Geo-engineering could save the planet - but it could also persuade politicians that there is an alternative to cutting carbon
Adam Corner
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010 12.04 GMT
For two days the hallowed halls of the Royal Society in London have been filled with uncomfortable-looking climate scientists. But this is not another "climategate" inquiry, it's a meeting on geo-engineering – proposals to deploy global-scale technologies to control the planet's climate.
For the most part, these technologies don't yet exist. But as time ticks by and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, scientists are starting to take geo-engineering seriously. Proposals range from sunlight-reflecting mirrors in space to machines that can scrub carbon dioxide from the air to the seeding of algal blooms in the oceans, which suck carbon dioxide down to the sea bed and keep it there.
The level of scientific uncertainty around geo-engineering is formidable: fears of unintended side effects and irreversible interventions loom large in researchers' minds. Scientists being scientists, they're keen to plug the gaps in their knowledge – but they don't look all that happy about it.
The problem is that proposals to geo-engineer the climate come loaded with social and ethical concerns. Is it acceptable to intentionally intervene in the volatile climate system? How would it be governed? What would prevent the abuse of climate-controlling technologies, and whose hand would be on the global thermostat?
The growing number of scientists working on different aspects of geo-engineering research – from climate modelling, to lab experiments with reflective particles that could be injected into the stratosphere – are anxious to emphasise that they are not geo-engineering cheerleaders. They simply want to understand the pros and cons of different technologies, in case the day came when they might be needed, a day they hope will never come.
The Royal Society itself has taken great care to indicate that it does not advocate geo-engineering – and certainly not in the place of deep global cuts in greenhouse gases. But it does advocate research on geo-engineering, and that's where the dilemma for many scientists kicks in.
On the one hand, it is clearly prudent to understand more about geo-engineering – the worst of all scenarios would involve a government deploying a technology without knowing what its effects would be. Initial evidence suggests that spraying the skies with reflective particles of sulphate would have a major impact on patterns of rainfall. Surely it is better to know this sooner rather than later?
On the other hand, conducting research on geo-engineering is one of the main factors that will make the deployment of the technologies more likely. Most scientists are deeply sceptical about the use of such "remedial" action on global warming. But scientists won't be the ones to decide whether the technology is used. So are they unwittingly clearing the path for future deployment?
Of course, research should help to rule out the craziest of the geo-engineering proposals. Basic research might mean certain dangerous ideas are rejected - and already there is evidence that fertilising the oceans would be a highly risky undertaking. This is valuable knowledge. But there is a danger that the very fact that research is taking place will send out a signal to politicians: there is an alternative to cutting carbon.
For some, the process is eerily reminiscent of the race to develop nuclear weapons in the 1940s. While it might seem alarmist to compare geo-engineering to the quest for nuclear capability, the parallels are striking: both involve novel, uncertain and hugely powerful technologies deployed for the purposes of defence against a threat, both are mired in ethical controversy, and both have an undercurrent of inevitability driving them along.
The Manhattan Project co-opted science to advance military aims. Preventing dangerous climate change is a much nobler endeavour, but the social and ethical implications of geo-engineering the climate are so profound that the scientists involved are caught in an unenviable dilemma. Can this research exist independently of deployment, or is their work ushering in an era of climate intervention that they openly caution against?
• Adam Corner is a psychologist at at Cardiff University
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Barack Obama's green stimulus plan fails to deliver the money
Less than half of the money has been distributed for energy and environment projects that promised to boost America's green economy
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010 11.51 GMT
From the moment he was elected president in the depths of a historic recession, Barack Obama held up a clear vision for America's economic future: green jobs.
Two years on, 15 million people are still looking for work and frustration with Obama's failure to haul the country out of recession led Democrats to a humiliating defeat in mid-term elections.
But how much of it was Obama's fault? Why haven't those green jobs arrived?
Obama devoted $90bn (£56bn) to so-called green investment in his $800bn (£495bn) stimulus plan for home insulation, draught-proofing and energy-efficiency projects; new technologies such as the smart grid and advanced batteries; and public transport, including faster inter-city rail.
He has made dozens of visits to midwest states hit the hardest by the economic downturn, to inaugurate projects and promote his green job-creation scheme. "These aren't any jobs," Obama said during a ground-breaking ceremony for a new electric-car battery plant in Michigan last July. "These are jobs in the industries of the future."
But less than half of the promised billions for advanced batteries and electric cars, smart grid and other clean energy manufacturing projects have been released. To date, the Obama administration has announced $12.4bn in grants for energy and environment projects, according to data compiled by Recovery.Org. But government officials have released just $5.4bn.
That record is actually a little better than the average across all sectors of the economy. Some $195bn in recovery plan projects have been announced, but only $75bn awarded.
"It is a double whammy," said Michael Balsam, chief strategy officer of Recovery.Org. "It is the speed at which government works, which is not fast, coupled with finding ways to spend $800bn quickly, which is not possible. The pipeline didn't get any bigger, but the amount of money they were trying to put through the pipeline grew exponentially." He added: "It's been really slow, slower than people thought."
The time lag resulting from those rapid differences of scale applies across the foundations of the new green economy from smart grid to plug-in cars and clean energy manufacture. In 2009, department of energy investment had a budget of $500m. By 2013, it will be $9bn.
When Obama first unveiled his recovery plan in February 2009, the heavy focus on green investment in the recovery plan was seen as transformative for the US economy, pouring billions into smart grid, electric cars, wind and solar power, clean coal, and electric cars.
But a $5bn programme to install tighter-fitting doors and windows in homes across the country took more than a year to get going. It also failed to create the promised boom in construction jobs.
A year later, only 32,250 homes had gone through the retrofitting process – only about 5% of the target. Only a fraction of the 87,000 promised jobs materialised. In California, the programme got to just 849 homes in its its first year, creating only 84 jobs.
Even projects that had Obama's personal stamp of approval, such as the conversion of a mobile home factory to one that produced electric delivery vans in Wakarusa, Indiana, were put on hold.
Obama visited the factory, owned by the Navistar trucking company in August 2009, to hand over a cheque for $39m to start production on the vans. The manufacture of new vans was supposed to create 700 new jobs in the area.
"Just a few months ago, folks thought these factories might be closed for good," Obama told factory workers. "But now they're coming back to life."
But the money never materialised. Navistar said it had hired just 10 or 12 workers. According to the federal government, no new jobs have been created. Navistar says it is not to blame. "We have not received a single cent from the $39m grant," the company spokesman, Roy Wiley, wrote in an email.
The Department of Energy confirms it has not given out the money. "The Department of Energy has been working closely with Navistar to finalise the details of the award contract," a spokeswoman said in an email.
But she said officials would be able to pay a "sizeable invoice within two or three weeks of receiving it".
Such time lags – on projects that were supposed to deliver a quick fix to the economy – were a powerful factor in the discontent with Obama that swept across the midwest, where the Democrats lost heavily in the mid-term elections.
But they were entirely typical. "I don't think there is any intent to fool people on the part of the administration. I just think there is an overall lack of understanding about how the money moves, and when it moves," said Balsam.
Many of the green-energy projects also had a longer timeline – up to 2013 – for allocation of funds unlike the "shovel-ready" road construction projects.
But energy department officials admit that delays in handing over grants have been the rule, rather than the exception.
In addition to Navistar, 47 other companies were promised a slice of the $2.4bn in grants for electric cars on the day of Obama's visit to Indiana in August 2009.
A review of the top 10 projects on recovery.gov indicates that barely $140m in grants was actually delivered and spent. Less than 450 jobs were created. One of the companies, Dow Kokam, which was awarded $160m to build batteries for a new generation of hybrid plug-in cars, had not created a single job by September 30.
Energy department officials acknowledge the money has not moved as quickly as they had hoped. "There was a lot of variation in the timing and schedule of the invoices and awards and broad generalisations are a bit hard to come by. That said, many of the grants were like Navistar," the official said. "In general, invoicing under the programme was fairly limited until this summer and has been ramping up since then."
But by that point, it was too late to save Obama's Democrats in the mid-terms.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010 11.51 GMT
From the moment he was elected president in the depths of a historic recession, Barack Obama held up a clear vision for America's economic future: green jobs.
Two years on, 15 million people are still looking for work and frustration with Obama's failure to haul the country out of recession led Democrats to a humiliating defeat in mid-term elections.
But how much of it was Obama's fault? Why haven't those green jobs arrived?
Obama devoted $90bn (£56bn) to so-called green investment in his $800bn (£495bn) stimulus plan for home insulation, draught-proofing and energy-efficiency projects; new technologies such as the smart grid and advanced batteries; and public transport, including faster inter-city rail.
He has made dozens of visits to midwest states hit the hardest by the economic downturn, to inaugurate projects and promote his green job-creation scheme. "These aren't any jobs," Obama said during a ground-breaking ceremony for a new electric-car battery plant in Michigan last July. "These are jobs in the industries of the future."
But less than half of the promised billions for advanced batteries and electric cars, smart grid and other clean energy manufacturing projects have been released. To date, the Obama administration has announced $12.4bn in grants for energy and environment projects, according to data compiled by Recovery.Org. But government officials have released just $5.4bn.
That record is actually a little better than the average across all sectors of the economy. Some $195bn in recovery plan projects have been announced, but only $75bn awarded.
"It is a double whammy," said Michael Balsam, chief strategy officer of Recovery.Org. "It is the speed at which government works, which is not fast, coupled with finding ways to spend $800bn quickly, which is not possible. The pipeline didn't get any bigger, but the amount of money they were trying to put through the pipeline grew exponentially." He added: "It's been really slow, slower than people thought."
The time lag resulting from those rapid differences of scale applies across the foundations of the new green economy from smart grid to plug-in cars and clean energy manufacture. In 2009, department of energy investment had a budget of $500m. By 2013, it will be $9bn.
When Obama first unveiled his recovery plan in February 2009, the heavy focus on green investment in the recovery plan was seen as transformative for the US economy, pouring billions into smart grid, electric cars, wind and solar power, clean coal, and electric cars.
But a $5bn programme to install tighter-fitting doors and windows in homes across the country took more than a year to get going. It also failed to create the promised boom in construction jobs.
A year later, only 32,250 homes had gone through the retrofitting process – only about 5% of the target. Only a fraction of the 87,000 promised jobs materialised. In California, the programme got to just 849 homes in its its first year, creating only 84 jobs.
Even projects that had Obama's personal stamp of approval, such as the conversion of a mobile home factory to one that produced electric delivery vans in Wakarusa, Indiana, were put on hold.
Obama visited the factory, owned by the Navistar trucking company in August 2009, to hand over a cheque for $39m to start production on the vans. The manufacture of new vans was supposed to create 700 new jobs in the area.
"Just a few months ago, folks thought these factories might be closed for good," Obama told factory workers. "But now they're coming back to life."
But the money never materialised. Navistar said it had hired just 10 or 12 workers. According to the federal government, no new jobs have been created. Navistar says it is not to blame. "We have not received a single cent from the $39m grant," the company spokesman, Roy Wiley, wrote in an email.
The Department of Energy confirms it has not given out the money. "The Department of Energy has been working closely with Navistar to finalise the details of the award contract," a spokeswoman said in an email.
But she said officials would be able to pay a "sizeable invoice within two or three weeks of receiving it".
Such time lags – on projects that were supposed to deliver a quick fix to the economy – were a powerful factor in the discontent with Obama that swept across the midwest, where the Democrats lost heavily in the mid-term elections.
But they were entirely typical. "I don't think there is any intent to fool people on the part of the administration. I just think there is an overall lack of understanding about how the money moves, and when it moves," said Balsam.
Many of the green-energy projects also had a longer timeline – up to 2013 – for allocation of funds unlike the "shovel-ready" road construction projects.
But energy department officials admit that delays in handing over grants have been the rule, rather than the exception.
In addition to Navistar, 47 other companies were promised a slice of the $2.4bn in grants for electric cars on the day of Obama's visit to Indiana in August 2009.
A review of the top 10 projects on recovery.gov indicates that barely $140m in grants was actually delivered and spent. Less than 450 jobs were created. One of the companies, Dow Kokam, which was awarded $160m to build batteries for a new generation of hybrid plug-in cars, had not created a single job by September 30.
Energy department officials acknowledge the money has not moved as quickly as they had hoped. "There was a lot of variation in the timing and schedule of the invoices and awards and broad generalisations are a bit hard to come by. That said, many of the grants were like Navistar," the official said. "In general, invoicing under the programme was fairly limited until this summer and has been ramping up since then."
But by that point, it was too late to save Obama's Democrats in the mid-terms.
Glastonbury installs UK's biggest private solar-power plant
Michael Eavis has installed 1,116 solar power panels on his cow shed at Worthy Farm, the site of the Glastonbury festival
Steven Morris guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010 16.30 GMT
If U2 or the Rolling Stones had been performing on his cow shed roof, the Glastonbury Festival supremo Michael Eavis could hardly have been more excited. "It's fantastic. This is the best fun I've had here for ages," he said. "We had to make a big statement – and that is what we've done."
Eavis' statement is an "array" of 1,116 solar panels installed on the roof of that cowshed - nicknamed the Mootel. To the sound of a musician called Harriet playing Here Comes The Sun on the vibraphone (deemed suitable because its aluminium bars resemble solar panels), Eavis today unveiled what is believed to be the biggest private solar electric generating system in the UK.
The photovoltaic (PV) modules will generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 40 homes annually. Power generated will be used, in the first instance, for Eavis' Worthy Farm and any left over will be fed into the National Grid.
Wearing shorts on a chilly but perfectly blue Somerset day, Eavis said: "We had to make a major statement because we use so much power. This has brought us one big step closer to our goal of operating the farm as ecologically as possible." The 1,500-acre site effectively turns into a small city at festival time with more than 200 diesel-powered generators hauled into place to make sure bands can play, food-and-drink suppliers can operate and the place is lit up at night.
Much has been done already. Eavis and his team have built reservoirs so water does not have to be brought on site and linked into local sewerage systems so human waste does not have to be carted off. They recycle all they can and encourage people not to drive if they can help it. But on a busy night they need up to 15 megawatts of power to make sure everything runs smoothly. Eavis felt they were still "losing the argument" so when he built the new cow shed seven years ago, he made sure its roof sloped gently southwards and was strong enough to support 20 tonnes of solar panels.
He has been impressed by how easy it has been. The bank lent him most of the money and the government's feed-in tariff - a subsidy for small-scale renewable energy generation - has meant it makes economic sense to launch the project. He should earn £60,000 a year from the project.
Eavis's cow shed, which enjoys a fine view of the pyramid stage - skeletal at this time of year - and Glastonbury Tor in the far distance, now generates up to 200 kilowatts of power. It should also save around 100 tonnes of carbon a year. He expects to make the money he has invested back in nine years.
Lucy Brooking Clark, green initiatives co-ordinator for the Glastonbury Festival, said it was an "amazing" day. "It feels like one big step for Glastonbury today. It's been four or five years in the planning. We have to constantly look at how we can make the festival more sustainable - we have to keep raising the bar."
Steve Riches, a planning engineer for Western Power Distribution, which makes sure the electricity generated on the roof reaches the National Grid, said it was a "symbolic day."
Riches said: "I think other farmers and landowners will look at what Michael Eavis has done here and try to do the same. I think this is an important step."
Next week, the Farming Futures project, which works to inform farmers about climate change, will be hosting a workshop with Eavis at Worthy Farm for others thinking of investing in solar panels. Bill Egan, who for the last 26 years has made sure Worthy Farm has all the power it needs for the festival (mainly by bringing in all those generators), was trying to work out whether he would still have a job for a few years to come.
However, festival is so energy-hungry though that he concluded he would. Using the power generated on the cow shed roof would probably allow only six temporary diesel generators to be lost. As Eavis bounded from interview to interview, Egan calculated that they would need between 50,000 and 100,000sq m of solar panels to be sure of generating enough electricity. "You'd lose a lot of camping space for that. I think my job is safe for a while."
But he said they had already thought about how best to use the new source of electricity, perhaps using it to charge generators that are used for long periods, for example by crew members who are on site for months before and after the festival. "We'll start getting those cables in now," he said.
Phil Miller, the infrastructure manager for the site, said they were always on the look-out for new ways of cutting the festival's carbon footprint. "I heard about an idea of using urine to generate power. That could work for us. Or what about putting solar panels on marquees? We have to keep trying."
Eavis is already thinking about the future. "We've got the best festival in the world and the best solar power system in the country - so far. We've got to keep pushing, trying to do more." And with that he was off to make sure the panels were performing properly - and the cows beneath them were as content as he was.
Energy farmers
Farmers across the country, but especially in the south-west of England, are becoming more interested in the idea of supplementing their income through solar power.
Claire Wyatt, of Farming Futures, a government-funded organisation that helps farmers cope with and prepare for climate change, said farmers were "hungry" for information.
"I think it's because the technology has improved, and so you no longer need the perfect site, but the feed-in tariff [under which landowners are paid for the energy they supply to the National Grid] has shown them it is economically valuable."
It was standing-room only at an event held in Oxfordshire last week, and there are 200 people on a waiting list for a Farming Futures session at Glastonbury site Worthy Farm next week.
Companies that supply solar panels have started to organise seminars for farmers in the West Country – the Californian-based SunPower Corporation recently held well-attended events in Somerset.
One of the most eye-catching schemes revealed earlier this year was a £40m network of solar farms in Cornwall. If the network is built, it would triple the UK's current solar generating capacity.
Steven Morris guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 November 2010 16.30 GMT
If U2 or the Rolling Stones had been performing on his cow shed roof, the Glastonbury Festival supremo Michael Eavis could hardly have been more excited. "It's fantastic. This is the best fun I've had here for ages," he said. "We had to make a big statement – and that is what we've done."
Eavis' statement is an "array" of 1,116 solar panels installed on the roof of that cowshed - nicknamed the Mootel. To the sound of a musician called Harriet playing Here Comes The Sun on the vibraphone (deemed suitable because its aluminium bars resemble solar panels), Eavis today unveiled what is believed to be the biggest private solar electric generating system in the UK.
The photovoltaic (PV) modules will generate enough electricity to power the equivalent of 40 homes annually. Power generated will be used, in the first instance, for Eavis' Worthy Farm and any left over will be fed into the National Grid.
Wearing shorts on a chilly but perfectly blue Somerset day, Eavis said: "We had to make a major statement because we use so much power. This has brought us one big step closer to our goal of operating the farm as ecologically as possible." The 1,500-acre site effectively turns into a small city at festival time with more than 200 diesel-powered generators hauled into place to make sure bands can play, food-and-drink suppliers can operate and the place is lit up at night.
Much has been done already. Eavis and his team have built reservoirs so water does not have to be brought on site and linked into local sewerage systems so human waste does not have to be carted off. They recycle all they can and encourage people not to drive if they can help it. But on a busy night they need up to 15 megawatts of power to make sure everything runs smoothly. Eavis felt they were still "losing the argument" so when he built the new cow shed seven years ago, he made sure its roof sloped gently southwards and was strong enough to support 20 tonnes of solar panels.
He has been impressed by how easy it has been. The bank lent him most of the money and the government's feed-in tariff - a subsidy for small-scale renewable energy generation - has meant it makes economic sense to launch the project. He should earn £60,000 a year from the project.
Eavis's cow shed, which enjoys a fine view of the pyramid stage - skeletal at this time of year - and Glastonbury Tor in the far distance, now generates up to 200 kilowatts of power. It should also save around 100 tonnes of carbon a year. He expects to make the money he has invested back in nine years.
Lucy Brooking Clark, green initiatives co-ordinator for the Glastonbury Festival, said it was an "amazing" day. "It feels like one big step for Glastonbury today. It's been four or five years in the planning. We have to constantly look at how we can make the festival more sustainable - we have to keep raising the bar."
Steve Riches, a planning engineer for Western Power Distribution, which makes sure the electricity generated on the roof reaches the National Grid, said it was a "symbolic day."
Riches said: "I think other farmers and landowners will look at what Michael Eavis has done here and try to do the same. I think this is an important step."
Next week, the Farming Futures project, which works to inform farmers about climate change, will be hosting a workshop with Eavis at Worthy Farm for others thinking of investing in solar panels. Bill Egan, who for the last 26 years has made sure Worthy Farm has all the power it needs for the festival (mainly by bringing in all those generators), was trying to work out whether he would still have a job for a few years to come.
However, festival is so energy-hungry though that he concluded he would. Using the power generated on the cow shed roof would probably allow only six temporary diesel generators to be lost. As Eavis bounded from interview to interview, Egan calculated that they would need between 50,000 and 100,000sq m of solar panels to be sure of generating enough electricity. "You'd lose a lot of camping space for that. I think my job is safe for a while."
But he said they had already thought about how best to use the new source of electricity, perhaps using it to charge generators that are used for long periods, for example by crew members who are on site for months before and after the festival. "We'll start getting those cables in now," he said.
Phil Miller, the infrastructure manager for the site, said they were always on the look-out for new ways of cutting the festival's carbon footprint. "I heard about an idea of using urine to generate power. That could work for us. Or what about putting solar panels on marquees? We have to keep trying."
Eavis is already thinking about the future. "We've got the best festival in the world and the best solar power system in the country - so far. We've got to keep pushing, trying to do more." And with that he was off to make sure the panels were performing properly - and the cows beneath them were as content as he was.
Energy farmers
Farmers across the country, but especially in the south-west of England, are becoming more interested in the idea of supplementing their income through solar power.
Claire Wyatt, of Farming Futures, a government-funded organisation that helps farmers cope with and prepare for climate change, said farmers were "hungry" for information.
"I think it's because the technology has improved, and so you no longer need the perfect site, but the feed-in tariff [under which landowners are paid for the energy they supply to the National Grid] has shown them it is economically valuable."
It was standing-room only at an event held in Oxfordshire last week, and there are 200 people on a waiting list for a Farming Futures session at Glastonbury site Worthy Farm next week.
Companies that supply solar panels have started to organise seminars for farmers in the West Country – the Californian-based SunPower Corporation recently held well-attended events in Somerset.
One of the most eye-catching schemes revealed earlier this year was a £40m network of solar farms in Cornwall. If the network is built, it would triple the UK's current solar generating capacity.