Can we trust the IPCC?

Let's be clear first of all, I'm talking about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and not the Independent Police Complaints Commission. And yes, after all the work that goes into reviewing their reports, I do think we can trust IPCC.

Last month the IPCC issued the fourth part of its Assessment Report No. 5 together with a synthesis report and guide for policy-makers. Piers Forster is Professor of Physical Climate Change at Leeds University and one of the lead authors of the report. He spoke at York University last Friday and explained how the final version of these documents was created.

Apparently Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan did not want the United Nations to have unrestricted control over the IPCC, so they specified that all reports should be signed off by representatives of all the 120 countries that were involved. Rather than stifling the work of the IPCC this has given it greater prominence, as countries have taken a close interest in all the documents. Before this latest document was released in Copenhagen there were detailed negotiations on exactly what the content of the report should be. There were some 30,000 review comments and the final text was negotiated line by line and word by word. Some sentences were rejected altogether and the favourite justification for this appears to have been that the language was too complex for policymakers to understand. But surely if policymakers are confused by terms such as “CH_4” - the chemical formula for methane - and by “black carbon”, which were deleted, they’ll have even more trouble with “forcing agents” and “mitigation strategies”, which were retained. In my view, if they have difficulty with any of these terms they must be in the wrong job.

As one of the lead authors, Professor Forster was in Copenhagen with 20 or 30 colleagues whose role was to provide the international delegates with scientific advice. The country representatives were to negotiate an acceptable text and in theory the lead authors would not take part in the negotiation, but would advise whether the changes to the text were consistent with the science. In practice, the lead authors were sought out by the delegates who in some cases were aggressive and demanding. Much of Forster's time was spent on negotiating a narrow range of points. Delegates put the authors under extreme pressure. Some of the delegations had as many as 25 members so they could work in shifts. On the other hand, the authors had to be available at all times, working till 3, 4 or 5 in the morning or even all night. Any agreed amendments to the synthesis report had then to be reflected in the main report which itself had already gone through four revisions. 

The Saudi Arabians were most determined to amend the report and negotiations became close to deadlock. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, achieved consensus and a final agreed text through subtle diplomatic manipulation.The Chinese were also robust negotiators although they respected the science even if they didn't like the conclusion that it led to. After this much negotiation I believe we certainly can trust the IPCC.

Only a few days after the issue of the report the US mid-term elections took place. As a result it is expected that Senator James Inhofe will take over the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe is a notorious climate change denier. He has held this post before and has made Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear required reading for committee members. He thus prefers to base US environment policy on a work of fiction rather than on peer-reviewed science. Despite this, Professor Forster believes that there will be a positive outcome from next year's Paris meeting. He believes that the Chinese and the Europeans will work together to deliver a constructive result regardless of pressure from the United States. Let's hope he's right! For too long meetings in this series have closed without commitments, except a commitment to look at the issues in greater detail next time. 

It’s worth repeating Ban Ki- moon’s remarks at the press conference launching the latest report:

“Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.” 

Will we all freeze in the dark this winter?

We’ve had a number of people warning us about blackouts this winter. Strange. I read a report 10 years ago called “Mind the Gap” which predicted that the lights would go out in 2015. Now we’ve heard from the heads of npower and edf, and the National Grid has just published its annual Winter Outlook Report. Ed Davey, Environment Secretary, has told us that there’s absolutely no cause for alarm, so now we know it’s really serious! Or do we?

Our problem is that electricity demand grows year by year and our power stations get older and older. As they get older they get less reliable, and this year we’ve had two major fires and four stations taken off-line for urgent boiler repairs. If there’s another breakdown, will we be plunged into darkness? And is darkness all we have to worry about?

National Grid is responsible for the distribution of gas and electricity across the United Kingdom. It doesn’t generate power and it doesn’t sell gas or electricity to consumers. It just provides the energy super-highway, and the generators and the energy companies pay to use it. National Grid must balance supply with demand and ensure that power is available wherever and whenever it’s needed. December and January are the months of greatest demand; hence the Grid publishes a Winter Outlook Report. The press have made much of the suggestion that the safety margin, the amount by which supply exceeds maximum demand, has fallen from 17% three years ago to only 4.1% now. 

These statistics, as always, have to be looked at in context. The 4.1% margin is against Average Cold Spell (ACS) demand, the coldest part of winter. Winter weather is unpredictable, so we could have a cold spell which lasts longer and is even colder than predicted. National Grid admits that it cannot predict the weather, but then, even the Met Office struggles at times. Apart from bad weather, the other risk factor is power station breakdowns. Although some are much bigger, the average power station accounts for around 1% of supply. So theoretically we could lose four of them, in the coldest weather, and still struggle by. Of course, this is a very unlikely scenario, and National Grid has in any case taken steps to increase the safety margin. Three power stations that were mothballed have been recommissioned and placed on standby. Two of them are gas turbine plants and can come up to full power very rapidly. 

On the demand side, National Grid has agreements with major industrial users to accept power cuts if usage exceeds available supply. Taken together, these measures bring the safety margin, in the worst weather, up to 6.1%.

So is everything all right then? Probably a lot better than the tabloid press might make you think, but there are surely underlying problems. As economic growth continues, energy demand increases. Many of our power stations are due for replacement, but energy policy from all governments has been fragmented and vague. It’s difficult to plan a power station with a 30 or 40 year life if the politicians’ horizon goes no further than the next election. My prediction is that things can only get worse, because there is no quick fix to a shortage of generating capacity. Even with a 6.1% safety margin National Grid can’t rule out localised blackouts, although they do expect to hold them to no more than 36 minutes. 

The popular reaction to blackouts is to rush out and buy candles, and that is certainly what we did when we had regular power cuts in the 1970s. The world has changed dramatically since then. We didn’t have mobile phones and we didn't have cash machines. We certainly didn’t have computers. Many families still kept warm in front of open fires. Remember, you may have gas central heating, but it goes off when the electricity goes off because all the controls are electric. Quite a lot of infrastructure has back-up generation. For example, you’ll usually find a diesel generator tucked away at the back of your supermarket. Generators support mobile phone masts - the remoter ones, anyway, - but a blackout is likely to close ATMs. If the weather turns really cold, make sure you stock up on cash. And it might be worth buying a camping gas stove so you can have a hot drink. And a wind-up lantern is so much safer than candles! In business, data is your most precious resource. You do always back up, don't you? Keep your laptop and your phone charged up. And a UPS - uninterruptible power supply - should be in place to let your larger computers power down smoothly if the power goes off.

All this is about electricity, but National Grid is responsible for gas as well and we use a lot of that in a cold winter; for industry, for central heating and for generating electricity. We still get gas from the North Sea, but it’s declining and we now import a significant proportion of our gas. The predictions of the Grid’s Winter Outlook are that we have a substantial margin of reserves and production over maximum demand - around 24%. The key risk factor here is political. Russia is a major supplier of gas to Europe and much of it is routed via Ukraine. If Russia restricts supplies to Ukraine, as it has done in the past, then the rest of Europe suffers. The UK does not import gas directly from Russia, but if supplies to Europe were cut any imports to the UK from the Netherlands or Belgium would probably be cut as well. 

The Winter Outlook takes this into account and assumes that any shortages would be made up by increased imports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Last year just under 20% of our imported gas was LNG and most of that came from Qatar in the Persian Gulf - not the most stable region politically. National Grid makes the point that we could maintain supplies by increasing these imports, but only by paying world prices which are highly likely to escalate if there is a shortage. As far as gas supply is concerned, we’re in a secure position. Cost is something else, so turn down the thermostat a degree or two, fit that double glazing and roof insulation, upgrade the boiler and enjoy as much heat as you can from as little gas as possible.

The supply and distribution of energy to the UK is clearly a highly sophisticated operation. Now there’s another factor to add to the risks from breakdowns, bad weather and politics. This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its fifth assessment report (AR5), warning that we must cut co2 emissions by drastically reducing fossil fuel use. Launching the report, Ban Ki-moon, UN General Secretary, said, “Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.” At the moment, well over half the electricity in the UK is generated from fossil fuels - coal and gas. The UN urges nations to divest from fossil fuels and invest in renewables to prevent global warming from exceeding a 2℃ rise. The report shows how this path can improve economic performance. 

This is a big issue for the UK, where the government is offering substantial tax incentives and subsidies for the development of fracking. Fracking produces oil and gas securely, free from interference by foreign governments, but oil and gas are fossil fuels. Should we be going this way, when even the Rockefeller Foundation, based on the fortunes made from Standard Oil, is selling off its fossil fuel investments and investing in renewables? Surely the tax breaks and subsidies should be going into continued development of renewables. 

Whatever happens, we need some hard and urgent decisions made by government. Unfortunately the present government seems inclined to ignore the evidence, pushing on with fracking, talking about “green crap” and the “green blob” and with a former environment minister calling for our Climate Change Act to be suspended. Despite all this we need decisions. 

Decisions which will determine whether or not we spend our future winters freezing in the dark!

Preparing for the Perfect Storm

The UK faces a crisis because UK business lacks the skills to deal with the challenge of sustainability. This is the message of a report issued today by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (iema). At the same time, a poll of members of the Institute of Directors reveals that for 70% of respondents their sustainability priorities are affected by the economic climate. 

The conclusion from this poll is that for many companies sustainability is just a “nice-to-have”, not a necessity. Maybe it’s because “sustainability” as an idea is still widely misunderstood. All too many people’s thoughts go - sustainability - environment - green - beards and sandals - protest - fluffy polar bears: leave me alone I’ve a business to run!

But the iema report makes it clear that sustainability is at the heart of any business. The headline message is that the UK has a sustainability skills shortage, and the underlying truth is that we need these skills to meet sustainability challenges and opportunities. Drawing on research by the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the IPCC, the OECD and many others, the report shows how critical pressures are building up from population growth, climate change, water shortages, resource scarcity, unsustainable levels of waste and ballooning demand for energy. It shows too, that of some 1,000 companies polled by iema only 13% were very confident that they could compete in a sustainable economy. And of course that’s not a choice. The sustainable economy is rapidly becoming the only game in town: in the world!

In crudest terms a sustainable business is one that stays in business. In reality a sustainable business is an organisation that can adapt to these rapid and radical changes, can meet customers’ evolving expectations while relying on suppliers which may themselves be way behind the curve. Procurement is a sustainability issue, finance is a sustainability issue, product development is a sustainability issue, and so are training, sales and marketing. Many organisations do not realise there is an issue, and therefore have not taken any steps to react. It’s the business-as-usual syndrome. 

It’s not all bad news. Major household names have taken sustainability on board. They include Jaguar Land Rover, Kepak Convenience Foods, (you may not know the name, but you’ll have eaten their products!), Network Rail, Rexam, Ricoh and Rolls-Royce. They recognise that there’s a sustainable business case. They save energy, they save materials, they cut waste. And it all saves them money. Not just manufacturing and construction companies are involved. The Innovation Group is in insurance claims management and software; HW Fisher is an accountancy firm; PHS provides hygiene services and we’ve all heard of the NHS. All these organisations have taken an active sustainability policy on board.

The challenge now is to spread the word to the vast number of organisations that are not yet on side or even aware that there’s an issue. We need to do it before the perfect storm engulfs us in a perfect disaster.

Climate Change not an important issue for the Institute of Directors

Graham Leach, the previous Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors, wrote in the Director magazine of February 2014: ”10 years from now man-made global warming will have been exposed as a myth.” When James Sproule, his successor, visited Leeds last month I asked whether he endorsed that view. His response and my comments are below. I spoke to him again  this morning and he told me that climate change was not an important issue for the IoD.

In response to my question James Sproule said that there was disagreement within the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) between scientists and economists. The economist view is that it is reckless to plan for what might happen in 100 years’ time when so much has radically changed in the last 100 years and so much more will change in the next.

Here's what I think.
First of all, Graham Leach was not commenting on the planning cycle, when he said “man-made global warming will have been exposed as a myth.” He was rubbishing the science, which he is surely not qualified to do. His remark is reckless in that it could lead the uninformed to believe that there is nothing to worry about and nothing need be done. The report from the IPCC last month shows that it is 95% scientifically certain that we are on the threshold of a problem which will have serious consequences far sooner than 100 years hence. 

Secondly, not all economists suggest that we should sit on our hands and wait and see what happens. Lord Stern published his report in 2006 where he stated that a relatively small investment of global GDP could mitigate the worst effects of climate change if action were taken promptly. Since then he has written that things are worse than he then thought, and since not much action has been taken the cost of mitigation is now very much greater.

Third, CDP, the Carbon Disclosure Project, is an organisation backed by more than 750 global institutional investors who have assets worth $US92trn under management. Each year they request information on greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and the risks and opportunities from climate change from thousands of the world’s largest companies. If they take the trouble to do this they surely believe there is an issue and that the information will enable them to take action - else why collect it?

In my view the future is sustainability. Sustainable business is essentially efficient business, and there is nothing new in examining each stage of the production process to see what improvements or cost savings can be made. Carrying out this analysis from a sustainable viewpoint could mean assessing the availability of key materials and redesigning products to make less use or no use of them. It could mean embracing new technologies such as 3D printing, where there is minimal waste and large parts of the supply chain can become redundant, so transforming some industries. The circular economy will become increasingly important as producers redesign not just to make less use of materials but to produce items that can be disassembled, remanufactured and re-used, thus saving the costs of new materials and the cost of waste disposal. Sustainable business is good business. Developing renewable energy is sustainable from the energy security point of view. Nobody controls our wind and no one can cut off our sunshine. We don’t get much gas from Russia, but we do get 20% of it from Qatar by sea. As the North Sea declines we’re a net importer of oil. A generation ago we were self-sufficient in energy. We can be again. (Without fracking.)

We have challenges. Climate Change is just one of them, but we need a clear understanding, a clear direction and a positive lead on the whole sustainable future. The “greenest government ever” has failed to develop coherent policies. I would like to think the IoD could inject some informed realism into the debate. 

If you can spare 9.33 minutes, have a look at this video http://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ 

Climate Change, life and death

Professor John Broome, of the University of Oxford and author of “Climate Matters”, delivered the Royal Institute of Philosophy lecture at York University this week.

His is a philosophical approach to climate change. How is that relevant? The United Nations Framework on Climate Change sets out to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” To achieve this it needs to:

1. Identify the level of emission concentration in the atmosphere low enough to prevent dangerous interference
2. Define acceptable global annual emissions
3. Allocate these annual emissions fairly  among nations

Moral philosophers are involved in stage 3, but stages 1 and 2 are decided by scientists, economists and politicians. Professor Broome disagrees with this because value judgements are involved at all three stages and he doesn’t believe that scientists, economists and politicians are much good at making such judgements. He is concerned that the UN Framework on Climate Change suggests that decisions on what constitutes dangerous climate change are value judgements and should be “determined through socio-political processes.” He doesn’t think the result of this process can be readily supported. The IPCC has set a target of a maximum emission of 1 trillion tonnes because that gives a better than 2/3 chance of keeping global warming below 2°C. Why 2/3? Why 2°C?

Professor Broome believes that decisions should be made on expected values, not on likelihood. For example, the likelihood of the average house burning down is very small but the consequences are likely to be very serious. Because of the value of the catastrophe, it makes sense to buy a fire extinguisher.

How can we evaluate the harms and benefits of climate change? People are already dying as the result of climate change. The effects of weather are significant, leading in turn to poverty, malnutrition and disease. The fact that people die as a result of climate change is negative in itself, but as a consequence of their deaths there are fewer descendants and future generations are smaller, even to the extent that human extinction becomes an increasing possibility. The effect of climate change on the population - and vice versa - is largely ignored by governments. Some argue that changes in population levels are ethically neutral: Broome challenges this, but admits that we have no consensus on how to take these changes into account. The population elephant remains in the room.

Questions at the end of the session drew the comment that being nice is not good enough. We need to promote green virtues, but there are not enough virtuous people, so the only answer is government coercion. 

One questioner suggested that burning all the fossil fuel reserves in the world would not have serious consequences. He couldn’t quote supporting figures. Professor Broome disagreed but could not provide opposing figures and neither could I. However, it’s all here: 

http://eye.carbontracker.org/analysis-reports/view?analysisReportId=15552

They think it's all over

Latest reports from the IPCC, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, indicate that a 2 degree rise in world temperatures is inevitable – within 10 years. There is now so much excess carbon dioxide in the global system that it is too late to stop this happening; there’s nothing we can do. It’s time to face up to the consequences and prepare to adapt to them.

Ironically the prosperous West may benefit form the temperature rise in the short term. Higher temperatures will mean substantially increased crop yields in North America, Northern Europe and Russia. Elsewhere the opposite is true. In some parts of the Third World flash floods will wash the crops from the fields and destroy buildings, bridges and roads. Rising sea levels will make other places uninhabitable – already parts of the Maldives have had to be abandoned.

Too much water in some places; too little elsewhere as the Himalayan glaciers melt and the rivers they fill run dry. Up to a billion people will lose their water supply. Many species will become extinct and diseases will appear in places where they have never been seen before.

All this sounds apocalyptic. Too dreadful to be true. Turn the page – let’s not think about it. And what can we do about it anyway? And there on the next page is an advertisement from the energy company Total. “Total is pursuing the development of gas fields across the globe…” And burning more gas releases more CO2. Three degrees? Four degrees? Six degrees?

It needs government action. It needs big business to take action. What we can do is be aware of what is going to happen and be aware of how it will change our lifestyles. We need to do as much as we can to cut our individual carbon footprints. We can change public opinion. Enough public opinion influences government and changes business behaviour.

Within 10 years. That means it won’t just affect our children or our grandchildren. It’s going to affect us.

Festina lente G8!

Festina lente – hurry slowly.

After a lot of pre-conference posturing and sabre-rattling, Angela Merkel the German Chancellor and G8 president announced that the agreements on climate change were "the most important decision for the coming two years."

It really all depends where you’re coming from. Arguably the situation is better than it was before the conference. The United States will “strongly consider” ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050. George Bush has said that the US will take a lead on meeting the climate change challenge and appears to agree with the Europeans that the United Nations and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are central to the process.

Hurry? Well they hope to have something in place by 2009 to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Some people would argue that targets for 2050 are all very well, but if we don’t make real changes within five or ten years, then climate change will be out of control. (The same lack of urgency is written into Britain’s Climate Change Bill, by the way. Progress will be reviewed once every five years. Do you know of any project, business, public authority which can get away with reporting less than once a year? And the climate is an immediate and crucial issue!)

Going back to G8. Few commentators are happy with the outcome because it is so full of caveats and maybes. Fifty percent of what? Fifty percent of 1990 levels is more than 50% of current levels. The UK and Europe were aiming at 60% of 1990 levels; the US is proposing 50% of current levels. The climate is uncompromising. We need what the climate needs. George Bush is largely uncompromising: China and India as the two largest developing nations must come to the table and commit to cuts. No matter that emissions in the US are six times per head what they are in China. George Bush will not accept actions which put the US economy at a disadvantage. And "strongly consider" achieves nothing. Somebody has to act. Plenty of room for negotiation – some would say for delay.

Of course everyone admits that it’s urgent, but no-one in power seems ready to take urgent action.

Lente is just not in it. Festina, festina, before it’s too late!

Managing the message on climate change

I’ve already commented in the past that the climate change debate is a dialogue of the deaf. Certainly there’s lots of dialogue – maybe it’s because it’s World Environment Day tomorrow and the G8 Summit starts later this week.

Looking again at George Bush’s announcements on climate change we see a worrying message. He wants to call a global summit in America to discuss the issues to an American agenda. We already have the G8. We already have the IPCC. The last thing we want is the world’s biggest polluter trying to take over the debate. The US has made it clear that its economy depends ultimately on coal, and certainly that country has massive reserves. We know that burning coal releases CO2 – and many other substances that are far more harmful. The US line is that technology will find a way and we don’t need to cut consumption while we’re looking for the solution. No carbon trading or limits, they say, - we must not prejudice economic growth. The US is gambling on undiscovered technologies – and some believe that science proves that gamble is already lost.

Today China has entered the debate. In advance of the G8 they have announced a climate change initiative, but they too emphasise that the protection of economic growth is crucial. They recognise that there is much to be done, because China’s rapid industrialisation has led to far worse pollution than anything in the West, quite apart from CO2 emissions. As I’ve mentioned before, China is a major polluter but the pollution per head is much lower than in America and in many other countries.
We need to support China’s efforts to clean up.

We need to get used to using less energy ourselves (-not a bad strategy as it’s going to get scarce and expensive) and we need to build on what has already been developed by the G8 and IPCC – not start a new debate. We need a clear and constructive dialogue – not a dialogue of the deaf.