note the dates of his predictions. His letter was dated July 24, so I don't know if the first one was a long-term prediction, or he just cherrypicked one he got right. But what about August 5-9? Hailstorms and flooding? Try the sunniest we've had in months! I look forward to next week's sun. Thanks, Piers!

But that's not the point of it. Ok, he gets weather predictions wrong, so do the Met Office. But he fails to grasp (or communicate) that climate isn't weather. Climate (defined by the IPCC) is average weather; weather is just climate noise. So climatologists/global warmers don't need to predict the weather - that's not their job! Why would someone then keep mixing up the two? I can only think to confuse the general public about the state of science.

But then, what do the climatologists predict? This week, the Hadley Centre predicted that temperatures would plateau, and then after 2010 would likely beat 1998 - the current warmest year on record (due to El Niño).

The more things change...the more they stay the same

Some of you may have followed the G8 Heiligendamm Summit in Germany back in June, and the climate talks that went on within them. I know this is old news, but I've just been reading more about it recently so I thought I'd drop a short post about it.

As you may know, it's around now that the negotiations for the first post-Kyoto climate agreement are meant to start, but not a lot has happened. While they weren't official negotiations, the G8 talks had climate on the agenda, so it served as an update on how things were likely to pan out in the coming weeks.

The Summit declaration made the following conclusions:

[G]lobal greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions

Nothing really new there, and vague enough not to be controversial. The US, however, did not agree to commit to halving the current level of emissions by 2050, as the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians had stated.</