COP21 The Talking Continues

An audio version of this episode was published on 11th December 2015 and is available at www.susbiz.biz

This week the Energy Minister and the Prime Minister have been under fire as COP21 moves forward. While the main negotiating sessions continue, many other meetings take place as well. Mark Carney of the Bank of England has a view. The group of 77 nations  (G77) plus China has a view as well, and so do the 48 Least-Developed Countries. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party is concerned. Can we standardise climate change? Is emissions trading the answer? George Monbiot believes that that's attacking the problem from the wrong end. Jeremy Leggett is not at all happy with Minister Amber Rudd as you will learn from the latest chapter of his book, and the week will end with a massive march through the streets of Paris. I’m a member of iema and that entitles me to a daily update on the conference from the environmentalist magazine. Non-members can subscribe at  environmentalistonline.com. But we have our own man on the spot in Paris. You’ll hear from Richard Lane later on.

First of all: it’s beginning look a bit like - 99p for a litre of petrol by Christmas. The oil price has fallen 60% since summer 2014 and Goldman Sachs are still predicting the $20 barrel. This week Brent crude was at $42 and West Texas Intermediate down to $38. Since 2011 the Chancellor has suspended the fuel price escalator. In the face of falling oil prices an additional 1p on a litre of petrol or diesel would be pretty painless. But the government estimates that freezing the escalator has reduced taxation income by some £23bn over the life of the last Parliament. Isn’t that approximately twice what the Chancellor intends to take out of the welfare budget? You can make up your own mind as to whether this was the right place make cuts.

The Prime Minister and cabinet members have been criticised this week for flying to the Paris climate change talks, rather than taking the more environmentally friendly Eurostar train. David Cameron and Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber Rudd flew the short trip to the opening day of the talks last Monday. International Development Secretary Justine Greening and her team also took a flight for her short trip to the COP21 talks on Saturday

According to Eurostar, a short haul return flight from Heathrow to Charles de Gaulle airport emits 122 kilograms of CO2 per person, compared with the 10.9 kg CO2 emitted per Eurostar passenger travelling from St Pancras to the centre of Paris. On such a short journey, city centre to city centre times are likely to be shorter by train than by air. Most of the team went back by train, so perhaps the criticism worked.

According to Independent Catholic News, Catholic campaigners have called on the UK government to heed the message of Pope Francis as the Secretary of State arrives in Paris to join the second week of the climate talks.

"David Cameron's speech last Monday,” they say, “called for a strong deal that guarantees adequate climate finance for the world's most vulnerable people and a five year review mechanism to measure and improve progress. We look forward to Amber Rudd rolling her sleeves up and getting involved to make this deal happen."

And Caroline Lucas of the Green Party has a message for Amber Rudd as well. Her open letter to the minister starts like this:

“HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENDER EQUALITY IN THE PARIS AGREEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

“I am writing to express my concern regarding reports from the COP21 negotiations that the language on respect for human rights and gender equality is at risk of being removed entirely from the operative section of the Paris Agreement. Climate change represents a gross social injustice, and establishing overarching principles of climate justice, human rights and gender equality at the heart of the climate agreement will be a prerequisite for effective climate action. I urge you to ensure that the UK in particular is playing a constructive role in upholding a strong EU position on this issue.”

Paul Polman, chief executive of Unilever, aims to make the company "carbon positive" by 2030, using only renewable energy. He didn’t mention Amber Rudd. Well, not directly.

Speaking to BBC News this week he said he was concerned that the government's decision to remove financial support for wind and solar power would send the wrong signal. Subsidies cannot be permanent, but equally they should not be withdrawn at short notice. There is a risk that cutting subsidies sends the wrong message to investors, who are looking for stability. The government has been inconsistent. 

“We deal with 2bn consumers every day,” says Polman. “No government deals with 2bn consumers. If we are all to achieve our targets, government and business must work together.”

It seems pretty clear that without private sector support, governments will struggle.

So what’s been happening in Paris? Apart from the governmental negotiations there are many other organisations which have come to Paris to lobby and discuss climate change. A great deal has happened. For example,

Ninety businesses and 19 governments have signed up to a World Bank coalition to support the introduction of carbon prices. BT Group, EDF, Lafarge, Nestlé, SSE, Unilever and Veolia are among the companies joining the coalition, which will collect and share best practice, mobilise business support and convene talks with global leaders to overcome barriers to more widespread use of carbon pricing. 

They are backed by the governments of Sweden, the Netherlands, Ethiopia and Mexico, among others. Canadian environment minister Catherine McKenna announced that the country’s government, elected last month, would support the coalition. 

World Bank president Jim Yong Kim pointed to China’s plans to introduce a carbon price in 2017, and said: “Anyone who wants to do business with China will have to change the way they work.”

According to the Financial Times, the preferred solution is a cap and trade system. Such schemes already exist. EU ETS, the European union emissions trading scheme, is an example. Unfortunately, it's a bad example because it has done nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Cap and trade involves governments issuing carbon credits which are effectively a licence to emit carbon dioxide. The idea is that the cost of extra credits will put a burden on old and dirty plants, reduce their viability and lead them to be phased out. More efficient plants will need less credits and may even have a surplus to sell, giving them a financial and competitive advantage. In practice, EU ETS has been subject to fraud and manipulation. The price of carbon credits, which has collapsed to less than €4 per tonne, provides  little incentive to industry to clean up.

This week the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute (GHGMI) held a panel discussion on the sidelines of the Paris talks. 

Tom Bauman, co-founder of the GHGMI and chair of a technical committee working on climate change mitigation and adaptation standards at the ISO, said that it had received a large number of requests over the past 18 months for new climate change standards. 

Nick Blyth, policy and practice lead at IEMA, said that the demand for new standards was driven partly by a general increase in awareness of the impacts of climate change as well as the publication of the revised ISO 14001 environmental management standard. The revised 14001: 2015 standard requires organisations to consider the impact of the environment, including climate change, on their operations as well as their impact on the environment.

“The revised ISO 14001 should introduce more people to climate change, which will then lead them into the scope of other GHG standards,” he said. 

More than 324,000 organisations worldwide were certified to 14001 in 2014, according to the ISO’s latest figures. The high rate of use is bringing climate change into mainstream environmental management systems, Blyth added. 

The negotiations are not all about mitigation; measures to reduce or slow down climate change. They are also about dealing with the consequences. Discussions over which countries will pay for damage caused by climate change are slowing down negotiations, with the G77 plus China group issuing a new warning that the issue threatens chances of a deal.

The G77 plus China negotiating bloc, which now consists of 134 countries, including Saudi Arabia and South Africa, complained about attempts by developed countries to widen the pool of donor nations that would contribute finance. The developed nations argue that developing countries “in a position to do so” should also contribute to funds to pay for climate change damage. 

In a strongly worded statement, ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko of South Africa, which chairs the bloc, said: “The G77 and China is deeply concerned with the attempts to introduce economic conditions in the finance section currently under negotiation … Any attempt to replace the core obligation of developed countries to provide financial support to developing countries with a number of arbitrarily identified economic conditions is a violation of the rules-based multilateral process and threatens an outcome here in Paris.” 

Countries most at risk from climate change joined the debate and warned that there would be no overall agreement in Paris unless a mechanism to deal with the impacts of climate change beyond adaptation is agreed.

The Least Developed Countries (LDC) negotiating bloc comprises 48 of the world’s poorest countries including many African countries and low-lying island states. Its members face severe disasters from climate change that are predicted to cause damage for which adaptation will not be possible. This is known as “loss and damage” and includes salination of agricultural land and loss of land to the sea.

Pa Ousman Jarju, minister of environment and climate change for the Gambia, said: “We do not foresee an outcome in Paris without loss and damage. It is a red line for us.”

Jarju said that the bloc had been encouraged by some of the statements by world leaders made at the start of the Paris talks, but said that this had not filtered through to negotiations. “We have seen a lot of bracketing,” he said, referring to the practice of using square brackets throughout the draft text to indicate options on the table where no decision has been reached. More about this in a moment.

Last Friday, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, launched the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) to develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures by companies. This would provide lenders, insurers, investors and other stakeholders with important long-term information, he said. Carney has already warned about the danger from stranded assets, fossil fuel reserves which cannot be exploited without emitting unsustainable levels of emissions and which are therefore potentially worthless.

The taskforce will be chaired by UN special envoy for climate change and former mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg. It will consider what constitutes effective corporate financial transparency on climate change to understand the physical, liability and transition risks, and will review and learn from existing disclosure processes. 

Paul Simpson, chief executive of the CDP, (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), which has been working on climate change-related disclosures for investors for 15 years, welcomed the announcement. “We see it as a way of elevating our work and some of the information we collect right into the heart of financial markets and central banks. Carney is governor of the Bank of England and chair of the Financial Stability Board so that’s a much stronger angle into banks on climate than there’s been before. It will take disclosures to the next level,” he said.  

Proposals by the Treasury to scrap regulations requiring companies to report greenhouse-gas emissions in their financial reports as part of its business energy efficiency tax review were very worrying, Simpson said. But these could now be under review following Carney’s high-profile speech to the city and the creation of the taskforce, he added. 

“We very much hope that due to Carney’s focus on this issue, Osborne and the Treasury will see sense and realise that investors need this information, in fact they need more information than just GHG emissions. We’re hopeful that it will cause a u-turn from Osborne.” 

Not another u-turn, surely.

More than 100 companies including Ikea, Coca-Cola, Walmart and Kellogg have pledged to set emissions reduction targets in line with scientific assessments on how to keep temperature rises below 2°C.

Corporate science-based targets are being advocated by a coalition consisting of the World Resources Institute (WRI), the CDP, the UN Global Compact and WWF.

Speaking at a side-event on science-based targets at the UNFCCC talks in Paris, Kevin Moss, business centre director at the WRI, said typically, companies would set emission reduction targets in line with what they thought they could achieve, and then stretched themselves slightly so they knew they would meet the target.

“Science-based targets start with the principle that what we are trying to do is solve the problem of catastrophic climate change and there isn’t really a half way point to avoiding catastrophic climate change, you’re either on a trajectory to meet it or you’re not.

“If you’re making the effort to reduce emissions, it’s worth making that little bit extra effort to avoid catastrophic climate change,” he said.

A new draft agreement was announced at COP21 this week. I heard that the previous 50 pages had been reduced to 20. The copy I downloaded ran to 48 pages - still full of bracketed alternatives. For example:

. Article 2bis (GENERAL)

1. [All Parties [shall] regularly prepare, communicate [and implement] [intended] nationally determined [contributions][components] [on [mitigation] and adaptation]…

…you get the idea. And that’s just one clause. Still plenty to do before the close of business on 11th December. And I think it will take a long time to understand what the final agreement actually amounts to.

George Monbiot is a climate campaigner, a Guardian columnist and author. Last Friday he appeared on Any Questions, the BBC Radio 4 current affairs debate. He stated that the UK has a legal requirement to exploit fossil fuels, which seems totally at variance with managing emissions. I tracked this down to an article he wrote in January, referring to what is now the Infrastructure Act 2015. Article 41 of this Act is indeed headed “Maximising recovery of UK petroleum” and it requires the Secretary of State to produce one or more strategies for enabling that objective to be met. That’s the same secretary of state who is responsible for reducing carbon emissions. Also in the article, George Monbiot takes issue with the idea of reducing carbon emissions by penalising the consumer. Instead we should tax the producer of fossil fuels. In his words, “Let’s control carbon emissions at the wellhead, not the tailpipe.” Whether that will happen in Paris is open to question. For the moment a carbon cap and trade scheme seems more likely, with all its shortcomings.

I suggested last week that the US would resist any agreement that was legally binding. The good news is that President Obama said he would accept a legal obligation to review the progress towards carbon reduction every 5 years. That’s a start, but in my view reviews should begin much sooner and be more frequent. On the other hand, the Indian Environment Minister said that his country was embarking on a 10-year project and there would clearly be no need for review for 10 years. What business could set out on a 10-year plan without review? If there are any you’ve probably never heard of them because they failed in the first few years.

The latest episode of Jeremy Leggett’s book “The Winning of the Carbon War” came out this week. It’s a free download from jeremyleggett.net. It’s nearly finished. The last chapter will be out in January and will end with an assessment of what was achieved by COP21. Jeremy leads one of the original and biggest solar energy companies in the UK. He is has it in for Amber Rudd as well. Here’s a quotation from his latest chapter.

“The government is engaged in a scorched earth assault on solar now, it seems. They want no opposition to gas and oil, fracked from British shale or otherwise produced at home and abroad. They seem unembarrassable by their willingness to shovel large subsidies to shale and nuclear while torpedoing solar subsidies.

“Two days ago somebody in either the civil service or the Tory party leaked a letter from Amber Rudd to ministerial colleagues. It shows that in June, when she insisted that the UK was on track for its legally binding European commitment for renewables in the energy mix, she misled Parliament. Now she admits that the government is on course to miss the target by some distance. She suggests some shameful ways of wriggling out of the commitment, like somehow creating renewable energy credits abroad so as to claim the targets have been met.

“Today, facing calls for her resignation, she has given an interview insisting that she still has the confidence of the renewables sector. I know of no leader in the renewable sector whose view deviates much from derision. The whole spectacle has descended beyond farce.”

Well, all this is politics, horse-trading and shenanigans. Does it really matter to you, me and the man in the street what goes on in Whitehall or what gets decided in Paris? Yes, it does. Is there anything we can do about it? It’s the difference between mitigation and adaptation. Governments and global corporations can mitigate. You and I have to adapt. Having said that there are many brave people in Paris running parallel events and demonstrating their demands for a fair and effective agreement from COP21. The short-term interests of the less-than-1% cannot determine the futures of the rest of the world, they say. Next Saturday, 12th December, they take to the streets of Paris to demand that all countries should keep to the pledges made at COP21 and ideally do even better. No, I won’t be there. No excuses and I’ll probably regret it. It’s going to be part of history. I’ll be there in spirit.

One person who is there is Richard Lane, President of York Community Energy. Here’s his report:

"Basically: almost everything we're doing is wrong! The Clean Development Mechanism and the Green Climate Fund are both deeply suspect and causing the sort of popular resistance that we have seen when huge windfarms get imposed on people without their consent in the UK. The draft text of the Paris agreement only mentions the word "energy" once - that's in the phrase "International Atomic Energy Agency". The US has been fighting against the inclusion of a clause referring to the "loss and damage" due to climate change (which would of course signify the recognition of responsibility), but more recently has given way on this issue provided it is made clear that there will be no means to make them liable for any sort of reparation. The South African spokesperson of the G77 has been very outspoken, resulting in a lot of behind-the-scenes threats and pressure being applied to other G77 members to rein her in. At the moment it looks like this approach is being successful in breaking up the unity of developing countries.

"A new version of the text will be released on Wednesday 9th December. There is still hope that the final target could be 1.5degC but there is no hope of a legally binding treaty - or indeed any updating of INDCs that would get us closer to that from the current 3degC or so.

"I actually missed the daily debrief today because I was due to videocall in to the York Environment Forum meeting which nearly didn't work due to a combination of technical problems & lack of skill their end and difficult environment my end.

"I met a lot of activists in community energy - there are moves to try to connect up the community energy movement worldwide.”

More from Richard, I hope, later in the week.

Meanwhile, back at work, back in the office, are you confident of the future, or do you have a 10-year plan which means you don’t have to worry about anything for another 9 years or so? If you want a review before then, if you want to chat about sustaining your business and bolstering your competitive position for even more than the next 10 years, give me a call, especially if you’ve still got some mince pies left.

I’m Anthony Day and I’m on 07803 616877.

That was the Sustainable Futures Report. This is Anthony Day. There will be another episode next week.

Ever Closer to Paris

Hear the podcast at www.susbiz.biz

This week, the heat is on for Exxon but may be off for the Swiss. When is a keystone not a Keystone? I look in detail at why climate change is important and what countries are likely to do about it at the Paris conference. And what citizens at large will do about it if they don’t. Why has a minister got a ruddy complexion? What’s a trilemma? And what’s Jeremy Leggett doing in that locked room?

Hello. This is Anthony Day and this is the sustainable futures show. It's exactly a year since I started publishing the sustainable futures show regularly every week. There are now some 50 episodes in the archive going back over the last 12 months and about the same number which were issued irregularly going right back to 2007. The Christmas edition on 25 December will review some of the highlights of previous episodes. If you want to find any of them now, just go to www.susbiz.biz and do a keyword search.

Sustainable Futures. I’ve said before that in my book a sustainable business is a business that will be here this year, next year and in 10, 20 or more years from now. It needs to manage change. Change in its environment. Change in its stakeholder expectations. Change in the market. Change in the supply chain. Change in the world.

To manage change successfully you first have to see it coming. Every week, the sustainable futures show brings you news, facts and opinions about changes in the sustainable world. My aim is to bring you everything that's important and interesting to help you manage change.

Investigating Exxon

The heat is on for Exxon. According to the New York Times, The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.

The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.

Peabody Energy, America’s largest coal producer, has also been under investigation over whether it properly disclosed financial risks related to climate change. That investigation has not so far resulted in any charges or other legal action. Investigations, which could theoretically lead to charges of fraud, are based on asset valuations. If reserves of oil and gas and coal cannot be extracted and used, then they have no value. They are stranded assets. The fossil fuel companies refuse to accept that any of their assets are stranded and therefore stand by their asset valuation. It's quite possible that all this will lead to litigation, but the likely outcome will be fat fees for lawyers and years and years of legal disputes. It's extremely unlikely to have any short-term effect on reducing greenhouse gases or climate change.

Keystone XL

A keystone is literally the last piece of stone to be slotted into a masonry arch. It locks all the other pieces firmly together. It's key, because without a keystone the arch collapses. Maybe it's by reason of its importance that the planned pipeline from Canada to Texas was named Keystone XL. The plan was to pipe crude oil from the Canadian tar sands across the United States to be refined in Texas, but this week president Obama announced that it was not viable, did not create jobs, was not vital for US energy and national security, and was too dangerous for our environment. It would not be built. Cue joyful demonstrations from environmentalists. Actually it's not as simple as that. Keystone XL is phase IV of a pipeline system which has already been in operation since January 2014, and does indeed transport oil from Canada to Texas. Phase IV, a 1200-mile pipeline which will not now be built, would have taken a more direct route and had a much larger capacity. Oil, probably less of it, will now be sent by rail instead. The oil industry is not happy, but it's probably glad to avoid such an enormous investment in this time of very low oil prices. Oil from tar sands is some of the dirtiest oil and most difficult and expensive to produce, so anything which depresses demand and keeps it in the ground is to be welcomed. 

Closing in on Paris

The big change on the horizon is of course COP21, the United Nations climate change conference taking place in Paris in December. But why is climate change important to you, your business, your family, your future? Because if climate change is allowed to continue it’s going to damage the world we live in and make life difficult; ultimately impossible. And if governments take firm action to tackle climate change it’s going to change our world and, in the short term, may also make life difficult. But at least we’ll have a sustainable future.

What if we don’t tackle climate change? 

The predictions are for more unusual weather. 

This November in the UK we are experiencing the warmest November days ever, and what’s wrong with that? Well this week the Met Office announced that 2015 would be the first year when average global temperatures reached 1℃ higher than the average before the start of the Industrial Revolution. Doesn’t sound a lot, but a rise of 2℃ is generally believed to be the threshold of catastrophic climate change. So we're halfway there.

In Europe rainfall has been unusually low. This has caused a shortage of heating oil in Switzerland. How can that possibly be connected? Well, heating oil is delivered to Switzerland by barges sailing along the River Rhine. Lack of rainfall means that the river level is the lowest it has been for four years. Some barges can no longer sail the river, and those that can are half empty so that they do not ride too low in the water. As a result there’s a shortage of heating oil and the Swiss may freeze this winter - if it ever gets cold! The trouble is that it isn't getting as cold as it used to, and that has serious consequences for the skiing industry. 

The popular wisdom is that climate change will have its earliest and most serious effects in the developing nations. Not exclusively, it seems.

The predictions are for more extreme weather. 

This is certainly affecting the developing world. In 1984 the world was horrified by scenes of starvation from Ethiopia. In 2015 the same thing seems to be happening again. The rains have failed. They planted sorghum. It failed. They planted peas. They failed. The population now relies on emergency handouts from reserves. The United Nations has warned that more than 15 million people in Ethiopia will be in need of food aid by the beginning of 2016. 

The predictions are for sea-level rise. 

As the ice-caps melt and the oceans warm up, the volume of water increases and sea-levels rise. They rise by only millimetres per year so the rise alone will take years to have an effect. Except that every millimetre rise represents millions of tonnes of extra water, and driven by the more violent storms that we see and expect, this water could  overwhelm flood defences and cause widespread damage. There are very few major cities in the world which are not on the coast or on tidal rivers.

These are reasons why climate change is important to us all, and why the nations are coming together in Paris to do something about it. 

What exactly are they trying to do at COP21? 

At the end of last month the parties issued an agreed draft document, following the meeting in Bonn. This is so far only  a framework for negotiation. It’s to provide a context for the implementation of each country’s commitments. Each country has issued  an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). The EU has made a combined commitment and the document says: “The EU and its Member States are committed to a binding target of an at least 40% domestic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990”

“Legislative proposals to implement the 2030 climate and energy framework, are to be submitted by the European Commission to the Council and European Parliament in 2015-2016.

"This is in line with the EU objective to reduce its emissions by 80-95% by 2050 compared to 1990. Furthermore, it is consistent with the need for at least halving global emissions by 2050 compared to 1990."

I then went on to look at the submission by the United States.

“The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 per cent below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%.

“This target is consistent with a straight line emission reduction pathway from 2020 to deep, economy-wide emission reductions of 80% or more by 2050.”

So the EU is cutting by 40% over 1990 levels by 2030, but the US is cutting by up to 28% of 2005 levels by 2025. Difficult to compare. I looked into the basic figures. The US emissions in millions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent were 6,250 in 2005 and a reduction of 28% brings that down to 4,500 in 2025. Emissions in 1990 were 5,400 hence the 2025 target is 17% below the 1990 level. Sorry about all these figures. To summarise, the EU is aiming for a 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2030, the US is aiming for a 17% reduction on 1990 levels by 2025.

As far as actual performance is concerned, the INDC - Intended Nationally Determined Contribution - of the US indicates that they are well on their way to their 2020 target of a 17% reduction (That’s 17% of their 2005 level). That does mean of course that after reducing by that 17% in the 15 years between 2005 and 2020 they are going to have to reduce by a further 11% in only 5 years between 2020 and 2025. And the last few are always the most difficult.

Turning to the EU, I’ve been reading “Trends and projections in Europe 2015 — Tracking progress towards Europe's climate and energy targets”, a report produced by the European Environment Agency. How likely is it that Europe will achieve their targets in their INDC? According to the report, not very likely. With existing measures a reduction of 27% is likely by 2030. To achieve 40% by then needs a reduction of 1.4% every year from now on. To achieve 80% by 2050, which the EU, US and everyone else claim is the aim, an annual reduction of 4.6% will be needed each year from 2030 to 2050. This in a world committed to economic growth and facing an explosive growth in global middle classes, with all the consumption that that implies.

Britain in the (bad) News

It’s not clear how the emissions reductions targets will be shared out between the member states of the EU. Britain has certainly not had a good press on emissions targets this week. The BBC compiled a report which listed the changes that the government has made to environmental legislation since it took sole power after the election last May. The government’s stated aim was to cut costs for Britain’s hard-working families. Of the 16 measures analysed, 6 were expected to reduce bills, three to have no impact and seven to increase bills. All of them except one would lead to increased GHG emissions.

This is Anthony Day with the sustainable futures show.

Still to come. The red-faced Minister. Local climate activists, from AAA to AAB and screaming from a locked room.

Minister Embarrassed 

Amber Rudd, minister of energy and climate change, was accused this week of misleading parliament about the nation’s emissions levels. "The Government does not have the “right policies” to meet its renewable energy target," she admitted. Speaking before a Parliamentary Committee, she confirmed that the Government was set to miss the EU requirement of 15 per cent of the UK’s energy consumption coming from renewables by 2020. A letter leaked to The Ecologist shows that she misled Parliament by promising the UK was 'on course' to deliver on its renewable energy targets - when in fact there is a delivery shortfall in 2020 of almost 25%.

This stands in stark contrast to her public position. On 17th September she told the House of Commons: "When it became apparent that we were way in excess of [spending limits on renewables], but were still meeting our renewables targets, it was right to limit the amount of money we were spending.” That was her justification for the dramatic cuts - up to 87% - to the subsidies for wind and solar. Her plan to fill the gap which she now recognises, relies on more biofuels, buying in green power and 'credits' from abroad - everything but wind and solar. But she now warns, that this impending failure to meet EU renewables targets puts the UK at a double risk - of legal action taken in the UK, which the government would probably lose; and of enormous fines imposed by the European Court of Justice:

"The absence of a credible plan to meet the target carries the risk of successful judicial review, and failing to meet the overall target in 2020 could lead to on-going fines imposed by the EU Court of Justice until the UK reaches the target level.”

But by misleading the House of Commons in her earlier statement, she is now certain to face demands for her resignation. And she’s the person we’ll be sending to represent the United Kingdom at the Paris conference. 

Climate Action

I went to a meeting last night of my local climate action group. There is a lot of energy, enthusiasm and some anger about the climate talks in Paris. There’s determination to make sure that something is done, but there’s fear that everything will be stitched up into business as usual by the big corporates using their influence. The meeting was rather unfocused; an overly-complex explanation of climate change, an academic with far, far more information than she could possibly get into 10 minutes and a speaker who said “UM” 135 times in his 10 minutes slot - I counted them - who failed to hold my attention. There were strong and effective presentations about the mass demonstration in London on 29th November to urge the politicians to take effective action. Many local people will be going. This could be bigger than the anti-war march in February 2003. It will be interesting to see how the police handle it and whether people will be “kettled”, penned up and prevented from leaving as has happened with more recent demonstrations. There will be another demonstration in Paris at the end of the conference, on 12th December. Many people will be going from the UK. Again, it will be interesting to see how it’s handled. And whether it makes any difference!

World Energy Council

News just in from the World Energy Council. The UK's AAA rating was cut to AAB by the World Energy Council in its annual "trilemma index", which measures countries' ability to offer secure, affordable and sustainable energy supplies. The UK fell down on the accessibility and affordability of energy supply across the population. The index also stated that current government policies may "hinder investments" in wind and solar power.  This follows criticism from the UN's chief environment scientist that I reported last month. Professor Jacquie McGlade said the UK was turning away from renewables, just as they were being embraced by the rest of the world.

That soundproof room...

I mentioned Jeremy Leggett. I’m sure you’ve been downloading his “The Winning of the Carbon War” from www.jeremyleggett.net. It's free. In the latest chapter he says that sometimes he’s “feeling like finding a soundproofed room and having a good scream.” I think we know how you feel, Jeremy.

And finally...

Well, that’s it, that’s another week. Apologies for the bits I’ve missed, the stories I’ve left out. As always, your comments, ideas and suggestions are invaluable. Get in touch and tell me what you want to hear at mail@anthony-day.com.

I’m off to a conference now.

And it’s got nothing whatever to do with energy, climate change or sustainability.

I'm Anthony Day and there will be another sustainable futures show next week. Find it at www.susbiz.biz 

Climate Change is bad for your health - official

I’m talking about fracking - of course, about wind - again, about suing the government and about waiting for trains.  But first of all - it’s official. Medical opinion states that climate change is bad for you!

The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, this week published its second review on climate change. There’s a short video on thelancet.com which is worth a look. Review authors Helen Wang and Richard Horton state that the risks from climate change are not only serious but potentially catastrophic. Loss of life can be directly caused by extreme weather, such as floods and heatwaves. Indirect causes are poor water quality, air pollution and ecological change. Global warming leads to sea-level rise, which in turn causes mass migrations, pressure on resources and can lead to conflict. As heatwaves become more common, more people are affected. Those over 65 are more vulnerable, and population statistics show a disproportionate number of older people concentrated in areas likely to experience extreme temperatures.

The report, like the G7 ministers and Pope, calls for fossil fuels to be phased out. 80% of the world’s energy currently comes from fossil fuels and emissions cause poor air quality which in turn causes heart attacks and lung disease, as well as long-term effects on health. For the authors it’s not all bad news. They see that responding to climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century. The level of understanding of the importance of climate change varies widely across the world, with some of the poorest  understanding in some of the most developed countries. The science is clear, the technological solutions are available. It is now entirely  a matter of political commitment. The report urges medical  professionals to go out and spread the word.

Incidentally there’s a heatwave currently affecting Pakistan, where temperatures of 45C and more are proving fatal. The situation is made worse by water shortages and because many people are fasting for Ramadan. There’s a serious drought in Puerto Rico and other parts of the Caribbean as well.

Talking of political commitment, I noted last week that the government was cutting subsidies to on-shore wind by withdrawing the Renewables Obligation scheme from April 2016, a year earlier than originally promised. Minister Amber Rudd told Parliament this week that as a result some 250 schemes were unlikely to go ahead. She also hinted that Contract for Difference, a key factor in determining project viability, could also be withdrawn. Once again investors have been encouraged to develop long-term infrastructure projects, only to have the rules changed at short notice. The Scottish government is particularly annoyed by this as around 70% of the projects likely to be affected are located in Scotland. Fergus Ewing, the Scottish Energy Minister, has invited Ms Rudd for talks in Scotland. The local industry fears that the changes could cost it as much as £3bn. It will be interesting to see if the minister accepts the invitation, and even more interesting to hear what she has to say.

Fracking is in the news again. Cuadrilla has applied for planning permission for test drilling followed by test fracking in Lancashire. There are two sites involved: Little Plumpton  and Roseacre Wood. The council has been advised by its planning officers to approve the application, but there is much local opposition. The council rejected the Roseacre Wood scheme on the grounds that there would be an unacceptable increase of heavy vehicle traffic in the area. 

The decision on Little Plumpton was deferred until Monday 29th to allow councillors to take legal advice. This advice has now been published, and warned that if councillors refused the application it was unlikely that they would win on appeal, and if they lost the council would have to bear the legal costs. It seems highly likely that the Little Plumpton application will be approved, even though many councillors oppose it and so do many residents.

As I’ve mentioned before, the government have promised local residents the last word on any applications for wind turbines while making sure that local residents have no say at all in applications for fracking. The greenest government ever! Well perhaps it doesn’t have to be any more, now that it hasn’t got the LibDems looking over its shoulder.

Citizens in the Netherlands have called their government to account and claimed that more must be done to tackle climate change. 886 private citizens went to court to demand urgent action - and they won. The Netherlands are on the way to a 17% reduction in GHG emissions  from 1990 levels by 2020, but that’s not good enough for the litigants. They persuaded the judge to rule:“The State also has to ensure that the Dutch emissions in the year 2020 will be at least 25 percent lower than those in 1990." Of course the government will appeal. It’s also not clear how the government could be held to the judgement. If they fail to comply would they get fined? What good would that do? At least the case demonstrates that there are concerned citizens across the world, and the case is robust enough to be held up in law.

Not a good week for transport, especially electric transport. The British government announced yesterday that they were “pausing” two major rail electrification schemes for lack of funds. The Great Western electrification is now expected to cost three times the original estimate and other schemes are also over budget. This means that the electrification of the Midland main line and the link from Leeds to Manchester are postponed indefinitely. So much for the powerhouse of the north! Leeds and Manchester are 45 miles apart. Most trains take 56 minutes for the journey. Bits of it are quite fast, but for some reason the second part is usually at walking pace or less. The government has blamed Network Rail, now legally part of the civil service and therefore under the direct control of ministers. The chairman has been fired and senior executives won’t get bonuses. Cold comfort for the many passengers who won’t now get new trains!

The other bad news was an electric bus which burst into flames in York. The Optare Versa is a widely-used bus, available as a diesel, diesel-electric hybrid or, as in this case, pure electric. In electric form it has a range of 70-90 miles and York recently took delivery of a fleet of 12 to provide a shuttle service to the park and ride locations on the edge of the city. No-one was hurt in the blaze, but the rear of the bus was severely damaged. A loud bang was heard, and popular headlines claimed that the engine blew up. More probably it was a fault in the lithium-ion batteries. Battery technology has moved so far that we don’t need trolley buses any more; buses can carry as much power as they need in batteries. This means that we are pushing battery technology to the limit. Do you remember Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner, grounded a few years ago because of fires in the lithium-ion batteries? York’s remaining 11 electric buses are back in service today after full safety checks. They won’t let one mishap prejudice the future of clean transport. (Although if you look at the pictures of the smoke, that burning bus must have had one hell of a carbon footprint!)

That’s nearly it for this week. But not quite! Don’t forget that the next instalment of “The Winning of the Carbon War” will be out on 1st July. It’s free. Find it at jeremyleggett.net  I told you that I made a presentation to the Professional Speaking Association in London. . It will be out on Video shortly, both the full 30-minute version and edited highlights, which will probably come down to 2 minutes.

Either way, there will be another episode of the Sustainable Futures Show next week. Listen at http://www.anthony-day.com/sustainable-futures-show/ , and if you have any comments ideas or suggestions get in touch via mail@anthony-day.com.