Vital new tool sorts out the climate-friendly from climate-hostile materials

An important new tool that could help to drastically reduce buildings' climate impacts has been made freely available.

It is a revolutionary update of a “bible" on the embodied energy of hundreds of materials - anything from carpets and concrete to timber, insulation and plastics.

The widely used and authoritative ICE Database - 'Embodied Carbon: the Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE)' - is aimed at the manufacturing, construction and refurbishment industries, including designers, architects and policymakers.

It provides an invaluable means of telling specifiers what to avoid and what to use in the struggle to reduce the environmental impact of construction and other products.

What is embodied energy?

To reduce the level of climate change it is necessary to reduce emissions of global warming gases. These occur at every point in the life of a material or product, giving rise to the "life-cycle carbon footprint".

The “embodied energy" component of this overall figure is that used in the manufacturing process and is distinguished from the "operational energy" – that used in its lifetime. Then there is the environmental cost of its final disposal – whether it is landfilled or recycled etc.

If, for example, the product is concrete, it will take account of all the energy involved in quarrying, transportation and manufacture.

Usually, the impacts of other global warming gases like methane and HCFCs are converted into carbon-equivalent values for ease of comparison.

Why is it useful?

All products contain materials and in particular buildings can be with us for between 30 and 100 or more years. The building sector is responsible for 21% of global carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions: 8% through emissions from primary fuel types and 13% from the electricity demand for residential and commercial buildings.

As buildings become more energy efficient in operation, the embodied energy component of their overall footprint becomes proportionally more significant.

A recent report from the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) on sustainable offices summarised that the embodied carbon impacts (construction, plus demolition) accounted for about a third of the whole life carbon impact.

Similarly, the RICS redefining zero report estimated the contribution of embodied carbon to be 20% for supermarkets, 30% for houses, 45% for offices and an incredible 60% for warehouses (usually unheated).

Last autumn the final report was published of the UK Low Carbon Construction Innovation and Growth Team (IGT), chaired by Paul Morrell (the UK Government Chief Construction Advisor). It had been asked by the government to consider how the construction sector could meet the low carbon agenda.

It made many recommendations, and on embodied carbon said that "as soon as a sufficiently rigorous assessment system is in place, the Treasury should introduce into the Green Book a requirement to conduct a whole-life (embodied + operational) carbon appraisal and that this is factored into feasibility studies on the basis of a realistic price for carbon".

Further, "that the industry should agree with Government a standard method of measuring embodied carbon for use as a design tool for the purposes of scheme appraisal".

A wealth of information

ICE is such a tool. It includes annexes on methodologies for metal recycling and explanations of how the values for carbon impacts have been calculated.

Summary sheets for each material expand into detailed fact sheets and graphs, giving a breakdown of the components of the impact, and how it has varied over the last 15 years.

For example, we learn that the impact of aggregates has been reduced by 1/5, because the UK energy mix has changed to include more natural gas.

In the important area of insulation, we learn that cellulose, typically made from recycled newsprint, has by far the lowest embodied energy (a maximum of 3.3MJ/Kg) even compared to other natural materials.

Rockwool is at 16.8, but polystyrene and other plastic insulation boards and foams, widely used in industry, are in the range of 99-109MJ/Kg. That is 30 times more than cellulose.

This means that cellulose should really be used universally by builders and refurbishment programmes in preference, despite the fact that it might take up more room.

It's important to realise that the global warming effects of the manufacture of products happens from the moment they are made, whereas the energy-saving benefit of insulation is only in the future.

Natural materials also contain carbon that has been locked up from the atmosphere during their growth (although ICE gives an average figure for the embodied energy of timber of 9.43 MJ/Kg).

So if there is a choice between timber and uPVC windows or doors, for example, uPVC has an embodied energy 10 times greater, of 94.7MJ/Kg.

The spreadsheets also include CIBSE data on material properties.

ICE is a major achievement, and is produced with the non-profit Building Services Research & Information Association (BSRIA). It is available to purchase and free to members.

The University of Bath, where project lead Craig Jones is employed, has charitably made a free Excel file version available.

Also for those with an interest in whole life carbon in buildings is this Sustain report on operational versus embodied energy.

Other sources of information

There are are other sources of comparable information:

• The Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement 3 (CESMM3) which includes carbon and prices for every material and unit of work, enabling users to calculate not just the economic, but also the embodied carbon of projects.
• The Hutchins 2010 UK Building Blackbook (The Capital Cost and Embodied CO2 Guide, Volume two: major works) which now includes both cost and embodied carbon for construction works.
• The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) working group examining embodied carbon.
• The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) soon-to-be published short guide on embodied carbon.
• BS 8903:2010 Principles and Framework for Procuring Sustainably
• PAS 2060:2010 Specification for the Demonstration of Carbon Neutrality.

Feed-in Tariffs review: let’s subsidise what works

The Government has announced a review of the Feed-in Tariff subsidies (FITs) for solar photovoltaic installations.

Energy Minister Chris Huhne is worried that large PV 'farms' of over 50kWp will soak up most of the budget for FITs. The Government said it would cut the amount it would spend on FITs up to 2014-15 by 10% to £360 million in the November Spending Review.

The industry is crying 'foul'. It complains that other technologies are allowed up to 5MW per installation and that no solar farms greater than 1MW are in planning. It accuses the Government of attacking jobs in the very green tech sector it says is going to bring growth to the UK economy.

But it's worth asking: what are the subsidies for? Here are a few possible answers:

1. Huhne talks of making renewable technology seem normal by being visible on lots of roofs.

2. It's said that households with the modules become more conscious of green issues and energy efficiency.

3. By increasing demand, the price of modules is supposed to come down over time.

4. It creates jobs in an emerging sector.

5. It cuts carbon emissions.

But do these stand up to scrutiny and represent value for money?

FITs are a fantastic success, particularly for PV, in stimulating demand for renewable energy among the public. There are now over 21,000 schemes of all technologies registered.

Up to the end of December, when there were 16,384 installations, PV had the vast majority with 15,236 - over 15 times more than wind in second place with 977 with hydro lagging at 154.

Are these large PV schemes? No. By the end of last year there was only one over the 50kW size, at 55kW. The vast majority were under 4kW with the average at 2.6kW. Most of these will be receiving the full tariff value of 41.3p per unit.

On the other hand almost all the hydro and wind installations were over 4kW, many over 10kW. Most of these will be receiving only 26.7p per unit.

By contrast, if PV farms were to register for the Renewables Obligation subsidy - an older, different subsidy for larger schemes - they would receive payments of around 8p/kWh plus export payments of 5p/kWh (though this is to be reviewed).

So PV receives almost twice as much under FITs as wind and other technologies. You can see why it is so popular. But is it value for money?

Let's remember that the installed capacity of PV doesn't equate to what will be generated: this depends on the location - the amount of sunshine.

Solar module manufacturers quote figures for the “peak power” of their products. These are what they would generate if one kilowatt per square metre of the sun’s energy were to fall on them.

But for most of England and Wales, the summer insolation is a fraction of that figure. London gets 198W and Edinburgh 172W in July. In December, the figures are 22 and 13 respectively - a lot less - and that’s when you need more power.

By contrast, wind and hydro ratings are significantly closer to what you actually get out of the plant.

So if you're looking for saving the most carbon per £, these technologies are a better choice for support.

But let's remember also who pays for the subsidies. The money comes off a levy on everyone's electricity bills. This means we all help pay the income of those who can afford to install the solar modules.

Since those on low incomes pay a disproportionate amount of their income on fuel, they are essentially subsidising the better-off.

On that basis the Government is right to prevent this subsidy going to large landowners and companies seeking to install solar farms.

Instead, it should support installations by such groups as housing associations like the Peabody Trust, who are putting PVs on the roofs of social housing.

(However it is cheaper to build larger installations than smaller ones – because savings on overheads and systems mean costs are reduced per kW. So these would make financial sense if the cash came instead from investors.)

In America this week, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that he wants to spend $27 million to cut the cost of installed solar power by 75 percent to about 6 cents per kilowatt hour in order to let the US compete with China's takeover of the solar market.

Fine for them - the southern states are where solar power works brilliantly. By contrast, even in the UK's southernmost counties, the financial paybacks are 30-50 years - all costs included.

What the UK is rich in are wind and ocean resources. If it wants to generate future jobs and save carbon, with renewable technologies that can work domestically and be exported throughout the world, it should focus its limited resources on these.

Latest data confirms the world is warming

Globally, 2010 tied with 2005 and 1998 as being the hottest year on record, despite ending in Britain with a cold spell, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

Last year, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean.

“The 2010 data confirm the Earth’s significant long-term warming trend,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.”

The WMO's statistics are based on data sets maintained by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU), the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

In addition, Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record, with an average monthly extent of 12 million square kilometres - a staggering 1.35 million square kilometres below the 1979-2000 average for December.

This follows the third-lowest minimum ice extent recorded in September. It is this phenomenon that is paradoxically thought to be responsible for the cold weather in northern Europe in December.

The WMO said that over land, few parts of the world were significantly cooler than average in 2010, the most notable being parts of northern Europe and central and eastern Australia.

Another predicted feature of climate change is extreme weather and climate events, and 2010 experienced a high number of these, including the heatwave in Russia and the devastating monsoonal floods in Pakistan. These were described in WMO’s provisional statement on the status of the global climate issued December 2010.

Despite this scientific evidence, climate change denialism is still common, and even increasing in America. The Republican Study Committee last week released a list of proposed budget cuts totaling $2.5 trillion, including a recommendation to withdraw U.S. funding from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In the U.S., much anti-climate change rhetoric is funded by the oil industry. Chief amongst these is Koch Industries, as identified by Greenpeace.

Last month they were the target of a hoax by unknown perpetrators, who made a fake website and fake news release that falsely announced the company was discontinuing its funding for denialist organizations such as Americans for Prosperity. Last week, Koch Industries filed a federal lawsuit in Utah seeking the identities of the people behind it.

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".

Feed-in Tariffs budget to be slashed by 10%

The level of support for Feed-in Tariffs is to be reviewed, as the budget must be slashed in 2014/15 by at least £40m or 10 per cent.

Energy minister Chris Huhne has praised FITs for introducing renewables to individuals who would not have traditionally considered installing them, but said that there has to be a review because the recent Spending Review called for a reduction in the scheme's projected costs.

Huhne was responding to questions on the Financial Times' Energy Source blog last week on a wide range of questions covering feed-in tariffs, the Renewables Obligation, emissions targets and green jobs in the UK.

"These savings will be achieved through the planned first review of the scheme in 2012, to take effect in April 2013, unless higher than expected deployment requires an early review," he said.

Solar panel and other installers have expressed alarm over Government noises that there is to be a review. If the tarrif rates are to be changed this would affect decisions on whether to invest in micro-renewables by householders.

Huhne also said his department was keeping an eye on whether FITs were encouraging the development of "large, industrial-scale, greenfield based solar farms", which would "distort the available funding for domestic solar and other technologies".

"Whilst we won't act retrospectively, we stand ready to take measures to limit the access of such schemes to FITs if that is shown to be necessary", he said.

The Government is also to consult on the proposed support levels for the Renewables Obligation after 2013 in summer 2011, and give its response in autumn 2011, says Secretary of State Chris Huhne.

Attempting to assure investors, he said that changes to bands, if any, will come into effect from 1 April 2013 (2014 for offshore wind).

"The RO will remain in place until 2017, so developers can make decisions now, knowing what their support mechanism will be" he continued. "We are also consulting on whether to give developers the choice between the two mechanisms in advance of 2017, and would genuinely welcome views. From 2017, the whole RO mechanism will be grandfathered, so developers can know that investments made now will be protected."

Support levels for new projects between 2013 and 2017 are decided by last March's banding review, and the Government recently announced that it is speeding up that process.

Mark Kennedy: should the Met prosecute itself for crimes committed by its double agent?

News that the trial against climate change activists has collapsed because an undercover cop working with them for seven years decided to switch sides and give evidence in their favour has prompted widespread reactions - of glee, surprise and outrage.

It's being questioned whether he was more than an informer but an agent provocateur - he arranged meetings, provided cash, climbed fences and much more.

Such undercover work is nothing new, but the turning of an undercover operator is relatively uncommon.

Ever since Lord Monteagle was planted by Elizabeth I's Secretary of State Robert Cecil amongst the Gunpowder Plotters and helped them obtain the gunpowder they needed, not to mention the cellar under the Houses of Parliament when Cecil felt their tunnelling waas taking too long, the State has used this type of agent.

When I was part of a co-op producing a grassroots newspaper called Monochrome in Brixton during the '80s, an MI5 informant used to come to the open co-op meetings.

He stood out a mile, though, unlike PC Kennedy. He was older, dressed conservatively and shabbily, and his "street level" language was laughably out-of-date. We used to make fun of him.

He claimed to be a sympathetic lawyer offering legal advice, and also attended meetings at the anarchist centre at 121 Railton Road, Brixton.

He was exposed by the then Time Out / City Limits journalist Duncan Campbell and disappeared. He seemed a lonely, isolated chap.

We had our own undercover agent who infiltrated far right groups, such as National Front football supporters, to get stories for our paper. His technique was to say little, appear pliant, agree with everythng, and use personal contacts to gain trust.

A few years later the protest group London Greenpeace (nothing to do with the larger Greenpeace) imploded when it was found that there were more agents (seven) within the group than members! Several were private investigators employed by McDonalds, who were the target of their actions.

Each did not know the identity of the others, another innovation of Robert Cecil's to keep check on his own agents to ensure they could be trusted, one well used later by Stalin.

The subsequent McLibel trial established the argument that "those who employ agents are responsible or liable for any action they take within the scope of their employment".

Are we now to suppose then that the Metropolitan Police will prosecute itself for the offences committed by Mark Kennedy, aka Mark Stone, and his as yet unnamed female accomplice?

Join me for a free webcast on sustainable home renovation

Join me for a free Webcast presentation on sustainable home renovation, and ask any questions you like. It's Wed. 12th January at 5pm. Register here! http://www.earthscan.co.uk/tabid/101760/Default.aspx

After the cold December - is climate change real?

Many sectors of the media suggested last month that the exceptionally cold weather that gripped the UK and other parts of northern Europe challenged the science of climate change.

Sceptics, however, tend to look for easy, local, black-and-white answers to the problem of climate change and whether it is caused by human activity. Unfortunately, the climate is much more complex than this, and scientists are still struggling to adapt the models to the observed and collected data.

However, this does not mean that climate change is not happening: it is, and extreme weather events are part of the expected pattern.

Weather and climate

A basic mistake is to confuse weather with climate. The weather is not the same as the climate. A pattern of 'climate' in a region changes over a number of years. 'Weather' is local and changes by the hour.

There is no doubt than in general, the Earth is warming - global average annual temperatures are increasing. This is a view held by the vast majority of climate scientists.

The term 'climate change' is used because in the chaotic transition from one stable climate pattern (recent centuries) to whatever the future holds, there is and will be turbulence and unpredictability locally - an increased number of extreme weather events.

For example, last year saw also a Russian heat wave resulting fires that killed 56,000 people and the loss of 39% of the grain harvest. Furthermore, 15 nations around the world reported large scale coral bleaching events , as a result of record sea surface temperatures, including 94oF in the waters of the 'Coral Triangle'.

In fact, 2010 was one of the hottest on record around the world. The weather in north-west Europe is just one part of the global picture. Many variable factors affect it, meaning cold winters are perfectly possible in a warming world.

So what did cause the cold weather?

A big high centred on Greenland - one of the most intense ever, say meteorologists - spread south and blocked warm westerly winds from crossing the Atlantic. To fill the vacuum, bitterly cold air from the Arctic flowed down over Europe.

The culprit is widely blamed as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

The NAO has two phases: the positive phase when air pressure is low over Iceland, but high down south over the Azores islands off West Africa, driving strong westerly winds and weather fronts, whipping up storms and sometimes causing floods; and the negative phase as occurred in December.

According to science writer Fred Pearce, "the NAO has been in a generally positive phase for the past 25 years. As a result, winters have usually been mild since the late Eighties, encouraging one climatologist to predict an end to winter snow in Britain.

"But in the middle of summer 2009, it slipped back into a negative phase that has persisted month after month since, bringing us last winter's snow and now our current record-breaking December freeze."

What has caused the change? Well, fingers are being pointed at the thawing of the Arctic ice due to global warming. This has had two effects: the sea absorbs more heat from the sun than the white ice, which reflects the radiation back into space; and it also warms the air above the sea, which ice does not. It's a positive feedback loop for warming, and it has given rise to the high pressure.

The Arctic Dipole

But the climate is more complex even than this. According to climate-watcher John Mason, "a new atmospheric circulation pattern has been identified: the Arctic Dipole, which has become an increasingly-important feature of the Arctic climate during the first decade of the 21st Century."

He says that Arctic weather has until recently been driven by the NAO and its close relative, the Arctic Oscillation (AO), both of which broadly produce a circumpolar airflow from west to east. But the newly identified Arctic Dipole pattern features anomalously high and low pressure systems - they are occurring and persisting where previously they did not.

"Now, with the Dipole, they have competition and it is having some strange affects on the climate of the Arctic and further afield," says Mason.

The open water in the Barents-Kara seas reaches its maximum extent in mid-September: during the Autumn, the research has found, it returns some of that heat back to the lower atmosphere, driving up air temperatures and thereby affecting pressure and atmospheric circulation patterns, which in return go on to cause further excessive summer ice-loss in subsequent years.

This potential influence - the 'B-K Effect' - has been analysed using a global atmospheric circulation model by Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Vladimir Semenov of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in a study submitted in November 2009 and recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

They found that the model responded in a non-linear fashion: rather than resulting in a warming over adjacent continents as might have been expected, a strong regional cooling was generated  within a certain range of sea-ice cover.

In the abstract, they state: "Here we show that anomalous decrease of wintertime sea-ice concentration in the Barents-Kara (B-K) seas could bring about extreme cold events like winter 2005-2006."

Changing climate models

Climate models may need to be updated to account for the readings observed. Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, writing on the Realclimate blog on December 14th 2010, said that, while Petoukhov and Seminov's findings sound plausible, "There is a limit to what they are able to describe in terms of local regional details, and it is reasonable to ask whether the response to changes in regional sea-ice cover is beyond the limitation of the global model."

The extremity of the NAO is measured by an index from negative to positive. Whilst 2009-10 caused major problems in parts of the UK and had an index just under -4.0, it was not as cold as the 1962-63 winter, which had a lower NAO index of -4.0.

That winter had a Central England Temperature (CET) of -0.3C. The CET for the equivalent period in 2009-10 was 2.4C.

If the NAO was the only control-mechanism with respect to the severity of our winters, then by rights 2009-10 should have been colder than 1962-3. But it wasn't, and the difference might be due to overall average global temperatures increasing. The jury is still out.

Climate trends are multidecadal affairs and the research discussed above is relatively recent. The influence of open sea water in the Arctic, where at one time there was extensive sea-ice, is clearly crucial to watch in the coming years. As with most matters of science, the truth will come out in due course.

Other references:
> Budikova, D. (2009): Role of Arctic sea ice in global atmospheric circulation: A review. Global Planet. Change, 68(3), 149–163.
> Honda, M., J. Inoue, and S. Yamane (2009): Influence of low Arctic sea-ice minima on anomalously cold Eurasian winters. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08707, doi:10.1029/2008GL037079.
> Overland, J.E., and M. Wang (2010): Large-scale atmospheric circulation changes associated with the recent loss of Arctic sea ice. Tellus, 62A, 1–9.

Permit to pollute sales should benefit households, not taxman

The new proposal from the Treasury to tax companies that introduce fossil fuels into the UK economy, which is at the heart of the current consultation on UK energy policy, has come under attack – by a group proposing that fuel supplier sales are controlled – but by a permit scheme that benefits the public, not the Treasury.

Under the Treasury's proposals, a single pensioner's fuel bill could rise by between 16% and 35% in 2020. Critics say that to compensate people for such bill increases, the cash should instead go to households.

The criticism comes from a group advocating Cap and Share, a policy measure which the Irish Government was giving consideration to trialling before that country's fiscal crisis. They call Cap and Share "a simple solution to climate change that is easy and relatively cheap to implement and puts cash in the hands of every citizen".

Just as with the Treasury's new proposal, Cap and Share argues that it's easier to cut down on the fossil fuels entering the economy than for each citizen to cut their individual use, and they think the 255 companies responsible should therefore pay for the right to pollute.

If they can be made to buy permits, as under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, and the government issues only sufficient permits to match the country’s target CO2 emissions, reducing them year on year, this provides the cap.

The 'Share' part of 'Cap and Share' entails that all households would each receive an equal share of the permits which they may then sell to the fossil fuel companies. This would put cash in their pockets to compensate them for higher energy prices.

In other words the proceeds of the Fossil Fuel Levy - at a projected average £30/tCO2 - would come to households, not the Treasury.

Richard Douthwaite (author of The Growth Illu$ion: How Economic Growth Has Enriched the Few, Impoverished the Many and Endangered the Planet) says that Cap and Share is based on the Commons principle, and assumes that everyone has an equal share in the atmosphere.

As the Carbon Trust knows from experience, the most popular and successful climate-friendly policies are those which also save or give businesses and householders money.

By contrast, explains Cap and Share spokesperson Brian Davey, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has seen allowances to pollute - carbon credits - given away to the big greenhouse gas-emitting companies, which they have been able to sell on and generate profits for themselves. In the case of the energy companies, they have also posted huge profits.

Davey and Douthwaite believe that on the other hand, if this benefit were split between every adult in the country, it would be both fair and popular.

Davey said, "With the perception that most climate change legislation is punitive and restricting freedom fuelling wider public scepticism of climate change, such a move by the Government could help swing public opinion back to favour the green economy."

Davey argues that the Treasury's proposal has not been thought through in its relationship to the EU ETS. "It is being made due to the failure of the ETS to provide sufficient stable incentives for the development of renewables. It's not just the low price of carbon but its volatility and unpredictability.

"However the criticism of the EU-ETS is muted and fudged. The result is that the proposal is to impose the scheme in addition to the ETS, but the interaction effects on an unreformed ETS are likely to be counterproductive.

"It is admitted in the Treasury document that the new scheme would likely lead to a fall in the demand for ETS permits and thus a fall in the ETS price but the implications of this are glossed over (in paragraph 5.24)," he continued. "Put bluntly, wWithout tackling the ETS, a rise in the UK carbon price may be matched by an offsetting fall in the European carbon price. What is needed is a revisit of the whole EU-ETS, which has been a complete disaster".

Carbon tax to hit electricity generators

A second effective 'carbon tax' is to be levied - in addition to the Carbon Reduction Commitment for large electricity users - this time targeting all companies that import fossil fuels into the economy.

The proposal, together with various ideas as to the level of the tax, comes in two linked consultations being conducted by the Treasury and DECC in a search for policies that will stimulate the investment necessary to meet the targets set by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and others for de-carbonising the economy and reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions.

The specific CCC target is a reduction in carbon-intensity of power generation to below 100gCO2/kWh by 2030. In 2009 this figure was around 490gCO2/kWh.

Ofgem has estimated that to achieve such a drastic reduction in nineteen years implies the investment of around £200bn in new generation, electricity networks and gas infrastructure.

Only reform of the electricity market can deliver this, DECC says. The consultation argues that such reform must include support for the price of carbon - the creation of a floor price - to provide long-term certainty for investors around the additional cost of running polluting plant.

This is an admission of the failure of the EU-ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) to deliver this support so far. Currently the price of carbon is remaining stubbornly below 15 Euros, and needs to be at least double this to stimulate investment. It is also volatile and unpredictable.

Supporting the price of carbon

The proposals state that from 1 April 2013 a 'carbon price support mechanism' will be introduced by applying the climate change levy (CCL) to all fossil fuels used in electricity generation and taxing their use and, in the case of oil, removing rebates.

According to HM Revenue and Customs, there are 255 of these companies, which break down as follows:

Energy product No. of registered suppliers
Electricity: 117
Gas: 71
Solid fuels: 36
LPG: 31

The Treasury says that the exact rates for the tax will take account of the commodities’ average carbon content and will be known as the ‘CCL carbon price support rates’. The consultations discuss different levels - from £20/tCO2 to £50/tCO2, with the preferred rate being £30/tCO2.

According to the Treasury's own reckoning, the only scenario that leads to the required carbon-intensity of power generation by 2030 is a carbon price support starting at £3/tCO2 on top of the prevailing EU ETS price in 2013, rising to target a combined carbon price (support plus EU ETS) of £40/tCO2 in 2020 and £70/tCO2 in 2030.

However this scenario also results in the highest rise in domestic energy bills. A single pensioner's bill would rise by 35% in 2020, compared to 16% if the starting support price was £1/tCO2, rising to £30/tCO2 in 2020. Adopting that scenario, however, leads to a carbon-intensity drop to only about 120gmCO2/kWh.

Other policies

DECC, in a linked consultation about the best policy context for the tax, offers four scenarios, of which it prefers a combined set of policy tools that include contracts for difference and carbon price support plus Emissions Performance Standards and a capacity mechanism. One reason for this is that "the [cash] flows from government to generators would be lower than without carbon price support."

An Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) would limit how much carbon the most carbon intensive power stations - coal - can emit, and encourage carbon capture and storage.

Long-term contracts for feed-in tariffs, a revised Renewables Obligation, much more low-carbon generation, and demand-management strategies also figure in the consultation as collectively being necessary to secure the targets.

Capacity payments would be introduced to encourage security of supply through the construction of flexible reserve plants, a policy which acknowledges the intermittent and inflexible nature of much low-carbon generation.

"The key factor in the effectiveness of the policy is the reaction of potential investors, and whether the mechanism is “bankable” for the purposes of raising finance for new low-carbon generation investments," says DECC.

Government removes 2.8 million from fuel poverty - by redefining it

The Government is proposing to change the definition of eligibility to its Warm Front scheme - which provides help to those on benefits in leaky homes - which will slash by 65% the number of households it has to help.

The Scheme - which has been so badly run that it is now temporarily closed to new applicants while it catches up with the backlog - aims to target those who need it most, such as the ill, elderly, and those with children on receipt of certain benefits.

The new proposals for eligibility introduce a thermal efficiency test for the home under which households can access Warm Front assistance only if they have a SAP rating of 55. Recipients would also need to be eligible for Cold Weather Payments - which means not just receiving Child Tax Credit (with an income of less than £16,040), as at present, but an award of Child Tax Credit that also includes an element for a disabled, or severely disabled, child or young person, or a child under the age of five.

Currently some 4.3 million households in England could qualify for assistance from Warm Front, of which 53% are believed to be fuel poor. But applying the new criteria would reduce the number to approximately 1.5 million households.

At a stroke, many households on low incomes with children will become ineligible for support. We also know that applying a benefits criteria to fuel poverty is problematic: an English House Condition Survey found that 57% of vulnerable households in fuel poverty do not claim the relevant benefits to qualify for the scheme, so would be ineligible despite needing help.

SAP - "Standard Assessment Procedure" - is a measure of how warm a building is, and the lower the number, the harder it is to heat. 100 is the most efficient. SAPs are related to Energy Performance Certificates (EPC) - a result below 55 will yield an 'E' rated certificate.

A SAP target of 65 to be achieved “wherever practicable” has been used in Warm Front since June 2005 (in Scotland the target figure is 60), so using a figure of 55 would capture fewer homes than before – another way for the Government to dodge its responsibilities.

One reason why this change is regressive is because the fuel prices used in the SAP calculation are normally fixed for 3 to 4 years. With the volatility in prices recently seen, this could mean that a home could need help when prices rise, without being considered eligible.

Another problem is that simply by installing a condensing boiler, 47 SAP points can be added - and a box ticked - but this measure alone would do nothing to improve insulation or remove draughts.

The Warm Front Scheme was criticised last year by the National Audit Office for being inefficient, and not well targeted. It said that over 635,000 households were helped between June 2005 and March 2008, "but as there were 1.9 million vulnerable households in 2006, this rate of progress will still leave many in fuel poverty in 2010".

Warm Front has experienced extremely high demand and diminishing budgets. In 2008-9, the last year for which statistics are yet available, the figure for homes helped was 233,594, down from 268,900 the previous year. Next year will see a reduction of 63,594 homes – 27% down - on an already very low figure.

Earlier this year, therefore, the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommended that "the Government to move resources away from the Warm Front Scheme towards a CESP-style, street-by-street approach as advocated earlier, and for the Warm Front Scheme to move towards providing an emergency service for the most vulnerable people in fuel poverty with urgent heating needs."

This proposed change is part of the Government's response to this recommendation, as is the new Warm Home Discount, under which, from April next year, energy companies will be required to give a discount on energy bills to more of their most vulnerable customers.

But these proposed new criteria have more to do with reducing Government spending than providing proper help to those who need it most.

Emissions credits surplus means developed countries need do nothing

Was Cancun a success? Well, countries, except brave Bolivia who dared to quote the science, did agree on something - which is an achievement of sorts.

But although progress was made on a number of issues to do with accounting for a nation's emissions and verifying their actions, none of the decisions made at Cancun are yet sufficient to lead to quantifiable changes.

According to Climate Action Tracker, which provides an independent peer-reviewed assessment of emission reduction proposals, the largest factors limiting emissions savings are:

Surplus emissions allowances
Countries will currently be able to sell and buy allowances originally meant for the period up to 2012 beyond that date. If so, this could mean that taken together, developed countries wouldn't need to do anything further to curb emissions until at least 2020. This would add about 3-9% relative to 1990 to the emission limits, and credits would still not be exhausted until 2025-2030.

Forests and land use
The options for accounting for the impact of a country's forests, land-based emissions, deforestation and reforestation are not finally agreed. By 2020 they could cause a nation's emissions to be 3% more than they would otherwise be relative to 1990.

Japan's get-out
Japan has a relatively ambitions 25% reduction target below 1990 by 2020, but it is likely to be met by offsetting in developing countries. As these actions would be counted by those countries, this would mean double-accounting.

American inaction
There's scant chance of federal greenhouse gas legislation in the USA. This means their 2050 target is unlikely to be met. Double counting of offsets is a problem for America and its partners too.

The gap between hope and action
With business carrying on as at present, global emissions by 2020 will be 56 billion tonnes CO2equiv/year. To limit warming to 2°C or 1.5°C, they would need to be in the range of 44-40 billion tonnes by 2020, a reduction of 22-29%, or 12-16 billion tonnes, at a rate of over two billion tonnes per year.

The promises made at Cancun lie in a range from low ambition to high. If the lowest were attained by 2020, there would be a reduction of just 3 billion tonnes, leading to an average global temperature raise that is highly unacceptable, of 3.2oC.

If the highest ambition targets were reached in 2020, this would only add another 1.3 billion tonnes of cuts, to 51.7 billion tonnes per year.

The gap is therefore between 8 and 12 billion tonnes per year in 2020.

How can the gap be closed?
The Climate Action Tracker has identified several options which would achieve more than enough to close the gap:

• The decision on how many emissions allowances could be carried over by nations after 2012 has yet to be taken. Therefor it is possible to eliminate new surplus emissions ‘built into’ 2020 reduction pledges; options for this are included in the negotiating text
• Remove crediting for forestry and land use that allow developed countries to increase their emissions
• Reduce international aviation and marine emissions up to half of the projected levels in 2020
• Increase ambition level of developed countries as a group - in line with the European Union's aspiration - to a 30% cut below 1990 in 2020 (without forestry credits)
• Ensure reductions of emissions in developing countries of 1.5 - 6.2 billion tonnes
• Halt deforestation by 2020.

Crucially, global long-term emission reductions are required as well: at least 50% below 1990 by 2050. The UK's Climate Change Committee advocated 60% last week. The Cancun climate conference did not include a goal for 2050.

Who's going to pay for new nuclear waste disposal?

The government has published a new consultation on the decommissioning of new nuclear power stations and what to do about all the new radioactive waste they'll create.

It specifies guidelines and principles for developers of new nuclear power stations in how to set up a Funded Decommissioning Programme. It underlines the principle that developers alone, not taxpayers, should pay for the decommissioning of plants and the storage and disposal of waste, which is covered under a separate consultation.

But the question is, will the cap on developers' costs be set high enough to avoid taxpayers one day footing some of the bill?

What does it cost now?

Existing nuclear waste is currently managed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Its 2010-11 budget is £2.8bn, of which £1.69 billion comes from the taxpayer via DECC. DECC's overall budget in this year is £2.9bn.

This means that the cost of managing existing radioactive waste is a staggering 58% of the Department's total expenditure. Because of its nature, this expenditure cannot, of course, be cut.

What will it cost in the future?

To avoid future waste adding to this bill, the Government says that a fund should be set up by developers to pay for new costs, and the consultations explain how the funds should be managed and what they should be used for.

The cost for each new power station is estimated to be about £1 billion. The question is, whether this estimate is sufficient, given the history of escalating costs in this area.

A parallel Waste Transfer Pricing Methodology explains how the cost of disposal will be determined, since the hypothetical (currently) Geological Disposal Facility has yet to be constructed. Rough costs for such a facility were estimated by the NDA a year ago, at around £20 billion, at current prices, but are dependent on the geology of the site.

The government expects that a cap will be set on the waste transfer price, but at a very high level - three times current cost estimates. But it's impossible to be certain that costs will not exceed this figure, so there will be an additional "risk free" to compensate the taxpayer for accepting this risk.

Companies interested in building new nuclear power stations have been lobbying the government furiously in an attempt to keep the cap amount down. But if the cap is set at the wrong level, the taxpayer will end up footing the extra bill.

The first plant is expected to be built by EDF and Centrica by 2018. However, on Tuesday, Alistair Philips-Davies, energy supply director at Scottish and Southern Energy, said he was now unsure whether this schedule could be maintained. "Often these things are a little bit more expensive than you think and come in a little bit later than you think," he told a committee of MPs, raising some wry smiles.

The current position held by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), which advises the government on this matter, is that "a range of issues, including social, political and ethical issues, arising from a deliberate decision to create additional wastes should be considered as an integral part of the new build public assessment process."

These issues are not covered in the consultation, however.

There is also a new consultation on the Strategy for the Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste from the Non-Nuclear Industry in the United Kingdom. This includes waste from hospitals, the pharmaceutical sector, research and education establishments.

Environmental crime pays....

An article I wrote for BusinessGreen last week...

Is the government giving corporate criminals an easy ride?

How to slash a nation's carbon emissions and compensate its citizens

This great video shows why Cap and Share makes more sense than cap-and-trade or a carbon tax!

Loft and cavity wall insulation figures down

Figures have been released that show that the number of cavity wall and loft insulations in Great Britain is falling.

Cavity wall insulations in the last quarter fell from 128,000 to 95,000, a fall of 25%, and a staggering 45% below those installed in the same quarter last year.

Also, the number of professional loft installations fell by 32%, and is 38% below the number installed in the same quarter last year.

DECC has published the figures, which also show that at the start of July 2010:
• 12.3 million homes had loft insulation of at least 125mm
• 10.3 million homes had cavity wall insulation.

In Great Britain 23.2 million homes have lofts and 18.6 million have cavity walls. This means that 47% of eligible homes do not have sufficient loft insulation and 45% have no cavity wall insulation.

What the figures do not reveal is the level of effectiveness of the installations. Those which the author of this article has seen leave much to be required, i.e. gaps that mean that their ability to keep heat in is severely curtailed.

This implies that they cannot be relied upon to generate the carbon savings that will be assumed in government figures.

Moreover, the figure of 125mm for loft insulation is not sufficient. Current building regulations require a roof to have a thermal resistance U-value (a measure of their insulation value) of at least 0.13W/m2K, which would typically be achieved with 300mm of loft insulation.

DECC says that a threshold of 125mm is used in these statistics since homes with less than this would expect to see significant improvements in energy efficiency from a top-up.

It also says in its Departmental Business Plan 2011-15 that this measure will be one of its key impact indicators to track progress on insulating homes.

But if it really wants to show the scale of work required and monitor improvements, it should be using its own Building Regs figure of 300mm of loft insulation.

In addition, the width of cavities in walls varies considerably. Just because a wall has cavity insulation does not mean that it meets any building regulation requirements for thermal resistance of outer walls.

The figures are obtained via surveys from the English Housing Survey and equipment for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Most of the statutory work has been carried out through the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target requirements. Only a small proportion has come from Warmfront, which targets the fuel poor. DIY loft insulation is currently done at around twice the rate of professional work.

Are Display Energy Certificates worth the paper they're printed on?

An analysis of Display Energy Certificates (DECs) released under environmental freedom of information requests, has shown that there is considerable room for improvement in assessors' performance.

The UK has two forms of mandatory energy performance certification, thanks to the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive: the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and the Display Energy Certificate (DEC).

DECs are mandatory for all public buildings over 1000m2 that are regularly visited by members of the public. In recent months, the Government has been sounding out extending DECs to cover public buildings over 250m2 that are also open to the public.

This is a good time, then, to look at how effective the issuance of certificates so far has been.

BSRIA (a construction services testing and research consultancy owned by The Building Services Research and Information Association) has been looking at the statistics behind 28,259 completed DEC assessments made up until November 2009.

The figures were made available through Environmental Information Legislation at the request of the BBC. (Landmark manages and maintains the database from EPC and DECs on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and this data is not made publicly available.)

The results

BSRIA says that their analysis reveals a high number of buildings “without effective energy management". They question the quality of the data being gathered for the assessments, looking in particular at how irregular results, such as buildings given a rating of zero (supposedly signifying a perfect score (or 500 or more (supposedly signifying extremely poor energy management) can reveal whether information is being gathered sensibly.

They say “These high value results are highly questionable. The precise cause of the extreme data in those specific assessments clearly requires further investigation" and suggest "that assessors do not understand the CLG guidance documents".

The average building is intended to have a result of around 100 – that is the way the certificates were designed. However, the average result is 113, a worse performance.

A result of 200 is given if insufficient data is available to obtain a certificate; in other words it is assumed that the building has a poor performance. 3001 buildings are given this operational rating, and BSRIA says “this is especially worrying when energy efficiency and cost savings should be a high priority for all public buildings".

They conclude: “It could be argued that there are problems throughout the entire data set. Without the means of validating all the data, it is very misleading to aggregate the consumption data into something meaningful - it simply has too many distortions within it."

CLG says it has recognised the shortcomings and is working with accreditation providers to identify the problems and to devise solutions.

DECs do not currently take into account process energy, and BSRIA also advocates that it should be included in future.

The body also recommends that the certificates should record building occupancy levels and building age, so it could be possible to examine and compare buildings by age.

The introduction of DECs has brought energy consumption in buildings to more prominent attention, which is a good thing. But there is clarly much room for improvement.

The fact that DECs are renewed on annual basis can provide building occupiers, owners and operators with a simple visual guide for a year on year comparison of performance.

This should encourage pro-active energy management decisions to be implemented in a bid to improve energy performance and save money - these are pubic buildings, after all, and it is taxpayers' cash that can be saved.

UK gave dead children's body parts to American nuclear researchers

The UK Government has apologised for letting parts of the dead bodies of nuclear industry workers and thousands of children be removed for analysis without telling their families.

The events happened in hospitals and UK nuclear facilities from 1955 to 1992.

An inquiry was set up in 2007 by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Alistair Darling. It was undertaken by Michael Redfern QC, who has just published his findings.

The Inquiry looked at the processes and practices surrounding the analysis of human tissue from many nuclear installations, not just Sellafield, including Springfields, Capenhurst, Winfrith, Dounreay and Aldermaston.

Project Sunshine

The report says that during the 1950s and 1960s the Medical Research Council oversaw research measuring levels of Strontium-90 in human bone - femurs and vertebrae - obtained at post mortem. This national survey, involving over 6000 people, most of them children, had nothing to do with nuclear workers.

Information gained was in some cases set to America, to be included in a research project named - in some kind of sick joke - Project Sunshine. This study, initiated in the US in 1953, received vertebrae taken in the UK from 43 individuals who died between 1955 and 1958.

The Inquiry found that one doctor involved, Dr Loutit, in 1959, found difficulty in obtaining adequate numbers of samples, which led him to offer a modest payment - although none was ever made. Bones were "converted to ash" for analysis. The last paper on this topic was published in 1973, describing results obtained from bone taken from people who had died in 1970.

Families’ views were not obtained as required under the Human Tissue Act 1961. The report says that "All the pathologists who gave evidence to the Inquiry had been profoundly ignorant of the law under which they had performed post mortem examinations", which "arose from deficiencies in medical education and training".

As part of Project Sunshine, 91 pregnant British women were injected with radioactive iodine in the 1960s and a further 37 women who were due to undergo medically-approved abortions had been involved in a separate series of tests to monitor the effect of radioactive iodine in the foetus.

The experiments were conducted in Aberdeen, Hammersmith and Liverpool. "In a separate series of experiments, between 1957 and 1970, body parts from an estimated 6,000 corpses had been removed for tests without the permission of the next of kin and sent for examination at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment," claimed a 1995 UK Channel 4 documentary 'True Stories: Deadly Experiments'.

Sellafield workers' body parts removed

Organs from 64 former Sellafield workers were also removed by pathologists and taken for analysis at Sellafield between 1960 and 1991.

In addition, organs taken from 12 workers at other nuclear sites were analysed at, or at the request of, Sellafield, giving a total of 76. The Inquiry also found evidence of other individuals whose organs were analysed at Sellafield.

The report highlights unacceptable working practices within the nuclear industry, NHS pathology services and the coronial service, saying "there was a lack of ethical consideration of the implications of the research work the industry was doing; that there was limited supervision undertaken; and that relationships between pathologists, coroners and the Sellafield medical officers became too close."

Investigations also found that "organs from a small number of former Ministry of Defence employees were removed for analysis".

Coroners' failures

Coroners did not communicate with families, who were left in the dark. There was no attempt to explain to them why the coroner had ordered a post mortem or what it would entail.

They often failed to read post mortem reports. As a result, when the reports indicated organs had been inappropriately removed, they remained in ignorance and took no action.

The report acknowledges that these events occurred a number of decades ago, and puts them within the context of the times and current practice.

Government Apology

Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change told Parliament: “I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt regret and to apologise to the families and relatives of those involved. I hope that the publication of today’s report goes some way toward providing the closure they deserve.

“The events described in the Inquiry should never have happened in the first place. We have learned the lessons of the past. The law on human tissue has been reviewed, and there is now a rigorous regulatory system in place, in which both the public and professionals have confidence."

A Redfern Inquiry helpline has been set up to help people who think their relative may have been involved in one of the studies covered by the Redfern Inquiry. The telephone number is 0800 555 777 and minicom number is 0800 887 777.

Huhne promised this would never happen again. He said that the Secretary of State for Justice intends to take forward several of the provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which address some of the concerns. "Although the Government is not proceeding with the role of a Chief Coroner" - due to the cuts - "we intend to transfer many of the intended leadership functions of the post to the Lord Chancellor, or possibly the senior judiciary", he said.

"The Inquiry has sought and received assurances from all of the key nuclear industry stakeholders that the practice of retaining organs or tissue at autopsy has ceased," he added.

The Results

Examination of tissues looked into the prevalence of various isotopes including those of plutonium. The Report says that a fair amount of the research was not scientifically valid, for various reasons, not all of which could have been known at the time.

If it can be believed given the notorious secrecy of the industry, the report says, "In many cases the levels of [radioactive] activity in the samples were towards or even below the lower limit of detection. Results are generally a few hundred millibecquerels: one mBq represents one single atomic decay every 1,000 seconds (16.7 minutes)."

The Report recommends that the data collected from all the research, "should be made available, anonymised, for use in appropriate research".

West Cumbria not ruled out as nuclear waste dump

In a week that saw the European Commission approve underground burial as a way to dispose of high-level nuclear waste, Defra published a geological report on the suitability of West Cumbria for this kind of geological disposal.

The study looks at the Copeland and Allerdale areas, where Allerdale, Copeland and Cumbria County Councils have set up the West Cumbria Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) Partnership to ensure that people living in the area are involved in making an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with a facility siting process.

This area is the only one in the country to have come forward as a candidate for taking nuclear waste.

The study's conclusions are ambiguous, not ruling out the suitability of the area, but advocating further investigation. It rules out parts of the West of Cumbria, but raises the possibility that part of the Lake District could be a potential store.

This was condemned by local activists against the dump. Senior energy campaigner Ben Ayliffe said the report meant “almost anywhere” in the Lake District could become a dump for the UK’s radioactive waste.

The MRWS Partnership said they needed more detailed investigations before there could be any “real idea" of where the site could be located, if anywhere.

Minister of State for Energy Charles Hendry said: “We must progress implementation of geological disposal, the long-term sustainable solution for dealing with radioactive waste.

“The report, commissioned from the British Geological Survey, is a step forward. The geological disposal facility site selection process is based on voluntarism and partnership and these results do not present any reason why West Cumbria cannot continue to consider whether or not to participate in that process.”

The exclusion criteria, defined by two independent groups of experts, mainly examine whether there is any risk of the security of the dump being compromised in the future by anyone seeking to extract resources or the need to protect the quality of exploitable groundwater.

If the Partnership chose to proceed further, increasingly detailed geological and other criteria assessment would have to be undertaken.


Keekle Head, a 70 hectare former opencast coal mine near Whitehaven, Cumbria, which Endecom, a company owned by SITA UK, has bought to use for the disposal of low and very low level radioactive construction and demolition waste.

California's success against Big Oil still faces a hurdle

Californians voted on Tuesday in favour of a low carbon future, but against environmental taxes.

While voting in the American mid-term elections, they also defeated a measure called Proposition 23, a move by oil companies to roll back a piece of progressive legislature - AB 32 - the state passed in recent times in favour of clean energy and climate protection.

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune described the victory as follows: “Despite more than $10 million spent on deceptive advertising campaign funded by out-of-state oil barons — more than $8 Million from Texaco and Valero alone - California voters took a stand for clean energy – not in spite of a major economic downturn, but because of it."

The Proposition was defeated by over 60% to under 40%, in the first public referendum in history on clean energy policy.

It represents a triumph for a coalition that stood up to the oil industry, which involved leaders from environmental, health, labour, business, clean technology and national security sectors, not mentioned community groups and faith-based organisations.

One of the coalition's unlikely members, former US Secretary of State George Schultz, said, “This is the new face of the clean energy economy. This broad coalition will continue to push for California to be on the cutting edge in building the new energy economy”.

The Los Angeles Times said the "oily club" from Texas was sent packing through being outspent and out-organised, campaign-wise by wealthy philanthropists and celebrity backers.

Chief architect of the original global warming law in 2006, and outgoing Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was jubilant at the result.

However, voters also passed Proposition 26, which makes it harder to enforce global warming laws by undermining the principle that polluters should pay for the harm they cause. It is likely to do this in three ways:

1. by repealing two laws passed this year that fund product stewardship programmes to prevent hazardous chemicals and bulky products from ending up in landfill

2. by decreasing funding for 'green chemistry', which aims to control exposure to hazardous chemicals

3. by making it harder to implement the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), whose goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through carbon trading.

California and carbon trading

Provided that it can get around this limitation, this act would set up a system very similar to the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

It would recognise offset credits originating from sectors in developing countries, including Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and other sector-based credits, so that the state can join international sector-based carbon trading schemes.

California's economy is the largest of any state in the USA and one of the worlds top 10 economies.

Offset credits allow private companies to meet a portion of their obligation to reduce emissions by buying lower-cost emissions reductions generated elsewhere.

Sector-based offset credits require all actors within a sector, for instance all forest owners or all steel manufacturers, to be included in a developing country’s emissions reduction strategy.

This approach differs from the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) that recognises one-off, project-based offset credits.

California’s approach is consistent with key design features in the current international climate negotiations. Its cap-and-trade program would therefore play a huge part globally, and help to define what constitutes environmentally sound emissions reductions efforts in developing countries.

Tea Party and the environment

Elsewhere in the elections, in Florida, Tea Party candidate Mario Rubio made it to the Senate, on a ticket which supports continued drilling for oil offshore, only months after the disaster that was the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

But in Nevada, Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle, who is a climate change denialist, was beaten to the Senate by Democrat incumbent Harry Reid.