Going Underground

Published as a podcast at www.susbiz.biz on Friday 27th November 2015

Although recent episodes of the sustainable futures show might lead you to think that it's all about energy, that's certainly not the case. This week I do talk about energy, potential energy under our feet, and also about water, groundwater. Desalination, solar energy, failing monsoons, Moroccan salt and Californian almonds are also on the agenda. And the UK has abandoned plans for carbon capture and storage.

Hello. This is Anthony Day, and this is the Sustainable Futures Show for Friday, 27 November 2015. And from next month it's going to be called the Sustainable Futures Report.

Running Out

According to a report in Nature Geoscience we are running out of groundwater. Groundwater is the one third of the world’s freshwater which is below the surface of the earth. We are using it up more rapidly that it is being replaced. And less than 6% of the water in the top 2 km of the earth’s surface  is renewed in a human lifetime. Some groundwater is rapidly renewed by rainfall and is only a few months old. Other reserves of groundwater can be millions of years old.

In California groundwater from boreholes is used for agriculture. A farmer interviewed by Capital Public Radio reported that the water level in his well was falling by 800 mm each year. Not surprising when you consider that California is in its fourth year of drought. This farmer had decided to do what he could to replenish the groundwater by flooding his crops whenever there was heavy rainfall and surplus water. He was prepared to invest millions of dollars to divert floodwaters to irrigate his crops with far more than they needed so that the water would percolate away through the sandy soil and down into the aquifers. 80% of the world’s almonds are produced in California and the Almond Board is looking at flooding the plantations in order to restore the groundwater there. The problem is that not all agricultural soils are permeable and it is not clear whether all crops will accept excess water. There will also need to be canals and pipes installed to divert the floodwaters. The original farmer was growing grapevines and the excess water did not damage the crop and might even have slightly improved it. Elsewhere in California there is growing tension between farmers as they drill deeper wells in order to secure their own supplies.

The University of the United Arab Emirates reports that Abu Dhabi is likely to exhaust its groundwater completely within 15 years. At the moment 98% of drinking water in the emirates comes from desalination plants. The problem with this is that the process uses substantial amounts of energy, usually natural gas, and the hot liquid which is pumped back into the sea as a byproduct damages the marine ecosystem. Citizens of the emirates use on average 500 L per day each, which is one of the highest rates of consumption in the world. The government admits that the price of water is too low which leads people to have no concern about wasting it and they don’t bother about leaks. Raising prices could go part way to solving this problem and the Emirates are also introducing solar powered desalination plants which will not use gas and presumably will not produce CO2 emissions either.

According to the Times of India, Pune, south-east of Mumbai, is also suffering from falling groundwater levels. The 2015 monsoon was weaker than usual and some areas received as little as 50% of normal rainfall. In 2014 some 6,000 villages saw water in their wells fall by a metre or more. In 2015 this had more than doubled to 13,500 villages. Of these, nearly 3,000 saw the level fall between 2m and 3m and over 4,000 saw the level fall by more than 3m. These villages are on the brink of severe drinking water shortages. The authorities have banned deep wells in 80 locations and say they will have to recharge the aquifers, although it is not clear how they will actually do it.

All these places may be far from home, but that doesn't mean that we won't suffer water shortages in Europe. All too often our problem is too much water, rather than drought but how far do you and your business rely on water? Do you actually know where your water supply comes from? Probably yes, if you’re a farmer. Otherwise it might be worth finding out. In a future episode I plan to review the book “Let there be water” by Seth M Siegel. You can find it at sethmsiegel.com .

Unconventional Energy

Paul Younger is Rankine Chair of Engineering and Professor of Energy Engineering at School of Engineering, at the University of Glasgow. He was interviewed by Jim Al Khalili at the recent freethinking festival. He said his main concerns were keeping the lights on and keeping carbon emissions down. We urgently need to find new sources of energy. We need to find the lowest carbon alternatives and it is urgent because of continuing and increasing fuel poverty and the risk of winter blackouts. He was scathing about an energy policy which has left us with a very narrow safety margin in the event of a severe winter. Have I mentioned that before? What alternative energy sources do we have? As a geologist, Professor Younger has investigated geothermal energy and drilled boreholes deep into the earth. Anyone who has been down a coal mine knows that the deeper you go the warmer it gets. Deeper still and the rocks get extremely hot. It is possible to harness this heat to raise steam and generate electricity, but in many cases it is more efficient to use the heat as heat. Looking at the U.K.'s energy consumption, only one fifth of energy is used as electricity, 2/5 are used as heat and the remainder is used for transport. While it might be possible to use geothermal energy for combined heat and power, the main potential is for running district heating systems. This means that alongside the gas pipes, the water pipes and the electricity cables we would have a hot water main feeding the central heating of each property. It's a system which works well in other countries and if we have a source of free, zero carbon heat it's an opportunity to be seriously considered. Although test drillings have proved that the heat is there, the projects have run out of money.

In Africa, however, notably in Ethiopia, geothermal energy is providing clean, cheap electricity to communities that had little or none before.

Another potential source of energy is underground coal gasification (UCG). This involves drilling into very deep coal seams, way beyond the reach of conventional mining, oxidising the coal and extracting the gas. In fact, this gas would be more important as a source of chemical feedstocks than as a fuel. Many fertilisers, pharmaceuticals and fabrics that we all take for granted are manufactured from hydrocarbons: oil or gas. If we do use gas from this source for energy, the carbon dioxide could be re-injected into the exhausted coal seams. If everything could be done on-site then this would remove the need for long pipelines which seem to be part of the current carbon capture and storage initiatives. Current CCS plans involve piping the CO2 across the country and injecting it into caverns under the North Sea.

At least that was the plan. 

At the same time as the Chancellor, George Osborne, was delivering his Autumn Statement to Parliament this week, the Department of Energy and Climate Change was making an announcement to the London Stock Exchange. It said that the £1bn prize fund for the first company to develop commercial-scale carbon capture and storage was withdrawn with immediate effect. The pilot projects at Drax and Peterhead will not now go ahead, putting an end to four years of research and preparation. The schemes would have generated 2,000 construction jobs at Drax and 100 permanent positions, and a further 600 jobs at Peterhead. You could argue that with last week’s re-announcement of the closure of coal-fired power stations, carbon capture and storage is no longer needed. However the 25 gas fired power stations which they are planning to build will all emit greenhouse gases. Clearly they will now be emitted into the atmosphere without any form of abatement.

Going back to UCG.

Underground Coal Gasification is not the same as fracking, says Prof Younger although he believes that fracking is not as dangerous as some would claim. In his view, fracking in the United States has been carried out by unqualified cowboys, so no wonder there have been spills, escapes and pollution. If underground gasification is carried out by people with mining skills or people skilled in exploiting the oil and gas in the North Sea it can be carried out safely. After all, coal mines stretched miles out underneath the North Sea with never a leak. UGC and geothermal developments need to be done while these skills are still around, before these experts retire. Does he think it will happen? Sadly not. There will be no incentive until the population at large realises that energy and food and medicines and plastics are getting more expensive and demands that engineers find a solution. By then the only alternative will probably be to buy the technology and skills - technology invented in the UK – from the Chinese.

 The problem with unconventional energy, as with all other forms of renewable energy, is that oil is currently so cheap that it is difficult to be cost competitive, although on-shore wind is pretty close. For the moment. 

A Ray of Sunshine (lots, actually)

Meanwhile, the BBC, Daily Mail and many others report on the new solar plant about to open in Morocco. When it is complete it will provide enough power for a million people, 20 hours a day. Yes, even at night. The difference is that this is not a solar PV array. There are no panels which produce electricity when the sun shines on them. Instead there are banks of computer-controlled mirrors which track the sun and focus its rays on a heat exchanger. This transfers heat to molten salt, which in turn is hot enough to produce steam to drive a conventional steam-turbine generating set. The salt holds its heat well after dark. 

It is part of Morocco's pledge to get 42% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. The UN has praised Morocco for the level of its ambition. The UK on the other hand, a much richer country, is aiming for 30% by the same date. Of course the Moroccans don’t have George Osborne.

The Guardian explains how the whole of Europe could run on renewables, given the right distribution infrastructure. We could share geothermal power from Iceland, hydropower from Sweden, wind power from the UK and solar power from Spain. Where there’s a will there’s a way! No will, not enough vision, at the moment, unfortunately.

More Oil

If you were listening to the sustainable futures show in January you may remember that I asked you to predict the price of oil in January 2016. The oil price fell dramatically from over $100 a barrel in mid 2014 to only $47 by the start of this year. My prediction for January 2016 was $65. Today, 25th November, it’s $42, which doesn’t look good for me, or for renewables. OPEC warned this week that the price could spike. They said that they were not prepared to limit production raise prices unless other producers did the same. Their object was to maintain their market share. However the Saudi Oil minister warned that reduced investment as a result of the low price could lead to a supply shortfall which could drive up prices very quickly. According to the International Energy Agency the world currently holds stocks of oil equivalent to nearly 300 days’ net imports. This will be a buffer, but how effective it is depends on how quickly the industry can bring new supplies on stream, or - and this is surely preferable - how quickly we can we can find substitutes.

COP21

I’ve not mentioned COP21. It starts next week. Ban Ki Moon says that in the nine years that he has been Secretary-General of the United Nations he has seen first hand the consequences of climate change. He has seen the effects on the developing world and the likely effects on his grandchildren and future generations. 

“As the head of the United Nations,” he says, “I have prioritised climate change because no country can meet this challenge alone. Climate change carries no passport; emissions released anywhere contribute to the problem everywhere. Economic stability and the security of nations are under threat. Only through the UN can we respond collectively to this global issue.”

Mass demonstrations urging world leaders to come up with binding and effective solutions have been planned for months. Unsurprisingly, the French authorities have said that they cannot guarantee the safety of marchers after this month’s attacks. Indoor meetings can go ahead, but the march in Paris planned for this Sunday 29th November cannot. There will be marches in other capitals and major cities all round the world. A march is planned in Paris on 12 December to mark the end of the conference. We'll have to see whether that goes ahead or not. Apart from the marches, the world is on the threshold of something very big.

This is Anthony Day and that was another episode of the sustainable futures show. Thanks for listening. There is so much going on that again I have had to hold things over. Next time of course we will be in the middle of COP 21 the Paris climate conference and I shall certainly be monitoring that as it unfolds. That will dominate future episodes. It's all about sustainability. It’s about climate change, and energy and food and population and as you have seen in this episode, it’s about water and other scarce resources as well. The world is changing and change is affecting business as never before. It means you need to plan. You need to plan more than ever. If you're not sure how these things will affect your business, if you'd like to have a general chat on what's happening and how it may change your world, your market, your supply chain, give me a call. I’m Anthony Day and my number is 07803 616877 in the UK. Give me a call and let's talk. In any case I hope you'll be listening to next week’s Sustainable Futures Report.

 I'm Anthony Day and that's it for another week.

Ever Closer to Paris

Hear the podcast at www.susbiz.biz

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

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

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

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

Investigating Exxon

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

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

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

Keystone XL

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

Closing in on Paris

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

What if we don’t tackle climate change? 

The predictions are for more unusual weather. 

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

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

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

The predictions are for more extreme weather. 

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

The predictions are for sea-level rise. 

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

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

What exactly are they trying to do at COP21? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britain in the (bad) News

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

This is Anthony Day with the sustainable futures show.

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

Minister Embarrassed 

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

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

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

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

Climate Action

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

World Energy Council

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

That soundproof room...

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

And finally...

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

I’m off to a conference now.

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

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

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!

Fracking - the saga continues

Will fracking be David Cameron's Poll Tax?

But first, here’s a date for your diary. Thursday 5th November 2015 at the Harrogate International Showground will see the Sustainable Best Practice in Business Conference: ESOS and energy, supply chain and skills. We’re inviting the minister from DECC, Amber Rudd; the CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman; Lord Redesdale from the Institute of Energy Managers and other industry representatives. It will be an opportunity to learn from experts and to network and share best practice with your peers. Registration opens shortly. More details soon.

This last week was a busy week and events developed almost faster than I could keep up. Fracking is once more in the news, there’s a report that soil erosion in East Anglia could seriously affect our food production, electricity could be cheaper but dirtier, what’s going on in Battersea Park?, it’s getting hot in the Tube and I talk to Daniel White from Global Energy Systems on why you need a heat pump. Well, perhaps not today, but the word is that this weather won’t last, in spite of global warming.

Last week I reported that the application for test drilling and test fracking at Roseacre Wood was refused by Lancashire county council. This week, against the advice of planners and legal experts, the council also refused the application for Little Plumpton. I expect there was dancing in the streets. This looks like a very high risk strategy because councillors were warned that they were very unlikely to win on appeal and the council would have to pay all the legal costs. On the other hand, an appeal will be a landmark case. It will meet the government head-on on one of its flagship policies. There was a debate in parliament this week and it revealed all sorts of things which I'm sure the government would like to keep quiet, but which will almost certainly come out if the case goes to court. I’ve been reading Hansard, the official Parliamentary record, and here are some of the things that I found in the record of last Tuesday’s debate.

Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) in North Yorkshire opened the debate and commented that France, Germany, New York state and others had all banned fracking. He then spoke about “Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts” a report from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and told us that it had 63 redactions within 13 pages. That means that 63 items had been blacked out or censored, including of a whole section on the impact on house prices. The Government’s position that “There is a strong public interest in withholding the information” did not go down well with his constituents.

Then, a day after this debate, the government was required to publish the DEFRA report in its uncensored form. It includes admissions such as:

• people living near fracking sites could see their house prices fall by up to seven per cent.
• a UK shale gas boom could lead to an increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. 
• waste fluids leaking from fracking operations in the US have resulted in environmental damage.
• properties could incur additional insurance premiums if they are within a five mile radius of fracking operations.
• the report includes "early, often vague, assumptions which are not supported by appropriate evidence”.

No wonder they wanted to keep all that quiet!

 Kevin Hollinrake had other concerns as well. He said he would like to see a clearer, more robust and independent monitoring regime for the regulations.

“The operator commissions and pays for the services of the well examiner… This might be someone employed by the well operator’s organisation.” 

He quoted evidence provided to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee stating that  "the weakest point of the regulatory process concerns the Environment Agency”, which appears to have “insufficient in-house expertise.”

He also told us that fracking company Third Energy, had stated that it might drill 950 wells in less than a third of his constituency, which would require hundreds of thousands of lorry movements, all in one of the country’s most beautiful counties, with an economy heavily dependent on agriculture and tourism.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) was concerned about projected production figures from DECC as they were based on the maximum output from any well ever achieved in the US. He thought this was an unrealistic baseline. He said that 10,000 to 18,000 wells would be needed nationally to replace the gas which we currently import from Qatar. These would not be scattered all over the country but would be concentrated in Lancs and the Weald in the southeast. They would have a life of about 20 years, but would need re-drilling every 7 years or so. New pipelines would have to be built across the country or lorries would have to collect the gas. This is in addition to the thousands of lorry journeys needed to deliver the fracking fluids. After 20 years the sites would be abandoned. He suggested that AD, converting agricultural waste to gas, should be considered as an alternative. This process could continue as long as farmers were in business, not just for 20 years.

Farmers in South Ribble are particularly concerned about fracking. Seema Kennedy MP said any pollution of groundwater could contaminate their crops and destroy their business. The Ribble Valley is one of the most fertile parts of the country and produces a major part of the nation’s salad crop.

The debate continued, with concerns raised about the regulations, the disposal of used fracking liquids and the effects on house prices and on public health. Two MPs were firmly in favour of fracking, two were cautious, most were opposed.

Andrea Leadsom The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, responded to the debate emphasising the need for energy security and stating that “We are likely to continue relying on gas to provide much of our heat, as well as to generate electricity into the 2030s…Flexible electricity generation, such as that fuelled by gas, is also needed to help balance the electricity grid as our policies bring forward relatively inflexible and intermittent low-carbon generation.”

She talked about the benefits of a successful shale gas industry, not just in energy security, but in direct benefits to jobs, growth and community investment. And she promised a sovereign wealth fund - with the industry’s commitment to putting £100,000 per exploration well to local communities and then a minimum of 1% of any subsequent production revenues. Local councils would retain 100% of the business rates that they collect from productive shale gas developments.

“Ernst and Young, she said, has estimated that a thriving shale industry could mean 64,500 jobs nationally or over 100 jobs per year at a typical site. The value of the supply chain for the industry has been estimated at £33 billion between 2016 and 2032. This is an incredible opportunity. We are at a pre-beginning phase, but there is a huge amount to play for. British engineering is at the forefront of the world and we have the opportunity to showcase that further by developing for ourselves a safe and environmentally sound shale gas industry.”

What do I think?

It’s still a fossil fuel. It still has a carbon footprint. We have a commitment to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint. 

When he heard that the applications had been rejected the chief executive of Cuadrilla repeated the point that sourcing gas locally was far more secure than buying it from Qatar or Russia. True, and there’s no doubt that we have an energy problem as our power stations age and the margin between supply and winter demand gets tighter and tighter. But gas is not the only answer, and we don’t yet know that it is an answer. That’s why they are carrying out test drilling. On the other hand we already know that solar panels and wind turbines and anaerobic digesters all work. Yes, they are intermittent, (not the digesters), but the old complaint that electricity cannot be stored is increasingly untrue. Tesla recently announced new domestic battery packs: technology is advancing rapidly. And there are other technologies apart from batteries that can store energy. To anyone who says we haven’t got time I would simply say that even if everything goes strictly to plan, it will be at least five years before fracking starts producing gas commercially. And it will be a very, very long time before we have 10,000 wells in production. But what about demand? We waste vast amounts of energy. Managing demand is essential. Bring back the Green Deal - or at least something like it that actually works. (That will create jobs, too!)

And why do I call fracking David Cameron’s Poll Tax? Well the poll-tax was brought in by Margaret Thatcher against the advice of her ministers and against strong opposition in the country which led to riots. The poll-tax was repealed and replaced with the council tax and it was the beginning of the end for Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister of Great Britain. The majority of MPs who opposed fracking in this debate were from David Cameron’s own Conservative Party. He is going to find implementing this policy extremely difficult. Almost as hard as the Third Runway at Heathrow. But that’s another story.

Meanwhile, in other news this week, Moody’s published a report suggesting that electricity is likely to get cheaper as we increase our capacity to import it from the continent. Their electricity is cheaper because at least in Germany their lower carbon taxes encourage them to generate more electricity from coal. Cheaper, but dirtier.

The Committee on Climate Change warns that agricultural land, particularly in East Anglia, could become unviable within a generation unless something is done. We’ll have to add still more to the 40% of food that we already import, with consequences for food security and food prices. East Anglia grows acres of wheat and farmers have removed trees and grubbed up hedges to make fields ever larger and to give ploughs and combine harvesters long straight runs. Britain has lost 84% of its fertile topsoil since 1850, and these changes in land management are accelerating the problem. Without trees as windbreaks the wind is blowing the soil away. As climate change reduces rainfall and warms the soil it crumbles to dust and the problem only gets worse. When rain does come, and increasingly it comes in violent storms, it washes the soil away. It’s time to take action and recognise that topsoil is another vital non-renewable resource that is rapidly running out.

What has been going on in Battersea Park? Last weekend saw the final race in the international Formula E series that started in Beijing last September and saw meetings in Buenos Aires, Miami, Monte Carlo, Berlin and Moscow before the final in London. Yes, it’s Formula 1, but not as we know it! For example, when the drivers make for the pits it’s not to change the tyres, or top up the washer bottle but to pick up a completely new car - with a fully charged battery. My petrolhead friends say it’s not the same. It’s not as fast and it doesn’t make that roar as the cars go past. I’m sure J Clarkson hates it as much as he hates my Toyota Prius. Nevertheless, names like Trulli, Prost and Yamamoto; Renault, Audi and Virgin are taking it seriously. Formula 1 has always been seen as an essential testbed for new automotive technologies. Welcome to the future.

Wednesday 1st July was the hottest July day on record, at 36.7℃. It got up to 35℃ in the London Tube as well. I remember reading somewhere that waste heat is a problem for the network in normal times, with heat from passengers, from the trains, the lights, the escalators and all the other plant. What could they do with it? Maybe they need a heat pump! It so happens that this week I was talking to Daniel White from Global Energy Systems.

Go to www.susbiz.biz to listen to this blog as a podcast and hear the interview with Daniel.

I'm Anthony Day, The Sustainability Coach, dedicated to spreading the word about sustainability, about better ways of doing things so we can all, in all countries, enjoy a comfortable lifestyle in spite of the challenges from rising population, climate change, energy shortages and all the other sustainability issues. 

Let’s get out there and find opportunities!

Climate Change is bad for your health - official

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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