As experts call for action now, the coalition withholds green funding and appeals to private enterprise
By Matt Chorley and Jonathan Owen
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Britons must radically change the way they live and work to adapt to being "stuck with unavoidable climate change" the Government will caution this week, as it unveils a dramatic vision of how society will be altered by floods, droughts and rising temperatures.
The coalition will signal a major switch towards adapting to the impact of existing climate change, away from Labour's heavy emphasis on cutting carbon emissions to reverse global temperature rises. Caroline Spelman, the Tory Secretary of State for the Environment, will use her first major speech on climate change since taking office to admit that the inevitable severe weather conditions will present a "survival-of-the- fittest scenario", with only those who have planned ahead able to thrive. Adapting to climate change will be "at the heart of our agenda", she is expected to say.
In a series of dramatic artistic impressions, the Government illustrates how hospitals and fire stations should be built on hills to escape floods, skyscrapers designed to reflect the sun's rays and tracts of land allowed to be reclaimed by the sea. At the same time, two major reports that will make the urgent scientific and economic case for action this week.
The Government's stance sets the scene for a political battle with Labour, which insists that tackling a challenge on the scale of climate change requires state intervention and global co-operation, and cannot simply be left to the free market and private business. Critics will also seize on the absence of any new money for Ms Spelman's plans, at a time when her department faces cuts of up to 40 per cent.
She will say: "It is vital that we carry on working to drastically cut our greenhouse gas emissions to stop the problem getting any worse – but we are already stuck with some unavoidable climate change. Because of this, we need to prepare for the best and worst cases which a changing climate will entail for our country."
Her comments will be seen as an attempt to address the growing threat posed by rising temperatures without confronting climate change deniers. Ms Spelman's plea for action will coincide on Thursday with the launch of the latest report from the Adaptation Sub-Committee (ASC) of the Climate Change Committee, which advises the Government on preparing for the impacts of global warming. The report will warn: "If we wait, it will be too late."
In a sign of the growing urgency of the need to act, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) will publish a report tomorrow into growing concern that firms have invested heavily in cutting carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency, but far less has been spent on preparing for the worst effects of climate change. Ministers will caution that Britain's economy is at risk if more is not done.
In official "best-case" scenarios, the UK would experience average temperatures up to C hotter in summer, and 10 per cent more rainfall in winter, by the 2080s. "Worst-case" projections predict temperature increases of 4C.
Lord John Krebs, the chairman of the Adaptation Sub-Committee, said: "The Government is absolutely right, we do need to act now to ensure we are better prepared to deal with the sort of extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and heatwaves which will become more frequent over the coming years. Adapting to climate change isn't an alternative to continuing to reduce our emissions. We must do both."
Environmental experts have seized on the Government's admission that there will be no new money allocated for a programme of work that could cost billions. Sara Parkin, a co-founder of Forum for the Future, said: "It'll take a very clever government to translate what are sure to be tough recommendations into policies to protect vulnerable citizens and infrastructure, especially as the cash box is empty." She added that Ms Spelman must "make the connections between the Big Society ambitions of her party and realise that connecting local economic and social resilience to that of the environment will the best – the only – way of achieving any of it".
Scientists claim that Britain is capable of adapting to a rise in temperature of C but no more, and they will urge ministers not to neglect the need to curb emissions. The ASC report is expected to recommend specific actions, including drawing up emergency plans, that the Government should be taking to ensure the UK is better prepared. Temperatures are on average of 1C higher than in the 1970s, and the last decade has been the warmest on record. However, according to the Met Office, last winter was also the coldest in over 30 years and this July was the wettest since records began.
One in three businesses in the UK has been significantly affected in the past three years by extreme weather such as flooding or drought, but fewer than one in four have done anything to protect itself, the Government says.
However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admits there is no new money for adaptation programmes, and will place responsibility at the door of individuals, organisations and private businesses. They cite the example of Network Rail, which invested £750,000 in adaptation schemes that could realise savings of £1bn in 30 years.
Critics insist the coalition cannot sidestep responsibility. This weekend the Green Party annual conference in Birmingham has called for far greater government intervention. Caroline Lucas, the party's new MP and leader, said: "Adaptation to climate change will be a matter of life and death to many people, here in the UK and even more in the developing world. Droughts, storms and floods are getting worse.
"But Caroline Spelman is wrong to say inaction isn't an option. Inaction is this government's policy. The threat to individual life and to this country's way of life are greater from climate change than any other danger. We have the appeal for volunteers for the Home Guard, while the regular armed forces do nothing. And Dad's Army will not be enough to prevent climate change or deal with the consequences."
The coalition will use the ASC report to show its commitment to a global climate deal. But it will make clear that urgent action is also needed to adapt. As part of the new planning process, national policy statements will demand that climate impacts are considered in the planning of roads, railways, airports and power stations.
The climate minister, Lord Henley, will tomorrow call on business to step up its efforts against climate change. Speaking at the CBI report launch, he will warn: "Climate change is happening here and now. If the business sector isn't climate-change resilient, neither is our economy. Businesses generally perceive a changing climate as a threat, not an opportunity. Of course it's both. The UK already leads the way in climate resilience science and technology. So the challenge for business is two-fold: build resilience, and get first-mover advantage in new markets, here and overseas."
At an environmental hustings in Bristol last week, the five Labour leadership contenders warned the coalition could not stand on the sidelines. Ed Balls told around 400 party members: "There is no way in which we can get the technologies, the investment, the change in the long term, if we leave it to the market. We need to intervene and support the technologies to get the jobs."
Ed Miliband, the party's climate change spokesman, urged against negative messages being used to change behaviour. "Martin Luther King said, ' I have a dream' – not 'I have a nightmare'. We need a positive, comprehensive vision for the future."
Lord Peter Melchett, policy director, the Soil Association
"If Caroline Spelman makes her first speech about adaptation and nothing about mitigation it spells out significant danger for all of us. The EU is showing far greater responsibility, looking at how the CAP can cut greenhouse gas emissions."
Tony Juniper, the former head of Friends of the Earth
"There has been a worrying silence on the environmental agenda since the election. We have been reassured that this is the greenest government ever but all I've seen [from the coalition's decisions] so far is bad news."
Professor Julia King, member of the Committee on Climate Change and vice-chancellor of Aston University
"We have the technology to meet our emissions reduction targets up to 2020, so the challenge is to persuade businesses that low-carbon capital investments will offer a better return."
Dr Sam Fankhauser, Principal Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change
"We have to realise that the emissions reductions stuff is not enough to make the problem go away. I don't think we are prepared, but there's a bit of time if we start moving from planning to adapt to adapting we have a chance."
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, member of the Committee on Climate Change and director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change
"The science of climate change gives a very strong basis for deciding that we need to both reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases so as to limit the risk of changes we cannot handle, and adapt to the inevitable changes."
Coalition condemned by Green Party
The Green Party yesterday condemned the coalition government's failure to introduce any measures towards building a "green and sustainable economy", which, it insists, will also play a vital role in easing unemployment.
At its conference in Birmingham, the first since Caroline Lucas (right) became the UK's first Green MP, there was unanimous condemnation of the coalition's economic, health and education policies which the party believe will hit vulnerable communities hardest.
The Greens are hoping disaffected Lib Dems will join the party as the coalition shows little sign of following through with early post-election promises to be the greenest government of all time.
Ms Lucas said the Greens were the only "real opposition" to the Government on nuclear power, Trident and academies.
The conference also unanimously passed an emergency motion rejecting the health White Paper which, it says, will privatise the NHS. Ms Lucas said: "This spells out just how far the Tories and Lib Dems will go with the destruction of essential services."
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Earth, wind and fire: How tapping into the natural world is going mainstream
Ten people, ten different ways to change your lifestyle, to save money and the planet. They talk to Gervase Poulden and Matt Chorley about what they've given up and what they've gained in their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Water
In short supply in many parts of the world, water will be come even more scarce as demand grows. Average consumption in the UK, at 146 litres per person a day, is only slightly less than the 152 litres used daily 15 years ago.
Neil McNiven
The heatwaves and water restrictions of recent years have, however, encouraged some, such as 34-year-old Neil McNiven, an electronics engineer from Kidwelly, Carmarthenshire, to do more to save water.
"I started collecting rain in various water butts. Using a couple of gadgets we now also capture water from showers and baths to use for car washing and window cleaning, and we use rainwater for our toilets instead of mains water. We also started doing all the usual water-saving techniques such as turning the taps off when brushing our teeth and rinsing greasy pans with the boiling pasta water. Whereas before we'd been using mains water for everything, I'd estimate we reduced our mains water consumption by at least half, and we could have halved it again with rainwater toilet flushing ... it is a lot cheaper to reduce the amount of water and electricity you use rather than continuing to be wasteful and trying to meet your inflated requirements with renewable sources."
Wind power
Talked up as a renewable form of power for decades but yet to fulfil its potential. Many people are put off by the cost and complexity of getting wind turbines installed. Only about 1GW of new wind power generation was turned on in 2009, an annual figure that needs to triple by 2020.
John Martin
John Martin, a 64-year-old engineer from Wickford, Essex, is an "early adopter" of the technology. He had a 16-metre high wind turbine fitted in his garden last December.
"High on my priority list was to reduce my electricity bills as far as possible. I am also wary about the future, when electricity is going to be a lot more expensive than it is now. I must be very candid and say that environmental factors were not high on the priority list, but it does help. It's really a matter of taking the least amount of power from the national grid as possible. My turbine has the potential to produce 24,000kWh a year but there has been so little wind this year that, to date, it's generated only about 1,000kWh."
Recycling
Once seen as a minority pursuit confined to green activists, recent years have seen recycling move into the mainstream. Some 38 per cent of household waste is now recycled – with an EU target for this to rise to 50 per cent by 2020.
Rachelle Strauss
Rachelle Strauss, 38, from the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, is one of the growing army of Britons who now recycle their rubbish. The married mother of one was inspired to start recycling after her family was caught up in the Boscastle floods of 2004, which awakened her to the realities of global warming.
"Following the floods I wanted to do something to assuage my guilt about global warming, so I began recycling. Last year we had just one dustbin worth of waste, and the aim next year is to send absolutely nothing to landfill. To achieve this we buy a lot of our produce locally and in bulk so that there is no need for packaging. We also take our electronics to the local refuse station which can recycle them. I will send stuff to companies asking them what it is made of so I can find out how to recycle it."
Home insulation
One of the simplest ways to save energy, yet millions of Britons have yet to get their homes properly insulated. According to figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, up to a third of the money spent on gas and electricity is lost through poor insulation. And the Committee on Climate Change says that 10 million lofts and 7.5 million cavity walls need to be insulated by 2015. The Government's 'Green Deal' for households aims to encourage home energy efficiency improvements, paid for by savings from energy bills.
Janet Alty
Proper insulation has long been a top priority for 73-year-old Janet Alty from Leamington Spa.
"When my husband and I first moved into our house in 1965 we felt very noble because we put two inches of insulation into the roof; at that time the rule was one inch! Now all our loft insulation is more than 10 inches. Some of the external walls also have internal insulation and internal secondary-glazed windows have been fitted on approximately half of the windows. ... Decorating your house with 'eco-bling' will not work unless you have already done everything possible to reduce your carbon footprint by becoming as energy efficient as possible."
Food
The farming industry is a major contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing awareness of the carbon cost of the food we eat is seeing a growing demand for locally produced and sourced food.
Margot Hanley
The link between her diet and the environment is very clear to Margot Hanley, a 22-year-old art student from London.
"I became a vegan two years ago while studying at a university that had a strong environmental programme. People don't think about the effect of meat production on land usage, water pollution, deforestation and grain shortages. In Britain, 70 per cent of all agricultural land is used as pasture and to grow crops to feed animals. A lot of that land could be used to produce food that humans could eat ... I am on a tight budget as a student so I mostly shop in supermarkets but I try to check the origins of the food and eat seasonally and locally. I chose this method of improving my impact on the environment because I think we are at our most powerful as consumers. I think the best way to bring about the progress we want to see is to change what we consume, which in turn changes what is produced."
Flying
Government targets commit to keeping aviation emissions at 2005 levels up to 2050. But this will require limiting demand for flights so that passenger demand is not increased by more than 60 per cent by 2050, according to the Committee on Climate Change. And between 1990 and 2009 carbon emissions from aviation fuel more than doubled to over 34 million tons.
Ciaran Mundy
Ciaran Mundy, a 41-year-old father of one from Bristol, is an environmentalist who founded the lowflyzone.org website. He has not flown since 2007.
"Now, knowing what kind of damage it causes to the environment, I don't think I could ever fly again. I can't bear such things as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill being done in my name so I can casually fly to Australia or Thailand for a holiday to enjoying the beauty of nature or a spiritual retreat – the irony is too much ... I also do other things to reduce my carbon footprint: I take the train and cycle whenever I can. However, stopping flying is the most important step in my eyes because one long-haul flight a year doubles an average person's carbon footprint."
Solar power
The first form of renewable energy to really catch on – thousands of Britons have installed solar panels on their homes. But it still has a way to go, with most of Britain's 25 million households needing solar panels if the Government is to reach its climate-change targets, according to the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Keith and Jenny Sinfield
Solar panels can cost thousands to install. Grants can make all the difference, according to Keith and Jenny Sinfield, a retired couple from Rugby.
"We had a set of solar panels installed three years ago. At that time there were grants on offer which covered half the cost. We then had another set installed last month. With interest rates falling, they represent an excellent investment as the feed-in tariff paid by the Government guarantees a high rate of return. We are also concerned about energy security in the future, so it's good to be a bit less dependent on the grid. It's also easy to be sceptical about the new government's environmental credentials, not least because it has already started to backtrack on Labour's Renewal Heat Incentive scheme, which would have given financial support to people installing things such as solar panels."
Car travel
Carbon emissions from private cars rose by 6 per cent between 1990 and 2008 and, despite repeated calls for people to use cars less, the percentage of trips made on foot or by bicycle declined from 29 per cent in 1995 to 24 per cent in 2008. But some have made the ultimate sacrifice and dispensed with their gas-guzzling car altogether.
Nick Herbert
Nick Herbert, 46, whose family runs Hugo's restaurant in Queen's Park, west London, bought an electric car in 1998 to make deliveries and act as an advert for their organic café.
"Originally, we had a milk float instead of a car but when the G-Wiz electric car came on the market we bought one of those. Everyone thought we were crazy because of the limited range it can go on from a charge point. But a full charge from the mains costs around £1.50 and lasts for a whole day – around 45 miles. For personal transport we've all got bicycles and we use those whenever we can. Everything we do is green; it is the whole ethos behind our project. We have always been ahead of the curve."
Saving energy
Household energy consumption increased by 7 per cent between 1990 and 2009, but, with the prospect of rising gas and electricity bills, people are increasingly looking to save energy in the home.
Simply turning electrical appliances off at the mains and installing energy-efficient lightbulbs could cut Britain's carbon emissions by 40 megatons a year – the equivalent of removing about 10 large gas-fired power stations from operation.
James Strawbridge
James Strawbridge, a 26-year-old environmental trainer from St Austell, Cornwall, is one of a growing band of young people embracing green lifestyles.
"It is a lot more mainstream now. As a motivation factor, it is far less about being green. It is about saving money. You don't have to be rich to be green. One big thing is people think they want to live in an eco-house, and think of a Swedish log cabin, but you can take your own house and retro-fit it with simple things that are much more efficient. The problem is, it is just not as sexy getting a Hippo [water-saving device] for your toilet or insulating your loft as getting a wind turbine on your roof. For normal people who just want to save money on their bills, it doesn't require huge investment."
Energy from waste.........
Converting waste into energy, in a process called anaerobic digestion, may sound too good to be true, but it is a reality. However, the paperwork involved, not to mention the lack of financial incentives, have resulted in a slow take-up of the technology. There are only around 30 anaerobic digestion plants in Britain, compared with more than 4,000 in Germany.
Steven Temple
Steven Temple, a 61-year-old farmer from Wells, Norfolk, spent £750,000 on an anaerobic digestion plant to turn slurry and crops into power.
It started producing biomethane gas last Christmas, and a combined heat and power unit has just been connected, with the heat used for cheese-making, grain drying, hot water in the dairy and heating the farmhouse.
"Anything that might conceivably be classed as a waste in some circumstances, even if we don't consider it a waste, the Environment Agency wanted to class it as a waste. If I had known how much regulation and paperwork there would be, I wouldn't have done it. It is putting people off cleaning things up. If I am improving the situation and making it better, I would have hoped I would have had less paperwork."
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Water
In short supply in many parts of the world, water will be come even more scarce as demand grows. Average consumption in the UK, at 146 litres per person a day, is only slightly less than the 152 litres used daily 15 years ago.
Neil McNiven
The heatwaves and water restrictions of recent years have, however, encouraged some, such as 34-year-old Neil McNiven, an electronics engineer from Kidwelly, Carmarthenshire, to do more to save water.
"I started collecting rain in various water butts. Using a couple of gadgets we now also capture water from showers and baths to use for car washing and window cleaning, and we use rainwater for our toilets instead of mains water. We also started doing all the usual water-saving techniques such as turning the taps off when brushing our teeth and rinsing greasy pans with the boiling pasta water. Whereas before we'd been using mains water for everything, I'd estimate we reduced our mains water consumption by at least half, and we could have halved it again with rainwater toilet flushing ... it is a lot cheaper to reduce the amount of water and electricity you use rather than continuing to be wasteful and trying to meet your inflated requirements with renewable sources."
Wind power
Talked up as a renewable form of power for decades but yet to fulfil its potential. Many people are put off by the cost and complexity of getting wind turbines installed. Only about 1GW of new wind power generation was turned on in 2009, an annual figure that needs to triple by 2020.
John Martin
John Martin, a 64-year-old engineer from Wickford, Essex, is an "early adopter" of the technology. He had a 16-metre high wind turbine fitted in his garden last December.
"High on my priority list was to reduce my electricity bills as far as possible. I am also wary about the future, when electricity is going to be a lot more expensive than it is now. I must be very candid and say that environmental factors were not high on the priority list, but it does help. It's really a matter of taking the least amount of power from the national grid as possible. My turbine has the potential to produce 24,000kWh a year but there has been so little wind this year that, to date, it's generated only about 1,000kWh."
Recycling
Once seen as a minority pursuit confined to green activists, recent years have seen recycling move into the mainstream. Some 38 per cent of household waste is now recycled – with an EU target for this to rise to 50 per cent by 2020.
Rachelle Strauss
Rachelle Strauss, 38, from the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, is one of the growing army of Britons who now recycle their rubbish. The married mother of one was inspired to start recycling after her family was caught up in the Boscastle floods of 2004, which awakened her to the realities of global warming.
"Following the floods I wanted to do something to assuage my guilt about global warming, so I began recycling. Last year we had just one dustbin worth of waste, and the aim next year is to send absolutely nothing to landfill. To achieve this we buy a lot of our produce locally and in bulk so that there is no need for packaging. We also take our electronics to the local refuse station which can recycle them. I will send stuff to companies asking them what it is made of so I can find out how to recycle it."
Home insulation
One of the simplest ways to save energy, yet millions of Britons have yet to get their homes properly insulated. According to figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, up to a third of the money spent on gas and electricity is lost through poor insulation. And the Committee on Climate Change says that 10 million lofts and 7.5 million cavity walls need to be insulated by 2015. The Government's 'Green Deal' for households aims to encourage home energy efficiency improvements, paid for by savings from energy bills.
Janet Alty
Proper insulation has long been a top priority for 73-year-old Janet Alty from Leamington Spa.
"When my husband and I first moved into our house in 1965 we felt very noble because we put two inches of insulation into the roof; at that time the rule was one inch! Now all our loft insulation is more than 10 inches. Some of the external walls also have internal insulation and internal secondary-glazed windows have been fitted on approximately half of the windows. ... Decorating your house with 'eco-bling' will not work unless you have already done everything possible to reduce your carbon footprint by becoming as energy efficient as possible."
Food
The farming industry is a major contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing awareness of the carbon cost of the food we eat is seeing a growing demand for locally produced and sourced food.
Margot Hanley
The link between her diet and the environment is very clear to Margot Hanley, a 22-year-old art student from London.
"I became a vegan two years ago while studying at a university that had a strong environmental programme. People don't think about the effect of meat production on land usage, water pollution, deforestation and grain shortages. In Britain, 70 per cent of all agricultural land is used as pasture and to grow crops to feed animals. A lot of that land could be used to produce food that humans could eat ... I am on a tight budget as a student so I mostly shop in supermarkets but I try to check the origins of the food and eat seasonally and locally. I chose this method of improving my impact on the environment because I think we are at our most powerful as consumers. I think the best way to bring about the progress we want to see is to change what we consume, which in turn changes what is produced."
Flying
Government targets commit to keeping aviation emissions at 2005 levels up to 2050. But this will require limiting demand for flights so that passenger demand is not increased by more than 60 per cent by 2050, according to the Committee on Climate Change. And between 1990 and 2009 carbon emissions from aviation fuel more than doubled to over 34 million tons.
Ciaran Mundy
Ciaran Mundy, a 41-year-old father of one from Bristol, is an environmentalist who founded the lowflyzone.org website. He has not flown since 2007.
"Now, knowing what kind of damage it causes to the environment, I don't think I could ever fly again. I can't bear such things as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill being done in my name so I can casually fly to Australia or Thailand for a holiday to enjoying the beauty of nature or a spiritual retreat – the irony is too much ... I also do other things to reduce my carbon footprint: I take the train and cycle whenever I can. However, stopping flying is the most important step in my eyes because one long-haul flight a year doubles an average person's carbon footprint."
Solar power
The first form of renewable energy to really catch on – thousands of Britons have installed solar panels on their homes. But it still has a way to go, with most of Britain's 25 million households needing solar panels if the Government is to reach its climate-change targets, according to the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Keith and Jenny Sinfield
Solar panels can cost thousands to install. Grants can make all the difference, according to Keith and Jenny Sinfield, a retired couple from Rugby.
"We had a set of solar panels installed three years ago. At that time there were grants on offer which covered half the cost. We then had another set installed last month. With interest rates falling, they represent an excellent investment as the feed-in tariff paid by the Government guarantees a high rate of return. We are also concerned about energy security in the future, so it's good to be a bit less dependent on the grid. It's also easy to be sceptical about the new government's environmental credentials, not least because it has already started to backtrack on Labour's Renewal Heat Incentive scheme, which would have given financial support to people installing things such as solar panels."
Car travel
Carbon emissions from private cars rose by 6 per cent between 1990 and 2008 and, despite repeated calls for people to use cars less, the percentage of trips made on foot or by bicycle declined from 29 per cent in 1995 to 24 per cent in 2008. But some have made the ultimate sacrifice and dispensed with their gas-guzzling car altogether.
Nick Herbert
Nick Herbert, 46, whose family runs Hugo's restaurant in Queen's Park, west London, bought an electric car in 1998 to make deliveries and act as an advert for their organic café.
"Originally, we had a milk float instead of a car but when the G-Wiz electric car came on the market we bought one of those. Everyone thought we were crazy because of the limited range it can go on from a charge point. But a full charge from the mains costs around £1.50 and lasts for a whole day – around 45 miles. For personal transport we've all got bicycles and we use those whenever we can. Everything we do is green; it is the whole ethos behind our project. We have always been ahead of the curve."
Saving energy
Household energy consumption increased by 7 per cent between 1990 and 2009, but, with the prospect of rising gas and electricity bills, people are increasingly looking to save energy in the home.
Simply turning electrical appliances off at the mains and installing energy-efficient lightbulbs could cut Britain's carbon emissions by 40 megatons a year – the equivalent of removing about 10 large gas-fired power stations from operation.
James Strawbridge
James Strawbridge, a 26-year-old environmental trainer from St Austell, Cornwall, is one of a growing band of young people embracing green lifestyles.
"It is a lot more mainstream now. As a motivation factor, it is far less about being green. It is about saving money. You don't have to be rich to be green. One big thing is people think they want to live in an eco-house, and think of a Swedish log cabin, but you can take your own house and retro-fit it with simple things that are much more efficient. The problem is, it is just not as sexy getting a Hippo [water-saving device] for your toilet or insulating your loft as getting a wind turbine on your roof. For normal people who just want to save money on their bills, it doesn't require huge investment."
Energy from waste.........
Converting waste into energy, in a process called anaerobic digestion, may sound too good to be true, but it is a reality. However, the paperwork involved, not to mention the lack of financial incentives, have resulted in a slow take-up of the technology. There are only around 30 anaerobic digestion plants in Britain, compared with more than 4,000 in Germany.
Steven Temple
Steven Temple, a 61-year-old farmer from Wells, Norfolk, spent £750,000 on an anaerobic digestion plant to turn slurry and crops into power.
It started producing biomethane gas last Christmas, and a combined heat and power unit has just been connected, with the heat used for cheese-making, grain drying, hot water in the dairy and heating the farmhouse.
"Anything that might conceivably be classed as a waste in some circumstances, even if we don't consider it a waste, the Environment Agency wanted to class it as a waste. If I had known how much regulation and paperwork there would be, I wouldn't have done it. It is putting people off cleaning things up. If I am improving the situation and making it better, I would have hoped I would have had less paperwork."
The scale of the low-carbon task is immense
We cannot hope to replace fossil fuel energy infrastructure and prevent unmanageable climate change at the current rate of growth in low-carbon energy
Chris Goodall guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 September 2010 10.04 BST
If we were starting afresh, we probably wouldn't chose to build an energy infrastructure based around fossil fuels. But like it or not, we are stuck with power stations, cars and homes that use carbon-based energy sources. The problem is that almost all these buildings and vehicles last a long time. If they stay in use, we are committed to large-scale future production of greenhouse gases. But how large?
A new paper in Science by Dr Steve Davis and colleagues at Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California, gives us a clear estimate. Davis says that our existing energy infrastructure will put about 500 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 into the atmosphere during the course of its life (this is about 15 times the world's annual emissions from all sources today).
The paper calculates this number by examining the number of power plants, motor vehicles and homes around the globe and estimating how long they will remain in use. The research team found that in the past, the average electricity-generating station lasted about 35 years before being demolished. Cars typically run for about 17 years before being scrapped, lorries and buses nearer 30. Since we know when all the power plants in the world were constructed and the average age of the planet's vehicles, Davis and his colleagues could estimate how much carbon dioxide will be emitted by existing infrastructure during the remainder of its life.
Put another 500Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere between now and 2050, and the expected temperature rise will be about 0.5C of extra warming on top of what we have already seen. (Of course there is a very wide range to this forecast because of the uncertainties in the models of how temperature change is related to emissions). Davis and his colleagues make the point that if we stopped building new coal-fired power plants tomorrow and manufactured no new cars or trucks we would therefore keep warming well below the 2C increase which global scientists think is the maximum tolerable. Davis's climate models suggest that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would rise to about 430 parts per million (ppm), a rise of about 40ppm on today's level and well below the 450ppm level that scientists often associate with 2C of warming.
That's the good news - today's energy infrastructure probably isn't enough, by itself, to topple us into wholly unmanageable climate change. The bad news is that this figure assumes that we build no fossil fuel power stations in the future and that all our new vehicles and homes are zero-carbon. That's not going to happen and the scale of the challenge is grimly indicated by the current rate of growth in low-carbon electricity. Of the 1,300 gigawatts of new power station capacity built since 2000, 31% uses coal, 34% gas and 4% oil. This leaves 2% nuclear and 17% renewables. And even this number substantially overestimates the share of future electricity production coming from renewables since both wind and solar power plants only produce a fraction of their maximum output. The wind and the sun aren't available all the time.
In a perspective in Science, Dr Marty Hoffert of New York University looks at how much energy we are likely to need to meet the world's requirements in future. Keeping the world's economy going requires continuously production of about 14,000 gigawatts of energy. That's equivalent to about 10,000 large-scale power plants. As the world economy grows, this is likely to rise to at least twice this level by 2050, even if we achieve major gains in the efficiency with which we use energy. So the challenge is to run down existing carbon-polluting energy sources rapidly and to replace them with atmosphere-friendly equivalents.
The scale of this task is immense. My rough calculation is that the world needs to ramp up its yearly rate of installation of low-carbon energy about 30-fold from today's levels within the next couple of decades.
A few wind turbines aren't going to be enough.
• Chris Goodall is a businessman, author and climate change expert
Chris Goodall guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 September 2010 10.04 BST
If we were starting afresh, we probably wouldn't chose to build an energy infrastructure based around fossil fuels. But like it or not, we are stuck with power stations, cars and homes that use carbon-based energy sources. The problem is that almost all these buildings and vehicles last a long time. If they stay in use, we are committed to large-scale future production of greenhouse gases. But how large?
A new paper in Science by Dr Steve Davis and colleagues at Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California, gives us a clear estimate. Davis says that our existing energy infrastructure will put about 500 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 into the atmosphere during the course of its life (this is about 15 times the world's annual emissions from all sources today).
The paper calculates this number by examining the number of power plants, motor vehicles and homes around the globe and estimating how long they will remain in use. The research team found that in the past, the average electricity-generating station lasted about 35 years before being demolished. Cars typically run for about 17 years before being scrapped, lorries and buses nearer 30. Since we know when all the power plants in the world were constructed and the average age of the planet's vehicles, Davis and his colleagues could estimate how much carbon dioxide will be emitted by existing infrastructure during the remainder of its life.
Put another 500Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere between now and 2050, and the expected temperature rise will be about 0.5C of extra warming on top of what we have already seen. (Of course there is a very wide range to this forecast because of the uncertainties in the models of how temperature change is related to emissions). Davis and his colleagues make the point that if we stopped building new coal-fired power plants tomorrow and manufactured no new cars or trucks we would therefore keep warming well below the 2C increase which global scientists think is the maximum tolerable. Davis's climate models suggest that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would rise to about 430 parts per million (ppm), a rise of about 40ppm on today's level and well below the 450ppm level that scientists often associate with 2C of warming.
That's the good news - today's energy infrastructure probably isn't enough, by itself, to topple us into wholly unmanageable climate change. The bad news is that this figure assumes that we build no fossil fuel power stations in the future and that all our new vehicles and homes are zero-carbon. That's not going to happen and the scale of the challenge is grimly indicated by the current rate of growth in low-carbon electricity. Of the 1,300 gigawatts of new power station capacity built since 2000, 31% uses coal, 34% gas and 4% oil. This leaves 2% nuclear and 17% renewables. And even this number substantially overestimates the share of future electricity production coming from renewables since both wind and solar power plants only produce a fraction of their maximum output. The wind and the sun aren't available all the time.
In a perspective in Science, Dr Marty Hoffert of New York University looks at how much energy we are likely to need to meet the world's requirements in future. Keeping the world's economy going requires continuously production of about 14,000 gigawatts of energy. That's equivalent to about 10,000 large-scale power plants. As the world economy grows, this is likely to rise to at least twice this level by 2050, even if we achieve major gains in the efficiency with which we use energy. So the challenge is to run down existing carbon-polluting energy sources rapidly and to replace them with atmosphere-friendly equivalents.
The scale of this task is immense. My rough calculation is that the world needs to ramp up its yearly rate of installation of low-carbon energy about 30-fold from today's levels within the next couple of decades.
A few wind turbines aren't going to be enough.
• Chris Goodall is a businessman, author and climate change expert
Green groups press Barack Obama for 60MPG fuel efficiency standard
Environmental campaigners focus on more modest goals as hopes of US climate legislation dwindle ahead of expected Republican gains
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 September 2010 10.34 BST
America's environmental groups have given up on getting climate change legislation through Congress at a time of Republican ascendancy, and have downsized to a series of more modest goals like fuel economy.
In a sign of that strategy reshift, 20 environmental groups launched a new campaign yesterday to press Barack Obama to propose far more ambitious fuel efficiency and pollution standards for cars of 60mpg by 2025.
Meanwhile, Clean Energy Works, a coalition of 80 grassroots groups that had 45 paid staff in Washington to lobby to get a climate change law through Congress, is shutting up shop.
The rethink, which is still a work in progress, gets underway at a dispiriting time for greens.
The election of the greenest-ever president in Barack Obama failed to produce the hoped-for sweeping climate and energy legislation in Congress. Democrats are now preparing themselves for heavy losses in November's mid-term elections, which will make it even harder for Obama to get his agenda through Congress.
Greens say they are refocusing their energy on ensuring that existing institutions - such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - take action on climate change. The EPA is poised to begin using its authority to order industries to curb emissions.
"We are diversifying our strategy into a building block approach as opposed to looking at a single focus of a comprehensive bill because obviously for this year it does not appear it is going to happen, and it is not clear what is going to happen next year," said Joe Mendelson, who leads the global warming campaign at the National Wildlife Federation.
"We are going to focus more on the individual building blocks that get us to where we need to be in emissions."
The Sierra Club, Environment America, Natural Resources Defence Council and other groups wrote a letter to Obama, the EPA and the transportation department yesterday demanding it raise the average fuel efficiency for the American fleet to 60mpg by 2025.
The environmental groups told reporters that adopting the new standard, beginning with cars manufactured in 2017, would spur the development of new hybrid and plug-ins models, and that 55% of new cars sold in 2025 would be hybrids, with electric drive vehicles accounting for 15%.
The new car and light truck standard would save 49bn gallons of petrol a year by 2030, and reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by 535m metric tons or 6% a year. The push is timed for the administration's expected roll-out of new car stand proposals at the end of the month.
Obama faced an additional challenge yesterday from green unions, with the United Steelworkers of America filing suit to demand the administration take action against China at the WTO.
In a 5,000-page petition, the steelworkers accused China of unfair subsidies to solar panel, wind turbine and battery factories, undercutting US manufacturers.
The petition pits Obama against some of his closest allies. The steelworkers' leadership has been strong supporters of his clean energy agenda.
Behind the scenes, the leaders of environmental organisations have been meeting regularly to try to chart a new strategy now that the prospects of even modest movement on energy and climate are dead in Congress.
The mainstream environmental organisations are also gearing up against the Canadian tar sands, the single largest supplier of crude oil to the US, and a planned pipeline from Alberta to Texas.
They are also rededicating campaigns against the highly destructive coal mining practice of mountaintop removal, and the use of coal.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, indicated early this week that there were limited prospects even for a "piecemeal" bill promoting more efficient home appliances.
The movers behind yesterday's push on car efficiency argued that getting gas guzzlers off the road would be a big move to reducing global warming. "This has always been a focus," said Debbie Sease of the Sierra Club. "It is not a substitute for a broader set of climate and energy policies, but it is one of the ways we actually meet the targets."
But she admitted that the defeat of climate change legislation in Congress meant now, more than ever, there was no "silver bullet" for dealing with climate change.
"We didn't get the silver bullet," she said. "We are going to be focusing on a lot of silver buckshot."
• This article was amended on 10 September - it originally said 535 metric tons
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 September 2010 10.34 BST
America's environmental groups have given up on getting climate change legislation through Congress at a time of Republican ascendancy, and have downsized to a series of more modest goals like fuel economy.
In a sign of that strategy reshift, 20 environmental groups launched a new campaign yesterday to press Barack Obama to propose far more ambitious fuel efficiency and pollution standards for cars of 60mpg by 2025.
Meanwhile, Clean Energy Works, a coalition of 80 grassroots groups that had 45 paid staff in Washington to lobby to get a climate change law through Congress, is shutting up shop.
The rethink, which is still a work in progress, gets underway at a dispiriting time for greens.
The election of the greenest-ever president in Barack Obama failed to produce the hoped-for sweeping climate and energy legislation in Congress. Democrats are now preparing themselves for heavy losses in November's mid-term elections, which will make it even harder for Obama to get his agenda through Congress.
Greens say they are refocusing their energy on ensuring that existing institutions - such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - take action on climate change. The EPA is poised to begin using its authority to order industries to curb emissions.
"We are diversifying our strategy into a building block approach as opposed to looking at a single focus of a comprehensive bill because obviously for this year it does not appear it is going to happen, and it is not clear what is going to happen next year," said Joe Mendelson, who leads the global warming campaign at the National Wildlife Federation.
"We are going to focus more on the individual building blocks that get us to where we need to be in emissions."
The Sierra Club, Environment America, Natural Resources Defence Council and other groups wrote a letter to Obama, the EPA and the transportation department yesterday demanding it raise the average fuel efficiency for the American fleet to 60mpg by 2025.
The environmental groups told reporters that adopting the new standard, beginning with cars manufactured in 2017, would spur the development of new hybrid and plug-ins models, and that 55% of new cars sold in 2025 would be hybrids, with electric drive vehicles accounting for 15%.
The new car and light truck standard would save 49bn gallons of petrol a year by 2030, and reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by 535m metric tons or 6% a year. The push is timed for the administration's expected roll-out of new car stand proposals at the end of the month.
Obama faced an additional challenge yesterday from green unions, with the United Steelworkers of America filing suit to demand the administration take action against China at the WTO.
In a 5,000-page petition, the steelworkers accused China of unfair subsidies to solar panel, wind turbine and battery factories, undercutting US manufacturers.
The petition pits Obama against some of his closest allies. The steelworkers' leadership has been strong supporters of his clean energy agenda.
Behind the scenes, the leaders of environmental organisations have been meeting regularly to try to chart a new strategy now that the prospects of even modest movement on energy and climate are dead in Congress.
The mainstream environmental organisations are also gearing up against the Canadian tar sands, the single largest supplier of crude oil to the US, and a planned pipeline from Alberta to Texas.
They are also rededicating campaigns against the highly destructive coal mining practice of mountaintop removal, and the use of coal.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, indicated early this week that there were limited prospects even for a "piecemeal" bill promoting more efficient home appliances.
The movers behind yesterday's push on car efficiency argued that getting gas guzzlers off the road would be a big move to reducing global warming. "This has always been a focus," said Debbie Sease of the Sierra Club. "It is not a substitute for a broader set of climate and energy policies, but it is one of the ways we actually meet the targets."
But she admitted that the defeat of climate change legislation in Congress meant now, more than ever, there was no "silver bullet" for dealing with climate change.
"We didn't get the silver bullet," she said. "We are going to be focusing on a lot of silver buckshot."
• This article was amended on 10 September - it originally said 535 metric tons