COP21 - The Talking Begins

An audio version of this episode was published on 4th December and is available at susbiz.biz and on iTunes.

Yes, COP21, the Paris climate change conference, is finally here. No results expected before the end of next week so I'm going to take the opportunity to review what this conference means for us, for our businesses, for families and for our future. Also in this episode, the minister takes control of fracking, business views of the climate conference and plans for a ministry of the future.

Welcome to the Sustainable Futures Report, the new, improved and upgraded Sustainable Futures Show brought to you without advertising, sponsorship or subsidy. So I can say what I like.  And a special welcome to friends and listeners on their way to Paris to take part in the official or unofficial events surrounding COP21. It's Friday 4th December 2015 and this is Anthony Day with news, views and ideas, and by the way your news, views and ideas are very welcome and important. Please get in touch and share them. I’m at mail@anthony-day.com. 

First this week, what’s this COP21 conference all about then, and why is it important? It's the UN conference on Climate Change, it involves 195 countries and 145 of them sent their prime ministers or heads of state to the opening ceremony where they each reiterated their country's commitment to cutting green house gas emissions. It’s important to you because if these leaders take truly effective action it’s likely to drive up energy costs in the short term. They will have to put a price on carbon, which means taxing or surcharging anything which emits greenhouse gases. Petrol will be more expensive at the pump. It will cost more to heat your home. Those extra costs will be added to existing production and distribution costs. Almost anything you buy will cost more - from food to fashion, from pharmaceuticals to furniture. The alternative, according to the scientists, is catastrophic climate change: drought, famine, floods and failure of food supplies. At first this will be worst in the developing nations, but our supply chains are global. We’ll be affected by what happens in far-off countries of which we know little. To start with we’ll see higher prices. As the situation worsens we’ll see shortages. As distant nations become uninhabitable will see massive movements of refugees across the world; far, far more than the numbers causing so much argument at the moment. 

The solution is twofold - mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation to stop climate change getting worse: adaptation to cope with and control the effects that are already here. Adaptation involves financial support to the developing nations which are suffering the worst effects of climate change even though they have done little to cause it. An agreement on financial support to these nations by the developed nations will be an important outcome of COP21.

Mitigation, to stop climate change getting worse, depends on a radical change in the way we produce and use energy. Everyone can protect themselves against rising energy prices. Driving more slowly saves fuel. Turning down the thermostat and wearing an extra jumper saves gas. Insulation keeps your home warm for less. It’s more difficult with industrial processes. Bread won’t bake and chemical reactions won’t react except at specified temperatures. Perhaps the answer here is greater efficiency through economies of scale. Beyond that we have to look at new forms of supply which don’t involve burning fossil fuels. Despite scepticism, renewables are becoming more and more viable, producing 25% of the UK’s electricity for the third quarter of this year. I spoke last week about the solar power station in Morocco which stores heat in molten salt and can generate electricity 20 hours per day. Battery storage is becoming more efficient. Domestic stores are already available from Tesla in the US, Sonnen in Germany and Powervault in the UK. If you have solar panels you can save some of your energy for use at night. Energy can also be stored as heat as with the Moroccan power station, as potential energy as in the Dinorwic pump storage scheme in North Wales or stored in massive flywheels. Apart from wind turbines and solar panels, a 320MW tidal power station is planned for Swansea Bay and there is potential for geothermal energy all over the world, including parts of the UK. It’s time to invest in these new technologies. Actually, these generation technologies are not that new. It’s time to invest in developing, refining and perfecting them. It’s time to invest in storage science, like the lithium-air battery under development at Cambridge University.

The fact that the vast majority of the world's leaders took time out to travel to Paris shows they think climate change is important. On Sunday 29th November 50,000 people marched in London to show that they thought it was important too. But people marched not just in London, but all over the world. In more than 2,000 cities - a million of them. It's probably the biggest international march ever. Not in Paris, though. In view of the security situation marches were banned. Instead, people left shoes, thousands of pairs of shoes, in la Place de la République, to symbolise the march they would have made. The Pope sent a pair of shoes. So did UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. What do all these people want, and what's in it for you? They all want nations to work together to stop global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thereby avoiding dangerous climate change. How are they going to do that? Good question. 

Of course the politicians have to balance short-term politics with the need to save the planet. At the opening ceremony of COP21 President Obama said

“I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognises our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”

“Let’s show businesses and investors that the global economy is on a firm path towards a low-carbon future.  If we put the right rules and incentives in place, we’ll unleash the creative power of our best scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to deploy clean energy technologies and the new jobs and new opportunities that they create all around the world.  There are hundreds of billions of dollars ready to deploy to countries around the world if they get the signal that we mean business this time.  Let’s send that signal.”

He went on to say,

“I believe, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that there is such a thing as being too late.  And when it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us.  But if we act here, if we act now, if we place our own short-term interests behind the air that our young people will breathe, and the food that they will eat, and the water that they will drink, and the hopes and dreams that sustain their lives, then we won't be too late for them.”

In his speech, David Cameron asked what we would say to our grandchildren if the conference failed to reach an effective agreement.

“But they would ask us why is it difficult to reach a legally binding agreement when in 2015 there are already 75 countries …. that already have legally binding climate change legislation? …countries that are thriving with that legislation.”

“Why, they’d ask us, is it difficult to have a review after 5 years?

“Would we really be able to argue that it was too difficult?

Too difficult to transfer technology from rich countries to poorer countries?

Our grandchildren would rightly ask us: what was so difficult?

You had this technology, you knew it worked, you knew that if you gave it to poor and vulnerable countries they could protect themselves against climate change – why on earth didn’t you do it?

“What I’m saying,” said Mr Cameron, “is that instead of making excuses tomorrow to our children and grandchildren, we should be taking action against climate change today.”

Can’t argue with that.

But his grandchildren weren’t there to ask why his government has effectively banned new on-shore wind turbines, why it will only support new offshore turbines if they dramatically cut their costs, why it has cut the subsidy for clean solar energy at short notice, why it has terminated the low-carbon homes initiative, why it has modified the renewables obligation to work against renewable energy, why it has removed business start-up tax breaks from community energy projects and why it has withdrawn its financial support from carbon capture and storage, the only way of cleaning up coal and gas power stations. They weren’t there to ask why his government supports fracking, a technique for extracting carbon-emitting natural gas, either.

I expect somebody will ask those questions. Hopefully before it’s too late.

What can we expect from COP21? The majority of nations have submitted an INDC, an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. A contribution to reducing global GHG emissions. These documents take various forms - different starting points, different end points, different percentage reductions. They have been analysed and the overall effect, if they are all achieved, will be to limit global warming to a 2.7℃ temperature increase over pre-industrial levels. That’s more than the 2℃ which is widely considered the danger level, but much better than the current trend which is rising towards 4℃ or 5℃. An overall draft agreement has been submitted to the conference. As I mentioned in a previous episode, this is really just a template. Every word, every phrase, almost every comma is presented with an alternative. This will be negotiated over the coming days and will determine how the nations will fulfil their INDCs, although not the specific measures that each nation must take. For an insight into the negotiation process listen to “Can we trust the IPCC?”, an episode of the Sustainable Futures Report from November 2014. Search on IPCC at susbiz.biz . In this episode Professor Piers Forster, one of the lead authors of AR5, explains the pressures and compromises involved in agreeing the final text of that document.

David Cameron calls for a binding agreement and we must support him on that. Unfortunately, the word is that the Americans will not accept it. This is because they believe that climate sceptic Republicans would block such a measure.

COP21 rolls on until Friday next week. Since I record these episodes at least a day in advance I won't be able to report on the final outcome in the next scheduled episode. I may possibly issue a special supplementary report early in the following week, or I may defer the next episode altogether until then.

In the meantime I suggest you have a look at “The most terrifying video you'll ever see.” It isn’t really terrifying. It’s a clear and logical examination of whether we should take action on climate change and what would happen if we didn’t. It just looks at our options: climate change is either real or not real and we have the choice to take action or take no action. It’s been up on YouTube for several years and been viewed by over 6 million people. It’s just as relevant as it was when it was first posted. Here's the link: https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ 

Still to come: business views on climate change and a clear view of the future. First, fracking.

The Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has announced that he will make the decision on whether Cuadrilla can frack for shale gas in Lancashire. You will remember that Lancashire County Council refused permission back in the summer. The minister says he is now calling the case in and will make the decision himself in the national interest. Not unexpected. Greenpeace are raising a petition in protest but that’s unlikely to change anything.

There was nothing in the Autumn Statement about the proposals to slash feed-in tariffs, so I suppose that we must assume that they will go ahead.

Last Friday Greenpeace sent an open letter to David Cameron in support of renewable energy and asked the government to “commit and put forward policies to support the growth of the UK renewables sector through the 2020’s, consistent with the critical role of the power sector in addressing carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.” This letter was jointly signed by Unilever, Vodaphone, Nestle, Thames Water, BT, IKEA, M&S, Kingfisher, Tesco and Panasonic.

Other business voices were raised as COP21 started. CBI, the Confederation of British Industry, has published a report on what it would like to see from the conference. 

Rhian Kelly, CBI Director of Business Environment policy, said:

“We all know there is no easy answer to climate change. But, business and industry are part of the solution - developing innovative new products and services, and leading the way in cutting emissions, to propel us towards a low carbon future.

“Firms need confidence to invest in this future though, so the Climate Change Conference is a golden opportunity to create the long-term frameworks that businesses crave. This means a clear sense of direction, support for carbon pricing that can drive investment and getting finance and technology flowing.

“So much effort has been put into agreeing frameworks ready for Paris, we simply cannot afford to fall at the last hurdle, and delay a lasting, global plan for climate action. All businesses, especially energy-intensive industries, will be looking for an international deal which helps create a level playing field, and that keeps the UK competitive.”

“Clear sense of direction.” Let’s hope that the government one day comes to understand that short-notice changes of policy discourage investment. Maybe we should have a Ministry of the Future to concentrate on the long term. Sounds a silly idea? Ian Birrell, writing in the i newspaper, describes the Ministry of the Future which has been set up by the Swedish government to look 50 years ahead. Its head, Kristina Persson, says, “There is a need to see any dangers in time and create a narrative that holds together.” There are policies where the long view is essential. Climate change is one. Benefits, energy, pensions, health and social care all demand a long-term view.  Looking beyond the short term might have made us think twice about the interminable debt burden that is PFI. We now have a National Infrastructure Commission. That could be a step in the right direction, but we need a body with a wide perspective as well as a long view, and we need politicians who will listen. 

Meanwhile, are you taking the long view of your business prospects? Climate change, energy shortages, supply chain pressures - have you factored them into your business plan? Yes the future is always uncertain, but there’s nothing more uncertain than a future unexplored. 

Why not give me a call and we can talk through the type of things which could put your organisation at risk and decide how best to be prepared. Maybe we could talk about putting the issues into focus through scenario planning. The number is 07803 616877  or drop me an email at mail@anthony-day.com. Give me a call and a cup of coffee and I’ll tell you what I think. If you call me now we can get something in the diary before Christmas. Oh, and I’ll expect a mince pie as well. Black Friday? Cyber Monday? This is the bargain of the week. Here’s to Sustainable 2016.

Yes, that’s it, another episode of the Sustainable Futures Report in the can. I’m off to the North West sustainable Business Quarterly meeting in Manchester shortly, kindly hosted by Anthesis anthesisgroup.com at the Bruntwood Tower. I usually meet interesting people there. I’ll tell you about it. 

But for now, this is Anthony Day and that was the Sustainable Futures Report.

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 

No more Business as Usual!

Hear the podcast at http://www.anthony-day.com/sustainable-futures-show/

This is Anthony Day, speaker, writer, conference chair and author of this, the Sustainable Futures Show.  If you like the show please tell your friends. If you don't like it please tell me at mail@Anthony-Day.com. Oh, and you can tell me if you do like it too.

This week, two reports. One from the Royal Institute for International Affairs, one from the Carbon Trust. Also, the latest update of Jeremy Leggett's The Winning of the Carbon War is out. You can download that free of charge from his website which is jeremyleggett.net. You really ought to read it. I did offer to record it as a podcast for him but he says it's in hand and he's talking to some people at the BBC. So, er, watch this space. That solar-powered plane, Solar Impulse 2, has landed safely in Hawaii after the longest solo flight ever. The next stages cross the United States and the Atlantic Ocean, and then back to the start point in Abu Dhabi.

Making the headlines this week has been the Greek economic situation. We won't say anything at all about that. And the UK chancellor’s budget. There's a few things there we’ll comment on - so let's start with that.

The Chancellor has maintained his freeze on fuel duty. Some would say this is a missed opportunity, because while oil prices are relatively low he could surely have slipped in an odd penny or two. The main difference for motorists is the change to vehicle excise duty, or car tax as some call it. These changes are for new cars registered from 1st April 2017 and the assumption is that cars registered before that date will be taxed at their current rate for the rest of their lives. Under the new rules only zero-emissions cars will avoid tax. All others will pay an amount on first registration depending on emissions levels and then pay a standard rate of £140 per year. This means that there’s now no real incentive to buy a low emissions car, as after the first year the annual tax is the same. There is a surcharge if the car costs over £40,000, bringing it up to £450 a year, but that’s less than the current top rate band of £505! Not very green!

The government will remove the Climate Change Levy exemption for renewably sourced electricity from 1 August 2015. Another short-notice policy change affecting the renewables industry. The purpose of the Climate Change Levy is to make it more expensive to generate electricity from unsustainable and polluting fuels. It is logical that renewable energy which avoids such fuels should not bear the levy. The Chancellor doesn’t think so. The change will have significant implications for the renewables industry but a negligible effect on tax revenues. But then, the Chancellor favours fracking above all else. He reiterated that he would establish a sovereign wealth fund from the proceeds of fracking. I remain convinced that you’ll find it next to the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow.

And so to these reports I mentioned.

“Titans or Titanics? Understanding the business response to climate change and resource scarcity.” That’s the title of a recent report from the Carbon Trust.

The report seeks to understand and explain how large businesses are responding to climate change and resource scarcity and makes a number of key findings. The most concerning is that the action of businesses on environmental sustainability today is significantly short of what is required to address the serious challenges of climate change and resource scarcity. The Trust goes on to say that there is common consensus around what will be required by businesses to address climate change and resource scarcity. They report that 70% of global business leaders surveyed are confident that action taken by consumers, governments, and investors will force the change to an environmentally sustainable future. (This sounds a bit like complacency to me - “We’re just waiting for the market to send us a signal. In the meantime, business as usual!”)  According to the report businesses recognise that climate change and resource scarcity will require them to make changes. Most executives see risks, even more see opportunities. Half of them expect to make fundamental changes and most of those are confident that they will be able to make the changes when the time comes. 99% believe they are at least average on environmental sustainability and half of them see themselves as leaders. 

The report warns that despite this, businesses are living in two realities: although they recognise and accept there will be risks and opportunities that will impact company value, they continue to focus on the short term. Despite a recognition of the likely need to change, businesses lack a clear vision of how this transition will be achieved beyond the business planning horizon.

They also say that there is a failure of governance from corporate boards, who need to better address uncertainty around the future risks and opportunities from environmental sustainability. There is also a lack of available frameworks or tools to help boards and senior executives to effectively assess and quantify value at stake. The report includes a useful checklist. We’ll look at that in more detail in a future episode.

Within the report they go on to talk about how adaptation - dealing with the consequences of climate change - will be so much more expensive than mitigation: taking action to prevent climate change getting worse. By 2050 business as usual and adaptation could cost from 5 - 20% of global GDP per annum, whereas mitigation could cost as little as 1%. Reminds me of Lord Stern’s 2006 report where he said much the same, except that the longer we delayed mitigation the more costly it would become. The report quotes Lord Stern and many other experts. It talks about the growth in population and about the pressures not from the absolute growth but from the growth in the middle classes. It talks about a shortage of fresh water and about resource scarcity. These are not new insights, but it’s depressing that the report paints a picture of a business community that is unprepared, if not unconcerned. Who are these businesses, when almost every major corporate from Unilever and Marks & Spencer to IKEA and HBOS is bragging about its green credentials? Are they islands in a sea of indifference? I asked the Carbon Trust about their research. They said: “Insights are based on six months of in-depth interviews with a range of experts from business, finance, government, academia, and civil society. The Carbon Trust also commissioned independent market research interviews with 229 board-level executive decision-makers across five regions: the UK, South Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the USA.” Looks like a pretty impressive sample. Looks like we still have a lot to do to get the message out!

This week the Royal Institute of International Affairs published Oil and Gas Mismatches: Finance, Investment and Climate Policy. The emphasis is on investment prospects for oil and gas. That might not sound very interesting to climate change watchers, but the odds are that some of your pension is invested in oil and gas, so listen up!

According to the report, oil and gas investment is affected by price volatility, the changing financial environment and climate change policy. The outlook for the oil price is uncertain and has been since Saudi Arabia abandoned the role of price stabiliser last year and the price collapsed. It remains around $65/barrel, just over half of where it was this time last year. Best estimates are that it will be much the same in 12 months, but the underlying feeling seems to be that it’s anybody’s guess. There is therefore a mismatch between the oil companies’ development plans and viability, as they were mostly drawn up on the assumption of the higher oil price. This has implications not only for oil companies like BP and their shareholders who rely on dividends, but also for the national oil companies who rely on earnings to balance their national budgets.

In a time of quantitative easing yields are low, but as this ends yields will rise and the yields expected from oil companies will also rise, putting them further under pressure.

The report looks in detail at Climate Change policies, which it sees more or less as a wild card. The issue will be the outcome of COP 21, the international climate change conference in Paris in December. Will the 195 countries decide to take strong action or weak? If the decision is weak, to do not very much or at least to delay taking any serious decisions for the time being, then oil production and demand can remain much as business as usual. (With all the consequences highlighted by the Carbon Trust). If the decision is strong, then there are all sorts of implications. First, it is likely that governments will take action by taxing the use of fossil fuels one way or another. This will drive a wedge between the price paid by the consumer and the price obtained by the producer. Where regulation is strong, investment that could have been made in an environment with weak regulation will not be viable. Indeed, strong regulation implies stranded assets, oil and gas reserves which cannot be used and therefore have no value, as regulation cuts demand. In the interim, until the outcome of COP 21 is known, significant oil and gas reserves remain in limbo. Their value is uncertain and investing in them would be highly risky. If the outcome turns out to be high regulation there will be consequences for other industries as well: power stations, manufacturers of gas-guzzling vehicles and buildings that do not effectively conserve energy, for example. 

Undoubtedly there are interest groups, albeit with a short term view, that will be lobbying hard for business as usual. We have to hope that the legislators who meet in December will be fully informed.

The report closes with the warning that the age of cheap oil production may not yet be over, but the age of cheap oil use almost certainly is.

I always like to end on a cheerful note. I’ll try and think of one for next time. This is Anthony Day, the Sustainability Coach, and that was the latest episode of the Sustainable Futures Show. Now I’m sure it’s in your diary, but don’t forget that the Sustainable Best Practice Exchange takes place in Harrogate on 5th November. We’re inviting a minister to brave the journey from London and join us in the Northern Powerhouse. I hope you can come too. Details soon!

Revolution - a film by Rob Stewart

Watch the trailer here: http://ykr.be/hn62dkp6v 
This review also available on The Sustainable Futures Show (podcast)

What’s it all about?

This film will appeal to anyone who is concerned about the environment, sustainability or climate change. Anyone else could well tune out and switch off in the first few minutes.

What’s it all about? It’s a film about our relationship with sharks. No, wait, here’s Rob Stewart mugging to the camera home-movie style. It's a documentary about making a documentary about sharks. No, wrong again, we’re now talking about coral reefs, the acidification of the oceans and the threat to fish stocks. Now we’re looking at global forests, at the destruction of some 75% of the world’s forests and its effects on the production of oxygen. And finally - it’s about CO2 emissions, it’s about man-made climate change, it’s about mega-corporations, coal and particularly about Canadian tar sands.

There is so much information in this film. There’s some amazing photography, especially the underwater scenes. There are some pretty disturbing scenes. There are things everyone should know. I had no prior knowledge or expectations of this film and we could have done with some signposting. It would have helped if I’d seen the trailer beforehand. Why watch this film? What’s it going to tell us? Why is it important? How does it affect me? Without answers to some of these questions I’m afraid the general viewer will just switch off. There is no clear thread at the start. 

The later part of the film shows how concerned citizens took their message to COP15, the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, and how the conference closed with no real result. We saw anti-coal protesters outside the White House in Washington. There was detailed coverage of the protests at COP16, the 2010 conference in Cancun, Mexico. Again, little was achieved and this time the protesters were expelled.

My main criticism of this film is that it lacks a strategy for action. The filmmakers suggest that if you don’t like what the government is doing on climate change you should elect another one. (We tried that in the UK last week and it didn’t work. Climate change and the environment were never discussed in the election campaign. Public awareness is the first challenge. People don’t know so people don’t care.)

This film reminded me of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. They both give an account of the threats and risks to our planet and to our life on earth, but they don’t say what we should do about it. “The Age of Stupid” was a similar film. “How could we have been so stupid as to get into this mess,?” it asked, but it didn't suggest any solutions. If you wait to the end of Al Gore’s film, as the credits roll you see little hints like, ”Drive a smaller car” or “Turn the heating down 1 degree”.

If you wait to the very, very end of Revolution, after all the credits - which are extensive - after the Canadian tax status statement, the very last line before fade to black  reads: “Open your eyes. Be brave. Fight for something.”

What? Fight for something? Is that it? If we don’t know what we’re fighting for we’re certainly not going to achieve anything.

The most memorable statement in the film for me came from Dr Patrick Moore (no, not the astronomer) A former Greenpeace activist and now an advocate of exploiting the Canadian Tar Sands. He said: “Tomorrow morning 300m vehicles in America need to start up to keep civilisation running. If they don’t get their oil from here, they’ll get it from somewhere else.” You can’t argue with that. At least, not in the short term.

The film criticises the negotiators at the Climate Conferences for all talk and no action. But we could criticise the activists and the filmmakers for all protest and no solutions. Ban coal, ban oil, but what then? And the Cancun conference was in 2010. Why nothing about the conferences which have taken place since? Why nothing about COP21, the next major UN Climate Change Conference coming up in Paris in December?

If you’re interested in the environment, in sustainability and climate change, you should see this film. It will remind you of the issues and probably add to your knowledge. If you’ve never taken an interest in these issues, you too should watch Revolution. It’s hard work to start with, but it provides a wealth of information. Make up your own mind as to what the action points should be. It’s not time for panic, but it’s no time complacency either.

Of course, you might turn round to me and say, “Right, if you’re so clever what course of action do you recommend?” And I could respond that I’m just the reviewer of the film; it’s not up to me. 

That’s  tempting, but it’s too easy, so here’s what I suggest.

We need to lobby governments to commit to clear targets for agreement in Paris in December. 

• A global fixed price for carbon, increasing year by year would be a start. 
• All those 300m vehicles, and all the others in the rest of the world, need to start up every day until we can create alternatives. Tax incentives must encourage rapid innovation in transport.
• We need to decarbonise electricity production by 2050, maybe earlier. This means that no-where in the world will we use fossil fuels to generate electricity. It’s a big ask, but many experts believe it’s possible. Make no mistake, to do this we will have to manage demand as well and eliminate waste so that demand can match supply.
• Governments must implement a public information programme so that people understand the reason for changes. This is probably the biggest challenge of all, because many politicians themselves do not understand the issues and quite a lot of them don’t want to believe the facts, for whatever reason.
• The international community must recognise that in the short term at least, poor countries and poorer people in developed countries will be hardest hit by the change from fossil fuels. Steps must be taken to protect them, for two reasons. One is that we have a moral duty to help those worse off than ourselves, and if you don’t buy that then if we neglect the poor there’s good chance that they will all rise up and destroy what we’re trying to do.
• Finally, it’s all very well to demonise mega-corporations, but given the vast proportion of the world’s assets that they control, it’s unlikely that we will achieve a low carbon world without their involvement. Governments must give them incentives to reinvent themselves, and penalise business as usual.

What do you think?

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!

Sustainable Furniture Case Study

Efficiency and best practice have always been fundamental to J T Ellis & Co., furniture manufacturers of Huddersfield in West Yorkshire.

“We never set out specifically to be a sustainable company. The fact is that the way we run the company lets us tick most of the sustainability boxes.”

Ellis Furniture supplies kitchens and bathrooms to the retail sector and kitchens, bathrooms, bedrooms and a whole range of specialised furniture to contract clients. These include care homes and hotels, and schools, universities and other buildings in the public sector.

 “PFI has not been universally popular, but it’s been good news for us.”

PFI operators frequently have an obligation to maintain a building and its facilities for decades. Ellis uses traditional glue and dowel construction with high quality timber, which means they offer a quality product that lasts for years - and at a competitive price. Every product from Ellis Furniture has a 10-year guarantee, but in practice it will last much longer than that. Indeed, in a corner of the company’s showroom there’s a suite of student furniture that was originally installed in Durham University in 1985. It’s clearly seen a lot of use but it’s still functional. In principle it could be refurbished and re-used.

What makes a sustainable business?

First of all, the fact that Ellis makes durable and long-lasting products clearly demonstrates sustainable use of resources. Unfortunately, at present no-one gets recognition for making durable products. In the UK, where we generate 117 million tonnes of waste each year, the longer a product lasts the greater effect it has on reducing that figure - a contribution to sustainability that really shouldn’t be ignored. Secondly, the company carefully controls its raw materials. Wherever possible, timber comes from FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified sources, which means that every tree harvested comes from managed forests, and every tree is recorded and replaced. Walnut and cherry from the US are managed in a similar way but certified by a different body. Other countries have their own schemes. What is noticeable on the Ellis factory floor is that every stack of timber is tagged with details of origin. For every product shipped, the company knows exactly where the raw materials came from.   

I raised the question of energy security. How sustainable is a manufacturing business when there are predictions of national electricity blackouts within the next two years? Like most businesses, their energy supply is in the hands of the government, the generators and the weather. It’s just not practical to have a complete back-up generation system, and it’s not as though the factory is producing anything perishable that needs refrigeration or chemical reactions that must be held at a critical temperature. Of course there are essential services that must be protected so there’s a UPS in the computer room which will permit a managed shutdown of IT without loss of data. There’s also one diesel back-up unit on site. It sits next to a massive water tank which feeds the sprinkler system. Every Monday it’s fired up to prove it’s ready and waiting should an emergency occur.

And renewable energy?

What about renewables? A 200,000 square foot factory has a lot of roof area and it’s no surprise that solar panels are under serious consideration. They will never supply all the factory’s needs, but the current subsidy regime means they will make a significant saving and certainly more than pay for themselves.

Another aspect of energy is more problematical. Ellis Furniture has to dispose of waste, and offcuts of timber and strip are collected by a company which remanufactures them into particle board. All very green, although Ellis still has to pay for the waste to be taken away. Enter the government with its subsidies for biomass boilers. The policy was set up to support electricity generators such as Drax Power - operators of the UK’s largest power station - to convert to more environmentally-friendly biomass. (Whether it is truly environmentally friendly is a debate for another day!) In view of the massive investment involved, some £700m, the government has confirmed that the scheme will stay in place at least until 2037. Back in Huddersfield the regulations mean there’s a choice between recycling the timber waste at a cost and saving money on energy by burning it in a biomass boiler. It's a simple choice. Burning it in a boiler is not as green as recycling it, but this is business.

Why ISO 14001?

Putting in an environmental management system (EMS) to ISO 14001 was in response to public sector clients. A lot of the implementation involved documenting practices and procedures which the company already had in place. The fact that the EMS has been installed means that clients immediately know that Ellis Furniture meets recognised standards. Indeed, having the standard is frequently a condition of tendering. Clients know that the EMS is revalidated each year, in this case by BSI, which is an added incentive to the company towards continuous improvement. With this in mind Ellis undertook a lean manufacturing project, which led them to a fundamental re-arrangement of the factory layout. They freed up enough space to allow them to give up off-site storage facilities and save the cost. The revised layout improves productivity as the work now comes to the operatives, following a logical flow, and they no longer have to follow the work.

What about packaging?

Most Ellis products are sent out without packaging. The majority of the business is with the public sector and contract customers. The company delivers these orders on its own transport, securing units to the sides of the van and separating them with blankets, which of course are used again and again. Units for the retail market are packaged in cardboard as the company does not handle delivery to the final consumer and needs to make sure they arrive safely. At least the cardboard can be recycled.

And finally…

I’ve often said that sustainable business is good business. It makes sense to get the standard and get the credit for it.  Ellis Furniture proves the point that good businesses are generally sustainable.

Thanks to Tom Ellis, Joint MD, JT Ellis & Co