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 

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!

"The time for doubt has passed"

That’s what U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at yesterday’s Climate Change summit. The chief U.N. climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, said, “The time is up for inaction.”

Billed as the largest ever high-level meeting on climate change, the event re-emphasised the commitment of global governments to action. The next opportunity will be the Bali conference in December, when delegates meet to design a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. This commits nations to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. The task of Bali is to set targets for future decades.

Doubts remain, however, with George W Bush. The US president did not attend the summit, although he joined the delegates for dinner. He has his own climate change event later this week and has invited the world’s sixteen top polluting nations. Environmentalists are concerned that the US wants to hijack the debate, or at least muddy the waters. The US is believed to oppose mandatory carbon targets, preferring each country to set voluntary levels. They also want developing countries to reduce their carbon emissions, even though they are far lower than American emissions.

The US has an increasingly difficult energy supply situation, though it has plenty of coal – one of the most polluting fuels. Cutting back on energy use or making energy more expensive by installing carbon clean-up technology will impact the American economy – currently showing signs of weakness - and George Bush will protect it at all costs.AAfter all, wasn’t it George Bush Snr who said, “It’s the economy, stupid”?

Some people are beginning to say, “No, it’s the environment, stupid.” Without an environment there can be no economy.