Friday, June 05, 2020

World Environment Day



World Environment Day

It’s Friday 5th June - World Environment Day. I’m Anthony Day and in this episode of the Sustainable Futures Report I  look at new transport initiatives and ask if they are just flights of fancy, I investigate whether a proposed recycling initiative is merely greenwash and I look again at possible directions for post-COVID recovery. I’m British, so I’ll be talking about the weather and finally, keeping the lights on has never been more challenging. I listened to a panel of experts this week talking about Grid Flexibility.
But first, as I said, 5th June is World Environment Day. It’s an initiative of the UN Environment Programme and has been established since 1974.
The message on the website is: 
The foods we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the climate that makes our planet habitable all come from nature.
Yet, these are exceptional times in which nature is sending us a message:
To care for ourselves we must care for nature. 
It’s time to wake up. To take notice. To raise our voices.
It’s time to build back better for People and Planet.
This World Environment Day, it’s Time for Nature.
There’s nothing particularly special announced for today, but the website shows lists of events, projects and initiatives going on all the time all over the world. That clearly makes sense: we can’t afford to think about the environment just for a day and forget it for the other 364. Sign up now for the Wild Earth Live Safari from Africa, for the Time for Nature webinar or the World Environment Day Festival. That’s just a very small selection of events going on both before and after World Environment Day. There’s a link to the full schedule on the blog. 
Take Care!
Do you remember that when Apple launched the iPad you could have something engraved on the back at no extra cost? Mine says, “Take care of the planet. It’s all we’ve got.”
Sixth Mass Extinction
Are we taking care? Worrying news this week from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the US. The article by Ceballos, Erlich and Raven opens with this statement:
The ongoing sixth mass extinction may be the most serious environmental threat to the persistence of civilization, because it is irreversible. Thousands of populations of critically endangered vertebrate animal species have been lost in a century, indicating that the sixth mass extinction is human caused and accelerating. The acceleration of the extinction crisis is certain because of the still fast growth in human numbers and consumption rates. In addition, species are links in ecosystems, and, as they fall out, the species they interact with are likely to go also. In the regions where disappearing species are concentrated, regional biodiversity collapses are likely occurring. Our results reemphasize the extreme urgency of taking massive global actions to save humanity’s crucial life-support systems.
“When humanity exterminates other creatures, it is sawing off the limb on which it is sitting, destroying working parts of our own life-support system,” said Prof Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University in the US, and one of the research team. “The conservation of endangered species should be elevated to a global emergency for governments and institutions, equal to the climate disruption to which it is linked.”
Another View
Last January I interviewed Chris Thomas for the Sustainable Futures Report. He’s an ecologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of York, a Fellow of the Royal Society and author of Inheritors of the Earth, How Nature is Thriving in an Age of Extinction.
He said:
We are causing a higher rate of extinction than is normal in the geological past, and if we were to maintain the current rates of extinction for another 10,000 years let us say to one order of magnitude, then we would indeed get up to the sorts of levels that have been seen in the great mass extinctions of the past. But we're not about to hit one of the  so-called Big Five and become the big sixth, not instantly at least, because those are defined by 75% or more of all species going extinct, and we're not there and the rate of current extinction is taking us there on the timescale of millennia, not decades.
I’m going to contact him for comment.
It’s interesting, by the way, that in the very last part of the interview he said: 
“…if you could imagine we got one of these diseases that our bodies can't cope with like HIV or Ebola and it had the transmissibility of measles, then we would really be in a challenging global situation…”

Let’s Talk About Transport
The current pandemic does not seem to have dampened enthusiasm for new forms of transport. I understand that works continue on HS2, the UK’s high speed railway line, although the need for crossing the country at high speed or indeed the demand for being able to do so must now be in serious doubt. But then, who would go on HS2 if the alternative was to take the Hyperloop? Smart Cities World reports that Spanish company Zeleros has complete a €7m funding round to support development of the hyperloop in Europe. I think Hyperloop was originally an idea of Elon Musk - CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Cars. It’s an evacuated tube and vehicles fly along inside it without touching the sides, driven by magnetic induction. It means that speeds of up to 1,000kph will be achieved, more than twice the design speed of HS2. Paris to Berlin will take just 90 minutes, only an hour from Lisbon to Madrid or Rome to Nice or even less than that for London to Edinburgh. The cost of building the tube must surely be enormous and how much electricity will it take to make it work? And how many people will it take? And what about two-way working - does that mean two tubes or will there be passing loops? And even 1000kph is nowhere near as fast as Zoom or Skype or email.
Meanwhile, I reported in the past about lilium.com and their electric flying taxi. “Enabling a world where anyone can fly, anywhere, anytime.” They’re still working on it.
And The Guardian reports that the world’s largest all-electric aircraft is set for its first flight. Unlike the lilium, which carries only 4 passengers and a pilot, the Electric version of the Cessna Caravan will seat nine. Still some way to go, I think.
Moving On
I firmly believe that after the end of lockdown the UK government needs to spend widely to restart the economy, but should spend on essential infrastructure, on restoring care facilities and services, on community centres and libraries, on transport facilities to meet changing work and leisure patterns, on research to develop new industries and employment and protect the nation from the risks of relying on far distant suppliers for critical goods in times such as the present pandemic. We need of course to invest in green solutions, to expand existing solar and wind production, to develop a smart grid and insulate the nation’s housing stock so we don’t continue to waste vast amounts of energy. We need to reassess land management and agricultural production - something we can of course do unilaterally now we have left the EU. And I believe everyone should receive a universal basic income (UBI), from birth, but that is a debate for another day. You’ll find a link on the blog to an article about a potential UBI in Spain.
This is not the time for vast expenditure on Hyperloops, HS2 or electric air taxis which will serve only a very small number of very wealthy people, if they work at all.
Recycling
Bio-bottles
There’s news on the recycling front. Carlsberg and Coca-Cola are evaluating a new plastic bottle made from plant sugars instead of fossil fuels. The new material has the advantage that not only can it be recycled, it will biodegrade in a year or so. By contrast, if it’s not been burnt every bit of fossil-fuel plastic that was ever made is still somewhere on land or at sea. 
In time Avantium, developer of the new material, plans to use plant sugars from sustainable sourced biowaste so that the rise of plant plastic does not affect the global food supply chain.
Kenyan Plastic
Kenya’s fight against pollution began on 28 August 2017, threatening up to four years’ imprisonment or fines of $40,000 (£31,000) for anyone producing, selling – or even just carrying – a plastic bag.
A year later the authorities claimed victory – and other east African nations Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and South Sudan were considering following suit.
“The streets are cleaner, waterways are less obstructed and fishermen find fewer bags in their nets,” said locals. Abattoirs were finding far less plastic in slaughtered animals. Some traders grumbled because fabric or paper bags were much more expensive, but police strictly enforced the law.  
Three years on the policy is still in force although plastic bags are smuggled in from neighbouring countries. Polypropylene sacks were introduced and then banned, but the ban has been overturned after legal action against the government. Low grade polypropylene which cannot be recycled is becoming a problem.
A single use plastics ban that will be in effect in all Kenya’s protected areas including its beaches, national parks, conservation areas, and forests takes effect today, World Environment Day. This broadens the scope of the regulations from plastic bags to plastic bottles and anything else designed for single use.
“This comes at a time when we see an increase in single-use plastic products, and the ban will go a long way in encouraging the adoption of the refuse, rethink, remanufacture, recycle, and recover model of production,” noted Sustainable Inclusive Business Director Karin Boomsma.
Scrappage
You could argue that scrappage, paying an allowance for a car that’s traded in for scrap on the purchase of a new one, is a form of recycling. I fear it can also be a form of greenwash. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) has held talks with the government over a possible £1.5bn scrappage scheme, to reduce the price of vehicles and drive sales after the lockdown. It might make sense if the scheme encouraged the purchase of electric cars, but industry is insisting that it should apply equally to the purchase of petrol and diesel cars as well.
Over the 10 years or so since British chancellors stopped increasing fuel duty in line with the cost of living the CO2 emissions from new cars have steadily been rising. And of course some have been rapidly rising, obscured by the VW scandal. Does it make sense to subsidise the production of such cars? Does it make sense to subsidise the production of any cars? “Absolutely!”, the industry will cry, citing the jobs involved the manufacturing, the supply chain and the dealerships - and the taxes paid on profits, on cars sold and on fuel. But the industry has been producing quality products for years now, and yet encourages us to buy a new car every two or three years and accepts that the average car will be scrapped at about 7 years, long before its useful life is over. While petrol and diesel cars create emissions in use, there is a tremendous carbon footprint in manufacturing a new one as well. The longer you keep it, the lower the average annual impact.
If we are to have scrappage I would base it on two factors: the emissions of the car to be scrapped and the emissions of the car to be bought. The dirtier the car you scrap and the cleaner the car you buy the more you get. Simple!
Recovery
As we wait for economic recovery as lockdown ends, the EU claims that its recovery plans will not prejudice its climate change goals. The commission argues it can raise €150bn in public and private money, up from a pre-crisis goal of €100bn, to help fund greener transport, cleaner industry and renovated homes. At the heart of the plan, the EU proposes to more than quadruple to €40bn a “just transition fund” aimed at moving coal-dependent regions away from fossil fuels.
Peter Colville is an activist and blogger who publishes under the title of The Unfinished Revolution. His latest article is headed “Krisis - a manifesto for the future,” was sent as a letter to the Observer newspaper and signed by some 50 or 60 academics, activists, artists, journalists and business people.
“We, the undersigned, believe, firstly, that the Covid-19 pandemic highlights the importance of building a united, caring and resilient society, and secondly, that we must use the recovery to invest in preventing what could be an even greater disaster for humanity – a full-blown climate and ecological crisis – while there is still time.”
  1. The key stages they lay out are:
  2. Recognise the value of care
  3. Accept that we really are all in this together
  4. Tackle the climate and ecological emergency
  5. Learn from the past
  6. Prepare for the future
Build Back Better is a phrase on many people’s lips and websites. "Build Back Better" was firstly defined and used officially in the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
The World Resources Institute says, “To build back better, countries must harness low-carbon investment opportunities to reboot economies while reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution that jeopardize lives. It means pulling people out of poverty and creating more jobs. And it means fostering resilience to future shocks like disease outbreaks and the impacts of climate change.”
We Mean Business is a global nonprofit coalition working with the world’s most influential businesses to take action on climate change. They say, “Together we catalyze business leadership to drive policy ambition and accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon economy.”
Under the heading of Build Back Better they claim that 1,282 companies with a combined market capitalisation of $24.8trn are committed to bold climate action through their partners’ initiatives. 
There’s clearly appetite for change after the pandemic, but will there be consensus, will there be some sort of coordination, or will we sit around and talk about it while the politicians slide back to more of the same and business as usual?
Meanwhile the IMF warns that markets are not paying attention to the climate crisis.
“Equity markets have generally ignored the increasing number of natural disasters over the past 50 years and tougher rules are needed to make investors aware of the dangers posed by the climate crisis.
“Companies should be forced to disclose their exposure to climate risk because a voluntary approach does not go far enough.”
Let’s Talk about the Weather
It’s a bit cooler today, but the UK had a record 266 hours of sunshine in May, following record rainfall in February. Such extremes are not typical of British weather. The previous record for sunshine for March to May was 555 hours. This year we had 626. The causes of this are puzzling the meteorologists. It could be something to do with climate change, although on its own it cannot prove or disprove anything. However it seems to be reinforcing a trend towards increasingly warm and unpredictable weather.
Back on 2nd June 1975 snow an inch thick stopped cricket. And then on 6th June a heatwave started. Only in England.
Energy News
Last week I was a bit dismissive about a report from Australia. “Australia’s electricity grid operator,” I reported,   “wants the power to remotely switch off or constrain the output of new rooftop solar systems, as it finds ways to manage South Australia's world-leading levels of "invisible and uncontrolled" solar output.” I commented, “No doubt balancing the grid will be a challenge, but surely the more urgent challenge is reducing emissions from power generation.”
This week Climate Action presented a webinar entitled “Grid Flexibility: How can we make our grids more flexible to cope with the net-zero transition?”, which made it clear just how difficult the problem is. The event was moderated by Roland Roesch, of the Innovation and Technology Centre at IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency, with panellists Stathis Mokkas, Energy Markets Lead at UK Power Networks, Carolina Tortora, Head of Innovation at National Grid ESO and Richard Sarti, Director of Marketing and Sales at NODES AS. There’s a link on the blog to the recording of the webinar.
Roland Roesch started by reminding us that the management of energy, both supply and demand, and the minimising of emissions from electricity generation were crucial to meeting the targets in the Paris Agreement. The increasing proportion of electricity coming from renewables challenged the whole distribution system.
There is a statutory duty to maintain the voltage and keep the frequency of the supply within narrow limits around 50Hz. The speakers described how the National Grid, the backbone of electricity distribution, was designed at a time when all energy was generated at major plants connected to the grid. In the control room operators could see the coal, nuclear and gas-fired stations and some hydro and pumped storage. They could see how each station was operating, they could talk to each station and they could plan days, weeks or months ahead, or contact them immediately if they had an unexpected surplus or shortfall. Now that we have an increasing proportion of renewable generation, much of it is not connected to the National Grid but is linked to the local distribution networks. This means that the grid controllers cannot see individual generators and cannot control them. They can only deduce their effect from fluctuations in demand from the local networks.
In the past, forecasting demand has been better than 95% accurate, but the landscape is changing rapidly and fundamentally. The grid must be rebuilt to take account of these changes, and one speaker said it was like rebuilding a ship while at sea. The objective is to make the grid net zero by 2050 and carbon free by 2025. Carbon free means no back-up from gas or coal stations even in emergencies and including the ability to achieve a black start - restarting from a total blackout - from clean energy sources alone. This presumably includes nuclear power.
The objective is to achieve flexibility with minimal investment by making the most efficient use possible of existing assets, smarter grids and intelligent markets. Already artificial intelligence is being used and the potential of introducing blockchain is under study. Changes like the transfer to electric cars are built into the models. For example, to replace the whole of the UK vehicle fleet with electrics could put an additional demand of 5GW to 20GW on to the system. By comparison, the English city of Oxford, with a population of 155,000, has an electricity demand of 500MW. On the other hand, smart vehicles and smart chargers could permit the vehicle batteries to be used as short-term backup to the grid.
Complicated stuff, and I begin to have more sympathy with the people in Australia who want to slow down the use of solar PV. There’s no doubt that there is a tremendous amount of expertise working behind the scenes on these challenges.
Just think of that next time you turn on the light. 
There was a lot more in the webinar and there’s a link to the recording on the blog. And for a near real-time view of how the UK National Grid is running go to 
Coal
If you look at that site you’ll probably see that we’re using no coal in our generation mix. I believe we used none at all for generating electricity in May. Hardly surprising then that one of Britain’s last remaining coalmine operators, Hargreaves, will put an end to all mining operations from next month because, they say, it is clear that coal has “a limited future” in the UK.
The end of Hargreaves coalmining business is likely to raise fresh doubts over plans put forward by the Banks Group, another Durham-based infrastructure firm, to develop the UK’s largest opencast mine to serve Britain’s steel and cement sector. The government is still to rule on that.
And that’s it…
…for another week. I’m afraid you only got one episode this week. And if you liked it, please tell your friends and post your thoughts on social media. If you didn’t, please tell me. And if you really, really liked it why not become a patron? Why not become my first $50/month patron? Well I can dream. From $1 per month you can help me cover the costs of hosting the Sustainable Futures Report and getting the interviews transcribed. Full details are at www.patreon.com/sfr. I’m always keen to hear from you and hear your ideas for the podcast. Contact me on mail@anthony-day.com
I’m Anthony Day.
That was the Sustainable Futures Report.
I’m sure I’ll find something to talk about next week.
Sources
World Environment Day 2020
Sixth mass extinction of wildlife accelerating, scientists warn
Transport
Hyperloop
Flying Car
World’s largest all-electric aircraft set for first flight
Spain rekindles a radical idea: a Europe-wide minimum income

Recycling
Degrading bottles
Eight months on, is the world's most drastic plastic bag ban working?

Scrappage

Recovery

Build back better

EU pledges coronavirus recovery plan will not harm climate goals

Markets not paying attention to climate crisis, IMF says

Weather
Freak snow stopped cricket on 2 June 1975

Energy
UK coalmines operator Hargreaves Services to end mining next month
Grid Flexibility
UK Grid Performance
Coal


Friday, May 29, 2020

Talking to the Other Side



Talking to the Other Side

Hello and welcome to the Sustainable Futures Report for Friday 29th May. I’m Anthony Day.
The theme of this episode is Talking to the Other Side. How do we talk to the other side about the climate emergency? How do we find common ground? How do we get everyone working together?  I spoke to Kevin Wilhelm CEO of Sustainable Business Consulting in Seattle.
Anthony Day: I’m talking to Kevin Wilhelm, who with Natalie Hoffman is joint author of a book called “How to Talk to the Other Side: Finding Common Ground in the Time of Coronavirus, Recession, and Climate Change.” Now, I know the coronavirus and recession are very much at the forefront of our minds at the moment, but the climate emergency has not gone away. We really need to be able to talk to the other side because there are people who have vested interests and there are people who are dogmatically opposed to the idea that climate change is a problem. So, how do we talk to the other side, Kevin? 
Kevin Wilhelm: Well, I think the biggest issue that most people have is they’ve already set their mindset that they can’t agree with somebody who may disagree with them, so when we talk about issues like climate change, the economy, this has been going on for decades. All the way back to, in the United States, at least since 1987, but even if you think of the first Earth summit in Rio and the second one in South Africa, both times there was economic uncertainty that was going on globally. Politicians and business groups came together and said, we can’t take action on this because it’s going to hurt the economy, and the same mindset is starting to happen now. 
Kevin Wilhelm
Through my consulting work and what we laid out in this book, is dozens of examples of businesses that have made more money by leaning into the climate change efforts, because they’ve saved on energy, they’ve saved on water, they’ve saved on transportation costs, they’ve innovated new ways of delivering products and services. You’re even seeing it in the financial markets, we’ve seen record growth of the stock market for the last 10 years up until, say, February of this year, and even during that time, those companies that were on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index or the S&P 500 Environmental and Social Index outperformed traditional indices which were performing at record highs. There’s this myth that you have to give up money or sacrifice to do the right thing environmentally, and from a climate perspective, what we wanted to do was really flip that notion on its head and show the examples of where it’s win win, regardless of your perspective. That’s one thing that we’ve used as an example to bring people from opposite sides, because we feel money is a nonpartisan issue. If you can make more money and I can make more money, then ideology somehow falls away a little. 
AD: Yes. Then you have the very big players, particularly in energy, you know I’m going to talk about oil, talk about coal. There’s not a lot you can do to change your business to be environmentally responsible. You can’t mine coal in an environmentally friendly way, or at least, if you do, burning coal is not environmentally friendly. Those are the sorts of pressures that we have to find common ground with or at least we’ve got to convince them that we need change. 
KW: Yeah, absolutely. Coal is a really difficult one. I like to look at the entire fossil fuel industry as one area and then each of them a little separately. If you think about it, we used to call them oil companies, now we call them energy companies, and that’s because BP, Shell, even Exxon Mobil realized that there was going to be a finite resource and the costs of getting to some of these places was going to be really difficult. As you’ve seen, oil prices have come way down, the more extreme places like the tar sands or the deep ocean off of Brazil no longer make financial sense. They had to shift because wind and solar power have become cost competitive. You’ve seen what were traditional oil companies become energy companies because they realized they can still provide energy in a different way. We’ve also seen a number of energy companies who have switched from coal to natural gas, because natural gas is cleaner but mostly because its cheaper right now with all the fracking that’s been going on. So there’s been this shift and it’s been mostly market driven, even though it’s been played out like the environmentalists are the ones killing the coal industry. 
Natalie Hoffman

The coal industry in itself, it’s a dying breed and it’s a dying beast. One of the things that we go out of our way in this book to make clear is that you can’t just let whole communities and ways of life just die. You need to reach out and find ways to make their lives better. There’s a couple of examples in our book where in the coal country in the United States there’s been movement by organizations to go into these communities and find them higher paying jobs, taking their skills they use as miners and retraining them to be solar technicians or wind power technicians, so you’re automatically giving them a job, so they have their livelihood, the tax base is the same, it goes to the community, but all the black lung disease and all the health problems can melt away. So it’s a generational shift, so that’s a hard one, but we’ve seen it happen in the aerospace industry in the 90s when the cold war ended, they took defense contractors and retrained them, and then you had explosions in DirecTV and the Dish Network and GPS and all these commercially viable companies grew out of it by training defense contractors and I think we can do the same thing in the fossil fuel industry. 
AD: Do you see the market doing that or do you think the government is needed to actually push this forward? 
KW: I definitely think the government needs to help. I think the market has already made its decision on coal, its not coming back. There’s been over 85 different coal companies just in the United States that have gone bankrupt just in the last 3 years. You’re in the UK, there are probably more people that work in McDonalds in the United Kingdom than work in the coal industry in the US. There’s actually a stat I have in the book that there’s more people who work at the Arbys fast food restaurant chain than the coal industry in the United States but we’re not giving bailouts to Arbys. Government does need to be at play, and like any transition, you have to find a way where you can’t just abandon a community and a way of life and just expect things to get better because then you’re going to have the societal costs that you’re seeing of opioid addiction, unemployment, crime, and everything that can happen, so they have to lean in and play that temporary role during that transition to attract the market for regrowth for that area in the economy. 
AD: From where I’m standing, your national government certainly doesn’t seem to be doing much in that direction. But then again, you have a different structure, maybe it’s just your state governments which are leading this sort of initiative. 
KW: Some of the states and a lot of nonprofit organizations. I know the reach of your podcast is international, and as someone who has been a proud American their whole life, these last three years have been extremely difficult to talk to my international friends, because we’re not leading anymore. We’re doing the opposite of leading, we’re making things so much worse at the federal level. But what you’re seeing is states and businesses are leaning into things. When the Trump administration announced they were going to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords, states and big businesses came stepped up and said we’re still in, and there were enough big businesses and states that would be able to reduce emissions and committed to reducing emissions, so it doesn’t matter if the federal government isn’t aligned because the emissions from the United States can still meet the Paris Climate Accords. It’s one of those things where we’re all having to find ways around where the blockages, and it actually would be a good model for developing countries or other countries where they may not be seeing the ideas around the opportunity on climate change, only the negative aspects of it. I think that if a country like the UK decided overnight, we’re going to be the leader in green technology, and we’re going to massively change our whole way of life, there would be an economic explosion on that because somebody is going to win that race, it’s just no one has really committed to it. 
AD: Yes, I’d certainly like to see that happen. Tell me, who is your book aimed at? The general reader, business, government, or what? 
KW: You know, that’s a great question, Anthony, because its really put out for the general public, but its got multiple audiences. Basically, because in our country and I think in every country, there are “sides,” you’ve got labor, you’ve got conservatives, in our country you’ve got Republicans and Democrats. You can also break it down by religion, by geographical location, by rural vs. urban. So what we tried to do was pick six different examples of “other sides” where you hear about it in the popular media or social media where people are at odds. We tried to write a very neutral book, right down the center, where we tried to say here are opportunities for common ground with people who you might think are on the other side but are really just like you. You know, everyone wants to be healthy, their kids to grow up safe, better education, better opportunities, they want to have a good job and want to be able to retire. So by starting these shared aspirations for where you can find common ground, what gets everyone caught up is how they’re doing it, and that’s where the politics, the media craze messes it all up, so what we try to do is show the win-win examples that work for both sides and ways to lower the temperate of the conversation so that you can have a productive path forward. 
AD: Right. We are living in difficult times at the moment, to say the least. But taking an overall view, would you then say that you are optimistic? 
KW:  I’ll put it this way, if you had asked me in February, before the global pandemic, I would have said yes. Right now, I’m cautiously optimistic because I think one of the reasons we wrote this book right now to be very contemporary with the pandemic and the recession, was we wanted to be very real. We didn’t want to put out something that would be pie in the sky, well that would be great, but for 25% unemployment, what are you going to do. We’ve really leaned into that, and even in these economic times, what you’re seeing is people are longing for community, they’re longing for connection, their busy rat race day-to-day lives that they had been doing, they’re now taking a step back and asking, where do I want to be spending my money, where do I want to be spending my time, how do I want to be living. I think there’s been a cultural awakening of people who want to buy local, to shop from local restaurants, to save their money and if they’re going to spend it, spend it on something that’s going to help their neighbor or friend who has a small business. That gives me optimism. 
My firm, Sustainable Business Consulting, we’ve been consulting for 15 years with 160+ global clients, and the idea that telling someone that all their employees tomorrow are going to work from home and they’re going to stop all business travel and its going to be great for the planet, that would fall on deaf ears. What we’ve seen is now, in a matter of 2 months, companies who would have never changed their mindset have been forced to change their mindset. We’ve already seen global carbon emissions to come down 17%, but for a lot of our clients, a lot of their emissions may have come from business travel, if this pandemic continues for another couple months, people are going to be so used to virtual conferencing and doing things remotely, it gives us a fighting chance to do these things. Same thing with commuting, I literally was having a conversation with a client the day before COVID-19 hit in Seattle, and I was telling them, 33% of your emissions come from your commuting, if you try to work from home one day a week, you could cut those emissions by 20%. They were like, we can’t do it, that’s not how our business works, and within two weeks, 100% of their workforce is working remotely. That gives me optimism because it breaks the mindset of what is possible, and if we could come out with some lessons learned and some new ways of doing things, I am actually a little bit optimistic. 
AD: Well, that’s great, its great to have a positive message, it really is. Kevin, your book is out now. 
KW: It’s on sale on Amazon and also on Kindle. 
AD: Well, thank you very much for sharing your ideas. It’s interesting and its always great to have a positive message on a Friday, so thank you very much indeed. 
KW: Alright, thanks so much, take care. 
That was Kevin Wilhelm, CEO of Sustainable Business Consulting in Seattle, Washington. www.sustainablebizconsulting.com 
As he said, "How to Talk to the Other Side: Finding Common Ground amongst COVID, Recession, & Climate Change”, is now available at your favourite bookshop.
If you’ve already listened to this week’s other episode you’ll know that we have  a new patron. Welcome to newest patron Pamela McAllister, over there in Queensland, Australia. I was going to say you’re our first patron in Australia, but in fact that distinction goes to Colin Clarke who’s near Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory. Many thanks to Pamela McAllister, Colin Clarke and all other patrons who help to make the Sustainable Futures Report possible. And a special mention to Imogen Littlejohns, my longest-standing patron. Special thanks to you.

And that’s it…

…for this week. That’s the fourth episode in two weeks, so I make no promises for next week. Although given that Friday 5th is World Environment Day I suppose I should do something.
Anyway, you can be sure that I’m Anthony Day, and there will be another episode of the Sustainable Futures Report…




Thursday, May 28, 2020

Shooting for a Green Recovery



Shooting for A Green Recovery
Hello and welcome to an extra Sustainable Futures Report for Wednesday 27th May. There’ll still be one on Friday!
Making the headlines, some politicians, activists and commentators are calling for a green recovery. A changed world as we come out of COVID lockdown. There are endless arguments over what that actually means, how we do it, when we do it and whether we can do it. Meanwhile, some fossil fuel companies are accused of failing to meet targets, some are agitating for targets to be dropped and some politicians are quietly dropping them anyway. The word in the markets is that green investment is a success story and elsewhere the sun is shining on renewables, even if some of them are all at sea. (Oh, all right, it’s a lake.) And then there’s net zero. What does it actually mean, and could BECCS help? And we have a new patron. 
(Oh, and there's nothing about cats, although I do mention CAT later.)
Welcome
Welcome to newest patron Pamela McAllister, over there in Queensland, Australia. I was going to say you’re our first patron in Australia, but in fact that distinction goes to Colin Clarke who’s near Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory. Many thanks to Pamela McAllister, Colin Clarke and all other patrons who help to make the Sustainable Futures Report possible. And a special mention to Imogen Littlejohns, my longest-standing patron. Special thanks to you.
What’s in the news?
It’s the Green Recovery. Transform, the journal of IEMA reports that more than one million citizens have joined forces with 100 environmental NGOs to urge the EU to launch the biggest green investment package the world has ever seen in response to the coronavirus crisis. The Green 10 coalition of environmental organisations has launched an appeal urging lawmakers to invest hundreds of billions into home renovations, scaling up renewable energy, restoring natural habitats, boosting public transport and zero-emission mobility, and greening agriculture.
The EU recovery fund can be used to unlock an estimated €1.8 trillion opportunity by 2030 by making better use of materials and reducing waste, according to Patrick Schröder and David McGinty writing on euractiv.com. France and Germany first proposed a €500 billion recovery fund to help eurozone economies affected by the coronavirus, followed by a separate proposal from the so-called ‘frugal four’ – the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Sweden.
While there are some significant differences between the plans, they both refer to the need for a green transition. This unprecedented economic stimulus provides the EU with the opportunity to go even further, and accelerate the shift to a circular economy. This all depends, they say, on
  • First, using the green stimulus to ensure progress on the circular economy is not further reversed by the COVID-19 crisis.
  • Second, promoting more resilience to safeguard against resource shortages and supply chain risks.
  • Third, promoting the EU’s global leadership on the circular economy through international cross-sector cooperation to support a recovery, which is also just and inclusive.
Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?
That’s the title of a paper by Cameron Hepburn, Brian O’Callaghan, Nicholas Stern, Joseph Stiglitz, Dimitri Zenghelis published in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 
Joseph Stiglitz is a former chief economist at the World Bank and a Nobel Prize-winner; Nicholas Stern is professor of economics and government and chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE), and 2010 Professor of Collège de France. He was author of the Stern Review which urged the then government to act promptly on climate because the cost of inaction would rise year by year. That was in 2006.
The paper says:
The COVID-19 crisis is likely to have dramatic consequences for progress on climate change. Imminent fiscal recovery packages could entrench or partly displace the current fossil-fuel-intensive economic system…
Nicholas Stern is quoted as saying that stimulating new jobs in heavily emitting sectors was short-sighted. “The jobs of the past are insecure jobs,” he said. “[To create future jobs] we need the right kind of finance in the right place at the right scale at the right price.”
Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of England and now a finance adviser to Boris Johnson for Cop26, the UN climate conference to discuss progress towards the Paris Agreement, called for all companies to disclose their plans to reach net zero emissions. “Every company in every sector, every bank and every insurer, every pension fund, should be expecting to develop and disclose a transition plan to net zero,” he said.
The UK can seize the opportunity as president and host of the crunch UN climate talks to lead the way on an international green recovery, leading economists said, in a briefing to ministers to accompany the Oxford study results.
Many of the projects that could create new jobs in the UK are “shovel-ready”, compliant with social distancing requirements and could be started quickly, said Cameron Hepburn, director of the Smith School of enterprise and the environment at Oxford University and lead author of the study.
He cited energy efficiency programmes to insulate the UK’s draughty housing stock, the building of electric vehicle charging networks, redesigning roads for more cycling, flood protection and planting trees. “These all need large-scale deployment, offer low to moderate skilled work and will have benefits in terms of climate change as well as boosting the economy,” he said.
The Oxford study compared green stimulus projects with traditional stimulus, such as measures taken after the 2008 global financial crisis, and found green projects create more jobs, deliver higher short-term returns per pound spent by the government, and lead to increased long-term cost savings.
Clean energy infrastructure construction is one example, generating twice as many jobs per pound of government expenditure as fossil fuel projects around the world. Others include expanding broadband so more people can work from home.
“Tackling climate change has the answer to our economic problems,” Prof Hepburn told the Guardian. In their stimulus packages after the 2008 financial crisis, governments largely failed to capitalise on the carbon-cutting potential of their spending, partly because there was a lack of “shovel-ready” initiatives.
COP26
Greenpeace is complaining at the news that the British government is apparently giving a major role in the presidency of COP26 to oil major BP, following discussions with Andrea Leadsom, minister for energy. That is the same Andrea Leadsom who has in the past voted against wind power, supported fracking and admitted that when she took office her first question to her officials was, “Is climate change real?” 
Ed Miliband, the UK’s shadow business secretary, has called for green recovery plans to include creating a “zero-carbon army of young people” doing work such as planting trees, insulating buildings and working on green technologies.
S&P Global Market Intelligence reports that executives from more than 150 companies around the world that have a combined market capitalisation of more than $2.4 trillion have signed a statement calling on governments to plan a green economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.
Calling All Governments
"As countries work on economic aid and recovery packages in response to COVID-19, and as they prepare to submit enhanced national climate plans under the Paris Agreement, we are calling on governments to reimagine a better future grounded in bold climate action," said the statement, which was organised by the Science Based Targets initiative. The SBTi is a collaboration between CDP (The Carbon Disclosure Project), World Resources Institute (WRI), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). 
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has calculated that the green economy contributed a third of the UK’s economic growth in 2010-11, following the financial crisis, while Britain’s traditional economic engines floundered. At the time they said that the choice between “green or growth” was a false one. 
Letters
Earlier this month the CEOs of some 60 organisations, including Barratt Developments, Good Energy and the RSPB, wrote to the UK prime minister saying, “It is now clearer than ever before that the health of humanity is inextricably bound to the health of our planet. Your government has the opportunity to show global leadership, forging a path out of this crisis by putting a resilient economy, healthy communities, and a thriving natural world at the heart of the relief and recovery effort.”
They called for:
  • A more resilient economy
  • Increased space for wildlife and people 
  • Strengthening Nature’s protections
  • Building global ambition in the run-up to COP26
More Letters
And they weren’t alone. The Committee on Climate Change also wrote to the government in a letter headed “Building a resilient recovery from the COVID-19 crisis”. Their key recommendations were that the Government should prioritise actions according to six principles for a resilient recovery. These are:
  1. Use climate investments to support the economic recovery and jobs.
  2. Lead a shift towards positive long-term behaviours.
  3. Tackle the wider ‘resilience deficit’ on climate change.
  4. Embed fairness as a core principle.
  5. Ensure the recovery does not ‘lock-in’ greenhouse gas emissions or increased climate risk.
  6. Strengthen incentives to reduce emissions when considering fiscal changes.
The Lancet Planetary Health warns that we need to inspire climate action without inducing climate despair. Author Christie Nicole Godsmark reports, “Recently, in assisting [such] a class with a climate–health learning activity focusing on solutions, one student commented to another that she just could not see a way out of the present situation.
“Comments such as this can bring the ethical safeguarding responsibility of educators into focus. Should educators be providing support to students who consciously and internally engage with the devastation of the climate and its impacts on health, and so might be susceptible to experiencing solastalgia, ecological grief, eco-anxiety, or pessimism? There appears to be a fine balance for educators between safeguarding the mental health of students who might feel climate despair on the one hand, and inspiring students to take personal climate action on the other by presenting the facts of this unprecedented and existential threat to humanity.” 
Of course it’s not just students who are likely to suffer from eco-anxiety, and this may be exacerbated by more fragile mental health due to the COVID lockdown. An issue that we maybe should explore in more detail in a future episode.
Carbon Down
Meanwhile Business Green reports that carbon emissions have fallen dramatically as a result of lockdown. As I’ve commented previously, the total annual reduction depends on how long lockdown continues and how far we go back to business as usual afterwards. 
Action This Day
We’ve heard myriad voices calling for things to be done better, but this could mean policies at odds with the beliefs of many governments, like a reduction in inequality, a universal basic income, fairer taxes, public infrastructure investment and public management of natural monopolies like water, health and railways. 
No amount of earnest entreaties will change anything, unless governments all over the world take action.
On the Fossil Fuel Front…
Australian and Canadian governments are working hard to promote their local fossil fuel industries - something else for a future episode.
We’ve mentioned that BP has been asked by the government to play a role in COP26. Why not, when the company has committed to be carbon-neutral by 2050, and BP’s new chief executive has said that the impact of the coronavirus pandemic has deepened his commitment to shrinking the oil giant’s carbon footprint to zero? Well a report from the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) states that BP, along with most other oil companies, is not doing nearly enough to meet its stated target. Quoting other research by TPI, IEMA’s Transform says that the mining industry is not aligned with its own climate goals either.
One solution to this dilemma is of course to move the goal posts. Australia's electricity grid operator wants the power to remotely switch off or constrain the output of new rooftop solar systems, as it finds ways to manage South Australia's world-leading levels of "invisible and uncontrolled" solar output. It complains that the runaway success of solar power poses serious challenges for the security of the grid, because it operates "behind-the-meter", out of control of the authorities. It’s estimated that up to 85 per cent of South Australia's power demand could be met by solar by 2025. There is no coal-fired generation in SA. Apart from wind and solar, the main source of electricity is natural gas - a fossil fuel - with some hydro and some diesel - a dirty fossil fuel - backup. There are two battery storage installations. No doubt balancing the grid will be a challenge, but surely the more urgent challenge is reducing emissions from power generation.
Looking at other regulations, a recent article in The Lancet looks at public reporting of the use of fracking chemicals the USA.
And now some more positive news…
The Rockefeller investment fund divested from fossil fuels five years ago and reports that the strategy was a success. BlackRock, the US investment manager which managed $6.5tn (£5.3tn) in assets at the end of March, found that investments in organisations with with better records on social issues and good governance were more resilient than others during the recent coronavirus market crash. And the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) wrote to the governments of the G20 nations urging a sustainable recovery.
On the renewables front we learn that Britain's largest solar farm is poised to begin development in Kent while Dutch engineers are building the world's biggest sun-seeking solar farm. In Kent 880,000 solar panels will be installed at a cost of £440m to generate 350MW on a site covering 364 hectares (900 acres) of farmland.
In northern Holland 74,000 solar panels will be installed on islands floating in a reservoir. This will enable them to move to track the sun.
Net Zero
Net zero is the holy grail that every country is trying to achieve, or at least promising to achieve. The Lancet reports that New Zealand has been way ahead of the game, but seems to have slowed up in recent years. Instead of looking for reductions from transport and agriculture the government is relying on offsets from forestry. And the article claims that the recent climate legislation does nothing to control methane.
Moving across the ocean, I’ve had a question from another listener in Australia, Carol Dance. She says, “As a layperson, I couldn’t find the answer to my key question, Does Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) emit as much or similar amount of carbon into the atmosphere as natural gas?
“I understand that RNG would reduce fracking and other destructive methods of acquiring fossil gas. That’s fine.  But does it still emit destructive gas? Isn’t it basically the same gas with perhaps different proportions of the various hydrocarbons?”
This was my answer:
“Yes, the question of RNG is a vexed one, and I have to speak as a layman too. I think that RNG, which is mainly methane, probably emits as much CO2 as natural gas, which is mainly methane. The supporters of bioenergy are putting their trust in BECCS, which I discussed with James Dyke in “Game Over” on 20th May. The simple argument for bioenergy, from woodchip to waste, is that the organic material that is burnt is replaced by new growth which absorbs an equivalent quantity of CO2 to that which is emitted. There are problems with that, in that growth takes far longer to recover the CO2 than it takes for the emissions to be made and there are emissions involved in constructing the bioenergy plant, harvesting the fuel and transporting it. In theory the process is carbon-neutral, but in practice that can never be the case because of these overheads.
“Along comes BECCS - BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Storage. If the CO2 from the bioenergy plant is captured then it is physically removed from the atmosphere and there is a reduction in the global total. Organic growth continues and that also removes CO2 from the atmosphere, so even after the plant. harvesting and transport emissions, the operation could be net negative. This all depends on how the RNG is used. If it ends up as road fuel there is no way the CO2 can be captured and stored. On the other hand, if it is all used in one location like a gas turbine for power generation or a hydrogen production plant, then capture and storage should be possible. But as far as I know, no carbon capture is operating successfully at a commercial scale anywhere in the world. I may be wrong. If you know different, please let me know. mail@anthony-day.com
And Finally…
Let’s talk about a cat. No, not that cat - that's a very fetching picture - this CAT is the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales. I went there once and they have these devices where you wind a handle and it tells you about the exhibit in front of you. Turn it one way and it tells you in English. Turn it the other way and it tells you in Welsh. Fascinating. Anyway, if you’ve never been to visit, you can’t at the moment. But you can visit their website where they’ve developed webinars and online activities and training courses. Worth a look. Find it at cat.org.uk.
And very finally,
There’s a report from McKinsey on the need for a Green recovery. You’ll find a link to the article on the blog. It includes cows in face-masks to control the methane they produce. Presumably they won’t get COVID either. Or should the be COWVID? Sorry, I’ve been doing this too long!
And that’s it!
The reason for two episodes again this week is that I have another interview that you’ll hear on Friday and I’ve had all these stories stacking up. I thought if I put them all together the episode would just be too long. Let me know what you think - should the Sustainable Futures Report be longer, or shorter - or is it just right? Let me know at mail@anthony-day.com about this and any other ideas. And don’t forget this blog. You'll find that there are several pages of links to the stories I’ve covered this time. The blog is at www.sustainablefutures.report .
So that’s it.
I’m Anthony Day
That was the Sustainable Futures Report.
There’s another one on Friday, but I’m not making any promises about next week.


Sources
Green Recovery

COP26
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-minister-andrea-leadsom-asked-whether-climate-change-was-real-when-she-started-the-job-a6710971.html
How renewable energy could power Britain's economic recovery



Anxiety


McKinsey

Fossil Fuel industry

Fracking Chemicals
Investment success

Sun Shines on Renewables
Britain's largest solar farm poised to begin development in Kent

Dutch engineers build world's biggest sun-seeking solar farm


Net Zero


CAT