David Cameron, you must go to Durban this December & end subsidies for fossil fuels

This week David Cameron appeared to play down his party's commitment to tackling climate change by not even mentioning the topic in his keynote speech to the Tory Party conference.

It is unlikely that the shift in rhetorical emphasis will impact on the many commitments and measures in the legislative pipeline, but it may have an impact in two important areas: on investment decisions and on the vital UNFCCC Durban Climate Summit which is fast approaching.

The need for international action has never been more paramount, and it is tremendously important that Cameron is unwavering on the international stage for drastic measures to curb emissions.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. I will discuss some of it, and the single most simple policy that could be implemented to achieve the level of cuts required.

It was announced this week that global carbon dioxide emissions have increased by a staggering 45% since 1990, according to the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and other sources.

This puts the world in the region of the high emissions scenarios discussed in the last IPCC report (see below).

At the same time, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said on Tuesday that subsidies for fossil fuel consumption are actually rising - they totalled $409 billion in 2010, compared to $312 billion in 2009, with oil products having the largest share at $193 billion in 2010 with natural gas getting $91 billion.

Iran and Saudi Arabia were the countries with the biggest subsidies.

The IEA's Chief Economist Fatih Birol said that "without further reform, spending on fossil fuel consumption subsidies is set to reach $660 billion in 2020, or 0.7 percent of global gross domestic product".

Yet leaders of the Group of 20 (G20) countries committed in Pittsburgh in 2009 to phase out these subsidies.

OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said doing so is an obvious way to save money. "As they (nations) look for policy responses to the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, phasing out subsidies is an obvious way to help governments meet their economic, environmental and social goals".

It would also cut global energy demand by 4% and considerably reduce carbon emissions growth, the IEA said.

If David Cameron can't find it easy to support a call to phase out the subsidies, and do so himself, then he should tell us why.

(By the way, if you think renewables get too much in the way of subsidies, research published this week in the States shows that nuclear subsidies there at least accounted for more than one percent of the federal budget over the first 15 years of each subsidies’ life; oil and gas subsidies made up half a percent of the total budget, but renewables have amounted to only about a tenth of a percent.)

Using market measures alone is not working as a way of limiting emissions. The 3.5 million EU carbon emissions permits which the UK sold on the market last Thursday went for a price of 10.38 euros each.

This is the lowest price since it started auctions in November 2008, and will not encourage anything like the level of investment needed in greenhouse gas emission abatement technology.

It does strengthen the case for the introduction of a robust carbon price floor, but it also shows other types of action are required.

In a sign of its desperation that the message is not getting through to politicians, the Tyndall Centre this week attempted once more to draw attention to a paper it had first published in a Royal Society journal in 2009, saying that the world could very possibly reach an average global temperature of 4oC higher than pre-industrial levels as early as 2060, with catastrophic consequences for all life on earth.

The paper is peer-reviewed and written by Richard Betts at the Hadley Centre of the Met Office and uses the most accurate and authoritative climate modelling systems currently available.

The Tyndall Centre is based at the University of East Anglia, now famous for the hacked emails scandal, yet exonerated of any bias in its scientific reports by three separate investigations.

(The centre is named after John Tyndall, the man who first discovered the global warming effect 150 years ago - this year marks that anniversary.)

What the paper says

The paper looks at a particular set of scenarios that were considered in the (last) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007. (The 5th is due in 2014.)

AR4's projections suggested that in the absence of mitigation high levels of warming were possible and the median of these was approximately 4?C.

The modelling used at the time did not include certain climate-warming carbon-cycle feedback features, plus more recent measurements that since became available; and the high-emissions scenario - which we now are confident we are within - was not examined with complex general circulation models (GCMs).

Betts' paper looks at this range of scenarios of future greenhouse-gas emissions without policies, including this information.

In other words, looking as best as we can at the world we live in now, in which, year after year, UNFCCC summits come and go and no legally binding agreements are reached.

The paper concludes: "Our best estimate is that a temperature rise of 4?C would be reached in the 2070s, and if carbon-cycle feedbacks are strong, then 4?C could be reached in the early 2060s."

When originally published, the journal did trigger an alarmist headline in the Daily Telegraph with graphic descriptions of how the world would change. It gave fuel to Ed Miliband's efforts to secure a legally bunding deal at Copenhagen. But it did not achieve sufficient global recognition.

I spoke to Asher Minns at the Tyndall Centre and he said he tweeted the paper in an attempt to give it more recognition.

I then spoke to its author, Richard Betts. I asked him whether he could put a figure on the probability of the world reaching this level of warming by that date, and he said "That entirely depends on the policies adopted by politicians".

I asked him about the current state of climate research, and he said that the Hadley Centre "is now working on a huge project coupled climate models with all modelling across the world being run through a commonly agreed protocol, so we know we are comparing like with like, which ones are more or less sensitive to emissions.

"It is mostly work in progress, and will be ready in next year. The deadline is July, and the papers will be accepted by March 2013 for publication in the 2014 report."

The slowness of this work is frustrating for everyone, but science cannot be hurried. I asked Richard if this frustrates him. "No, we have to get it right," he said.

DECC commissions reports from the Hadley Centre, including a paper for the Durban talks that is "more about drawing together information that is already out there into a tight context".

He said the global carbon project will release its annual update in a month, however.

Richard is typical of climate scientists in refusing to be drawn on policy or urgency, saying it is beyond his remit.

"I have no role in saying this is urgent or anything. We have no political objective whatsoever. We are just trying to find the science."

He says all they can do is lay this before politicians. It is up to them to decide how to act.

Does he think that journalists like myself convey the science well?

"In some cases the messages are too simple," he replied. "But our research can be misused either way. It depends on peoples' attitude to risk - people must be informed. But I do think that journalists should convey the science better."

If climate scientists are clear that it is up to politicians to show leadership on the basis of the science, and the science is as clear as it is, then it is incumbent on the consciences of politicians to give these humble toilers on the frontlines of understanding due weight in their deliberations, in comparison to the clamouring of vested interests or focus groups.

In simple language, Mr Cameron: go to Durban. Demonstrate leadership. Cut subsidies to fossil fuels.

Co-op calls for moratorium on shale gas drilling near Blackpool

A new report, sponsored by the Co-op, has called for a moratorium on shale gas operations in the UK just a month before mining company Cuadrilla hopes to launch its first "flare".

The UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change has accepted assurances from Cuadrilla Resources, which is backed by former BP chief Lord Browne, that their operation in the Bowland shale, four miles from Blackpool, Lancashire, will cause no environmental damage.

The secretive company - which doesn't appear to have a website - is about to drill further into what it calls the first true shale gas find in Europe, near Grange Hill.

"We understand that [cases of water contamination] are only in a few cases and that, when carried out correctly, shale gas exploration and development does not pose a threat to aquifers or local communities," DECC said in a letter to the Co-op, which had called for a halt to the drilling.

It added: "Cuadrilla, currently operating near Blackpool, has made it clear that there is no likelihood of environmental damage resulting from its shale gas project, and that it is applying technical expertise and exercising the utmost care as it takes drilling and testing forward."

What is shale gas?

Shale gas is methane that is found within natural fissures and fractures underground. Shale is a type of rock laid down under lakes and seas millions of years ago. The methane was released by rotting vegetation and trapped in millions of small pockets.

Until recently, no method of safely transporting it to the surface existed.

Now, by pumping water, sand and chemicals into rock formations under high pressure using a technique known as "hydraulic fracturing" or "fracking", energy companies believe they have found part of the solution to Europe's energy security problems.

At the moment Europe depends on gas imported from Russia, and disputes between that country and Ukraine have disrupted winter supplies in the last decade.

In the US, shale gas already accounts for over 10% of natural gas production and some analysts predict that could rise to 50% within 20 years. BP's former chief executive Tony Hayward has described shale gas as a "game changer".

But in New York State, a temporary ban has been imposed on shale gas production after an incident of ground water contamination caused by the chemicals used in fracking. These can be foams, nitrogen or carbon dioxide, containing sand, resin-coated sand, man-made ceramics, and even radioactive sand is sometimes used so that the fracture trace along the wellbore can be measured.

Water extracted for drinking can also flow through shale. A new film, 'Gaslands', shows homeowners in the state turning on their water taps and igniting the gas that comes out in areas where shale is being extracted.

Other reports from the US have depicted polluted water killing trees and contaminating land. But shale gas has transformed the American energy market and sent prices spiraling downward. European gas prices are currently much higher.

The Co-op takes a stand

The Tyndall Centre report, funded by the Co-operative, demonstrates how the extraction of shale gas risks seriously contaminating ground and surface waters and calls for a moratorium on shale gas development until there is a much more thorough understanding of the extraction process.

Paul Monaghan, head of social goals at the Co-operative, added there was no evidence the use of shale gas in the US was driving people away from using dirtier coal for energy.

Tim Yeo, who chairs the House of Commons’ energy and climate change committee, said drilling for shale gas raised ‘some new environmental and related questions’

Environmentalists expressed concern that calls for a ban were going unheeded. "It is absolutely dangerous because they are using technology which is not proven yet," said Darek Urbaniak, extractive industries campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe.

More fundamentally, the Tyndall centre report concludes that in an energy hungry world, any new fossil fuel resource will only lead to additional carbon emissions. In the case of shale gas there is also a significant risk its use will delay the introduction of renewable energy alternatives.

"Consequently, if we are serious in our commitment to avoid dangerous climate change, the only safe place for shale gas remains in the ground" said Professor Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall Centre and the University of Manchester, referring to the Copenhagen Accord’s commitment to limiting global warming at 2°C.

The report also says that the demand for water in shale gas extraction could put considerable pressure on water supplies at the local level in the UK.

These concerns were dismissed by Marlene Holzner, spokesperson for EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger. "We believe that shale gas is an opportunity," she said. "We need gas and gas demand will increase over the years so if we're able to extract this gas, it will help us to rely less on imports," adding that this need had to be balanced against "environmental concerns".

Aviation and climate change

Most of us know that flying's bad for climate change, and that we should really holiday closer to home, take the train and videoconference.

Aviation has by far the greatest climate impact of any transport mode, whether measured per passenger kilometre, per tonne kilometre, per € spent, or per hour spent. See the Transport and Environment report, 'Clearing the Air: the myth and reality of aviation and climate change'.

The opening of the St Pancras rail link to the continent on November 14 will allow you to travel in style from the centre of one city to the centre of another faster than ever, for a comparable price to flying in many cases (eg London to Berlin is more or less the same price on BA/tube/rail to/from airport). So what if it takes longer? It's sure going to be less hassle and you can take the sleeper.

But people will still fly - so should aviation be included in the EU emissions trading system (ETS)?

The ETS

The EU thinks so, and so does the British government. The EU is pressing ahead despite a major rift within the UN body responsible for the sector.

The airlines don't like it. They are kicking and screaming.

The 2007 Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) - a body representing the airlines but also responsible, under the Kyoto Protocol, for reducing emissions from international aviation - passed a resolution earlier this month saying countries should sign separate agreements with all other countries operating in its airspace before applying emissions trading to their carrier airlines.

This was strongly backed by the United States.

To enter into separate agreements would be technically illegal under the Kyoto treaty and disables the whole point of the ETS.

Since 1997 the ICAO has failed to endorse, or issued negative statements on, every serious policy option for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the sector.

In retaliation EU member states, and member countries of the wider European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) which includes Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, made a 'reservation' against the resolution.

Though ICAO guidance is not legally-binding, the EU has until now acted within its framework. This 'reservation' signals the end of that commitment.

João Vieira, of the Brussels-based group Transport and Environment, called for this body to be disbanded. "After a shameful decade of obstruction and inaction, ICAO must now be stripped of its environmental responsibilities."

But will it make any difference?

But will bringing aviation into the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in line with current proposals have any effect on burgeoning air travel?

Not according to a report by the University of Manchester's Tyndall Centre. Its research found that even if carbon dioxide permit prices rose up to €50 per tonne it will have little impact on the price of and demand for flights - and hence will barely dent the rise in emissions.

Current predictions of the carbon credit price are in the range of €15-35. For example consultancies Ideacarbon and Econ said in September that the price for the next five years could be around €15 because of imports of credits from developing countries.

At this price the ETS isn't going to make much difference to anything, let alone airline emissions.

The Low Carbon Kid says pressure must be kept up on governments to curtail flights - and make flying as unfashionable as owning a slave.