Green Energy Republic

Zero Carbon Britain – It Can Be Done

Britain has the potential, skills, and natural resources to lead the world in carbon reduction.

On October 16th our CEO Juliet Davenport will be speaking at this year’s Bristol Schumacher Conference, arguably one of the most crucial in its 33-year history. Bringing together major players in the renewable sector, this event will be addressing the huge promise of a Zero Carbon Britain – from Aspiration into Action.

Most people have almost no idea just how well endowed Britain is with renewable energy or that, as the Centre for Alternative Technology’s recent report shows, a zero carbon Britain is actually possible. The purpose of the 2010 Schumacher Conference is to open our eyes to these very real possibilities.

Juliet will be joined by two fellow leaders in the renewable field: Peter Harper, Head of Research and Innovation at the Centre for Alternative Technology and author of its major new report Zero Carbon Britain 2030; and Jacquline McGlade, Executive Director of the hugely influential European Environment Agency in Copenhagen.

Each speaker will be articulating their pathway to shifting the UK from where it is today to a brighter, greener, zero carbon future. Juliet will describe how Good Energy is applying its innovative thinking to identify the changes the UK needs to make to the process which takes power from a windy hilltop to a light switch at home; ranging from smart grids and demand side management to the true cost of energy – environmental as well as financial.

Juliet’s vision of the future looks very different to what we see today: energy companies will be transformed from leviathans to enablers and, maybe, by 2050, they will all look like Good Energy.

“The approach of powering down (reducing demand) and powering up (building a new, zero carbon energy infrastructure)...is the logical, achievable next step forward...a move towards entrepreneurship, resilience, connectedness and stability. It offers a return to scale, a bringing home of the impacts of our actions, and a shift to a world that we can hand on to our grandchildren with relief and pride, and with a twinkle in our eyes,” says Rob Hopkins, co-founder of Transition Towns 

For anyone interested in a sustainable future this is not an event to be missed. Book your ticket here.

'Solar' by Ian McEwan

Ian McEwan has just been awarded the Bollinger Everyman Wodehouse prize for Solar. As part of this quirky award for comic writing, McEwan will have a Gloucestershire Old Spot pig renamed Solar in his honour!

Here's what we thought of the book...

Reviewed by Sophy in the Good Energy marketing team 

A new novel by Ian McEwan is an eagerly-anticipated event – and when the plot of the novel revolves around finding solutions to climate change, it’s enough to make you pre-order the book from Waterstone’s (a first for me!)

So, does Solar live up to the anticipation?

First off, presumably to lighten what could be (arguably should be) such a serious subject, McEwan introduces humour for the first time into his work – with a series of comedic set-pieces mixed with much darker humour. The main protagonist, physicist Michael Beard, is a man of prodigious appetites – greedy for food and drink, greedy for sex and greedy for critical acclaim. And this unattractive combination eventually leads to his downfall. The analogy with our planet is clear – over-consumption is sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

A source of inspiration for the novel was McEwan’s trip to the Arctic in 2005 organised by Cape Farewell – the charity which promotes a cultural response to climate change, and a Good Energy partner. One wonders what happened to him there to lead to the farcical scenes (suspected frostbite to a very tender appendage, among other things) portrayed in the novel!

McEwan is known for his detailed and thorough research, and Solar deals with some huge scientific ideas and makes them easy for the layman to understand. As someone who works in the renewable energy business I loved how early on in the novel, a plan to develop an easy solution to climate change in the form of a rooftop wind turbine for urban areas gets abandoned later in the book in favour of massive-scale solar power from the desert in New Mexico.

For me, the most resonant part of the novel is when Beard presents to an audience of bankers his thoughts on climate change and the fantastic investment opportunities it presents – a speech I could easily imagine our own CEO making at a similar conference – only to be brushed off by the tall men in suits who are only concerned with the here-and-now and immediate returns.

McEwan chooses not to engage with climate-change scepticism in the novel – throughout the book man-made climate change is presented as undisputable fact. And when one of Beard's colleague’s expresses a concern that perhaps the climate isn’t changing after all, Beard reassures him: "It's a catastrophe. Relax!"

Opinions in the blogosphere are sharply divided as to the overall merits of the book. For me, the novel was not only entertaining but also managed to get a serious message across in a humorous way. But at times I felt McEwen was laying on the jokes with a sledgehammer, when a more subtle approach would have been more effective. Read the book, and make your own mind up – and please share your views with us by commenting on the blog.

Re-news

Can the US still save Copenhagen?

Many of the nations due to attend the climate talks in Copenhagen this December have already given up hope of agreeing a legally binding deal to reduce global CO2 emissions. There’s still no final word on whether Obama will grace the talks with his presence, despite all his green rhetoric, and most believe that his attendance is critical in finalising a definitive target.

However, it seems that all may not be entirely lost. According to reports, the US (which is the world’s highest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases) will propose a CO2 reduction at Copenhagen – though we don’t have any idea of the figure yet. As they still need to pass a final law to agree CO2 reductions at home, a White House official told Reuters, "Whatever number we put on the table will be with reference to what we think can come out of the legislative process."

This is a positive move, and a decent compromise from the US, which seems to be trying to align the needs of America with its responsibility to the international community.

The effects of global warming could be worse than we predicted

Three top climate change research groups have issued a bleak warning about what our future could hold if wedon’t take urgent steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We’ve been aware of the devastating effects of climate change for a long time now – Good Energy was set up almost ten years ago to help people across the UK start reducing their CO2 emissions  – but it’s only recently that it’s become a truly mainstream issue.

According to The Royal Society, Met Office, and Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc), the situation is “more alarming than ever”.  The science suggests that, without action, the 2003 heat wave in Europe and the 2007 floods in the UK will be minor opening acts in a performance of terrifying proportions. We could see higher food prices, ill health, more flooding and rising sea levels, as well as ocean acidification, loss of rainforests, degradation of ecosystems and desertification.

The three groups all agreed that cutting CO2 emissions “could substantially limit the severity of climate change”. With the floods that are currently devastating parts of the UK, what more motivation do we need to start making an effort to curb our hunger for carbon?

The Great Climate Change Fix...?

Emails leaked from the University of East Anglia this week have delighted climate change sceptics, who say that they add credibility to the claim that climate change is not happening.  They claim that some of the emails, allegedly sent over 13 years between climatologists at UEA’s world-renowned Climate Research Unit, suggest that data was manipulated to support the view that climate change is being caused by human activity.

However, much of the scientific community has dismissed the accusations. Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics told The Guardian, "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating [...] You can't tell what they are talking about.”

There are now calls for a full inquiry into the emails, so we can only wait for the outcome. Is there really any truth in it, or is it a handy smear to wreck the Copenhagen talks..? 

If you’d like to join in the debate, heated discussions are taking place on both The Guardian and the Telegraph websites so take your pick.

Take on the Climate Challenge with Dr Who

Team up with celebs to tackle climate change! Oxfam has just launched a new online game to raise awareness of the threat of global warming ahead of Copenhagen in December. You control your celebrity player - including the former Dr Who, David Tennant, and The Office’s Mackenzie Crook - choosing the answers they give to questions on topics such as energy use and bills, recycling, renewables and greenhouse gases.

Hopefully, the more people who really understand the facts of climate change, the more people will get involved and do something about it.

See how much you really know about climate change at http://www.theclimatechallenge.org/

Re-news

DECC feeling the heat
Ed Miliband’s Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is feeling the heat as its decision to scrap opening windows in favour of energy-guzzling air-conditioning has come under fire from environmental campaigners.

DECC, which is responsible for the UK achieving its carbon emissions targets, abandoned its plan to cut energy consumption by opening windows a mere three days into the trial! Apparently, an internal memo said that "Concerns have been raised about higher temperatures, reduced air flow, noise from the building works and security concerns”. This is a bit ironic – surely higher temperatures are exactly what they ought to expect if they insist on turning their air-conditioning back on?!  It is also worth noting that DECC’s newly refurbished offices have been awarded the lowest possible energy efficiency rating (G) - a classic case of do as we say, not do as we do.

Environmental organisations are, unsurprisingly, unimpressed with DECC’s apparent lack of commitment to energy-saving measures by the government body that should be fighting hardest for them. Come on DECC - we know you can do better than that!

East meets West as China gears up for Copenhagen
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has spoken about the need to stay focused on the bigger picture at climate talks in Copenhagen later this year during a recent visit to Beijing. He maintains that a definite, positive outcome could be threatened if leaders get too caught up in ‘precise percentages’ – basically, arguing about who should reduce emissions by how much.

We’re already seeing this kind of dispute: Beijing, for example, is keen that the West leads the way with massive emissions cuts, whilst the West is similarly pressing Beijing to give an exact target for its own reductions. That said, it looks like things are moving in the right direction. Though China is still the world's biggest emitter (read more about this in a previous post here) it is putting more and more cash into renewables projects, with a recent report in The Telegraph claiming the country now has a third of the world market for solar cells and is on course to build 100 gigawatts of wind turbines by 2020.

There’s no doubting that negotiations are going to be difficult, but we agree with Tony: Copenhagen must not be a battle between East and West.

The kids are united
Around 700 children from all over the world got together in Seoul, South Korea, last week to discuss their concerns about climate change ahead of the Copenhagen talks. They called for world leaders to take positive action saying: ‘We now need more actions and less talking.” It’s good to know that the future looks safe in the hands of the next generation.

Australia passes 20% renewable energy bill
The Australian parliament has passed a law to ensure that 20% of its electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020 - enough clean energy sources to power all of Australia’s households.

This is a positive move, but there are fears that it may not prove as successful as hoped. Critics have argued that, although the amount of renewable energy will increase, if this isn’t supported by strong cuts in greenhouse gas emissions the country’s CO2 emissions might actually increase over the next ten years. Australia’s climate change minister said “The only way we're going to be able to turn around the growth in our carbon pollution ... is to put a firm legislated limit on the amount of carbon that we produce and make those who create the pollution pay for it."

A politician with some sound advice – let’s hope that the Australian government takes it on board.

 And finally...
An ingenious idea to cut carbon using artificial trees could be a reality within 10-20 years. A new report from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has suggested that this could be a viable way to ‘soak up’ CO2 in the atmosphere.

The trees would work by capturing carbon dioxide in a filter from which it would then be removed and stored. The technology would be developed alongside carbon storage techniques – which the government is already planning to use on a large-scale. The report claims that each tree would be around the size of a shipping container and could remove thousands of times more CO2 from the atmosphere than a real tree of the same size.

This invention is currently at the prototype stage so will need a lot more testing and development, but it’s certainly something we’re going to keep an eye on!  Although, it must be said that this isn't a solution long term, just a way of clearing up the mess we are making currently.

Green Energy Republic

Geo-engineering: Cloud ships

Geo-engineering is not something we’ve covered on this blog before. It’s the idea of using man-made techniques to reduce CO2 emissions, or to reflect heat back out of our atmosphere to keep the planet cool.

Over the years climate scientists have made some pretty wacky suggestions, but there’ve also been some good ones. Recently they’ve started to be taken more seriously, as scientists are recognising that huge engineering projects may be the only way to buy more time.

 One of the most interesting proposals is cloud ships.

The idea is that 2,000 ships could travel the oceans, sucking up sea water and spraying it high into the air to form white clouds (don’t worry, not rain clouds!). These clouds would reflect 1 – 2% of the sun’s rays preventing them from warming the oceans by small amounts, but by enough to have a significant impact on global warming. Enough to neutralise C02 emissions, if you believe the theory.

Sounds a bit silly? But it’s actually being considered as a climate solution and is under investigation by the Royal Society. The Copenhagen Consensus Centre, a think tank investigating geo-engineering ideas, has concluded that the scheme would cost around $9 billion USD, a fraction of the cost associated with more conventional climate solutions. It could also be up and running within 25 years, as opposed to the long drawn out solutions like carbon capture.

Geo-engineering isn’t being seen as the answer to climate change, but as a way to buy time as we move to a low-carbon economy. Reducing the sun’s rays could cool the earth whilst we build networks of renewable energy and work out ways to develop sustainably.

As with US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s suggestion to paint all roofs white, this idea has had a hilarious reaction in the comments boxes of newspapers and blogs, where many people seem to think they are better qualified to comment on solutions to climate change than Nobel-prize-winning physicists and feel the need to share their views with the world. What is true is that these ideas need more scrutiny. And what’s changed is that some of them are actually worth scrutinizing.

We’ll keep you updated on other geo-engineering proposals.

Green Energy Republic