Planning for uncertainty in a climate-changing world

Jemima Jewell, July 20th 2010, Climate change, Futures, International

If you were president of an African country with $1.2 billion dollars to spend and a host of challenges – poverty reduction, economic development, health and education – how would you spend it?

In his absorbing book ‘Poor Story’, Giles Bolton challenges the reader to do just this. As you answer the question in your head, Bolton gently probes your answers, unravelling your reasoning and demonstrating just how tough it is to make the ‘right’ decisions when you’re trying to act in the best interests of a country’s ‘development’.

Climate change makes it so much tougher – for governments, donors, aid workers, and businesses – to make the ‘right’ decisions for development, adding a huge dimension of uncertainty to our planet’s future. It’s not just the direct environmental impacts: climate change has the potential to transform the economic, political, social and psychological dimensions of the world we live in. New political alliances, shifting supply chain structures and resource-based conflict are just some of the changes we could see.

Amid such uncertainty, how can we ensure that development decisions taken today continue to deliver benefits in the future?

Our new report The future climate for development attempts to answer that question. It explores some of the radical changes we could see in the next 20 years as a result of climate change, and how low-income countries might respond. Supported by the UK’s Department for International Development, and informed by the insights of more than 100 development experts from around the world, it contains four scenarios – descriptions of different plausible futures – to provide a structured way of working through the uncertainties of a climate changing world.

The scenarios, which we’ve brought to life in four short animations, each highlight a different set of challenges and opportunities that low-income countries could face by the year 2030. ‘Reversal of Fortunes’ describes a world which is attempting to radically decarbonise its economy. Here, low-income countries that have followed the ‘traditional’ development pathway set by high-income countries get the rough end of the deal. They find that the new low-carbon global economy is an unforgiving one, uninterested in those trading partners unable to play the carbon-counting game. Fair?Certainly not, but possible? Surely – and therefore worth planning for.

Another scenario, ‘Age of Opportunity’, paints a more positive picture of 2030. Huge sums of development assistance have, in most countries, triggered a virtuous circle of investment, energy security, business opportunities and community empowerment. In ‘Coping Alone’ a world reeling from the shock of oil at $400 a barrel focuses on regional solutions. ‘The Greater Good’ finds climate change subsumed into a broader debate about resource use.

In these radically different worlds, a recurring theme emerges: the benefits of low-carbon development, be this investment in renewable energy, low-input agriculture or low-carbon cities. In an uncertain world, this is a consistently robust strategy.

Why? Low-carbon development sets up an economy that is fit for the future, shielded from the crushing oil price spikes of ‘Coping Alone’; it ensures a competitive position on a low-carbon world stage in ‘Reversal of Fortunes’; and it’s a vital component of the positive development cycle we see in ‘Age of Opportunity’. This is not a question of ‘limiting’ development by ‘limiting’ carbon emissions, but of focussing on the kind of smart strategies that deliver competitiveness, efficiency and healthier, wealthier communities. Climate change or no climate change, these are surely changes that every country wants to see.

Uncertainty is daunting, but it doesn’t have to be paralysing. By contemplating a variety of different possible futures, you can be better prepared for the unexpected. By testing – and modifying – your strategy in different scenarios, you can be sure that it will continue to deliver benefits. And by identifying initiatives – such as low-carbon development – that address climate change and development goals together, you can ensure that the short-term agenda is dominated by opportunity. All of which gives the best possible chance of each and every ‘development dollar’ being money well spent.

The full report, short films of the scenarios and supporting materials can be downloaded here.

For more information, please contact Jemima Jewell.

Read more

Communities need skills to make the most of a Green Investment Bank

Will Dawson, July 3rd 2010, Cities, Climate change, Finance, Public Sector

The Green Investment Bank will be a big step towards a sustainable future, but the government must ensure that it unlocks the potential of local authorities and community groups as well as business.

The Green Investment Bank Commission’s report calls for the government to set up a flexible bank to reduce the risk to private investors investing in greening our power supply, increasing the energy efficiency of our buildings and our transport systems.

The bank, as proposed, would represent a big step towards a low-carbon economy, bringing greater energy security, new jobs and a higher quality of life.  Big advances in green infrastructure, like offshore wind farms, are crucial to change at the speed we need to see in the UK to meet carbon targets.

Yet there is much that a community-led approach to an energy revolution can bring too. And this can create local skilled jobs, strengthen community ties and help people lift themselves to a higher quality of life. Communities in energy cooperatives have saved a third off their energy bills just by changing their behaviour, offshore wind doesn’t do this. So I was delighted that the commission has understood the role of financial investment in this community-led approach too.

However, we also need investment in skills to enable local government and community groups to take advantage of this funding opportunity. At Forum for the Future we have been working with West Sussex County Council, the South East of England Development Agency and a group of local authorities and community enterprises in our Climate Finance initiative to find out how to do this, and making great progress with some inspiring people. Other initiatives like the Ashden Awards and the Low Carbon Communities Challenge are also leading the way.

The challenge now is to scale up so that every community takes action. The advisory group of experts we have been working with are often translators between sustainability and finance teams within local government. Good opportunities are often missed due to a lack of understanding. If we could develop these skills, then local authorities and groups like Transition Towns and energy co-ops will be the experts, creating the new ways of financing local investment in carbon reduction such as green bonds.

Without this development of local skills, most of the funds raised by a Green Investment Bank will go to big businesses to support big projects. This government has led on a big society agenda and the prospect of a Green Investment Bank presents a real opportunity for local people to take action for their future. But it must ensure they have the skills to do the job. The commission’s ambition is to have the bank up and running in six months so we have no time to lose.

Read more

Dealing with the deficit: what the Chancellor could learn from a Dame

Sally Uren, May 20th 2010, Business, Climate change, Finance

‘If nature was a bank, it would have been bailed out a long time ago’. I heard that quip in the US last week and it came to mind again during our new Chancellor’s first set-piece speech at the CBI’s annual dinner.

Close your eyes and it could have been our Prime Minister talking – lots of mentions of small government, big society, enterprise, blah blah.  Oh and the need to urgently tackle our massive deficit. I’ll say one thing for the new chaps in charge – they do appear to be a team, and they are consistent in their messages, which, whether or not you buy the content, is probably a good thing.

Chancellor George Osborne finished with a triumphant flourish, stating that ‘Britain is open for Business’. Excellent news. One small niggle though. He made no mention of the other balance sheet we need to sort out – the one that belongs to nature.

We are not only out of cash, we are nearly out of the other resources which both the UK and the global economy are totally reliant upon. From water to oil, we are getting very close to the bottom of the barrel. But Mr Osborne didn’t mention this other, more pressing resource crisis. His vision is of Britain selling stuff to the emerging middle classes of the developing economies as a road to growth.

This vision is fundamentally flawed. It totally misses the point that economic growth based on existing energy sources and existing manufacturing processes will speed up our descent to a world where there are not enough vital resources to go round, a world where climate change has started to disrupt significantly the very economy Mr Osborne is trying to resuscitate.

This is where the Dame comes in. Last night we also heard from Dame Ellen MacArthur. She told us the story of her grit, determination, bravery and courage in breaking the world record for the fastest navigation round the world. She also gave the best analysis of the current resource crisis we face, and ways to deal with it, that I have heard for a very long time.

Being alone on her boat opened her eyes to the reality of the utter dependence we humans have on the resources around us. Running out of oil in the middle of circumnavigating the globe just wasn’t an option for Ellen. It would have meant the end of her journey. In the same way, running out of resources will spell the end for our collective journey. And according to lots of real-time data, we are on that trajectory.

Ellen has given up sailing to try and do her bit to open the eyes of the world to the crisis we face – and to offer her take on the solutions. Her answer is not tinkering around the edges, or creeping incrementalism, but totally rethinking how we do things. In her view, nothing short of radical innovation will cut it. She’s absolutely right.

George Osborne talked convincingly about the need for ‘a sustainable path back to fiscal growth’. But based on what I heard last night, apart from one measly mention of renewable energy, I wonder if the new Chancellor has a full grasp of what true sustainability is. 

Mr Osborne – learn from the Dame - take the path to smart growth and new, sustainable business models, not the path to any old growth, because that path will very quickly lead to a dead end.

Read more

Mix blue and yellow: get green?

Ben Tuxworth, May 17th 2010, Climate change, General, Public Sector

Environment policy didn’t break the surface during the UK election campaign.  How will it fare in a coalition of parties at opposite ends of the political spectrum?

Amongst the many surprises was the near absence of environment from the parties’ campaigns and the first ever prime-ministerial debates.  Does it mean the British care less about the environment than in previous years?  Apparently not: the share of the green vote held up and the Green party won its first ever seat in the British Parliament (Caroline Lucas, Leader of the party and long time Member of the European Parliament, taking Brighton from Labour).

But with the parties fairly close to each other on much of environment policy, there were more points to be scored by talking about social policy (we are bracing ourselves for Conservative leader David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’, whatever that means) and of course, dealing with the deficit where we are up there with the European basket cases like Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Having torn lumps out of each other for months on these and other issues, our identikit party leaders now find themselves round the table in Britain’s first true coalition government in 65 years. I’ll spare you the constitutional niceties of how that came about. Suffice to say that political commentators, having had to speculate wildly for several days about what the outcome of the election might be, now find themselves, along with the new government in largely uncharted waters.  In a cabinet of 23, Liberal Democrats hold five posts,  including the responsibility for Energy and Climate Change, which has gone to Chris Huhne, millionaire businessman and one time contestant for the party leadership.   

This appointment throws into sharp relief the strategic and tactical questions this coalition raises for the future programme of the government, not least on environmental policy.  Despite substantial areas of common ground – on the need to cut emissions, boost renewable energy generation, and create a ‘green bank’ for investment in cleantech  for example - the Lib Dems have long been opposed to the replacement of Britain’s ageing fleet of nuclear reactors, whilst the Tories see nuclear as the mainstay of both emissions reduction and future energy security in the UK.  

This issue is such a clear divide, that in the formal agreement about the coalition the issue is dealt with directly, with a bizarre result.   The government (i.e. Huhne) will bring forward a ‘national planning statement’ which would give permission for new nuclear to be built, but then Lib Dems (including Huhne) would be allowed to abstain from the vote bringing it into force.  This in effect means that the Conservatives can push it through on their own, whilst the Lib Dems have (just about) a path of dignity in opposing it and allowing it.

What Green supporters who voted Lib Dem for their anti-nuclear stance will make of this is anyone’s guess.  In any case, both parties are agreed that there should be no public money for nuclear power, and since no nuclear power plant has been built, ever, without such subsidy, it will be interesting to see if any of the utility companies that were lining up to build the new capacity will still find it so appealing.   Lib Dems are presumably hoping not. 

Elsewhere the picture seems a bit clearer, and generally positive for the environment.  Campaigners are elated at the scrapping of Labour’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow.  The coalition agreement makes positive noises about a new high speed rail network – though it’s hard to see how that will be paid for any time soon. Though there’s no new target on the proportion of energy from renewables, investment in marine power and anaerobic digestion also gets a mention, as does a smart grid to link it all up, smart meters to make us all more frugal in using it, and other measures to boost energy efficiency in the home. And along with the promise of public investment in carbon capture and storage and a floor price for carbon comes an undertaking to prevent new coal-fired power without sufficient CCS to meet a demanding emissions standard.  

Some cynics have suggested that Lib Dems have been given jobs that are either so marginal to the Conservative project that they don’t matter, or require them to dip their hands in the blood of ‘dealing with the deficit’ and so alienate their supporter base.   A more nuanced view is that the coalition has enabled Cameron to do what he could not have done with a majority, giving him a reason to be more positive about the environment and Europe and move his party further onto the centre ground.  If he succeeds in finally decontaminating the Tory brand in this way, they argue, he will have laid the foundation for successive Conservative governments for many years to come.

Whatever the motivation, the new team have started with a bang.  Cameron swiftly announced that the government will cut its own emissions by 10% in the next 12 months.  Speaking to staff at the Department for Energy and Climate Change he said ‘I want this to be the greenest government ever’.  Meanwhile Huhne took up the reins at DECC, promising to put energy security ‘at the heart of the UK’s national security strategy’ and to ‘fundamentally change how we supply and use energy in Britain'.  Amen to that.

This blog first appeared in Grist

Read more

Staying optimistic in a climate-changing world

Jonathon Porritt, April 22nd 2010, Climate change, Forum founders

There’s a great episode of The Simpsons which has been much in my mind this week. Lisa Simpson is asked by her teacher to do an essay on what her hometown of Springfield would look like in 2050. Lisa’s vision is a decidedly gloomy one, with most of Springfield under water as a direct consequence of accelerating climate change and rising sea levels. Her teachers are so appalled that they decide the best thing they can do is prescribe for Lisa a course of ‘Ignorital’ to ensure that she puts all her worst fears behind her!

I encounter a lot of people who have clearly been on ‘Ignorital’ for quite a long time – and I sometimes wonder whether I’m self-medicating myself when I’m not concentrating! I find it hard to imagine what life would be like if I had genuinely come to the irrevocable conclusion that it was too late to do anything serious about preventing runaway climate change. I can’t imagine how I would persist with (let alone continue to feel excited by) the kind of advocacy work that I spend most of my life doing with Forum for the Future and the Prince of Wales’s Business & the Environment Programme.

For me, this has been an ongoing internal dialogue for at least the last five years. It gets a little bit more painful, every year, with spikes of self-doubt obliging me to keep on checking the state of the science.

And having just finished reading Clive Hamilton’s excellent (but deeply disturbing!) Requiem for a Species, I’m now going to have to think it all through all over again.

Clive is one of those who has come to the conclusion that it is indeed too late – whatever we now do – to ensure that average temperature increases can be held below that 2C degree threshold by the end of the century.

The truth of it is that this is a view that is gaining ground amongst more and more scientists and informed commentators. The worst case in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes emissions of greenhouse gases increasing by 2.5% per annum. In fact, they are currently increasing by 3% per annum.

What’s more, that ‘worst case scenario’ takes no account of what are known as ‘natural feedback loops’ – where natural systems (such as the permafrost in the Arctic, or rainforests in the Amazon) begin to ‘adapt’ as a direct consequence of the warming that we humans have already set in train. And there’s now growing evidence of these feedback loops beginning to kick in.   

The IPCC has estimated the temperature increase that would result from its worst case as going as high as 4.6C degrees . More than twice the 2C degree threshold. And it’s worth bearing in mind here that at 3C degrees, the Greenland Ice Sheet is definitively in irreversible meltdown.

We know all this. It’s the kind of analysis that underpined the Kyoto Protocol all those years ago, and which now informs the UK’s Climate Change Act and other policy interventions. But Clive Hamilton argues that:

“Despite our pretensions to rationality, scientific facts are fighting against more powerful forces. Apart from institutional factors that have prevented early action – the power of industry, the rise of money politics, and bureaucratic inertia, we have never really believed the dire warnings of the scientists. Unreasoning optimism is one of humankind’s greatest virtues and most dangerous foibles”.

The reasons not to subscribe to the ‘too late’ hypothesis get just a little bit weaker every year. Countervailing scientific (and majority) opinion indicates that we’ve still got a ‘window of time’ to ensure first that emissions peak as soon as possible and then reduce dramatically from that point on. That still allows us to think that we might manage this transition into an ultra low-carbon world without the traumatic dislocation that is otherwise going to beset us.

This countervailing view depends, of course, on the assumption that the politicians will be able to do what needs to be done before that window comes crashing down on us.

I haven’t entirely given up on that possibility. Clive has. With painful intensity, he describes how he went through that barrier himself, renouncing spurious optimism and ending up in profound mourning for the loss of hope, for his children, for the Earth, for the future of humankind – hence the Requiem.

He is still sympathetic to those still on the other side of that line of hopefulness, but indirectly challenges our integrity:

“Denial requires a wilful mis-reading of the science, a romantic view of the ability of political institutions to respond, or face divine intervention. Climate Pollyannas adopt the same tactic as doom-mongers but in reverse: instead of taking a very small risk of disaster and exaggerating it, they take a very high risk of disaster and minimise it”.

But it is not all as bleak as it may sound. Following Joanna Macy’s powerful dictum, “Despair, Accept, Act”, the book ends with a very positive message as to how we just need to re-orientate ourselves in this more realistic world.

But all very challenging stuff.

Clive Hamilton’s Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about Climate Change is published by Earthscan.

Read more

Every volcanic ash cloud has a silver lining...

Stephanie Draper, April 19th 2010, Climate change, General, Transport, Travel and tourism

I’ve spent the last two days on a train travelling back from Sweden to London.  The volcanic eruption in Iceland left me and my two colleagues stranded on Friday night, and since then we have been making slow, but solid progress home. 

This is the sort of crisis that brings Dickens to mind: ‘it was the best of times, it was the worst of times’ (all the more appropriate because of the links being made between the last Icelandic volcano and the French Revolution) . 

The worst of times clearly point to struggle to get on trains and ferries, the sleeping in airports and not being at home with our loved ones.  The commercial losses also have serious implications.  KPMG estimates that it will cost the aviation industry £200m.  It’s a disaster for airlines, tour operators and for Iceland too especially if the disruption continues.  And then there is the knock-on effect for imports, exports and all that lost business time.  Ironically we can’t get to our Indian session on sustainable mobility next week now either! 

But the experience has been good too.  Not only did we manage to get on the trains we needed, especially a hotly contested Eurostar out of Brussels, we have also seen some stunning parts of Northern Europe that you never see going from airport to airport.  I have been on a train that goes on a ferry from Denmark to Germany.  We met new friends and the people I talked to were impressed by the calm, ease and workability of the train, so perhaps it is something that they will do again.

It has also brought out our ingenuity and ability to collaborate.  People come together in these sorts of crises and they innovate – our colleagues at the workshop used Facebook to hire some students to drive them home.  And while the airlines have suffered, a number of other businesses have gained –  the ferries, coaches and Eurostar have probably had their best weekend ever.  And our iPhones and wireless connections have meant that we were always up on what was happening. 

It’s hard to see beyond the frustration and commercial risk what something like this presents. But it also gives us a glimpse of a different sort of world, elements of which are already described in our Tourism 2023 scenarios.  A world where we connect more virtually, through tele-presencing and other new conferencing technologies, and are ingenious about how we solve problems.  This is the sort of thinking that we need to get to a sustainable future.  Could this week’s events be a catalyst for the sort of creative disruption that we need? 

In the coming days as we continue to be grounded – people will continue to test out lower carbon travel options like trains and buses. They will use teleconferencing more, and they will innovate to find more new ways of doing things.  So after all the pain of adjusting, we could find an opportunity for localism, information and communications technology, and overland travel to take us in positive direction towards that sustainable future.

Read more

The new parliament must innovate to build a low-carbon economy

Jonathon Porritt, March 26th 2010, Climate change, Forum founders, Innovation

At precisely the moment when this government has finally got its act together on addressing climate change, public confidence in the science of climate change would appear to have hit a new low. Depending on which opinion poll you read, the percentage of people who now believe both that climate change is happening and that it's primarily happening as a consequence of the emissions of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, has gone down to less than 50% of us, and possibly as low as 30% of us.


That makes it a lot harder for the politicians, in that such scepticism (and even hostility) provides little encouragement that leadership in this area will play well electorally. Despite that, the government is pressing ahead regardless, and the speed and scope of new initiatives churning out of the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the moment is mind-boggling. Not only has Ed Miliband achieved more over the last 18 months than all of his predecessors over the preceding 11 years, but he's also got Peter Mandelson, Andrew Adonis and even the Treasury on board. No mean achievement.


That doesn't necessarily mean that climate change will feature as a big issue during the general lection. Labour may feel it's already done enough, and there are some who believe that the Tories have been quietly scaling back their own climate change commitment, despite David Cameron's earlier leadership. The Lib Dems and the Greens will certainly try to force it up the agenda, but past experience has demonstrated just how difficult this can be. "It's the low-carbon economy, stupid!" is unlikely to dominate as an election slogan. Which means there's still going to be all to play for once the election is over and the new parliament is in place.


What's already clear is that this will be the last parliament that will be able to do what needs to be done if we're to meet the targets in the Climate Change Act. That "80% cut by 2050" target provides a false sense of reassurance that we've still got decades to play with, and can therefore comfortably defer some of the difficult things we have to do for many years to come.


Pre-empting that kind of complacency is what the Green Alliance's new report - The Last Parliament: Priorities for Urgent Action on Climate Change - is all about. The Green Alliance didn't want just another policy wonks' treatise, so it brought together myself, Barbara Stocking of Oxfam, Steve Holliday (chief executive of the National Grid), Bob May (former president of the Royal Society), James Cameron (vice chair of climate change) as well as Green Alliance director Stephen Hale, to come up with a plan of action on climate change for the next parliament.


An odd bunch, you may say. But the reality is that there's an extraordinarily strong consensus about climate change that binds together the UK's scientific establishment, almost all progressive business leaders, the NGO community and the smart end of the UK's capital markets. The profoundly irresponsible line taken by a major segment of our media (headed by the Daily Mail and Daily Express), setting out systematically to dismantle a body of scientific work that remains largely unscathed by the University of East Anglia's hacked climate emails case, let alone by the failure of Copenhagen, has only served to stiffen the sinews of those who want to see our politicians just get on with it.


Our panel focused on four priority areas:


• International leadership

• Low-carbon infrastructure

• Developing resilient communities

• Innovating new finance mechanisms.


And all of these will have to be underpinned by a concerted effort to rebuild public support for action on climate change. A huge amount of ground has been lost over the last year, partly because of the science controversy, and partly because the government's way of engaging with the general public (through the Act on CO2 Campaign) has been ill-judged and counter-productive.


You can't beat people into submission on climate change. All the evidence shows that promoting the benefits that flow from concerted action – in terms of jobs, skills, innovation, eliminating fuel poverty, energy security, resource efficiency, increased competitiveness and so on – works so much better than threatening people (and their children) with the four riders of the Apocalypse.


Happily, there's a solid foundation to build on here. The UK has been in the forefront of international negotiations, and now has the chance to drive forward the debate about new financing mechanisms. Closer to home, we have (at long last) got the outline of a strategy to retrofit existing housing stock, and the whole renewable energy scene is picking up rapidly. The Climate Change Act remains the best thing the Labour government has done on climate change since it is was elected.


But the next parliament will have to move much faster in terms of overhauling the entire regulatory system (particularly Ofgem, the Office of Electricity and Gas Markets ) and on incentivising greener, leaner technologies. It will need to get the green investment bank announced in yesterday's budget up and running and promote a wide range of new financial products such as Green ISAs, mortgages and pensions. Local authorities will need to be given a much more central role, working closely both with the energy companies and community organisations to get real action on the ground.


All of this depends on the restoration of trust between parliament and the people. And that means, above all, that politicians will have to show they mean it themselves, acting as role models in their own lives and their constituencies.

This article first appeared in the Guardian on Thursday 24th March 2010.

Read more

The war of words over home-produced electricity feed-in tariffs could cost dearly

Jonathon Porritt, March 18th 2010, Built environment, Climate change

On March 2nd, Guardian columnist George Monbiot launched an extraordinary attack on feed-in tariffs and on solar photovoltaics (PV) in particular. Even for George, who has honed his invective skills to a fine point over the years, his language was remarkably intemperate: “pricey conceit… great green rip-off… scam… comically inefficient… squandering the public’s money… perfectly useless…  a swindle… blinded by sentiment” etc, etc.

A lot of this seemed to be aimed, very personally, at Jeremy Leggett, Executive Chairman of Solarcentury. For years, Jeremy has been flying the flag for the UK solar industry and for the benefits for introducing the kind of feed-in tariffs that have transformed the renewable energy scene in many other countries.

Within a couple of days, Jeremy had mounted a robust defence of PV, feed-in tariffs and the importance of maintaining a long-term perspective. Citing 13 examples of inaccuracy, misrepresentation and hyperbole (reinforced by a further 12 points following up on a response from George), he has set out to set the record straight.

Over the weekend I spent a happy hour reading through this four-phase battle, point by point. It matters. There’s a lot resting on the success of these feed-in tariffs, and that in turn depends on trust on the part of the general public. A George Monbiot polemic is purpose-built to undermine that trust.

I really admire George. He’s a brilliant campaigning journalist, and a deep, persistent thorn in the side of today’s political and business elites. I often end up reading his Guardian articles metaphorically punching the air at the blows that he’s landed – on my behalf, as it were. This week’s article on biodiversity here in the UK is hugely impactful.

But I’m sorry to say, on this occasion, that he’s way out of line. Jeremy Leggett’s detailed refutation of so much of what he was claiming in the original article demonstrates just how poor George’s initial research was, and how (on this occasion, at least) his love of adopting deliberately controversialist positions simply overwhelmed basic journalistic standards.

This too is a serious matter. As one or two bloggers have already pointed out, if he’s got it this badly wrong on feed-in tariffs, what’s to say he hasn’t got it equally wrong on other critical issues?

One of the talking points for me was that George declined on a number of occasions to meet with Jeremy and talk all this through – despite knowing full well the impact his article would have. More than anything else, this reveals a streak of know-it-all arrogance that has always been there in George, but which he usually keeps under control.

But rather than take my word, why don’t you check it out for yourself on the Guardian and Jeremy’s own websites. If nothing else, it will help you get your head around the complexities of feed-in tariffs.

George Monbiot's article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff

Jeremy Leggett's response: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/09/george-monbiot-bet-solar-pv or http://www.jeremyleggett.net/solar-revolution/

George Monbiot has responded to this blog on Jonathon's personal site, read what he says here.

Read more

Oil threat prompts call for green industrial revolution

David Mason, March 16th 2010, Climate change, General, Transport

Soaring oil prices may drive politicians to take tough action to create a low-carbon economy while sceptics are still arguing the toss over climate change.

The era of cheap oil is ending and, unless we take urgent measures to reduce our dependence on it, Britain – and by extension other oil-importing countries – faces a crisis as early as 2015, according to the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security.

Its latest report, which calls for a “green industrial revolution” was launched a few weeks ago by a panel of high-profile business leaders: Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, Phllip Dilley, chairman of Arup, Ian Marchant, CEO of Scottish and Southern Energy, Brian Souter, CEO of Stagecoach Group, Jeremy Leggett, chairman of Solarcentury, and Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic.

We’re used to hearing this call from environmentalists and climate change campaigners, but these leaders come to the same conclusion based purely on the availability of oil. The message: regardless of whether or not you believe in man-made climate change, we still have to decarbonise our economy.

The taskforce claims that within the next decade, possibly as early as 2015, we will have reached peak oil - the maximum rate at which we can pump oil out of the ground. It forecasts that prices will soar because demand from developing countries is still growing and because new oil reserves are increasingly expensive to exploit.

Developed world economies have been built on the premise of cheap and plentiful oil, so shortages and high prices are likely to affect vast areas of our lives, causing social, economic and political disruption. We use oil for transport, heating, fertilisers and plastics - so high prices will feed through into more expensive food, travel, utility bills and goods in our shops. The poorest people are likely to be worst hit.

Countries which rely on oil imports will be badly hit. Although North Sea oil is still flowing, the UK has been a net importer since 2006, and the Taskforce warns that it could face a balance of payments crisis by the middle of the decade.

No wonder then that the report is called: ‘The oil crunch – a wake-up call for the UK economy’. It makes an explicit link with the credit crunch and warns that the UK must not be caught out again and needs to take action now.

The report calls for the new UK government, after the election, to work with local authorities, business and consumers to put in place policies to deal with the threat of peak oil. Key recommendations include support for low-carbon transport technology and sustainable bio-fuels; a focus on energy efficiency and the development of alternative sources of energy, including renewables and nuclear; and incentives to encourage the public to adopt greener behaviour.

The danger of framing the argument for a low-carbon economy solely in terms of climate change is that many people remain determined sceptics. The science is complex, scandals like the University of East Anglia emails shake public faith, and many feel they are being asked to take painful action now to avert a distant and nebulous threat.

In contrast, peak oil offers a clear and present danger. Oil is part of our daily life, we’ve all experienced the pain of petrol price spikes and it’s easy to understand the damaging consequences of a sustained increase in prices. Peak oil could just be the unambiguous threat we need to galvanise the green industrial revolution.

Read more

The science of uncertainty

Sara Parkin, March 2nd 2010, Climate change, Forum founders

What are we to make of the furore around climate science? There are implications for environmental campaigners, government and businesses currently agonising over the implementation of low carbon strategies, as well as for scientists - climate scientists in particular - and the whole scientific community in general.

To start with thee and me. Most of us won’t have a degree in science, and may not even have a GCSE in one of the natural sciences. So we tend to trust what the scientists say without considering too closely what they mean. Consequently, we are rubbish at understanding the uncertainty that is intrinsic in all scientific inquiry. Climate science is no different. A hypothesis was made: that the most recent warming is mainly due to greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by human activity. This hypothesis developed from the fact that we’ve known since the 19th century certain gases warm the climate, and that humans now generate a lot more of these gases. Despite a lot of effort over the last 40 years, this hypothesis has not been disproved.

As a consequence, climate scientists consider the likelihood that human emissions of greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming climate to be very likely – i.e. 90% certain. The figures below gives the degrees of certainty the IPCC gives to its conclusions. The big step between labelling something likely or very likely means the latter appellation is not given lightly.

Source: IPCC Report (2007) Summary for Policy Makers p53

Nothing in the ‘climategate’ scandals undermines this conclusion. Where thee and me need to get sharper is in comprehending the various levels of uncertainty attached to the projected consequences. In policy and decision-making terms uncertainty translates into risk management strategies – and something with a 90% chance of being true would surely top the risk register. As David Mackay, DECC Chief Scientific Advisor puts it: “since 1750 we have burnt ½ trillion tonnes of carbon, and are on track to burn the second 1/2 trillion in less than 40 years.  The cumulative consequences of that first 500 billion tonnes suggest the next 500 billion (and the rest) ought to stay underground.” (Mackay, 2009)

It would be astonishing if that scale of intervention in the natural cycles of the earth would be without adverse consequence. 

So, ‘climategate’ does not let any of us off the hook of responsibility for serious action – by governments, organisations and individuals. 

And no more excuses for us becoming anything but much more intelligent consumers of science. Promoting selected conclusions of climate science as irrefutable facts has long been the vice of media, but environmental organisations really ought to know better. Now, bereft of a trusted interlocutor to help them understand the science, the public is unsurprisingly withdrawing ‘belief’ that climate change is actually happening. Both climate scientists and campaigning organisations have a lot to do to rekindle that trust. As do governments. Even though we may (rightly) whinge at their muddled prevarication, governments have not (yet) faltered in their risk analysis that there is enough certainty around climate change to justify action. Businesses that have reached the same conclusion need to ramp up the evidence that they too are of serious intent. Mutuality of benefit in the business-government-public triangle of climate change action depends on the thread of trust not being broken.

So what about the climate scientists? As I suggested in my last blog on climate science there are only very small reasons to question the methodology of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that right now is soliciting evidence for its fifth report.  When IPCC chief, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, he returns from his Communications 101 course, he will be making sure his organisation’s perfectly good methodologies are rigorously implemented. Paradoxically, trust in climate science could be enhanced by the whole sorry tale.  

One positive outcome should be more discipline and aptitude for communication amongst senior climate scientists. The few who became caught up in the excitement of it all and sacrificed dispassionate presentation of evidence to campaigning fervour have risked the reputation of all science. Science funders know it must not happen again.

Bob May, one time government Chief Scientist points out that science progresses through organised scepticism – continual challenging of research outcomes to both extend knowledge and improve certainty. He’s really cross that the word ‘sceptic’ has been recruited, not by genuine challengers of research outcomes (and methodologies) but by what I have dubbed the malicious naysayers. Very different from those who deny something out of fear or misunderstanding, these naysayers are driven by knowingly wrong motives, and are often paid by organistions with the most to lose should low-carbon policies be implementated with any seriousness.

Separating the useful sceptics and contrarians from the malicious naysayers is vital. They need to be challenged head on. And the best way to do that - something all science needs to take on board - is transparency and far more involvement of the public in science – upstream where research projects are designed as well as downstream where the outcomes are debated. 

Read more