Climate book is judges' hot pick

National Geographic has produced a film based on the book

A book about global warming has won this year's Royal Society prize for popular science writing.

Mark Lynas' Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet has already been turned into a TV programme and is now almost certain to experience a jump in sales. The book explains how Earth will change for every degree rise in temperature - from droughts to mass extinctions.

Mr Lynas was presented with the winner's £10,000 cheque at a ceremony hosted by the UK academy of science.

The award is one of the major publishing events of the year in the UK. Previous winners have included Bill Bryson, Stephen J Gould, Roger Penrose, and Stephen Hawking.

Six Degrees uses published scientific data and interviews with leading researchers to illustrate the changes we could witness in a warmer world.

Professor Jonathan Ashmore, the chair of the judges, described the book as "compelling and gripping".

"It presents a series of scientifically plausible, worst-case scenarios without tipping into hysteria," he said.

"Six Degrees is not just a great read, written in an original way, but also provides a good overview of the latest science on this highly topical issue.

"This is a book that will stimulate debate and that will, Lynas hopes, move us to action in the hope that this is a disaster movie that never happens. Everyone should read this book."

The bookies' favourite had been A Life Decoded, the autobiography of genetics pioneer Craig Venter.

The six books shortlisted for the Royal Society's General Prize were:

A Life Decoded, by J Craig Venter (Penguin Allen Lane)

Coral: A Pessimist in Paradise, by Steve Jones (Little, Brown)

Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer (Penguin - Allen Lane)

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, by Mark Lynas (Fourth Estate)

The Sun Kings, by Stuart Clark (Princeton University Press)

Why Beauty is Truth, by Ian Stewart (Basic Books)

The Big Book of Science Things to Make and Do, written by Rebecca Gilpin and Leonie Pratt and designed and illustrated by Josephine Thompson, won in the junior science books category.

Bush sets new CO2 emission target

Mr Bush says new technology will help lower emissions

US President George W Bush says he is setting an "ambitious" new target of halting growth in US greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

Citing new technology as the key, he said emissions in the US needed to reach a peak within 15 years and decline after that.

Environmentalists were quick to sharply criticise the new targets.

The three main challengers to replace Mr Bush in January all favour more aggressive climate change policies.

Legislation

Mr Bush said the new target should require emissions "well below" projections given in the 2002 climate strategy.

"There are a number of ways to achieve these reductions, but all responsible approaches depend on accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies."

Under the president's plan we'll need a real miracle to save us from global warming Carl Pope, Sierra Club

He added: "If we fully implement our strong new laws, adhere to the principles I've outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions."

The new technology would combine with nuclear power and "clean coal" to help meet the targets, Mr Bush said.

However, there was no indication of any new legislation to target emitters, and his statement warned Congress not to pass laws that could "impose tremendous costs on our economy and American families".

The US took part in climate change talks in Bali, Indonesia, last year when it was agreed to work towards setting new targets by the end of 2009, ahead of the expiry of the Kyoto emissions agreement in 2012. The US always rejected Kyoto.

Environmentalists rounded on Mr Bush's new plan.

Carl Pope, the executive director of the largest US environmental group, the Sierra Club, said: "Under the president's plan we'll need a real miracle to save us from global warming."

The three rivals for the US presidency - John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - all favour tougher climate change policies.

They include a cap on industrial carbon dioxide gases and an emissions trading system like that in the European Union.

Limitations of the 'Scientific Method'

--- In bhascience@yahoogroups.com, "david_c_flint" wrote:
>
> I'm glad you asked me that! I will upload a paper I wrote two years
> ago giving one approach.
>
> dcf
>
>
> --- In bhascience@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Street" chris@ wrote:
> ...
>
> > So what ARE the limitations of the Scientific Method?


David, I think one of the most important limitations of the Scientific Method is (as you say in your upload file) "research often delivers qualified answers whereas citizens and policy makers want definitive answers"

I think terms like 'probably' or 'highly likely', when discussing science, can be used with bullish confidence.

As a corollary, the strength of the scientific method is that current research is provisional and if falsified may be replaced by science that better describes how the world works.

I was very impressed with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) final report (pdf) which I reviewed in my Climate Alternative Temperature Science (CATS) blog.

The IPCC considered about 29,000 pieces of real-world evidence and concluded:

Uncertainty

• climate change is "unequivocal"
• Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
• Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C

Likelyhood

• humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% very likely to be the main cause
• Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm
• Increase in heat waves very likely
• Increase in tropical storm intensity likely

Confidence

• Changes in snow, ice and frozen ground have with high confidence increased the number and size of glacial lakes
• earlier timing of spring events and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges
  are with very high confidence linked to recent warming.
  

IPCC defined what they meant by the above terms in red in the IPPC glossary:-

Uncertainty
An expression of the degree to which a value (e.g., the future state of the climate system) is unknown. Uncertainty can result from lack of information or from disagreement about what is known or even knowable. Uncertainty can therefore be represented by quantitative measures, for example, a range of values calculated by various models, or by qualitative statements, for example, reflecting the judgement of a team of experts.

Likelihood
The likelihood of an occurrence, an outcome or a result, where this can be estimated probabilistically, is expressed in IPCC reports using a standard terminology defined as follows:

Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence / outcome
Virtually certain >99% probability of occurrence
Very likely >90% probability
Likely >66% probability
More likely than not >50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely <33% probability
Very unlikely <10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely <1% probability

Confidence
The level of confidence in the correctness of a result is expressed in this report, using a standard terminology defined as follows:

Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct
Very high confidence = At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence = About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence = About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence = About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence = Less than 1 out of 10 chance

I think this measured language in terms of uncertainty, likelyhood and confidence brilliantly conveys the provisional nature of the scientific method to non-scientists and politicians.

Bali Summit Analysis by New Scientist

Reposted from: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19626353.900-analysis-how-the-climate-drama-unfolded-in-bali.html

Analysis: How the climate drama unfolded in Bali

• 22 December 2007
• From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
• Fred Pearce Nusa Dua, Indonesia

THE Bali climate conference had everything, from beaches to the UN's top climate diplomat fleeing the platform in tears. There were charges that the science underpinning the event had been reduced to a footnote, and even a rescue mission from the UN secretary general as the all-night final session extended long into the following afternoon. To top it all, a booed and humiliated US delegation was forced into a U-turn after being unable to find a single supporter in the face of a vitriolic attack from Papua New Guinea.

Between the tears and ultimatums,

the conference may also have ensured that both the US and China become fully engaged in humanity's most pressing task of the 21st century - reining in climate change.

On the face of it, nothing happened that will immediately affect the atmosphere. Almost 24 hours after the scheduled close, with ministers already leaving for the airport,

a deal was reached on the "Bali roadmap" - a document setting the agenda for two years of negotiations that should culminate in a Copenhagen protocol to govern global greenhouse gas emissions after the Kyoto protocol lapses in 2012.

The key question is whether the roadmap will prevent dangerous climate change.

European nations wanted it to state a "destination" - a target of emissions cuts by industrialised countries of between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020, and for total global emissions to peak within 15 years and halve by 2050.

The US - in its one clear victory of the fortnight - joined with Canada, Japan and Russia to veto this text, saying it prejudiced the coming negotiations.

They secured a compromise reference to the necessity for "deep cuts", with a footnote mentioning several pages taken from a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describing scenarios for reducing emissions.

Here the story gets murky, with the science repeatedly being taken in vain.

The EU and many environmentalists claimed at the meeting that the 25 to 40 per cent plan was the recommendation of the IPCC, and that to reject it was to reject the science. In fact the referenced pages do not make such a recommendation. They simply say that cuts within that range would likely be required to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases in the air to the equivalent of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide. They give equal prominence to two other targets - 550 and 650 ppm - that require less stringent cuts.

Most delegates left the meeting believing that the footnote embraces a 450 ppm target. The Americans know better.

There is a further complication. Delegates repeatedly asserted that

keeping atmospheric concentrations below 450 ppm would prevent global average air temperatures rising by more than 2 °C from pre-industrial levels, which is often seen as a threshold beyond which dangerous climate change will occur. It might. But according to studies presented in Bali by the UK's Met Office, there is only a 20 per cent chance of 450 ppm delivering that.

Uncertainty about the climate's sensitivity to extra greenhouse gases is still so great, said Vicky Pope of the Met Office, that

450 ppm could cause warming of 4 °C or more (see Graph).

The best that can be said is that the significance of keeping below 2 °C is more a political construct than a scientific fact.

None of this detracts from the urgency of dramatically lowering emissions of greenhouse gases.

Once in the air, the lifetime of CO₂ is measured in centuries, so climate scientists in Bali argued that only near-zero emissions by mid-century or soon after will begin to make the world safe from climate change.

It is not an impossible target. Three nations publicly committed themselves to bringing their emissions to zero: Norway, New Zealand and Costa Rica. The last says it can get there by 2021.

This was the first UN climate conference at which countries talked confidently about making emissions cuts on such a scale. They are being pushed by the remorselessly alarming science, but also drawn by the assurances of large corporations that such cuts are feasible. Germany last week announced plans to cut its emissions by 40 per cent below 1990s levels by 2020. "This is not altruism, the German economy will benefit from the plans," said the environment minister.

Bali was also the first UN climate conference to take place without a chorus of industrialists warning of economic doom if emissions are corralled. Instead, many are demanding firm long-term emissions targets to help them plan future investment. For them, the failure to enshrine a 25 to 40 per cent cut is a blow.

Bali was also the moment when large developing nations such as China for the first time committed themselves to what the roadmap calls "measurable, reportable and verifiable... mitigation actions".

This did not amount to pledging actual emissions cuts, but it was at least divergence from business as usual.

This commitment, unthinkable only a couple of years ago, did not happen easily. It nearly derailed the conference at the start of its unscheduled final day.

In return for their promise, developing countries demanded that they also receive "measurable, reportable and verifiable" help from the rich world, in the form of money and technology. The European Union swiftly conceded the point, but a suspicious US blocked it.

Just a few hours before, a procedural cock-up had resulted in a chastised and sleep-deprived Yvo de Boer - executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - leaving the platform in tears. Then the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon entered to read the riot act and demand a deal from bickering delegates. Coming after such a tense and fractious morning, the US's one-nation attempted veto caused outrage.

It seemed set to wreck the deal.

But then, in a moment of unscripted high drama rarely seen at UN conferences, Papua New Guinea's head of delegation Kevin Conrad rose above the barrage of appeals to the US delegation and simply commanded them: "If you are not prepared to lead, get out of the way." And they did. If the world finds a way to counter climate change, that will be a moment for the history books.

"Papua New Guinea simply said to the US delegation: 'If you are not prepared to lead, get out of the way.' And they did"

The scale of global emissions cuts now regarded by scientists as essential means that developing nations including China, India and Brazil will need to curtail their emissions sooner rather than later. US delegate Jim Connaughton put the emissions maths most succinctly.

Assuming even a conservative rate of global economic growth, business-as-usual energy technologies will raise global CO₂ emissions from 22 billion tonnes to 37 billion tonnes by 2050. Meeting the Bali aspiration of halving global emissions will require cutting emissions to 11 billion tonnes. That is a reduction on business as usual of 26 billion tonnes - more than current total emissions.

The scale of the task was so great that "even if developed countries went to zero, it would still require major developing countries to halve their [projected] emissions," Connaughton said.

One barely discussed element is that the Kyoto protocol appears to have been consigned to the dustbin of history even before its main provisions come into force in January. Nobody talks about a second round of Kyoto targets any more. The Bali roadmap mentions the protocol only once, noting that the new negotiations "shall be informed by... experience in implementing the... Kyoto protocol".

This provides a face-saving way back into the climate fold for Kyoto-refusenik, the US. Nobody is saying so, but it may also wipe the slate clean for countries likely to fail their Kyoto targets. Canada in particular is expected to have emissions 38 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010, rather than the promised 6 per cent cut. Moreover its government has said that it will not, as required by the protocol, buy carbon offsets to make up the difference.

Under the protocol, Canada faced swingeing penalties in a future round of emissions targets. It may now escape them. Likewise Australia, which finally signed up to the Kyoto protocol in Bali seemingly unconcerned that it has no hope of even approaching the target it agreed back in 1997.

Meanwhile the "Berlin Wall" within the Kyoto protocol, which divided the list of industrialied nations with targets and the rest, has disappeared. The roadmap text talks simply of developed and developing nations, without defining them. De Boer says this creates greater flexibility. It also creates new complications.

The one unquestioned promise in Bali was that negotiations on the successor to the Kyoto protocol will be concluded in 2009. That could prove the hardest thing of all to achieve.

(See editorial comment)

Climate Change – Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.

From issue 2635 of New Scientist magazine, 22 December 2007, page 6-7

The Bali summit: Why is the British government's energy policy not delivering on its climate change targets?

Reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/david_thorpe/2007/12/the_energy_battle.html

The energy battle

The Bali summit: Why is the British government's energy policy not delivering on its climate change targets? Because it has been nobbled

David Thorpe

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All David Thorpe articles

December 4, 2007 7:00 PM | Printable version

The beautiful resort of Nusa Dua, Bali, is the scene this week of a battle of world-wide significance. Yes, it's yet another UN climate conference.

We're all used by now to how these things involve the spouting of giga-tonnes of hot air, and this one promises to be only slightly different. The IPCC report issued two weeks ago was the last warning salvo fired by the scientific community before the talks, and its most extreme warning yet. But no one expects any big breakthroughs.

The British position for Bali is to support the Washington Declaration but to expect to wait at least a year for progress, and hope that President Bush's successor will be more on board.

Away from the sun-kissed beaches of Indonesia, though, the action that's more of relevance to us in Britain is happening closer to our rain-drenched shores.

An assessment by the EU of progress towards the pitiably modest Kyoto targets shows Spain leading the way among the 26 member states, with the UK in the lower half - 10th from bottom and 16th from the top.

Why has Britain falled behind on renewable energy and carbon emissions? Why has the government seemed to say so much yet do so little? Why is the government expecting to build more nuclear power plants, and rely on carbon capture and storage to capture the rogue gas and bury it underground or at the bottom of the sea?

Why is it going to argue in Europe during the next few months that the UK must not have to reach the European target of 20% of renewable electricity by 2020?

These are the fruits of a bitter dispute at the heart of UK energy policy development, in which support for new nuclear build, gas and carbon capture is pitted against support for renewables (in which a feed-in law should have a rightful place). The lobbying battle has been led by the conventional energy industry giants and the nuclear industry.

These companies have successfully nobbled both BERR (the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) and the Treasury. They have not nobbled Defra, which has responsibility for climate change but not energy. Defra, and many back-benchers in parliament, support a feed-in tarriff, but whenever such a question is addressed to energy minister Malcolm Wicks, as it has been several times this month in parliament, he bats it away very smartly, and talks like a robot about the Renewables Obligation, partly because the energy giants (Eurelectric et al) have mobilised a fresh campaign against feed-in tarriffs.

A feed-in tariff simply guarantees producers a fixed price for electricity generated from PVs (solar panels). It was introduced in Germany in 2000, and revised in 2004 to cover the full costs involved in producing solar electricity, sparking a boom. Germany will have almost 20 times as much PV by the end of 2007 as in 2000 when there was just 44MW, according to the German Solar Industry Association. It has led to around 800,000 properties having the technology installed and 55% of the world's photovoltaic power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest. Just what we need here.

Both the Conservatives and the LibDems have made feed-in part of their policy. But in the UK we have the Renewables Obligation, which is supposed to compel suppliers to purchase an increasing proportion of electricity from renewable sources. In 2006/07 the proportion should be 6.7% (2.6% in Northern Ireland) rising to 10.4% by 2011-12. But actually we are behind this target. The Obligation has often been criticised for being ineffective, bureaucratic, slow, and in particular excluding small generators such as householders.

Which is just how the large energy producers like it - they don't want a lot of microgeneration schemes all over the country. Good grief, if everyone is making their own electricity, who is going to buy from them? And the unions agree. It's worth noting that the unions are well represented in the conventional energy industry, with coal and nuclear carrying significant union membership. But the UK renewables industry has no union. Conversely, the big energy companies are all members of the only lobbying bodies the renewables industry has, their trade associations.

There have been any number of well-researched reports showing how Britain can meet and exceed its climate targets, from Zero Carbon Britain to last week's Home Truths report from Oxford University. But instead the government will be resurrecting civil nuclear power - just as seven of the UK's 16 nuclear power plants are off-line for repairs and maintenance.

The comeback of nuclear power is based on the allegation that it is almost carbon-free. The Treasury has accepted evidence that its lifecycle carbon emissions are equivalent to those of wind power: between seven and 22g CO2/kWh.

However, extensively peer-reviewed empirical analysis of the energy intensity and carbon emissions at each stage of the nuclear cycle has produced much higher figures. In fact, nuclear power produces roughly one quarter to one third as much carbon dioxide as the delivery of the same quantity of electricity from natural gas, ie 88-134g CO2/kWh. Gas-fired electricity production involves the emission of around 400g CO2/kWh.

Nuclear is still lower than gas, but nowhere near wind.

However, don't expect the government to listen to this. It has already decided, in a mind-bogglingly cavalier fashion, that it is fine to proceed with new power stations. Why? Because the present government will not have to foot the construction costs or the clean-up bill for these power stations (we already have a £73 billion bill for the current clean-up costs).

Meanwhile the energy companies have persuaded the government to persuade Europe - in the second round of the Emissions Trading System (ETS) - to create a new set of certificates which will pretend to save carbon but make them money. For each kWh of green electricity produced, the producer can ask a competent national body to issue a green certificate. This can be traded and will be counted towards the national target in the country into which the certificate is sold - a developing country, most likely. The country from which the certificate originates will not be able to count it under its own national target achievement plan. In this way, the energy cartel vigorously defends a domestic system which blocks out everyone except themselves.

The biggest success of the Emissions Trading System so far has been to generate profits for the big energy companies. No wonder they love it. A report by Open Europe, in July 2006, found that profits were £10.2m for Esso; £17.9m for BP; and £20.7m for Shell. Conversely, smaller organisations like hospitals and universities, who had been given far fewer credits, were forced to go out and buy them - while the price was still high. So, for example, Manchester university spent £92,500.

The permits to burn fossil fuels were given away to 5,000 of the EU's biggest polluters. At one point, the price of permits rose to €27 per tonne, making the whole distribution worth €177 billion. This inflated their profits and enabled them to out-compete cleaner, less energy-hungry firms. It also enabled them to finance further lobbying in the manner described above. If, instead, the emissions permits had been given to every EU resident, we could each have been better off by up to €280 a year, Irish sustainable development group Feasta has calculated.

As for carbon capture and storage (CCS), the big energy companies would love to count tonnes of the gas buried as qualifying for allowances under the European Emissions Trading Scheme. Yet a draft of the European Directive on the topic, due to be presented by the Commission in January, says that although it will be included in the ETS, credits won't be allowed, on the grounds that the technology is "immature".

One high-ranking Commission official close to the work recently admitted that the Commission "has perhaps been too optimistic" on CCS and that making the technology viable is going to be "more costly and more complicated" than initially thought," says Euractiv, the independent Brussels media portal. Our government has meanwhile tendered for a demonstration project and is working with Norway in the North Sea on CCS projects.

So all of the policies lobbied for by the large energy companies are of dubious value in reducing carbon emissions, yet they are about to be enshrined in law in the Energy Bill, while the Climate Change Bill, although it makes many provisions, doesn't actually contain any proper policies.

In my opinion, only two central policies are required, from which all other policies and implementations could follow.

The first is the feed-in law referred to above. The second is cap-and-share (or TEQs - Tradeable Energy Quotas). They both involve taking the choice out of consumers' hands. What? I hear you say. We can't do that! But educating consumers to buy energy-saving products is not sufficient. As long as the products are on the market - and patio heaters and digital gadgets will be - people will buy them. Especially if they've saved money by saving energy - they're bound to spend it - and all spending involves an energy quotient.

So what do you do? You allocate a cap on the amount of carbon that can be emitted in the country, and reduce it year by year. You apportion that amount to each individual and let them spend it. Two main systems of doing this are competing for adoption. In Ireland, cap-and-share is the successful one, and AEA Environmental Consulting has just announced that it has won the job of producing a feasibility study on its implementation over there. Cap-and-share lets individuals choose whether to destroy or sell back to energy producers their allowances. These companies (and there aren't many) can only emit the carbon thus permitted.

Under TEQs being trialled in several communities in the UK, individuals spend their allowances whenever they purchase energy. If they outspend their quota in a year, they must buy more off those who haven't. This system engenders more consumer awareness of how their activities use energy.

Both policy solutions take power from the energy cartel - literally - not to mention their gravy train. You can see why they don't like them.

Tackling climate change - Bali summit

Reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139676.stm

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has opened high-level talks at the climate change conference in Bali with a call to action.

He said that if no action was taken, the world would face impacts such as drought, famine and rising sea levels.

Delegates are hoping to agree a "Bali roadmap" leading to further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions when the Kyoto Protocol targets expire in 2012.

The US and Canada are among countries opposed to further binding targets.

The UN itself wants developed countries to commit to cuts of 25-40% from 1990 levels by 2020.

'No plan B'

"We gather because the time for equivocation is over," said Mr Ban.

"Climate change is the defining challenge of our age. The science is clear; climate change is happening, the impact is real. The time to act is now."

It's no good accepting that something is a problem and then failing to do anything about it Andy Atkins, Tearfund

The newly-elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd handed documents to Mr Ban confirming his government's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

"The community of nations must reach agreement," he told delegates.

"There is no plan B; there is no other planet any of us can escape to."

The Australian decision leaves the US as the only industrialised nation outside the Kyoto process.

Security at the summit was enhanced because of the car bomb attack on UN premises in Algeria, which left at least 26 people dead.

Replacing Kyoto

Negotiators have been trying to map out a two-year process that would result in a further set of emissions cuts to replace the current Kyoto Protocol targets.

Broad building-blocks have already been agreed, but much of the detail remains contentious, in particular how much weight to give to the heavy emissions cuts recommended by the UN's panel of scientists.

In a major assessment this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that emissions should peak and begin to fall within 10-15 years in order to avoid damaging impacts.

While acknowledging the science, the US argues for voluntary agreements rather than a global system of binding cuts.

Dealing with drought Enlarge Image

There has also been debate about adaptation - how to help developing countries protect their societies and economies against the worst impacts of climate change.

Studies indicate that the sums needed run into tens of billions of dollars per year, but funds committed so far amount to tens of millions of dollars.

"The main issue we've been trying to get across is that climate change is already hitting the poorest - it's not something for the future, it's something that's happening now," said Andy Atkins from the development charity Tearfund.

Mr Atkins said that in Niger, farmers have seen a rainy season shrink from three months each year to just six weeks.

"People in Bali are accepting adaptation will have to be part of a deal," he said. "But it's no good accepting that something is a big problem and then failing to do anything about it."

NATIONAL CLIMATE MARCH - GLOBAL DAY OF ACTION

Reposted from: http://www.campaigncc.org/ via BHA e-bulletin

For the one world we have
The National Climate Change March is taking place on Saturday 8^th December in Central London. The march aims to show that there is popular support from across the community for strong action on Climate Change from the UK and international governments. More than 10,000 people are expected to participate in this event which is timed to coincide with the international UN Climate Talks in Bali. The march is also part of a global day of action on climate, with simultaneous events taking place in more than 50 countries. Speakers include: Chris Huhne MP, Michael Meacher MP, Caroline Lucas MEP and George Monbiot.

Assemble at Millbank (Westminster Tube) at noon for the main march, with a rally at the US Embassy at 2.30pm. Further details from the Campaign Against Climate Change.

Labour are tackling climate change in small steps - they should look at Conservatives ideas

Reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/zac_goldsmith/2007/11/greenish_brown.html

Greenish Brown

The prime minister is tackling climate change in small steps. But if he wants to see ambitious reform, he should look to the Conservatives

Zac Goldsmith

November 20, 2007 7:20 PM | Printable version

"Building a low carbon economy," Gordon Brown said yesterday, "demands a worldwide commitment on a comparable financial scale to the post-war Marshall plan."

The prime minister seems finally to have understood the significance of the environmental challenges we face. But so far at least, there's very little to inspire confidence in his willingness or ability to provide solutions.

It's all very well, for instance, to set ambitious targets - and Gordon Brown's latest targets on emissions reductions are impressive. But it's another thing to identify mechanisms that will actually enable us to meet them.

If, as the prime minister promises, Britain will fully contribute to a EU target that 20% of our total energy will come from renewable sources by 2020, that requires radical action now. We will need, for instance to increase the amount of renewable electricity we generate to 40%. At present, only 2% of energy in the UK comes from renewable sources.

How? Enabling local communities to benefit directly from wind farms, as he suggested, may help. Sending energy teams to the 50 poorest areas in the UK to help install energy efficiency measures will also help. Smart meters too. But these are small steps.

And they will, in any case, be overshadowed by government contradictions elsewhere. We are seeing increasing risk, for instance, of flooding, and yet we continue to build on flood plains. We are committed to cutting emissions, and yet current policy is geared towards trebling of our airport capacity.

This is what is so deeply frustrating. Gordon Brown has made the right noises. But he has failed to come up with significant answers. I think the problem is that he confuses "cost" with investment, and has been unable to see opportunities presented by the shift to a cleaner economy.

He also fears a voter backlash. But if there have been rumblings of an anti-green backlash, I believe Gordon Brown is partially to blame. It has been successive, clumsy initiatives by his government that have contributed to eroding people's appetite for green solutions, and worse, legitimising scepticism about politicians' motives.

Gordon Brown's previous idea, for example, of imposing an extra £50 on vehicle excise duty for a car they have already bought clearly won't lead to any shift in behaviour. Similarly tax reductions on "zero carbon homes". It sounds great, but what's the point in offering carrots for goals that are currently unattainable?

The best mechanism for pricing pollution and the use of scarce resources is through a shift in taxation. If the tax emphasis shifts from good things like employment to bad things like pollution, companies will necessarily begin designing waste out of the way they operate.

But governments need to accept that people do not trust them. So if a tax is levied against a "bad" activity, it must be seen to be offset against "good" activities.

In principle, Brown is committed to "green taxation". But, in practice, the change on his watch has been negligible. The actual level of green taxation has fallen since 1997 from 9.4% to 7.7%, even while the tax take generally has soared.

Gordon Brown said yesterday, we need "governing not gimmickry". A good first step is to examine the successes of other governments.

If "feed-in tariffs" have triggered a renewable energy boom in Germany, why not implement them here, as the Conservative party has proposed?

German householders are guaranteed a high price for the energy they generate and sell back to the grid. As a result, a single town in Bavaria generates more solar energy than the whole of the UK.

If existing energy-efficient appliances can deliver massive energy savings, why not demonstrate real leadership by raising appliance standards, instead of distributing token lightbulbs? We know the manufacturers can and will respond.

Change will happen, one way or another. It's a mathematical certainty. But if we take the lead now, it will happen on our terms, and we can emerge with a cleaner, leaner, more efficient economy.

PM outlines climate action plan

Reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7101075.stm

PM outlines climate action plan

Mr Brown said there were hard choices ahead Speech Excerpt

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said there will be a "green hotline" to advise people on what they can do to cut their impact on the environment.

Mr Brown, who said the UK's emission target of a 60% cut by 2050 could be increased to 80%, said he would also seek the end of one-use plastic bags.

In his first speech on the environment as PM he said there would be "hard choices and tough decisions".

But he said Britain could lead the world and gain thousands of jobs.

The new Green Homes Service - a telephone line, website and advice centres - aims to provide a single point of contact for people who want a "home energy audit".

Home energy

It will also give advice on saving water, reducing waste and other ways to be more environmentally friendly.

Mr Brown said, in 50 of Britain's poorest areas, homes would be offered energy efficiency deals, and for those selling or buying energy wasting homes it would offer discounted help.

While the richest countries have caused climate change it is the poorest who are already suffering its effects Gordon Brown Analysis: Tackling the home front Reaction to speech

He said it represented "the biggest improvement in home energy efficiency in our history", with a third of households offered help over the next three years to reduce their emissions.

In his wide-ranging speech, the prime minister said climate change had been the product of many generations, but "overcoming it must be the great project of this generation".

Emissions cap

He added: "I believe it will require no less than a fourth technological revolution. In the past the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, the microprocessor transformed not just technology but the way our society has been organised and the way people live.

"Now we're about to embark on a comparable technological transformation to low carbon energy and energy efficiency and this represents an immense challenge to Britain, but it is also an opportunity."

High targets have been set for Britain's cut in emissions

Mr Brown said he wanted Britain to become a "world leader" in building a low carbon economy, which could lead to thousands of new British businesses, hundreds of thousands of new jobs and a "vast export market".

And the prime minister also said he wanted to work with countries like the US and Japan to establish a new "funding framework", to help developing countries adjust to low carbon growth, adapt to climate change and tackle deforestation.

"While the richest countries have caused climate change it is the poorest who are already suffering its effects," Mr Brown said.

Plastic bags

He said the Climate Change Bill put a "statutory cap" on Britain's carbon emissions - with five year "carbon budgets" to give certainty for businesses and investors.

And he said he wants the post-2012 agreement, to be discussed at a climate change summit in Bali in December, to include "binding emissions caps" for all developed countries.

The Climate Change Bill would ensure Britain met its target of a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050.

Until Gordon Brown learns that tough action is needed to back up his warm words, he cannot be the change the country needs Peter Ainsworth Conservatives

But he said new evidence suggested developed countries may have to reduce emissions by up to 80% - and he would ask the committee on climate change "to advise us, as it begins to consider the first three five-year budgets, on whether our own domestic target should be tightened up to 80%".

Mr Brown also said the government would convene a forum of supermarkets, the British Retail Consortium and others to look at how to reduce plastic bags to cut landfill waste.

"I am convinced that we can eliminate single-use disposable bags altogether, in favour of long-lasting and more sustainable alternatives," he said.

'Unequivocal'

Britain is "absolutely committed to meeting our share" of the EU's 2020 renewable energy target, he said.

It could mean the UK will have to produce between 40 and 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 - the current figure is about 5%.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said this would be "staggering", but he said that the government was seeking to negotiate down the EU target.

The government blithely talks of the opportunities created by green industries yet refuses to promote fledgling initiatives properly Chris Huhne Liberal Democrats

Shadow environment secretary Peter Ainsworth said Mr Brown's record on the environment consisted of "missing targets, then scrapping them, then cutting the budgets that deal with them".

"Just this weekend, we learnt of a further #300 million of crippling cuts to key environmental services.

"Until Gordon Brown learns that tough action is needed to back up his warm words, he cannot be the change the country needs," he said.

Global deal

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne said he wanted to see whether Mr Brown was prepared to meet promises on renewable energy without counting nuclear power.

And he added: "The government blithely talks of the opportunities created by green industries yet refuses to promote fledgling initiatives properly.

"Boasts of a new green home service seem shallow when recent cuts to the New Millennium Grants will dissuade many homeowners from installing energy saving measures in their homes."

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has challenged governments to act on the findings of a major new report on climate change, saying real and affordable ways to deal with the problem existed.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says climate change is "unequivocal" and may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts.

Climate change will be discussed at a forthcoming summit of Commonwealth leaders, just ahead of a UN meeting in Indonesia where a new global deal on emissions will be considered.

4th and final 2007 IPCC report

Reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7098902.stm

UN challenges states on warming

By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Valencia

The IPCC says more heat waves are very likely in the future

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has challenged governments to act on the findings of a major new report on climate change.

Launching the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he said real and affordable ways to deal with the problem existed.

The IPCC states that climate change is "unequivocal" and may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts.

Mr Ban urged politicians to respond at a UN climate change conference in Bali.

"Today the world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," he said. "In Bali I expect the world's policymakers to do the same."

Mr Ban arrived at the IPCC meeting in Valencia from a fact-finding trip to Antarctic and South America.

We are all in this together - we must work together Ban Ki-moon Humans blamed for change Billions face climate risk Climate 'can be tackled' Ban Ki-moon

"I come to you humbled after seeing some of the most precious treasures of our planet threatened by humanity's own hand," he said.

"All humanity must assume responsibility for these treasures."

Unavoidable effects

The IPCC report synthesises the three aspects of climate change that it has already pronounced on earlier in the year, on the science, the likely impacts, and options for dealing with the problem.

Among the top-line conclusions are that climate change is "unequivocal", that humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are more than 90% likely to be the main cause, and that impacts can be reduced at reasonable cost.

READ THE FINDINGS IPCC report [9.3MB]

One declaration that reportedly caused heated discussion during the week-long talks here states that climate change may bring "abrupt and irreversible" impacts.

Such impacts could include the fast melting of glaciers and species extinctions.

"Approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C (relative to the 1980-1999 average)," the summary concludes.

Other potential impacts highlighted in the text include:

• between 75m and 250m people are projected to have scarcer fresh water supplies than at present
• yields from rain-fed agriculture could be halved
• food security is likely to be further compromised in Africa
• there will be widespread impacts on coral reefs

The panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, highlighted the need to deal with impacts which are coming whether or not global emissions are curbed.

Even if levels of CO2 in the atmosphere stayed where they are now, he said, research showed sea levels would rise by between 0.4 and 1.4 metres simply because sea water would continue warming up, which makes it expand.

"This is a very important finding, likely to bring major changes to coastlines and inundating low-lying areas, with a great effect in river deltas and low-lying islands," he said.

"If you add to this the melting of some of the ice bodies on Earth, this gives a picture of the kinds of issue we are likely to face."

Worse case

IPCC PROJECTIONS Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C Sea level most likely to rise by 28-43cm Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century Increase in heat waves very likely Increase in tropical storm intensity likely Who are the IPCC? Climate change: The evidence Send us your comments

This is the IPCC's fourth major assessment of global climate change since its formation nearly 20 years ago.

During the course of its existence, it has become more certain that modern-day climate change is real and principally due to human activities; it has also become firmer about the scale of the impacts.

"If you look at the overall picture of impacts, both those occurring now and those projected for the future, they appear to be both larger and appearing earlier than we thought [in our 2001 report]," Martin Parry, co-chair of the impacts working group, told BBC News.

"Some of the changes that we previously projected for around 2020 or 2030 are occurring now, such as the Arctic melt and shifts in the locations of various species."

There are indications that projected increases in droughts are also happening earlier than expected, he said, though that was less certain.

The IPCC considered about 29,000 pieces of real-world evidence in compiling this report, as well as the projections of computer models.

These include observations showing that dry areas of the world such as the Sahel and southern Africa are receiving less rainfall, while it has increased in northern Europe and parts of the Americas.

The panel suggests societies need to adapt to future impacts, as well as curbing emissions.

Without extra measures, carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise; they are already growing faster than a decade ago, partly because of increasing use of coal.

The IPCC's economic analyses say that trend can be reversed at reasonable cost. Indeed, it says, there is "much evidence that mitigation actions can result in near-term co-benefits (e.g. improved health due to reduced air pollution)" that may offset costs.

The panel's scientists say the reversal needs to come within a decade or so if the worst effects of global warming are to be avoided.

The findings will feed into the Bali talks on the UN climate convention and the Kyoto Protocol which open on 3 December.