How WW1 Killed a Dream of a Solar-Powered World

The world is marking the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I. This was not only the bloodiest war the world has ever seen but it saw the start of the West's involvement in carving up the Middle East and interfering in its politics for the sake of oil. We are still mired in the bloody consequences of this.

WW1 also marked the end of the world's first solar power station, which was operating only for one year, in Egypt, before the outbreak of hostilities caused it to be abandoned.

As I explain in my book Solar Technology,  a Swedish-American inventor and mechanical engineer, John Ericsson, working for the British and Americans, pursued pioneering solar work in Egypt, a British colony then, where the first parabolic trough – and the first utility scale solar technology – was developed as long ago as 1883.



John Ericsson’s design focused sunlight from a curved silvered window glass surface (called a heliostat) onto an 11-foot long iron tube central receiver to generate steam to mechanically drive a Stirling engine. The heliostat was 16 feet wide and 11 feet tall, and tracked the sun across a north–south axis. It had a maximum output of 3 horsepower (2.24kW) and was able to pump 500 gallons (2,273 litres) of water per minute.

Inspired by this, American engineer and inventor Frank Shuman commissioned the first large-scale solar power generator in Maadi, near Cairo, in 1913. Schuman dreamt of a completely solar powered world. It was theoretically possible then, as indeed it is now.

With a solar collector area of 1240m², his array powered a pump that irrigated elevated farmland with water from the River Nile.



The world's first solar power plant in Cairo 1913.

This consisted of five rows of parabolic mirrors with a total output of 88kW. This power station was more cost-effective than a similarly sized coal-based plant would have been at the time, and would have recouped its investment in four years. However, despite its success, it was only used for one year, as the First World War intervened and the Turks battled the British for control of the nearby Suez Canal.

WW1 and oil



The location of the oil fields in 1914.

This war began the worldwide predominance of oil as an energy source, as one of its causes was competition for control of the Middle Eastern oilfields. By the end of the war, British forces had secured the entire oilfields of Mesopotamia in a new League Protectorate called Iraq. This put a provisional end to any attempts of pursuing the development of solar energy on a large scale.

The British feared that the Ottomans might attack and capture the Middle East (and later Caspian) oil fields. Their Royal Navy depended upon oil from the petroleum deposits in southern Persia, which the British-controlled Anglo-Persian Oil Company owned the exclusive rights to exploit throughout the Persian Empire except in the provinces of Azerbaijan, Ghilan, Mazendaran, Asdrabad and Khorasan. To secure the oil, the British even worked with Russian Communist troops to prevent the Turkish leader Enver Pasha's goal of establishing an independent Transcaucasia.

Oil was already the lifeblood of the British Empire as the British Navy had converted from coal to oil a few years previously. British and French trucks and aircraft also ran on oil.

On November 6 1914, the day after war was declared on the Ottoman Empire, the British landed ships at Abadan, on the shores of Iraq, with a mission to protect the oilfields and make sure production was not affected. Both the French and the British had invested much money in developing these oil fields.

In March 1915 General Townsend took 30,000 troops up the Tigris to attack the Turkish army and protect the oilfields. He succeeded and continued to march onwards with the intention of attacking and capturing Baghdad. By November, 25 miles away, they battled the 25,000 Turkish army for four days. They lost, and retreated to the coast where they were beseiged for five months before 13,000 troops surrendered.

But the British hatched another plan. They captured Baghdad eventually, on March 11 1917, having marched across Palestine from the Suez Canal. The French and British sealed an agreement to share the oil and protect the oil line from Basra.

After the war, agreements were made, mostly between between France and Britain, which resulted in the carving of the old Ottoman Empire into artificial nations - Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Syria.

The struggle is documented in the film "Blood and Oil - The Middle East in World War I" (below), which examines how this conflict laid the foundation for all the wars, coups, revolts and military interventions in the Middle East ever since, all ultimately on the need for oil.







Oil also figured in a major conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the German Empire at the strategic port of Batumi on the Black Sea and Baku on the Caspian Sea, with the arrival of German Caucasus Expedition. This was established in the formerly Russian Transcaucasia around early 1918 during the Caucasus Campaign. Its prime aim was to secure oil supplies for Germany and stabilize a nascent pro-German Democratic Republic of Georgia.

The century of conflict over oil

Oil was the black gold that motivated, and still motivates the West to constantly interfere in the Middle East, without taking into account its widely diverse population, without seeking to understand the complexity of its many cultures and ethnic composition. This is well told in William Engdahl's book `A Century of War'.

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab population was betrayed by the British who were their allies at the time. The British and French agreed a secret treaty to partition the Middle East between them and the British promised via the Balfour Declaration to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

It not until 1947 that the UK withdrew its forces from Iraq.

As long ago as the 1870s, visionary solar pioneers such as Augustin Mouchot (right) foresaw the time when the coal would run out and began to develop alternatives that could deliver the same benefits from solar power.

Mouchot, demonstrating a solar powered device that made ice at the Universal Exposition in Paris in 1878, said:

"Eventually industry will no longer find in Europe the resources to satisfy its prodigious expansion... Coal will undoubtedly be used up. What will industry do then?"

It is a great tragedy that the Earth's crust contains so much fossil fuel; not just because of global warming, but because of the millions upon millions of lives that have been lost in the wars that have been fought over access to oil in the last 100 years.

On 6 August 1882 this printing press produced copies of Le Chaleur Solaire (Solar Heat) by Augustin Mouchot, a newspaper that he created in the Tuileries Gardens, Paris, for the festival of L’Union Francaises de la Jeuenesse. It printed 500 copies an hour, using solar thermal technology.

The competition between nation states for access to these resources has time and again over the last century brought violent conflict, suffering, widespread destruction and loss of life. The presence of oil, coal and gas in a territory has been a curse as much as a blessing.

Nowadays, the phrase ‘energy security’ is being used by those who want to see local, sustainable sources of clean energy replace dirty fossil fuels. This is because the sun, wind and other renewable sources of energy are available abundantly, everywhere on the planet, with no need for conflict over their use.

Looking at the history of solar power it is clearly obvious that its development has suffered as a result of the abundance of fossil fuels. The world’s economy is currently predicated upon their use. Despite all the scientific evidence of the imminence of catastrophic climate change as a result of our continued use of these fuels, the companies and economies which rely on them are as enthusiastic as ever to exploit them.

Humanity – or its leaders – are now faced with a clear choice: whether to stick with the status quo and vested interests that aggressively promote as inevitable a continued dependence on fossil fuels; or whether to accelerate the deployment, research and development into solar and other renewable, sustainable technologies and practices.

The potential of these technologies is completely clear and proven. The scientific case for the likelihood with business-as-usual of a runaway greenhouse effect, has been conclusively established. The stakes could not be higher and the choice more stark.

How Sustainable is a 'Sustainable Building' in Practice?

The first major review has been published of pioneering development One Brighton's performance against its challenging 2020 One Planet targets and show where it has succeeded and where it has failed over its sustainability targets.

One Brighton is a development by Crest Nicholson BioRegional Quintain LLP in Brighton, the coastal city south of London which has set itself the goal of being a one planet city.

The One Planet Brighton policy was decided on 18 April 2013 in Brighton & Hove by the local authority. As an evolution of BioRegional's One Planet Living philosophy the local authority approved a Sustainability Action Plan that would use BioRegional's methodology and embody the city's existing initiatives and climate change strategy, to be carried out by a wide-ranging partnership.

In this context, BioRegional worked with developers Crest Nicholson to develop an example of how this might work in practice with a development called One Brighton. This contains 172 residential units and 10,000 sq ft of office and community space on a former locomotive manufacturing site. The 0.39 ha parcel of land is close to Brighton train station.

The development has achieved an ‘Excellent’ rating under EcoHomes, a now-defunct national sustainability standard assessment for new homes, and was considered to be “Zero Carbon” under this assessment. Construction started in 2008 and the first residents moved in during 2009.

A post-occupancy assessment has now been completed to see exactly how well the development has performed against expectations. Was it really zero carbon? On the answers to this type of question hinges the performance of future buildings and developers should take note.

The developers are relieved to find out that One Brighton has significantly reduced lifetime greenhouse gas emissions, when compared to the average UK home, by 60%. However, its current emissions performance is not yet achieving design targets: its ‘as built’ lifetime CO₂e emissions are 53% higher than those of the
‘as designed’ model.

The gap is mainly because of the intermittent availability of the wood-pellet (biomass) burning boiler which supplies space heating and hot water. This has met approximately 30% of building’s heat and hot water demand, the remainder being supplied by natural gas.

If BioRegional’s target of meeting nine tenths of the building’s heat demand from biomass is achieved, One Brighton’s overall lifecycle carbon savings would be 78% lower than the average UK home’s (UK per capita CO₂e emissions = 9,122 kg/yr in 2011). This would be in line with achieving the (near) Zero Carbon target for operational emissions by 2020.

But under this assessment it's a good job that the EcoHomes standard is now defunct since it was clearly erroneous in its judgement.

One Brighton's sustainability features

Right: features of the building envelope and operational inputs affecting carbon emissions.
One Brighton was designed and is managed in a way to facilitate sustainable lifestyles. Design and management initiatives include:

• Only a very small number of parking spaces for disabled car users and shared car club vehicles, encouraging low levels of car ownership and use;
• Food-growing space on rooftop terraces, facilities for taking in deliveries of ‘veg boxes’ to individual apartments and a vegetarian café;
• Recycling and waste disposal initiatives (including the on-site in-vessel composting system for green and food waste).

The construction used a ‘green concrete’ frame containing blast furnace slag and an exterior wall made up of highly insulating clay blocks fired at low temperatures. Both features helped to reduce the building’s embodied carbon emissions, which came in 25% lower than for the average UK home.

Developer Crest Nicholson BioRegional Quintain set up an energy supply company (ESCo) for One Brighton to purchase electricity entirely generated from renewable sources. All owners/tenants sign an energy supply agreement with the ESCo. All of the electricity sold by the ESCo is backed by UK ‘Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin’ (REGO) certificates issued by energy industry regulator Ofgem. This was a main plank of the near Zero Carbon strategy for the building devised at the outset.

One Brighton key lessons

The results of the one-year post-occupancy study have allowed comparison with the expected performance over its lifetime with actual performance to a limited extent. The report is honest about the conclusions, which also form recommendations for other developers attempting a similar kind of project:

• 67% of the buildings ‘as designed’ life cycle GHG emissions are attributed to embodied emissions and 33% are attributed to operational CO2e.
• Largest embodied impacts come from concrete in the floor slab, plasterboard and recurring impacts associated with painting and carpets.
• Largest operational impacts associated with energy consumption (REGO very low carbon grid electricity scenario) are due to gas backup for hot water and for the emissions associated with water supply and waste water treatment.
• Considering the model under a standard PAS2050 scenario (using UK average grid intensity) than the dominant emissions from electricity use come from appliances, cooking, white goods, refrigeration and MVHR (mechanical ventilation with heat recovery).

Pooran Desai, BioRegional ‘s cofounder who led the organisation’s involvement in One Brighton, said: “We’re really encouraged by the findings of this LCA, which shows the very low carbon fundamentals of this building are sound. But we are working to get greatly improved performance from the biomass boiler, to reduce operational emissions significantly and take us to our 2020 target.”

The life cycle analysis was conducted by eTool, whose director, Patrick Hermon, observed: "An LCA never fails to raise interesting design questions surrounding not only material selection but operational energy, water, transport, waste and functionality. This LCA of One Brighton is no exception, particularly thanks to the transparency of the developers and post occupancy monitoring - an important step forwards in closing the performance gap.

"The LCA will also be compliant with international standard EN15978. This methodology (also broadly used in BREEAM LCA credit criteria) standardises the LCA process and verifies the environmental performance benefits claimed within the LCA given the upstream data used, the methodologies applied and the documentation provided. A complete EN15978 report will be completed very soon."

It concentrates mainly on factors associated with the building itself, including materials, assembly, maintenance, transport of materials, operational energy use and end of life disposal. But there are other factors that would significantly influence the total LCA CO₂e emissions of the designs, to which the developers should take at least some responsibility, including:

• Personal transport of the occupants;
• Impacts associated with foods, goods and services (purchases made by residents, clothes leisure activities etc);
• Impacts associated with occupant waste and recycling;
• Embodied impacts of non permanent building fixtures such as furniture and appliances;
• Embodied impacts relating to building planning and sales.

These factors listed are considered out of scope of the LCA but nevertheless warrant declaration.

The main conclusion in general terms is that developers should beware of declaring that a development is zero carbon, and that there continue to be difficulties in achieving anything like this in practice. All credit to the developers in this instance to taking the trouble to examine their building's performance. If only more developers were to do the same.

Updated standards on the way for Environmental Management

A milestone has been reached in the development of a new draft of the standard many city administrations will be familiar with for helping to ensure the environmental quality of their infrastructure and operations: ISO 14001 for Environmental Management Systems (EMS).

The first formal draft produced by the expert committee tasked with bringing the standard up-to-date describes the potential requirements of the revised version of ISO 14001 and gives an indication of what might be included in the final version of the standard scheduled, which will be published in one year's time. The last draft dates from 2004. The committee is composed of representatives of national standards organisations from up to 91 countries.

ISO standards 14000 through to 14064 plus ISO 19001 constitute a family of standards related to environmental management that exists to help organizations minimize how their operations (processes, etc.) negatively affect the environment, comply with applicable laws, regulations, and other environmentally oriented requirements, plus put in place a methodology to continually improve management. The standards are voluntary.



Its aim is to set out the criteria for an environmental management system (EMS), providing a framework that a company or organization can follow to set up an effective EMS. It can be used by any organization that wants to improve resource efficiency, reduce waste, and drive down costs, and is used in many public administrations and their suppliers as a condition of procurement contracts.

Using ISO 14001 can provide assurance to management and employees as well as external stakeholders that environmental impact is being measured and improved.

ISO 14001 is currently being reviewed. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has identified the following emerging changes to ISO 14001 as a result of the revision:

1. Strategic Environmental Management
2. Leadership
3. Protecting the environment
4. Environmental performance
5. Life-cycle thinking
6. Communication
7. Documentation

Strategic Environmental Management
There is a new requirement to understand the context of the organisation implementing the standard in order to factor in relevant external and internal issues. Particular focus is on the needs and expectations of interested parties that can affect, or be affected by, the organisation. In this context the organisation should identify risks associated with threats and opportunities, significant environmental aspects and compliance obligations and determine actions to address them within the EMS.

Leadership: Commitment to environmental management
A new clause has been added with specific responsibilities for top management to demonstrate their leadership and commitment to environmental management. This is because having senior management buy in is a surefire way to ensure the policies become embedded in the organisation.

From prevention to protection
Environmental policy adopted by organisations should include a commitment to the “protection of the environment”. There is no definition about this but it includes “prevention of pollution” and other commitments such as sustainable resource use, climate change mitigation and adaptation, protection of biodiversity and ecosystems, etc.

Improving environmental performance
The emphasis is now on improving performance related to the management of environmental aspects. The organisation shall determine criteria to evaluate its environmental performance, using appropriate indicators.

Life-cycle thinking
Organisations will need to extend their control and influence to the environmental impacts from raw material acquisition/generation to end-of-life treatment. This does not imply a requirement to carry out a life-cycle assessment, but it is obviously advantageous to do so in order to maximise resource efficiency and minimise costs, wastage, etc.

Communication
Equal emphasis on external and internal communications has been added. The decision to communicate externally is retained by the organisation but taking into account its compliance obligations.

Documentation
The term “documented information”, is used instead of “documents” and “records”. The organisation has the flexibility to determine when “procedures” are needed.

Today there are over 300,000 organisations around the world implementing the standard and you might be surprised to learn that China is one of the most enthusiastic holder of certificates. In 2012 the top three countries for the total number of certificates issued were China, Japan and Italy, while the top three for growth in the number of certificates were China, Spain and Italy.

That year experienced a growth of 9% (+ 23,887) in the issuance of certificates, in 167 countries, nine more than in the previous year.

My books:

• Energy Management in Buildings, and
• Energy Management in Industry,

are both designed to help with reaching the related standard ISO 50001 for energy management. Click on the links for more information.

Radical Carbon Offsetting: A New idea To Finance Climate Action

Last time I wrote about my despair at the idea that global leaders can ever agree to effectively slow or even reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and save their peoples from the catastrophic effects of serious climate change.

I suggested that the only way to avert disaster this would be to pay fossil fuel companies to leave the gas, oil and coal in the ground because as long as it is profitable to remove it, they will do so. Just as countries with valuable rainforests need to be paid not to fell them, so companies whose profits rest upon the extraction of fossil fuels would demand to be compensated for not doing so.

The bottom line is that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have continued to increase regardless of any international negotiations. The challenge for Paris 2015 is to find an agreeable legal framework that every nation can sign up to that is actually effective. It does not matter what people say; only the measured results count. Given that by 2020, when any legally binding agreement takes force, we will have passed the point at which emissions can be limited to 450 ppm, it will become necessary not only to reduce emissions but also to remove carbon from the atmosphere in order to make the future safe for the majority of the human population. That is why I have come up with this proposal.

The solution I'm proposing I am calling radical carbon offsetting. Conventional carbon offsetting involves paying someone to invest in a renewable energy project. A prime example of this is the Clean Development Mechanism associated with the Kyoto Protocol, a key criteria of which is that any power generation project financed must be additional to those which would have happened anyway. But key areas of doubt have always been about whether any project can truly be additional, and whether the provision of power always leads to a thirst for more power – which may not be renewably supplied.

Radical carbon offsetting, by contrast, involves capturing carbon from the atmosphere and putting it in a place where it cannot escape, at least for the foreseeable future. Radical carbon offsetting schemes would permit the extraction of fossil fuels providing that an adequate and equivalent amount of carbon was removed from the atmosphere to that which will be released by the fossil fuels' combustion.

Fossil fuel companies would finance radical carbon offsetting schemes involving technologies some of which are traditional and some of which are currently in development and expensive but which, when they achieve scale, would be cost competitive. They would help accelerate their route to market.

Removing atmospheric carbon 

Removing atmospheric carbon at scale is the only way that the current rate of increase of concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can be reduced and perhaps even reversed so that it may reach again the safe limit of 350 ppm which it was around the middle of the last century. Currently it is at 400 ppm and the international negotiations that are ongoing are designed to limit the maximum concentration to 450 ppm, at which it is alleged global average temperature rises would peak at 2°C.

During the Eocene geological period between 56 and 34 million years ago atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was up to 4000 ppm. There were no ice caps and the sea level was much higher than today. The means by which it reduced to 350ppm, enabling human life to flourish, was, according to paleoceanographer and climatologist Professor Paul Pearson, through the carbonisation of calcium to create limestone. But this took millions of years.

What other, faster, techniques are there for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? Below I list a few so that you can see the potential and the wide variety of opportunities that exist:

Techniques for removing atmospheric carbon 

Building with timber

Simply building with timber creates a market for forest products and encourages their plantation. Provided that the trees are harvested when mature and not allowed to decay (emitting methane) then they will have absorbed a significant amount of atmospheric carbon. Using the timber in construction then locks away that carbon in the building fabric for at least the lifetime of the building. If we consider Tudor architecture and how many Tudor buildings survive today, we can see that timber is a durable construction material, so this lifetime can be long. And it's not just timber. Many building materials exist which are made from plants that will have absorbed atmospheric carbon, including forms of insulation, cladding, sheeting, flooring and so on.

Zero or negative carbon concrete

Concrete accounts for around 5-8 % of total CO₂ emissions in the form of greenhouse gases, making it the third highest producer of CO₂ after transport and energy generation. A major disadvantage of concrete is its large carbon footprint, one tonne of Portland cement resulting in the emission of approximately one tonne of CO₂. In conventional cement manufacture the majority of the CO₂ is released from the conversion of limestone (CaCO₃) to lime (CaO).

Whilst there are several low carbon cement alternatives in development, only two actually absorb atmospheric carbon. These are Hemcrete and magnesium silicate cement.

Building with timber and hemcrete. Courtesy Lime Technologies.

Hempcrete, a hemp-lime composite, is sold by Oxfordshire-based Hemcrete Projects. Hemp produces a very strong fibre which is used to bind the breathable lime to create a concrete-like product. The carbon locked up in the hemp compensates for carbon produced during lime manufacture, resulting in a zero-carbon building product which is excellent at regulating temperature and humidity inside buildings. The company has combined it with hemp-based insulation and wooden frames to create two products, Hembuild – used to build the wall of a building - and Hemclad, used for cladding timber frames – that can be manufactured off-site and quickly installed during construction. Both Hembuild and Hemclad products use a layer of Hemcrete on the inside, and a layer of hemp insulation on the outside, combining thermal inertia and insulation in a single product. Together they create a kit that can be used to construct a negative carbon building.

Hemcrete does not have the same tensile or resistive strength as Portland cement, but can be used for small buildings such as houses. It could not be used for the foundations of large buildings, roads, etc., so a different product will be needed. This would instead be cement made from the accelerated carbonation of magnesium silicate (commonly known as talc) under high temperature and pressure. The resulting carbonates are then heated at low temperatures to produce magnesium oxide, with the CO₂ generated being recycled back in the process.

The use of magnesium silicate eliminates the CO₂ emissions from raw materials processing. Also, the low temperatures required allow the use of fuels with low energy content or carbon intensity (i.e. biomass), thus potentially further reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, production of the carbonates absorbs carbon dioxide by carbonating part of the manufactured magnesium oxide using atmospheric/industrial CO₂. A number of companies are developing this method. Overall, manufacturers claim that making one tonne of cement using this method absorbs up to 100kg more CO₂ than it emits, making it a carbon-negative product.

The only disadvantage of this (besides the current cost) is that magnesium silicate is not as evenly distributed throughout the world as the calcium carbonate in limestone that is used to create Portland cement.

(Aside: other techniques for making low carbon cement such as CeraTech's, which uses a process located at power plants to convert waste fly ash (otherwise landfilled) into a cement-like product, do not sequester atmospheric carbon, although they are laudable. The same is true for the high temperature cement-making process developed at George Washington University which a patent application says could be provided by concentrated solar thermal power, yielding a low-carbon cement at a price of $43/tonne.)

Zero-carbon concrete infographic, courtesy Cemfree: similar math applies to other brands.

Algae

Duke Energy is piloting a system at East Bend Natural Gas Power Station in Northern Kentucky that recycles the carbon dioxide in flue gas to grow algae in photobioreactors. The algae can later be fed into an anaerobic digester to produce methane gas that the power plant can burn for fuel, or it can be dried and processed into fish food or animal feed, or processed into biodiesel or even jet fuel. Ways to use algae as a third generation biofuel are being pioneered by many companies across the world.
Ethylene glycol

Liquid Light of Monmouth Junction, New Jersey is also intending to capture carbon dioxide from power plants' combustion processes using a technology currently being prototyped to produce ethylene glycol. This is a building block of products as diverse as polyester fibre, plastic bottles and antifreeze.

Acrylic acid

Dioxide Materials of champaign, Illinois, has another prototype in development aimed at producing acrylic acid – a constituent of paint and glue – from carbon dioxide. It has partnered with glue maker 3M to bring the product to market.

Carbon capture and storage

The last three examples place carbon capture and storage, the current great white hope of the fossil fuel industry, in perspective. Why go to all the trouble of piping the carbon dioxide to a nearby suitable geological repository when you can turn it into something profitable right on your doorstep, one might ask? The great expectations pinned upon CCS in the past have proved relatively chimeric because of the cost: power produced with add-on CCS is at least 20% more expensive – if not double the price. Yet the algae and glue- or plastic-making chemicals do not sequester the carbon – they turn it into a form which is temporarily out of the atmosphere but to which it can return (with algae almost immediately), so merely displacing fossil fuels. An advantage, true, but not as great as putting it out of reach for a century or more.
My proposal for radical carbon offsetting could provide a way of financing some of these projects and more. It would encourage innovation and new markets. I love the concept becaude it is a win-win-win solution: it has at least three benefits:

1. we tackle global warming,
2. create employment, and
3. produce useful and valuable products that displace the need to burn fossil fuels.

To make the idea work, a global market for carbon with an appropriate price attached would be needed, plus, of course, a legal agreement that all countries in the world must sign up to. It could for example form part of the agreement being progressed for post-2015 by the UNFCCC. A summary of progress of the negotiations is here and the US' ideas for it are here. It's a distant hope for me, but at least it provides a potential route out of despair.

The Failure of Political Leadership on Climate Change

Despite 26 years of international negotiations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these emissions have been steadily rising. It is clear that world leaders are incapable of committing themselves and their nations to the required measures. I witnessed this first hand last Thursday when I watched Wales' First Minister dodge question after question on whether he would take the necessary action.

Right: Carwyn Jones, Wales' First Minister.

A brief history of climate change and global negotiations

In June 1988 politicians and scientists attending the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto concluded that "humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose  ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war." The conference recommended a 20% reduction by 2005. At this point the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 350 ppm.

In November that year the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has its first meeting in Geneva and was charged by the United Nations with assessing the state of scientific knowledge on climate change, evaluate its impacts and come up with realistic solutions. In August 1990 it produced its First Assessment Report. Subsequent reports have only changed the detail, not the general conclusions.

At the Rio Earth Summit, two years later, 154 nations took responsibility for the overwhelming majority of emissions and pledged to "aim to stabilize" those emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. But the Kyoto Protocol wasn't ratified for a further five years. It bound 38 industrialized countries (called Annex 1 countries) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012. Concentration of CO₂ has now reached 358 ppm.

Later, President Bush made sure the United States never ratified the agreement and Canada withdrew in 2011. In 2012 an agreement for a second commitment period has never entered legal force.

In July 2009, G8 countries agreed that 2 degrees Celsius of average global warming above pre-industrial levels is a limit which should not be exceeded, but this would mean reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2050 and emissions from developed countries should be reduced by 80% or more. It is agreed that global emissions must peak and then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for this to be achieved.

In November of that year the Copenhagen Accord was signed to endorse the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, but it is not a legally binding document. Concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere then reached 388ppm.

Now we are looking towards a legally binding global agreement next year, when concentrations of CO₂ in the atmosphere will be 400 ppm, but it will not take effect until 2020, and then it will still take some time for any effects to kick in.

Meanwhile, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere continue to increase:



It's for this reason that I'm extremely pessimistic that it is possible for national leaders, whose agendas are all short-term, whose interests are local and subject to lobbying from special interest groups, have the courage or capacity to show the required level of leadership. Even Obama's recent efforts fall far short of the true level required.

Carwyn Jones plays the politicians' game



The basis for his extreme pessimism was confirmed for me last Thursday. I had been invited to give evidence to the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister in Wales about progress made to date in implementing the Welsh Government’s 2010 Climate Change Strategy for Wales. In particular, how actions to tackle the causes and consequences of climate change are being implemented by all departments of the Welsh Government and how this work is being co-ordinated and monitored.

Right: the Welsh Government’s 2010 Climate Change Strategy cover

Wales as a nation has a non-binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per year to 40% of 1990 levels by 2020 in policy areas of over which it has control (some powers are not devolved but still held in London, such as control over transport spending and energy generation). This compares to the UK overall target of 34% reduction by 2020. Additionally, Wales is almost unique in the world by having the duty of government to take due account of sustainable development written into its constitution.

These facts alone would lead one to suppose that Wales was serious about tackling climate change. But let me tell you what happened in those meeting and committee rooms of the Welsh Government offices in Cardiff Bay on the afternoon of Thursday 26 June.

The first half of the event consisted of three members of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister quizzing members of the Climate Change Commission for Wales on what they thought the Committee should be asking Carwyn Jones (who is leader of the Welsh Labour Party).

The Commission's members represents a huge body of expert opinion from other organisations such as the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, Sustrans, the Federation of Small Businesses, National Resources Wales, WWF, the One Planet Council, and even young people represented by the youth parliament known as Funky Dragon.

There was no shortage of extremely sound advice given to the Committee members. The key points were as follows:

1. The First Minister should take overall responsibility for the climate change agenda, which he currently does not have, in order to show leadership and make sure that all government departments work together to achieve the targets;
2. He should set statutory targets rather than the current non-binding ones;
3. He should benchmark the current level of emissions in different sectors, by end-user;
4. He should quantify by default the climate change impacts of all new developments as part of their impact assessment. In particular, reference was made to a proposed £1.5 billion new extension to the M4 around Newport;
5. He should create a programme of action that would detail how the different sectors would act to reduce overall emissions, which currently does not exist.

There were many other excellent suggestions about land use, transport, education, planning, building regulations and renewable energy. If they were all put in place, Wales would be a beacon of low carbon sustainable development.

This part of the event concluded and the members of the Committee then withdrew to a Committee Room where they proceeded to quiz the Minister. Many of us stayed to watch the proceedings from the viewing gallery.

What happened? Well the first thing to note is that the Committee scrutinises the First Minister on many topics and few of its members are experts on climate change. The second is that as officials, it was clear that they somewhat lack the passion and commitment that the Commission on Climate Change members have. For these reasons they are not equipped to respond to the First Minister's rebuttals with knowledgable counter-arguments or with the necessary level of emotion. Urbane mandarins, their language is couched in measured and leisured terms.

Carwyn Jones was able to refute every suggestion without significant censure.

1. He refused to take ultimate responsibility and show leadership on climate change as a cross-cutting topic because, he said, "there are many cross-cutting topics and I can't take responsibility for all of them. I leave climate change for others."
2. He refused to set statutory targets for carbon reductions on the basis that the government does not have control over transport and energy spending.
3. On the question of the M4 relief road he trotted out the line that cars in traffic jams will emit more greenhouse gases than having them freely moving. Yet, as Paul Pearson pointed out that evening, the consultancy document on the project never even calculated the total comparative carbon budgets for the options under consideration.
4. On the question of why building regulations for the energy efficiency of new homes are being watered down, he said it was because Wales needed more new houses and the big building firms had told him that it was too expensive to make them low or zero carbon. Yet I know several developers who can build affordable zero carbon homes - but clearly Carwyn is not aware of them and nor were the members of the Committee.

Shortly after this, in despair, I walked out. Wales has an opportunity to shine on the world stage by showing leadership on climate change beyond that being shown in England by the Westminster government. But Carwyn Jones is not up to this challenge.

The environment minister who created Wales' climate change strategy, Jane Davidson (right), has sadly left government now. She was the driving force behind several policies that championed sustainable development. Unfortunately Wales no longer has any one of her calibre and commitment in government.

But Carwyn Jones is no different from virtually every other leader of a nation state in the world, as the history of climate change negotiations shows. The fear of missing short-term other targets for housing, jobs and the economy, makes them ignore the bigger picture. They do not have expert advisers on hand – or refuse to give sufficient weight to their advice – to help them understand the multiple economic as well as social and environmental benefits of taking the requisite actions. Instead they respond to the demands of industry lobbyists and a public largely unaware of the issues and potentials.

So, is it possible for the world to act to reduce and turnaround the seemingly inexorable growth of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Increasingly there are calls from the business sector and leaders of cities for action, but for my part, I fear all this will result in action that is too small and too late. They just do not have the economic and legal clout. I believe what is really required is for people to be paid to leave carbon in the ground – because if there is money to be made then they will take it out and sell it – but this obviously will not happen.

Barring a miracle, within 300 years sea level will have risen by up to 10 metres, the ice caps will have melted, the equatorial areas of the planet will be uninhabitable, and humanity will have suffered a population collapse. The prediction made by the scientists meeting in June 1988 will have been shown to be correct. I do hope I am wrong.

How to Solve the Housing Crisis Sustainably

Britain has a housing crisis. Politicians are calling for the building of garden cities and for permitting building on formerly protected greenbelt sites. Business Secretary Vince Cable has told the Daily Mail that "building on green belt land should be 'encouraged' provided it is done in a 'proper way'". This follows the publication by the Department for Communities and Local Government of a prospectus for "Locally Led Garden Cities" which invites local authorities to put forward their ideas for how they wish to develop garden cities.

This all sounds positive, since, in the abstract, we love the idea of garden cities, with pleasant wide tree-lined avenues and residents tilling their gardens to grow their own food whilst cycling to nearby shops. But we all know how nice-sounding government policies frequently end up being hijacked by developers who wish to turn a tidy and quick profit and the dream, eventually, turns sour.

So, how to guarantee that these proposed new types of development are genuinely sustainable? 

The only way, as anybody involved in sustainability accounting or energy management will tell you, is through monitoring and measurement of pre-established metrics, backed up by the threat of planning permission being revoked should agreed benchmarks not be reached. In other words, we should permit building on green field sites only if they can establish that they are truly sustainable in a measurable way. This approach could just as easily be adapted to urban living, in several potential and already existing ways:

• by extending the parameters of the Building Regulations;
• by extending the Code for Sustainable Homes to include other metrics besides carbon emissions;
• by applying GEMIS Life Cycle Analysis to development;
• by applying ecological footprint analysis;
• by applying BREEAM;
• by applying GPI - the Genuine Progress Indicator;
• by using this ISO for life cycle analysis of the development in question.

Such an approach would build on a Welsh policy that has just achieved its first success and is showing its potential to spearhead a revolution in the way we can achieve sustainable development.

The success is also a personal one for a family that has just realised its dream. The Moodys are a family which lives on a smallholding between Caerphilly and Cardiff. Theirs has become the first One Planet Development in Wales - and the world - to receive permanent planning permission. Called Nant-y-Cwm farm, it is home to Dan and Sarah Moody (below) and their five children who had already been working their 16 acre plot for four years and were seeking retrospective planning permission from Caerphilly Council.



They decided to apply for planning permission under One Planet Development, a forward thinking policy by the Welsh Government which provides a way for people to live and work on the land with social, economic and environmental benefits. In addition to meeting planning regulations, applicants are required to produce a detailed management plan and ecological footprint analysis which demonstrates their commitment to sustainable living, including how they will provide for at least 65% of their basic household needs from land based activity within 5 years.

Dan and Sarah are overjoyed by their success, which they put down to hard work and their close links with the local community. Cllr Ken James, Caerphilly County Borough Council’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Sustainable Development, commented on the application by saying: “We were satisfied, following lengthy discussion with the applicants that their proposals complied with the One Planet Development policies, subject to a number of strict conditions”.

Jeff Cuthbert, the Minister for Communities and Tackling Poverty, has also visited the site, which is in his constituency, and expressed his pleasure at seeing what they have achieved.

This is important for a number of reasons. The policy is one of which the Welsh Government should be extremely proud. Wales has an objective, set out in its sustainable development scheme One Wales One Planet, that: "within the lifetime of a generation, Wales should use only its fair share of the earth’s resources, and our ecological footprint be reduced to the global average availability of resources - 1.88 global hectares per person in 2003".

One Planet Developments should, according to the Welsh Government guidance, initially "achieve an ecological footprint of 2.4 global hectares per person or less in terms of consumption and demonstrate clear potential to move towards 1.88 global hectare target over time".

So the practice offers a transition to a more sustainable way of life by providing a way for people to live and work on their own land with measurable social, economic and environmental benefits. By using a verifiable metric - ecological footprint accounting - it is setting a precedent for assessing planning applications and other developments. In this sense, it is far from being of minority interest only.

A body has been set up to support both those who want to make planning applications under this scheme, and those in planning departments who have to process them, often a job that proves to be outside their training and experience. Called The One Planet Council, it is an independent voluntary body that also sees itself as furthering understanding amongst the public and policymakers of how the tools and practices enabled by this policy can further Wales' overall sustainable development requirements and, by example, the rest of the UK. I am a founder member. The body aims to work together with all those with Local Planning Authorities, policy makers, academics, landowners, and those already living on and planning to live on One Planet Development sites.

Jane Davidson, previously the Welsh Minister responsible for the introduction of the One Planet Development policy and now Director of INSPIRE at the University of Wales Trinity St David's, helped to launch the Council at the Royal Welsh Showground Spring Fair on 17 May (below).



Standing alongside the Moodys she said: "I'm so delighted to hear about the Moodys’ success. Wales is unique in having a national commitment to support those who want to demonstrate that it is possible and desirable to live in a way that reduces their impact on the environment. I hope that the success of this application will pave the way for others who want to pioneer living lightly on the land and in doing so help others think about actions they could take to harness local resources better”.



At the launch of the One Planet Council, left to right: Dan and Sarah Moody, Stefan Cartwright, Samantha Minas, Jane Davidson, Eduardo Bracho, Mark Waghorn and Pete Linnnell. 

The planning guidance behind the policy holds open the door for One Planet Developments to occur in an urban context, but remains unclear on how this could be achieved. Some architects believe that ribbon development, for example, where there is green field countryside behind housing on transport links, offers one opportunity for this to happen. So does the concept of garden cities.

The OPD policy supports other policy aims of both the Welsh and Westminster Governments, including provision for affordable housing, reduced subsidy for agriculture, promoting healthy living, promoting sustainable communities and carbon reduction.

For example, in addition to producing meat, eggs and a wide range of fruit and vegetables, some of which is sold to local residents, the Moodys' smallholding also supports different local causes such as Kaleidoscope, a Cardiff based charity supporting people recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

So here are the 12 main advantages of One Planet Development

1. Affordable housing
The UK housing market is currently one of the most inflated in Europe, and inequality between those who own a home and those who don’t is rising. For many, especially first time buyers and those who are on a low income, owning their own home is beyond reach. One Planet Development supports the construction of simple, well functioning dwellings tied into sustainable land management. These are intrinsically much less expensive to build than the average home, even when constructed to a conventionally accepted standard.

2. Sustainable, low impact homes
One Planet homes must be constructed from sustainable or recycled materials, locally sourced where possible for minimal environmental impact. Buildings must be energy efficient and generate all of their own electricity and heat renewably. Innovation and different styles of construction are encouraged as long as they comply with the stringent planning standards and meet building regulations. Dwellings should have a relatively low visual impact and be easy to take down at the end of their lives.

3. A reduced burden on the public purse
The purchase of land and creation of a One Planet Development is self-funded from the beginning, unlike some types of agriculture which receive subsidies.

4. Creating genuine livelihoods
One Planet practitioners are required to meet 65% of their basic household needs from land based activity within a 5 year period. A robust management plan is required at planning application stage to show how these needs will be met. The result is a subsistence livelihood with the possibility to develop new streams of income from education and other related activities.

5. Increased land productivity
One Planet Developments promote a more sustainable level of food production. A study of organic smallholding-type food production found the level of produce per annum to be 3.5 kg per square metre, equating to 35 tonnes per hectare. This is over 4 to 5 times greater than average UK wheat yields of around 7-8 tonnes per hectare on the best soil.

6. Beneficial to wildlife and the land
One Planet practitioners have a duty to conserve and enhance the biodiversity, cultural heritage and landscape of a site. The existing ecology is carefully preserved and enhanced by planting hedgerows, orchards and wetlands. Produce is grown without the use of pesticides, herbicides or artificial fertilisers by using methods such as companion planting, soil care and encouraging natural predators of pests.

7. Beneficial to the local community
One Planet living encourages outreach and sharing. Surplus food and other land based produce and crafts are sold locally to generate income, which is beneficial for the community by reducing food miles and by offering affordable, fresh, healthy food. Educational courses and open days may be offered. Developing land based businesses may offer employment opportunities.

8. Beneficial for Wales
One Planet Development is open to people from all walks of life. The more developments that use different approaches to sustainable building, land management and living, the more exemplar models others will have to learn from. The Welsh Government has made a bold commitment to a sustainable future for current and future generations. This initiative can help Wales become an inspiration to people around the world.

9. An efficient use of natural resources
Energy is harvested using the latest renewable technologies. Water is sourced on site from springs, streams or rainwater collection, and wastewater is processed on site with the nutrients reused to encourage biodiversity and fertility. Composting of all biodegradable waste and non-biodegradable waste is minimised, re-used where possible and re-cycled off site as a last resort.

10. Promoting health and well-being
There are numerous documented benefits of daily contact with nature that would reduce the burden of those living in One Planet Developments upon the National Health Service. These include: improvements in self-esteem and mood, recovery from stress, blood pressure, heart rate, vitamin D deficiency, the benefit upon health of consuming fresh food, as well as others such as improved community building.

11. Supporting sustainable transport
One Planet Development supports living and working on the same site. Ideally, sites should be located within walking or cycling reach of public transport and local communities to reduce vehicle dependence. Electric vehicles can be charged from sources of renewable power.

12. Measurable sustainability
One Planet Development is quantified by ecological footprinting, which shows how much of the Earth’s resources people are consuming. When households reduce their own ecological footprints this helps their country reduce its overall footprint. Practitioners are required to log specific inputs and outputs so that data can be monitored for planning and research purposes.

As I said, ecological footprint analysis is not the only way to measure and verify sustainability, but it is one with a policy foothold in the UK. Sustainability needs measurement, it needs to be quantified, it needs to be monitored in order to guarantee that it is truly sustainable and not merely used as a greenwashing exercise. Even if you don't believe that we collectively need to bring down our ecological footprint, I hope I've made it clear that there are many other benefits to supporting this type of activity and approach.

British building owners can now make money by generating renewable heat

The first scheme in the world that will pay owners of domestic buildings for generating renewable heat has been launched in the UK by Energy Minister Greg Barker (seen right with MP Chloe Smith opening a 'Mr Renewables showroom' at the beginning of April).

Like feed-in tariffs for generating renewable electricity from technologies such as photovoltaic solar panels, the financial incentive scheme offers householders a fixed amount per kilowatt-hour generated from various technologies, even though the heat is only consumed in the home and not made available for others (as with home-generated electricity that is fed into the electric grid).

Called the Renewable Heat Incentive, it is based on a similar scheme for business, the public sector and non-profit organisations, that has been in operation for some time in the UK, as well as a smaller domestic scheme aimed at solid-walled, hard-to-heat homes, called the Renewable Heat Premium Payment.

Property owners apply to all schemes through the Energy Saving Trust, a government-sponsored body which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy at the domestic scale.

The purpose of the RHI is to stimulate the renewable heat industry in the same way that feed-in tariffs have done for the solar PV industry. This has seen remarkable growth in the last four years with the cost of a typical PV system installation dropping by more than half.

The UK Government and industry body the Solar Trade Association (STA) have a target of covering over one million roofs with solar thermal and solar PV panels by the end of 2015. Over 200,000 solar thermal systems are already installed in the UK.

Global capacity for solar thermal is over 200GW - around double global installed capacity of solar power. The technology is proven and well established across Europe and elsewhere, and back in the days of previous support systems when grants were offered for installation of many types of renewable energy technologies, solar thermal was by far the most popular technology of choice for householders.

Stuart Elmes, Chair of the Solar Thermal Working Group at the STA, welcomed the launch of the RHI, saying: “Solar heating is popular with householders and quick to install, integrating easily with existing heating systems. We calculate that the returns from solar water heating are similar to those from solar power when you take into account the high price inflation for gas and heating oil.”

Paul Barwell, Chief Executive of the STA said: “With the launch of the Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive the final piece of support for household solar technologies slots into place. Together with the Green Deal for insulation improvements and the Feed-in Tariff for solar power, householders now have a great choice of Government-backed financial incentives to choose from to best suit their clean energy needs.”

Launching the scheme, the Government Minister for Energy Greg Barker (pictured right) said: "Not only will people have warmer homes and cheaper fuel bills, they will reduce their carbon emissions, and get cash payments for installing these new technologies. It opens up a market for the supply chain, engineers and installers – generating growth and supporting jobs as part of our long-term economic plan."

Technologies and payments

The technologies currently covered by the scheme are:

• Biomass heating systems, which burn fuel such as wood pellets, chips or logs to provide central heating and hot water in a home. Biomass-only boilers are designed to provide heating using a ‘wet system’ (eg through radiators) and provide hot water. Pellet stoves with integrated boilers are designed to burn only wood pellets and can heat the room they are in directly, as well as provide heat to the rest of the home using a ‘wet system’ (eg through radiators) and provide hot water.
• Ground or water source heat pumps, which extract heat from the ground or water. This heat can then be used to provide heating and/or hot water in a home.
• Air to water heat pumps, which absorb heat from the outside air. This heat can then be used to provide heating and/or hot water in a home.
• Solar thermal panels, which collect heat from the sun and use it to heat up water which is stored in a hot water cylinder. The two types of panels that are eligible are evacuated tube panels and liquid-filled flat plate panels.

Technology	Tariff
Air-source heat pumps	7.3p/kWh
Ground and water-source heat pumps	18.8p/kWh
Biomass-only boilers and biomass pellet stoves with integrated boilers	12.2p/kWh
Solar thermal panels (flat plate and evacuated tube for hot water only)	19.2 p/kWh

Only one space heating system is allowed per property but homeowners can apply for solar thermal for hot water and a space heating system.

The guaranteed payments are made quarterly over seven years for households in England, Wales and Scotland. (Northern Ireland has its own RHI scheme). The scheme is designed to bridge the gap between the cost of fossil fuel heat sources and renewable heat alternatives.
According to renewable energy expert Richard Hiblen, who has more than 14 years’ experience in this field, the RHI tariffs are ‘good for some and better for others’, but even the worst figures make the technologies more attractive than installing oil or LPG heating.

Phil Hurley, managing director, NIBE Energy Systems Ltd., a renewable heating manufacturer, called the RHI "a game changer for the renewable heating industry". He continued: “The introduction of the domestic RHI gives the industry the security and confidence it needs to realise its growth potential".

But Neil Schofield, Head of External and Governmental Affairs at boiler (furnace) manufacturer Worcester, Bosch Group, cautioned that: “the funding is weighted heavily in favour of biomass, which is one of the most expensive systems to install and one requiring the largest amount of user intervention. Questions have already been raised over whether DECC has backed the right horse in this respect."

UK Solar Strategy

Earlier this week, the UK Government also launched its Solar Strategy, which contains plans to turn the Government estate as well as factories, supermarkets and car parks in cities around the UK into “solar hubs”.

Energy Minister Greg Barker  said he believes that “there is massive potential to turn our large buildings into power stations and we must seize the opportunity this offers to boost our economy as part of our long term economic plan. Solar not only benefits the environment, it will see British job creation and deliver the clean and reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.”

The UK has an estimated 250,000 hectares of south-facing commercial rooftops, and the government believes that solar increasingly offers efficient and cost effective onsite generation opportunities to both businesses and domestic consumers.

In a further initiative, the Department for Education is working on ways to improve energy efficiency across the 22,000 schools in England, to reduce their annual energy spend of £500 million, and to encourage the deployment of PV on schools alongside promoting energy efficiency. The British Education Secretary Michael Gove said: “Solar panels are a sensible choice for schools, particularly in terms of the financial benefits they can bring. It is also a great way for pupils to engage with environmental issues and think about where energy comes from.”

The One Planet Life

Hoppi Wimbush, who lives at Lammas, one of the case studies in the book.

David has finished his latest book, The One Planet Life, about making a way of life that is more sustainable and using ecological footprint analysis to establish what's working and what isn't. Both a manifesto for a change in attitude towards development, planning and land use, and a 'How To' book about energy, land management, food growing, sustainable building, sustainable transport and water, it has 100,000 words, 400 illustrations, 20 in-depth case studies and introductions by Jane Davidson (Wales' foremost former environment minister) and Pooran Desai (BioRegional). It will be out towards the end of the year.

Flood adaptation and mitigation - What are the key solutions?

Floods have been devastating parts of Europe and the east coast of America to name but two parts of the world over the last month. It has brought to the front of our minds the need to protect human habitation from the increasing number and severity of such events.

The Independent Panel on Climate Change official report states that global average sealevel rises over the next century could be as much as 3 feet on business as usual and given the amount of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere. But some scientific evidence supports even higher numbers, five feet and beyond in the worst case.

The East Coast of the United States will experience rises higher than average because the land is sinking at the same time. Tide gauges along the East Coast show an average rise of 1.5 inches per decade.

As a result, towns like Norfolk in Virginia are having to spend millions on raising streets and improving drainage to cope with routine flooding.



Floods in Pisa, Italy.

Wild weather has been experienced along the East Coast of the United States of America since Christmas. But the flooding risks are not confined to America. Severe storms and flooding have also been affecting Europe:

• areas of Italy and France are on flood alert as heavy rain brings chaos to parts of Europe. Hundreds of people were forced to evacuate their homes in the Italian city of Pisa as the Arno river threatened to burst its banks on Friday;
• two people have died and more than 150 people have been airlifted to safety following floods in south-eastern France;
• high seas are causing widespread flooding along France's and the UK and Ireland's Atlantic coast;
• facing flood risk is the most immediate of problems to be tackled by an Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) loan to the Trinidad and Tobago Government;
• parts of England such as the Somerset levels have been underwater since Christmas.

At the same time as flooding is causing massive devastation in the UK, the government is cutting back on spending on flood risk mitigation and adaptation. This decision has been lambasted by the UK's Chartered Institution of Water & Environmental Management, which has called for Government funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) to be extended instead.

It says: "funding is crucial not only to mitigate the impacts of flooding, but also to educate the population about the impacts of climate change," and "for maintenance activities alongside capital improvements to prolong the life of existing flood and coastal defences and also ensure floodwaters are conveyed through the land drainage network". These lessons apply everywhere.

Many issues are at stake here but it's not just about pouring concrete.

Scientific knowledge says that flooding can be reduced by planting trees in the uplands and yet many government policies support the continued removal of trees and forestry in these areas and replacing them with monoculture agricultural practices.

Amidst raging public controversy in Britain over the recent flooding environmentalist George Monbiot has pointed out a research paper on upland reforestation practice which estimates that if all the farmers in a catchment area reforested just 5% of their land, "flooding peaks downstream would be reduced by about 29%. Full reforestation would reduce the peaks by about 50%".

Further down the catchment area, in the foothills and lowlands, different agricultural practices affect the risk of flooding, such as, Monbiot  says: "the misuse of heavy machinery, overstocking with animals and other forms of bad management [that] can – by compacting the soil – increase the rates of instant run-off from 2% of all the rain that falls on the land to 60%."

To these findings a new risk is highlighted by a new study published in Hydrological Sciences Journal, which examines the key reasons for increasing frequency and severity of floods. The authors combine the outcomes of the IPCC Special Report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” (SREX report) with more recent research to give a rounded view of the cost of flooding (both human and material), the causes of increased flood risk and predictions of future global flooding patterns.

These show a clear link between population density and flooding. Currently 800 million humans are living in areas vulnerable to flooding. This is predicted to rise by a further 140 million during 21st century as we see continued economic and population growth.

So at the same time as a reduction of woodland, changing river flow and the urbanisation of flood plains, we are continuing to exacerbate global warming, raise sea levels and destroy wetlands, particularly in coastal areas, which also help to absorb storm surges.

It seems like the perfect storm, an unparalleled combination of exactly the wrong policies and practices if we want to reduce the risk of flooding, not just of coastal settlements but inland ones also.

What are the correct policies, then? This is the subject of an exclusive webinar to be held on the Sustainable Cities Collective website on Monday 10th of February at 12 PM Eastern Standard Time. Register here.

The participants will include:

• Natasa Manojlovic is a senior researcher at the Institute of River & Coastal Engineering (TUHH) and is a visiting researcher at the UNESCO-IHE in Delft, NL. Her research and teaching is focused on flood risk management (flood resilient technology, systems, tools and strategies as well as capacity building of stakeholders- phD research), environmental hydraulic engineering a with the scientific research directed to urban hydrology.

• Thomas Colbert, AIA, an Associate Professor at the University of Houston. His research concerns the preparation and evaluation of architectural and planning responses to the threat of climate change and extreme weather events impacting the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast. Prof. Colbert holds degrees from Princeton University and the University of Cambridge.

• Paul O'Hare, is a Lecturer in Geography and Development at Manchester Metropolitan University. His primary research interest revolves around efforts to engage ‘the public’ in governance and planning decision-making processes. Previous research has been funded by the European Union (SMARTeST EU Flood Resilience Project), RCUK (Re-Design) and the ESRC (PhD). His most recent work in the EUFP7 SMARTesT project (led by the Building Research Establishment) examined social, economic and cultural issues regarding the use of property level protection for flood risk management.

You can register for the webcast here.

The UK fails to deliver: fuel poverty is up, support for energy efficiency down

The UK is letting down its population by failing to deliver on energy efficiency. As a result, fuel poverty is up at the same time as fuel prices, and support for energy efficiency has plummeted and will continue to do so at the current rate.

This is happening under the watchful eye of Ed Davey, UK Secretary for Energy and Climate Change (right).

The most expensive and exclusive homes in Britain are the least well insulated, while the majority of the UK’s local authorities (LAs) are in breach of European regulations, and needlessly wasting energy, according to new research.

Not only that, but despite a year of public outcry about the cost of energy, the number of energy efficiency installations around the country has plummeted and Government has told energy companies that they can get away with insulating far fewer homes than before.

Whereas 1.61 million lofts were fully insulated in 2012, in the year to the end of October 2013, just 110,000 had been treated - a staggering 93% drop.

The same kind of drop has happened with cavity wall insulation, from 640,000 in 2012 to 125,000 in the year to October 2013, a pro-rata fall of 77%. These figures are official, from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

The reason is because grants for such measures were dropped when the Government launched the Green Deal, a loan system that was intended to see a swathe of energy efficiency makeovers across the country, but which has so far failed to ignite public enthusiasm.

This is all despite the country having a Climate Change Act and an Energy Efficiency Strategy, which has an aim of cutting energy use by 196TWh by 2020 (an 11% cut), and carbon emissions by 41 MtCO2.



The Rich Don't Seem To Care

The rich don't seem to care about saving money, heat or climate change. In the exclusive parts of London, most occupied by millionaires, a staggering 83% of homes in Kensington and Chelsea and 79% in Westminster have uninsulated walls and a lack of loft insulation, coming at the bottom of a national league for energy efficient homes.

At the other end of the country, in colder Aberdeenshire and the Outer Hebrides, homes are insulated to the highest standard, with 65% and 66% respectively having installed wall insulation.

Utility company npower found these figures in data licensed from the Energy Saving Trust. They reveal that over half the 26 million homes in Britain allow too much heat to escape through the building fabric.

As a result, together with rising fuel prices, fuel poverty is higher than ever in the UK, with seven million people, including 2.2 million children, living in fuel poverty in England, a rise of 26% compared to a year ago. People are going without food in order to pay their energy bills. No wonder they can't afford the insulated their homes. This is exactly why they need help.

A telephone survey by npower found that just 20% of households asked have insulated their domestic hot water storage tank. When asked, the main reasons given for not installing energy efficiency improvements were:

• 42%: not being able to afford it;
• 36%: lack of government support;
• 33%: I can afford to waste energy (or words to that effect).

On the positive side, one third of those asked said they had made some improvements, such as installing loft insulation (39%), a new boiler/furnace (33%) and cavity wall insulation (30%).

The Green Deal Flop

The UK Government launched the Green Deal last year as a flagship policy to enable households to invest in home energy efficiency at little cost to them. But it has been a shambles, due to the difficulty of finding assessors, lack of publicity, and the cost of getting an assessment done.

This week, Greg Barker (right), an Energy Minister, claimed that: "It has been an encouraging first year for the Green Deal. It has not exactly developed in the way we anticipated [but] together with the ECO, the Green Deal has improved over 400,000 homes in their first eleven months".

He puts a nice spin on it. The ECO is the Energy Company Obligation under which utilities are forced to install energy efficiency measures in their customers' homes. The detailed figures show that 98% of those 400,000 homes' improvements were conducted through ECO, and not through the Green Deal.

The figures actually show that just 1,612 households had Green Deal Plans up to the end of 2013.

At this rate it would take 16,000 years to treat all of the nation's homes.

It Will Get Worse

The situation is going to get worse, not better. The Chancellor George Osborne announced in his Autumn Statement that the energy companies’ ECO target for insulating solid wall homes will be slashed by two thirds – meaning they are now only required to tackle 100,000 homes by 2017.

This change in policy comes after profits of the 'Big Six' energy companies (British Gas, Npower, Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE), Scottish Power, E.ON and EDF) rose 75% in 2012 on 2011, according to the regulator, Ofgem. The same companies complained to George Osborne before his Autumns Statement about 'green tariffs' such as the ECO adding to their costs.

The Green Deal has been slammed by many, such as the members of the Federation of Master Builders (FMB), whose chairman, Brian Berry, has politely said that the scheme "has not achieved the desired results in its first full year, with the majority of SME installers and homeowners failing to engage, and the financial package underpinning the scheme proving unattractive to most consumers."

He repeated the oft-made call that: "the single most effective measure to kick-start demand would be to reduce the rate of VAT from 20% to 5% on all domestic energy-efficiency work".

Paul King, chief executive of the UK's Green Building Council, was more forthright this week when speaking at a conference on the Green Deal. He called on the Government to "recognise energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority and be prepared to delve into its purse to make its flagship policy more appealing through stronger incentives and more attractive finance options".

Local Authorities Flout the Law

Government and local government don't even practice what they preach themselves.

Separate research conducted by the Property and Energy Professionals Association (PEPA) has found that over half of local authorities throughout the UK are failing in their obligation to display up-to-date 'Display Energy Certificates' (DEC), as required by the European Union's Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD).

PEPA, the trade body that represents business engaged in the provision of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) and Display Energy Certificates (DECs), says that as a result they are missing out on the opportunity to use them as effective tools to reduce energy costs.

PEPA conducted a freedom of information exercise with all local authorities in England and Wales and found that only 47% of authorities claimed to be compliant with the DEC requirements, meaning 53% are potentially ‘breaking the law’.

A 2011 study by the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers (CIBSE) showed that where DECs had been used in government buildings as a proactive means of managing energy usage, savings of nearly 14% were achieved.

If these figures were applied to the estimated £750 million per annum of energy costs incurred by local authorities then energy savings of £65 million could be possible. This is a significant sum at a time when local authorities are cutting public services.

£1.9 million of public money is given to local authorities' Training Standards officers each year to ensure compliance with the EPBD regulations. But PEPA believes it is never used for that purpose since it isn't ring-fenced.

"There seems to be no political will within DCLG (the government department responsible for local authorities) to address non-compliance with the EPBD regulations and anecdotally is believed to regard the Directive as unnecessary European bureaucracy, something which is likely to end up with a fine from Brussels," said Stephen O’Hara, Chairman of PEPA.

“The whole situation regarding DECs defies logic and common sense. The proactive use of valuable energy information has been proved to reduce costs to the taxpayer, but government, both central and local, are either ignorant of this fact or do not seem to care. It is irresponsible of DCLG to show disdain for the regulations which they themselves have laid down as the law of the land, and potentially to incur swingeing financial penalties from Europe as a result.”

“Regardless of your views on climate change and reducing carbon emissions, saving money and reducing pressure on hard pressed energy supplies must surely make sense even to those who want to cock a snook at Europe.”

Employment Down

The drop in energy efficiency measures has had a knock-on effect on employment in the industry.

There are now at least 7,000 fewer people were employed in delivering insulation in homes than in 2012, according to Andrew Warren, CEO of the Association for the Conservation of Energy. “A lot of people went out and set up new small companies," because they thought the Green Deal would mean an increase in the amount of work. "They have been completely sold down the river,” he said, by the failure of government to deliver.

Andrew has for three decades been championing the cause of energy efficiency.

It's just a shame that no one at Whitehall, or in the town halls up and down the country, is really listening.

Notes

The European Union is conducting a household energy affordability study in conjunction with the University of York. You may take the survey here: http://energyaffordability.eu/?lang=en

The Energy Saving Trust says that the average (gas-heated, semi-detached) three bedroom home in the UK could save the following each year on their energy bills:

• Cavity wall insulation - £140;
• External Solid Wall insulation - around £490;
• Loft insulation - up to £180;
• New boiler (furnace) - up to £310.

Energy efficiency infographic courtesy of The Trillion Fund