Michael McCarthy
Soaring carbon dioxide emissions from China and the US have driven the world's output of greenhouse gases to its highest level, alarming new figures reveal.
Global CO2 emissions in 2010 reached 33.51 billion tonnes, up from 31.63 billion tonnes in 2009 – an increase of nearly 6 per cent. This is believed to be the highest-ever percentage increase year on year, despite growth in many industrial economies being sluggish or non-existent.
However, the figures from the US Department of Energy show clearly that it is the surging Chinese economy that is driving the growth: China's emissions in 2010 were 8.15 billion tonnes, up from 7.46 billion tonnes the year before – a 9.3 per cent increase in 12 months.
The 694-million-tonne increase alone dwarfs all the carbon emissions that Britain produces in a year. China now accounts for 24.3 per cent of global carbon emissions and has taken over the role, held by America for decades, of the world's biggest polluter.
The US, whose emissions totalled 5.49 billion tonnes in 2010, up from 5.27 billion tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 4.1 per cent – now accounts for 16 per cent of emissions worldwide. So although the Chinese did not overtake the US in carbon emissions until 2007, their share of the world total is now half as much again.
Between them, the two industrial giants produce 40 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases, and neither shows any sign of slowing down.
The figures, produced by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, show another significant trend: India, the world's third-biggest carbon polluter, is rapidly catching up. In 2010, its annual emissions passed two billion tonnes of CO2 for the first time, totalling 2.06 billion tonnes. The increase of 178,330 million tonnes on the year before was 9.4 per cent, a growth rate now exceeding China's.
By contrast, Russia's emissions, the fourth highest, fell from 1.59 billion tonnes in 2009 to 1.38 billion tonnes in 2010 – a drop of 13 per cent.
The significance of the emissions growth is that none of the leading emitters is willing to sign a legally binding treaty for all countries to cut their greenhouse gases, still the stated aim of the UN climate negotiations.
At the UN climate conference that begins later this month in Durban, South Africa, Britain and the EU will continue to lead moves for a global climate treaty to replace the present Kyoto Protocol, which runs out at the end of next year. But with none of the major emitters interested in a new legal treaty, its present chances of being signed are zero. Britain's own emissions of CO2 in 2010, the figures indicate, were 493,000 million tonnes, up from 465,367 million tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 5.9 per cent.
These American calculations differ slightly from the Government's own provisional estimates, which show UK carbon emissions at 491.7 million tonnes for 2010, up from 473.7 million tonnes in 2009 – an increase of 3.8 per cent.
Monday, 7 November 2011
The Japanese engineer calling for a life without electricity
Japanese engineer and inventor Yasuyuki Fujimura explains why he thinks the world should adopt a 'non-electric' lifestyle
Kazuko Kojima for OurWorld 2.0, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 November 2011 15.06 GMT
It is not all that long ago when we began using so many electrical appliances in everyday life. Japan's first "pulsator-type" washing machine, a prototype of current models, reached the market in 1953. Its popularity exploded as it was a convenient product that considerably reduced household work loads. Full-scale television broadcasting also started in 1953. This year set a precedent for the expanding use of various home appliances; so much so that it was later referred to as "year one of electrification".
Among these new appliances, the washing machine, refrigerator and black-and-white television set were called the "three sacred treasures" (referring to the Imperial regalia of Japan, the sword, mirror and jewel) that everyone longed for at that time. With incomes increasing as a result of rapid economic growth, consumer demand for these home appliances skyrocketed. By 1973 most households had purchased these 3 appliances.
Japan's electricity use steadily increased starting around this time. Even after the "oil shock" of 1973, electricity use increased about 2.5 fold during the 35 years to 2008. The most substantial increases occurred in the consumer/household and transportation sectors. The increase in household use was partly due to changes in social structure, such as an increasing number of households, and also by changes in private lifestyles demanding more and more convenience and comfort. This was a time of "individual electrification" when each individual, rather than each household, came to own a set of electrical appliances.
Despite these social trends, Yasuyuki Fujimura, a doctor of engineering and an inventor, has been advocating a "non-electric" lifestyle that intentionally avoids the use of electricity. The phrase "non-electric" may sound a little unfamiliar, but it is different from "anti-electrification" that condemns electricity on principle. The phrase is meant to communicate the idea that it should be possible to live happily and richly while enjoying a moderate level of comfort and convenience without depending on electricity.
Fujimura has a Ph.D. in physics and originally got a job at a major equipment manufacturer. He was an elite engineer involved in the development of advanced technologies including plasma processing machines, cogeneration systems and gas heat pumps. His turning point was when his newborn son was diagnosed with allergic asthma. As he found out, at that time, in the 1980s, there was a surprising increase in the number of children with allergies. As he continued his research, he learned about environmental problems. He realized that the environment was deteriorating and harming the health of children as one of the down sides of rapid economic growth fuelled by the vigorous promotion of scientific and technological advancement and the pursuit of more and more convenience and comfort.
To create a new lifestyle, Fujimura started to work on the theme of "non-electric" in 2000. In 2003, he established the Atelier Non-Electric and continues to develop many non-electric products.
Atelier Non-Electric is currently located at the foot of the Nasu Highlands, one of Japan's major resort areas in northern Tochigi Prefecture. Transportation is convenient — Nasu is about 150 kilometers north of Tokyo and can be reached in 90 minutes by the Tohoku Bullet Train.
There are many interesting home appliances that can be operated without electric power. One example is a non-electric refrigerator. It uses a phenomenon called radiational cooling together with the natural convection currents of water.
The approximately 1-hectare site is a kind of exhibition space that presents a "totally non-electric life." A non-electric house utilizes chaff, whose heat insulation performance is as good as glass wool, to the maximum. A non-electric composting toilet uses the power of microorganisms, which can decompose human waste into manure without an electric pump. The non-electric bath house uses a variety of energies such as solar power, firewood, or even garbage. These non-electric facilities are located around a pond.
Radiational cooling occurs when infrared radiation is emitted from an object's surface, causing its temperature to decrease. On a clear night, infrared rays are emitted from the ground into the atmosphere, cooling the air down. This is why the night is extremely cold in the desert. Most people have experienced water's natural convection currents when warm water rises while cold water sinks and pools at the lowest level.
The cooling unit of the refrigerator (capacity 200 litres) is made of metal that has high thermal conductivity. A large volume of water (about 250 litres) is stored around this unit as a coolant. Radiator panels are placed on top so that the inner surface of the panel touches the coolant water. The heat of things stored in the cooling unit is conveyed to the surrounding water by the metal, and the heat goes up by natural convection. Thus it is conveyed to the radiator panel, and emitted through radiational cooling.
The system is most efficient on a clear night when there is less water vapor in the air. One clear night (and sometimes even one cloudy night) every three days can keep the temperature inside the refrigerator at around 7 to 8 degrees Celsius even on a mid-summer day. This innovative refrigerator belies our present-day common sense assumption that things cannot be refrigerated without electricity.
Some values take precedence over comfort, convenience and speed
Another popular Atelier product is a handy non-electric coffee roaster. The roaster is made of aluminium and shaped like a saucepan with a handle. Raw green coffee beans are put into the pan and roasted on a gas stove for three to five minutes by shaking the pan right and left. The beans are roasted evenly and as lightly or deeply as the consumer prefers.
The process of roasting raw coffee beans, cooling them down, grinding them in a coffee mill and pouring fresh brewed coffee into a cup takes about 25 minutes. Not many people want to take such a lot of time to make a cup of coffee in today's society, which requires speed everywhere and at all times. Fujimura did not actually expect much when he started to market the roaster.
This product, however, has sold some 8,500 units so far since it hit the market six years ago, even though it has not been widely advertised, except on the website of Atelier Non-Electric.
"I think it means there are more people enjoying the process," Fujimura says. "So far in Japan, people have sought comfort, convenience, and speed. But we can't always find happiness that way. I think the popularity of the roaster shows that some people have started thinking that speed is not always the best answer."
What kind of technology does not hamper sustainability?
Although it is a very simple tool, it took six months to develop the roaster. Coffee beans need to be roasted evenly. The material used needs good thermal conductivity so that it will not take too long to roast beans. Also, the shape had to be designed so that the raw coffee beans roll around easily in the container. Furthermore, the sound of the rolling beans needs to be pretty and pleasant. "To make a good non-electric roaster, I needed to use my ingenuity. Thus it took me half a year," Fujimura laughs.
"Actually, it takes more time to develop low-tech than it does to develop high-tech although we tend to think of advanced scientific technology when we say 'technology,' while we take low-tech lightly," says Fujimura. On this misplaced assumption, we tend to desire the products of excessively advanced science and technology that promote convenience and comfort, and thus we have placed a huge burden on the environment, leading to the energy crisis and other critical situations.
On the other hand, Fujimura does not deny technology itself. His problem is with technology that hampers sustainability. He sometimes holds workshops on making non-electric refrigerators that are geared to non-scientific mothers with small children. These non-electric fridges are so simple that such mothers can easily set them up. We can fix what we make ourselves when it is broken. As science and technology advance, we need to take back technologies that anybody can build, use and repair. Fujimura thinks that is one of the keys to stopping runaway science and technology.
The non-electric way of life that Fujimura suggests is not just a lifestyle without electricity. It also incorporates his philosophy on leading a happy and affluent life using appropriate technology without depending on energy and money.
Fujimura's dream is to make the Non-Electric Atelier a theme park that showcases the many options we have for fun, affluence, and happiness, particularly in the area of housing. He wants to show that non-electric houses — even when they are built by non-professionals — are lovely yet strong, good for the health while consuming little or no energy, and furthermore can be built practically for free. He would like to make the atelier a kind of housing exhibit, and believes it will encourage people in the younger generation who feel they can't afford to own a home.
Awareness of the energy crisis is growing worldwide and in Japan, where many people are re-thinking their energy supply after the Great East Japan Earthquake. In this context, on non-electric technology is becoming increasingly important.
• This piece originally ran on Japan for Sustainability
Kazuko Kojima for OurWorld 2.0, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 November 2011 15.06 GMT
It is not all that long ago when we began using so many electrical appliances in everyday life. Japan's first "pulsator-type" washing machine, a prototype of current models, reached the market in 1953. Its popularity exploded as it was a convenient product that considerably reduced household work loads. Full-scale television broadcasting also started in 1953. This year set a precedent for the expanding use of various home appliances; so much so that it was later referred to as "year one of electrification".
Among these new appliances, the washing machine, refrigerator and black-and-white television set were called the "three sacred treasures" (referring to the Imperial regalia of Japan, the sword, mirror and jewel) that everyone longed for at that time. With incomes increasing as a result of rapid economic growth, consumer demand for these home appliances skyrocketed. By 1973 most households had purchased these 3 appliances.
Japan's electricity use steadily increased starting around this time. Even after the "oil shock" of 1973, electricity use increased about 2.5 fold during the 35 years to 2008. The most substantial increases occurred in the consumer/household and transportation sectors. The increase in household use was partly due to changes in social structure, such as an increasing number of households, and also by changes in private lifestyles demanding more and more convenience and comfort. This was a time of "individual electrification" when each individual, rather than each household, came to own a set of electrical appliances.
Despite these social trends, Yasuyuki Fujimura, a doctor of engineering and an inventor, has been advocating a "non-electric" lifestyle that intentionally avoids the use of electricity. The phrase "non-electric" may sound a little unfamiliar, but it is different from "anti-electrification" that condemns electricity on principle. The phrase is meant to communicate the idea that it should be possible to live happily and richly while enjoying a moderate level of comfort and convenience without depending on electricity.
Fujimura has a Ph.D. in physics and originally got a job at a major equipment manufacturer. He was an elite engineer involved in the development of advanced technologies including plasma processing machines, cogeneration systems and gas heat pumps. His turning point was when his newborn son was diagnosed with allergic asthma. As he found out, at that time, in the 1980s, there was a surprising increase in the number of children with allergies. As he continued his research, he learned about environmental problems. He realized that the environment was deteriorating and harming the health of children as one of the down sides of rapid economic growth fuelled by the vigorous promotion of scientific and technological advancement and the pursuit of more and more convenience and comfort.
To create a new lifestyle, Fujimura started to work on the theme of "non-electric" in 2000. In 2003, he established the Atelier Non-Electric and continues to develop many non-electric products.
Atelier Non-Electric is currently located at the foot of the Nasu Highlands, one of Japan's major resort areas in northern Tochigi Prefecture. Transportation is convenient — Nasu is about 150 kilometers north of Tokyo and can be reached in 90 minutes by the Tohoku Bullet Train.
There are many interesting home appliances that can be operated without electric power. One example is a non-electric refrigerator. It uses a phenomenon called radiational cooling together with the natural convection currents of water.
The approximately 1-hectare site is a kind of exhibition space that presents a "totally non-electric life." A non-electric house utilizes chaff, whose heat insulation performance is as good as glass wool, to the maximum. A non-electric composting toilet uses the power of microorganisms, which can decompose human waste into manure without an electric pump. The non-electric bath house uses a variety of energies such as solar power, firewood, or even garbage. These non-electric facilities are located around a pond.
Radiational cooling occurs when infrared radiation is emitted from an object's surface, causing its temperature to decrease. On a clear night, infrared rays are emitted from the ground into the atmosphere, cooling the air down. This is why the night is extremely cold in the desert. Most people have experienced water's natural convection currents when warm water rises while cold water sinks and pools at the lowest level.
The cooling unit of the refrigerator (capacity 200 litres) is made of metal that has high thermal conductivity. A large volume of water (about 250 litres) is stored around this unit as a coolant. Radiator panels are placed on top so that the inner surface of the panel touches the coolant water. The heat of things stored in the cooling unit is conveyed to the surrounding water by the metal, and the heat goes up by natural convection. Thus it is conveyed to the radiator panel, and emitted through radiational cooling.
The system is most efficient on a clear night when there is less water vapor in the air. One clear night (and sometimes even one cloudy night) every three days can keep the temperature inside the refrigerator at around 7 to 8 degrees Celsius even on a mid-summer day. This innovative refrigerator belies our present-day common sense assumption that things cannot be refrigerated without electricity.
Some values take precedence over comfort, convenience and speed
Another popular Atelier product is a handy non-electric coffee roaster. The roaster is made of aluminium and shaped like a saucepan with a handle. Raw green coffee beans are put into the pan and roasted on a gas stove for three to five minutes by shaking the pan right and left. The beans are roasted evenly and as lightly or deeply as the consumer prefers.
The process of roasting raw coffee beans, cooling them down, grinding them in a coffee mill and pouring fresh brewed coffee into a cup takes about 25 minutes. Not many people want to take such a lot of time to make a cup of coffee in today's society, which requires speed everywhere and at all times. Fujimura did not actually expect much when he started to market the roaster.
This product, however, has sold some 8,500 units so far since it hit the market six years ago, even though it has not been widely advertised, except on the website of Atelier Non-Electric.
"I think it means there are more people enjoying the process," Fujimura says. "So far in Japan, people have sought comfort, convenience, and speed. But we can't always find happiness that way. I think the popularity of the roaster shows that some people have started thinking that speed is not always the best answer."
What kind of technology does not hamper sustainability?
Although it is a very simple tool, it took six months to develop the roaster. Coffee beans need to be roasted evenly. The material used needs good thermal conductivity so that it will not take too long to roast beans. Also, the shape had to be designed so that the raw coffee beans roll around easily in the container. Furthermore, the sound of the rolling beans needs to be pretty and pleasant. "To make a good non-electric roaster, I needed to use my ingenuity. Thus it took me half a year," Fujimura laughs.
"Actually, it takes more time to develop low-tech than it does to develop high-tech although we tend to think of advanced scientific technology when we say 'technology,' while we take low-tech lightly," says Fujimura. On this misplaced assumption, we tend to desire the products of excessively advanced science and technology that promote convenience and comfort, and thus we have placed a huge burden on the environment, leading to the energy crisis and other critical situations.
On the other hand, Fujimura does not deny technology itself. His problem is with technology that hampers sustainability. He sometimes holds workshops on making non-electric refrigerators that are geared to non-scientific mothers with small children. These non-electric fridges are so simple that such mothers can easily set them up. We can fix what we make ourselves when it is broken. As science and technology advance, we need to take back technologies that anybody can build, use and repair. Fujimura thinks that is one of the keys to stopping runaway science and technology.
The non-electric way of life that Fujimura suggests is not just a lifestyle without electricity. It also incorporates his philosophy on leading a happy and affluent life using appropriate technology without depending on energy and money.
Fujimura's dream is to make the Non-Electric Atelier a theme park that showcases the many options we have for fun, affluence, and happiness, particularly in the area of housing. He wants to show that non-electric houses — even when they are built by non-professionals — are lovely yet strong, good for the health while consuming little or no energy, and furthermore can be built practically for free. He would like to make the atelier a kind of housing exhibit, and believes it will encourage people in the younger generation who feel they can't afford to own a home.
Awareness of the energy crisis is growing worldwide and in Japan, where many people are re-thinking their energy supply after the Great East Japan Earthquake. In this context, on non-electric technology is becoming increasingly important.
• This piece originally ran on Japan for Sustainability
Scottish green energy plan unrealistic, report warns
Institution of Mechanical Engineers joins Citigroup in criticising aim to provide all electricity from renewables within nine years
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 November 2011 18.33 GMT
Alex Salmond's goal of meeting all Scotland's electricity needs with green sources by 2020 has been attacked for the second time in a week for lacking credibility.
In a highly critical report, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Imeche) said the first minister's target was poorly worked out, uncosted and unrealistic.
Salmond had failed to properly explain how it could be achieved, said Tim Fox, the institution's head of energy and the environment. The target was "very problematic", Fox added, because it failed to explain how it would be met, paid for and supplied using new grid connections.
"The Scottish government needs to lay out a very clear, engineering-based plan on how they're going to have an energy mix which is secure and affordable for Scotland," he said. "At the moment, there is no clear vision for the engineering of this infrastructure. Without a clear vision of what it's going to take to deliver it, it's impossible to put any credible cost against that."
This week Citigroup said investing in Scottish renewables was extremely risky because Salmond's drive to make Scotland independent by 2015 raised far too much uncertainty about public funding.
The bank said hitting the 100% target would need about £46bn of subsidy in total, an annual subsidy of £4bn and a doubling of green generating capacity in Scotland alone to 26Gw. An independent Scotland would put that subsidy "at grave risk".
The two reports echo widespread misgivings in parts of the energy industry and banking sector about whether Salmond's plan to turn Scotland into the "Saudi Arabia of renewables" within the decade is achievable. He has won applause from green campaigners and renewables firms for vigorously championing green energy; industry sources argue that his ambition has built up confidence and excitement for green power.
Al Gore, the climate campaigner and former US vice-president, heaped praise on Salmond in his speech to a Scottish government-sponsored conference on low-carbon investment in September. Several major green energy companies, including Mitsubishi and Doosan, have moved to Scotland.
Imeche said it supported Salmond's goal of 100% renewables but warned there was a significant lack of credible detail and planning. Fox said there were significant doubts over whether the 2020 target could be met.
Imeche said the Scottish government had failed to provide stable sources of renewable energy, such as biomass or geothermal power, to give baseload electricity supply when wind farms or solar energy failed to provide enough electricity during unfavourable weather. Scotland would instead have to import power from England or abroad, Imeche said.
The report said infrastructure and market subsidies would "quickly cost billions", so pushing up fuel prices for ordinary consumers and increasing fuel poverty. The 100% target would also mean green energy sources needing to be built five times faster than the rate achieved in the past decade.
Imeche said the most intelligent starting point was to cut demand and increase efficiency, before finding new energy sources.
A Scottish government spokesman dismissed the criticisms, insisting it had published a very clear "renewables routemap" in June. He stressed the target was to generate the equivalent of 100% of its electricity from green sources, not provide that round the clock.
"We have always been clear about the need for baseload," he said. "Our ambitious and achievable target is to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020, supported by cleaner fossil fuel baseload electricity, such as the recently consented gas power station at Cockenzie."
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 November 2011 18.33 GMT
Alex Salmond's goal of meeting all Scotland's electricity needs with green sources by 2020 has been attacked for the second time in a week for lacking credibility.
In a highly critical report, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Imeche) said the first minister's target was poorly worked out, uncosted and unrealistic.
Salmond had failed to properly explain how it could be achieved, said Tim Fox, the institution's head of energy and the environment. The target was "very problematic", Fox added, because it failed to explain how it would be met, paid for and supplied using new grid connections.
"The Scottish government needs to lay out a very clear, engineering-based plan on how they're going to have an energy mix which is secure and affordable for Scotland," he said. "At the moment, there is no clear vision for the engineering of this infrastructure. Without a clear vision of what it's going to take to deliver it, it's impossible to put any credible cost against that."
This week Citigroup said investing in Scottish renewables was extremely risky because Salmond's drive to make Scotland independent by 2015 raised far too much uncertainty about public funding.
The bank said hitting the 100% target would need about £46bn of subsidy in total, an annual subsidy of £4bn and a doubling of green generating capacity in Scotland alone to 26Gw. An independent Scotland would put that subsidy "at grave risk".
The two reports echo widespread misgivings in parts of the energy industry and banking sector about whether Salmond's plan to turn Scotland into the "Saudi Arabia of renewables" within the decade is achievable. He has won applause from green campaigners and renewables firms for vigorously championing green energy; industry sources argue that his ambition has built up confidence and excitement for green power.
Al Gore, the climate campaigner and former US vice-president, heaped praise on Salmond in his speech to a Scottish government-sponsored conference on low-carbon investment in September. Several major green energy companies, including Mitsubishi and Doosan, have moved to Scotland.
Imeche said it supported Salmond's goal of 100% renewables but warned there was a significant lack of credible detail and planning. Fox said there were significant doubts over whether the 2020 target could be met.
Imeche said the Scottish government had failed to provide stable sources of renewable energy, such as biomass or geothermal power, to give baseload electricity supply when wind farms or solar energy failed to provide enough electricity during unfavourable weather. Scotland would instead have to import power from England or abroad, Imeche said.
The report said infrastructure and market subsidies would "quickly cost billions", so pushing up fuel prices for ordinary consumers and increasing fuel poverty. The 100% target would also mean green energy sources needing to be built five times faster than the rate achieved in the past decade.
Imeche said the most intelligent starting point was to cut demand and increase efficiency, before finding new energy sources.
A Scottish government spokesman dismissed the criticisms, insisting it had published a very clear "renewables routemap" in June. He stressed the target was to generate the equivalent of 100% of its electricity from green sources, not provide that round the clock.
"We have always been clear about the need for baseload," he said. "Our ambitious and achievable target is to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's electricity needs from renewables by 2020, supported by cleaner fossil fuel baseload electricity, such as the recently consented gas power station at Cockenzie."
Solar has been too successful – that's why tariffs were cut
The premature FIT cuts are going to wreck green industry and damage the case for community and business schemes
The government landed a body blow to the solar industry this week by announcing that feed-in tariffs to support the installation of solar PV will be more than halved.
Initial reports of an even more drastic cut – from the current rate of 43.3p to 9p, said to be the preferred option of some in government – were leaked out over the past few weeks in what looked very much like pre-emptive spinning to try to take the heat off ministers. But despite the spin, what has become painfully obvious is that the government's solar policy is in chaos.
The feed-in tariff, a mechanism designed to support and stimulate the solar industry with clear points for "degression" as costs of installing and running the technology fall, has been highly successful in allowing homeowners, community groups, local authorities, and businesses to realise the benefits of solar. Since the scheme was introduced in April 2010, it has seen 100,000 solar installations, the creation of more than 22,000 jobs and almost 4,000 new businesses.
It has always been accepted that the tariff would need to be revised in line with falling installation costs, but the government's failure to take a more gradual approach to cutting the rates, to enable people and organisations to plan ahead and adapt accordingly, risks reversing the achievements of this burgeoning industry.
The timing of the decision itself suggests a worrying level of disorder behind the scenes. We know that this reduction wasn't supposed to happen until April, yet the government chose to bring it forward – causing great upheaval, just as it did with the solar installations greater than 50kw earlier this year.
This shock treatment could particularly damage the business case for local authority solar programmes, such as Brighton & Hove City Council's ambitious plan for solar panels on public buildings and council houses. Brighton and Hove were looking to this scheme to partly offset coalition cuts to their budget, whilst reducing their carbon footprint, tackling fuel poverty and creating local jobs. So it's understandable that Green councillors are now feeling pretty let down by this week's announcement – and say they are ready to sue the government for compensation if the council loses money as a result.
On a separate note, the government's plan for a lower tariff of 9p from April 2012 for properties which don't have an energy efficiency rating of C or above is certainly a welcome idea in principle; there seems little point in installing solar panels onto a deeply inefficient building. However, as it stands, it's highly unlikely that the underfunded Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation will be sufficient to bring enough properties up to scratch. So those who can't afford to add their own money to the government schemes to get properly insulated – the people most likely to be in fuel poverty – will lose out to those who can when it comes to solar.
Furthermore, I'm concerned that the FITs reduction could have a serious impact on the coalition's pledge to "encourage community owned energy where local people benefit from the power produced". Community schemes of this kind can be incredibly effective, but they inevitably take longer to organise than, say, a home owner deciding to fit panels on a house.
The cut in support for solar could catch out those community groups in the middle of fundraising efforts, meaning that their efforts would be wasted. The least the government can do now is to grant a stay of execution for those projects that already have planning permission, so that they are not bound by the December deadline – something I raised with the energy minister, Greg Barker, in Parliament on Monday.
The truth is that solar has been too successful for the government's liking – and this will certainly not be the last attempt to cut off its subsidies. No doubt some in the coalition would prefer to scrap them altogether. But this is a jobs rich, green industry which is just taking flight, and withdrawing support too soon, before its full potential has been realised, could be disastrous.
The government landed a body blow to the solar industry this week by announcing that feed-in tariffs to support the installation of solar PV will be more than halved.
Initial reports of an even more drastic cut – from the current rate of 43.3p to 9p, said to be the preferred option of some in government – were leaked out over the past few weeks in what looked very much like pre-emptive spinning to try to take the heat off ministers. But despite the spin, what has become painfully obvious is that the government's solar policy is in chaos.
The feed-in tariff, a mechanism designed to support and stimulate the solar industry with clear points for "degression" as costs of installing and running the technology fall, has been highly successful in allowing homeowners, community groups, local authorities, and businesses to realise the benefits of solar. Since the scheme was introduced in April 2010, it has seen 100,000 solar installations, the creation of more than 22,000 jobs and almost 4,000 new businesses.
It has always been accepted that the tariff would need to be revised in line with falling installation costs, but the government's failure to take a more gradual approach to cutting the rates, to enable people and organisations to plan ahead and adapt accordingly, risks reversing the achievements of this burgeoning industry.
The timing of the decision itself suggests a worrying level of disorder behind the scenes. We know that this reduction wasn't supposed to happen until April, yet the government chose to bring it forward – causing great upheaval, just as it did with the solar installations greater than 50kw earlier this year.
This shock treatment could particularly damage the business case for local authority solar programmes, such as Brighton & Hove City Council's ambitious plan for solar panels on public buildings and council houses. Brighton and Hove were looking to this scheme to partly offset coalition cuts to their budget, whilst reducing their carbon footprint, tackling fuel poverty and creating local jobs. So it's understandable that Green councillors are now feeling pretty let down by this week's announcement – and say they are ready to sue the government for compensation if the council loses money as a result.
On a separate note, the government's plan for a lower tariff of 9p from April 2012 for properties which don't have an energy efficiency rating of C or above is certainly a welcome idea in principle; there seems little point in installing solar panels onto a deeply inefficient building. However, as it stands, it's highly unlikely that the underfunded Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation will be sufficient to bring enough properties up to scratch. So those who can't afford to add their own money to the government schemes to get properly insulated – the people most likely to be in fuel poverty – will lose out to those who can when it comes to solar.
Furthermore, I'm concerned that the FITs reduction could have a serious impact on the coalition's pledge to "encourage community owned energy where local people benefit from the power produced". Community schemes of this kind can be incredibly effective, but they inevitably take longer to organise than, say, a home owner deciding to fit panels on a house.
The cut in support for solar could catch out those community groups in the middle of fundraising efforts, meaning that their efforts would be wasted. The least the government can do now is to grant a stay of execution for those projects that already have planning permission, so that they are not bound by the December deadline – something I raised with the energy minister, Greg Barker, in Parliament on Monday.
The truth is that solar has been too successful for the government's liking – and this will certainly not be the last attempt to cut off its subsidies. No doubt some in the coalition would prefer to scrap them altogether. But this is a jobs rich, green industry which is just taking flight, and withdrawing support too soon, before its full potential has been realised, could be disastrous.
China to phase out incandescent lightbulbs
Largest producer of energy efficient lightbulbs announces move – but may apparently still produce incandescents for export
Tania Branigan in Beijing
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 November 2011 16.53 GMT
The lights are going out for incandescent bulbs, as China pledges to replace the 1 billion it uses annually with more energy efficient models within five years.
Beijing's move is a major step in efforts to improve lighting efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Lighting accounts for 19% of electricity use worldwide, according to a 2007 estimate from the International Energy Agency, a figure that could drop to 7% if the rest of the world followed China's lead, the Global Environment Facility fund said.
The decision by the world's second largest economy to phase out incandescents follows in the footsteps of Australia, the European Union, Brazil and others.
But according to the Global Environment Facility, incandescents still make up 50-70% of worldwide sales and China's move forms a striking contrast to the US government's backsliding on the issue. This summer Republicans drove a bill through the House of Representatives stripping all funding for government enforcement of improved lighting efficiency standards, which come into force next year.
It is unclear whether China will totally phase out production of incandescents. A report from state news agency Xinhua said that "imports and sales" would be banned – seemingly implying that exports would still be allowed.
Campaigners hope China's plan will nonetheless encourage producers – who make 3.85 billion incandescent bulbs a year, an estimated 70% of the world's supply – to shift towards other products, in particular CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) and LEDs. CFLs use around 75% less energy to produce an equivalent amount of light and last much longer.
The country has already become the largest producer of energy-efficient light bulbs, thanks in large part to sizable grants from international environmental agencies.
Experts predict that the shift in demand will also cut the cost of CFLs and increase the cost of incandescents globally.
Imports and sales of 100 watt and higher incandescent bulbs will be banned from October next year, Xie Ji, an official at the country's top economic planning body said, while those of 60 watts and above will be banned from October 2014.
The senior official added that incandescents of 15 watts or higher would be banned from 2016 if the scheme was a success.
The plan showed China's determination to save energy, cut costs and curb climate change, he went on, and would have a "significant impact" on global use.
Xie, who is deputy director of the environmental protection department with the National Development and Reform Commission, added that lighting accounts for 12% of China's total electricity use. The NDRC has estimated that the switch will save 48 billion kilowatt hours of power per year and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 48 million tonnes annually. China emitted 7,710 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2009.
Overall, China has pledged to cut energy consumption per unit of GDP by 16% and cut carbon emissions by 17% in the five years to 2015.
Yang Fuqiang, the senior advisor on climate change and energy at the US-based Natural Resources Defence Council, said the amount of electricity used by lighting in China at the moment was two or three times the generating capacity of the massive Three Gorges dam.
He added that while exports would still be legal, the plan should help companies produce more energy efficient bulbs, not least because China already had strong research and development and production capacity for energy efficient lighting.
The Global Environment Facility fund, which has invested millions of dollars in China to encourage the phase-out, says that moving to efficient lighting is one of the simplest ways for countries to cut carbon emissions.
Christophe Bahuet, the deputy country director of the United Nations Development Programme, said: "I think what's important for us is that China is joining an international trend. It also sends a signal that will inspire others."
But he cautioned that implementation would be key, warning: "It is a roadmap, but a lot will have to be done at provincial and local level to help explain why people should go for these plans."
Wang Jinsui, the president of the China Illuminating Engineering Society, told the China Daily newspaper earlier this year that it would take producers time to switch. He added that the government should consider subsidies because many families would not be able to afford the more expensive energy-efficient bulbs.
Liu Shengping, the secretary general of the China Association of Lighting Industry, told the newspaper that it was "unrealistic" to require energy efficient lights were used everywhere.
"As long as the demand exists, Chinese manufacturers can hardly pull the plug on the production line," he said.
• Additional research by Han Cheng
Tania Branigan in Beijing
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 November 2011 16.53 GMT
The lights are going out for incandescent bulbs, as China pledges to replace the 1 billion it uses annually with more energy efficient models within five years.
Beijing's move is a major step in efforts to improve lighting efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Lighting accounts for 19% of electricity use worldwide, according to a 2007 estimate from the International Energy Agency, a figure that could drop to 7% if the rest of the world followed China's lead, the Global Environment Facility fund said.
The decision by the world's second largest economy to phase out incandescents follows in the footsteps of Australia, the European Union, Brazil and others.
But according to the Global Environment Facility, incandescents still make up 50-70% of worldwide sales and China's move forms a striking contrast to the US government's backsliding on the issue. This summer Republicans drove a bill through the House of Representatives stripping all funding for government enforcement of improved lighting efficiency standards, which come into force next year.
It is unclear whether China will totally phase out production of incandescents. A report from state news agency Xinhua said that "imports and sales" would be banned – seemingly implying that exports would still be allowed.
Campaigners hope China's plan will nonetheless encourage producers – who make 3.85 billion incandescent bulbs a year, an estimated 70% of the world's supply – to shift towards other products, in particular CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) and LEDs. CFLs use around 75% less energy to produce an equivalent amount of light and last much longer.
The country has already become the largest producer of energy-efficient light bulbs, thanks in large part to sizable grants from international environmental agencies.
Experts predict that the shift in demand will also cut the cost of CFLs and increase the cost of incandescents globally.
Imports and sales of 100 watt and higher incandescent bulbs will be banned from October next year, Xie Ji, an official at the country's top economic planning body said, while those of 60 watts and above will be banned from October 2014.
The senior official added that incandescents of 15 watts or higher would be banned from 2016 if the scheme was a success.
The plan showed China's determination to save energy, cut costs and curb climate change, he went on, and would have a "significant impact" on global use.
Xie, who is deputy director of the environmental protection department with the National Development and Reform Commission, added that lighting accounts for 12% of China's total electricity use. The NDRC has estimated that the switch will save 48 billion kilowatt hours of power per year and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 48 million tonnes annually. China emitted 7,710 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2009.
Overall, China has pledged to cut energy consumption per unit of GDP by 16% and cut carbon emissions by 17% in the five years to 2015.
Yang Fuqiang, the senior advisor on climate change and energy at the US-based Natural Resources Defence Council, said the amount of electricity used by lighting in China at the moment was two or three times the generating capacity of the massive Three Gorges dam.
He added that while exports would still be legal, the plan should help companies produce more energy efficient bulbs, not least because China already had strong research and development and production capacity for energy efficient lighting.
The Global Environment Facility fund, which has invested millions of dollars in China to encourage the phase-out, says that moving to efficient lighting is one of the simplest ways for countries to cut carbon emissions.
Christophe Bahuet, the deputy country director of the United Nations Development Programme, said: "I think what's important for us is that China is joining an international trend. It also sends a signal that will inspire others."
But he cautioned that implementation would be key, warning: "It is a roadmap, but a lot will have to be done at provincial and local level to help explain why people should go for these plans."
Wang Jinsui, the president of the China Illuminating Engineering Society, told the China Daily newspaper earlier this year that it would take producers time to switch. He added that the government should consider subsidies because many families would not be able to afford the more expensive energy-efficient bulbs.
Liu Shengping, the secretary general of the China Association of Lighting Industry, told the newspaper that it was "unrealistic" to require energy efficient lights were used everywhere.
"As long as the demand exists, Chinese manufacturers can hardly pull the plug on the production line," he said.
• Additional research by Han Cheng