Nuclear Plant Locations are Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise & Storm Surges

One important lesson of the Fukushima nuclear accident has been overlooked. Nuclear power is often touted as a solution to climate change, but this disaster serves as a warning that far from solving the climate problem, nuclear power may be highly vulnerable to it. The bottom line is that if nuclear power is to be used to mitigate the effects of climate change, it must also be capable of adapting to them. There are serious doubts that it can. The New Scientist tells us why.

By Natalie Kopytko New Scientist (24 May 2011):

Far from solving the climate problem, nuclear power may be highly vulnerable to it

THE accident at the Fukushima power plant in Japan has led to much discussion about the future of nuclear power. I believe one important lesson of the accident has been overlooked. Nuclear power is often touted as a solution to climate change, but Fukushima serves as a warning that far from solving the climate problem, nuclear power may be highly vulnerable to it.

Of course, the emergency in Japan was caused by an earthquake and tsunami. But the effects of climate change could cause very similar problems.

Two facts that everyone should now know about nuclear power are that it needs access to large volumes of water to cool the reactor and a supply of energy to move the water. For this reason nuclear power plants are typically sited near large bodies of water, often seas or estuaries. It is this attachment to water that makes nuclear power vulnerable to climate change.

First of all, coastal areas are highly dynamic: storms batter, sea levels rise, and land shifts. This already poses problems for the safety of nuclear plants, and is only going to get worse. Secondly, nuclear power can be disrupted by water scarcity and rising water temperatures.

Nuclear regulators are already well aware of several safety issues, including flooding, loss of power, loss of communications, blockage of evacuation routes and equipment malfunction. Hurricanes pose the greatest threat.

Many climate models predict an increase in hurricane intensity. Even if they are wrong, existing reactors were built (along with most coastal developments) during a period of historically low hurricane activity and a return to baseline seems likely.

This is not to say an accident will happen every time a hurricane passes by a nuclear power plant. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes can be predicted, allowing time for preparation. Still, preventative measures are not always taken. For instance, during hurricane Francis in 2004 doors designed to protect safety equipment from flying debris at the St Lucie nuclear power plant in Florida were left open.

Another cause for concern is floods. All nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a certain level of flooding based on historical data, but these figures do not take climate change into account. Floods due to sea-level rise, storm surges and heavy rain will increase in frequency.

This isn’t a hypothetical future scenario. In 1999 the Blayais nuclear power plant on the Gironde estuary in France flooded due to a high tide and strong winds that exceeded anything it was designed to withstand. Two of the reactor units on site were severely affected by flooding.

Heat waves are another serious concern, for two reasons. One, the colder the cooling water entering a reactor, the more efficient the production of electricity. And two, once the cooling water has passed through the system it is often discharged back where it came from in a much warmer state.

During the 2003 heat wave in Europe, reactors at inland sites in France were shut down or had their power output reduced because the water receiving the discharge was already warmer than environmental regulations allowed. Citing “exceptional circumstances”, the French government relaxed the regulations to maintain the supply of electricity. After subsequent heat waves it became a permanent measure during the summer months.

The relaxing of the regulations causes thermal pollution that reduces the ability of aquatic ecosystems to adapt to warmer temperatures. Some may argue these regional impacts are insignificant compared to the global ramifications of climate change, but they illustrate that nuclear power can actually worsen its impact.

There is a human cost too. As the heat wave wore on, French consumers were asked to conserve energy, and exports to some countries, especially Italy, were reduced. While France, which generates over 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear sources, avoided blackouts, Italy did not. The heat wave caused an estimated 40,000 deaths, around half of them in Italy. These deaths cannot be attributed directly to the failure of nuclear power but energy conservation and blackouts surely made people more vulnerable.

The final problem is droughts, which climate models predict will become longer and larger. Legal battles have already been fought in the US over scarce water resources in regions with nuclear power plants, including the Catawba river basin in the Carolinas and the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint river basin in Georgia, Florida and Alabama. These battles show us that adapting our systems – including nuclear power – to a reduced supply of water will not be easy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency advises the nuclear industry to build power plants to last for 100 years. Given that climate models don’t agree on what to expect within this time period, it is not at all clear how this can be achieved.

New reactors could use dry or hybrid systems with lower water requirements, but the costs of running these systems are likely to be prohibitive. Considering nuclear power plants already have problems with construction cost overruns, any additional costs are likely to meet resistance.

What is to be done? Most forms of energy generation are vulnerable in some way to the effects of climate change, and the fact that nuclear power is among them is yet another argument against a wholesale shift towards this source of energy.

The bottom line is that if nuclear power is to be used to mitigate the effects of climate change, it must also be capable of adapting to them. There are serious doubts that it can.

Natalie Kopytko is in the environment department at the University of York, UK

Source: www.newscientist.com

Singapore Samples Solar for its Silicon & Semiconductor Strengths

Green energy in public housing is getting a boost, as the Housing Board wants to double the current capacity by launching its largest-ever single solar panel scheme. In a tender that closed this month, the HDB called for a company to own and operate panels in the eco-town of Punggol, offering to buy the electricity produced for 20 years. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last year that Singapore is focusing on solar energy because it taps the country’s strengths in electronics, silicon and semiconductors. He said this could give the country another avenue of economic growth.

The Straits Times (25 May 2011):

Green energy in public housing is getting a boost, as the Housing Board wants to double the current capacity by launching its largest-ever single solar panel scheme.

In a tender that closed this month, the HDB called for a company to own and operate panels in the eco-town of Punggol, offering to buy the electricity produced for 20 years.

The panels, or sheets, will be put up on 85 blocks and can produce 2 MWp (megawatt peak) of energy when the sun is fully out. Such an amount of energy can meet the power needs of five four-room HDB flats for a month.

But the electricity produced will not be for home use. Rather, it will be used to power lights in common areas, lifts and pumps, among other things.

The tender is part of the HDB’s $31 million, five-year scheme to test-bed solar energy in 30 precincts.

The silicon sheets – called solar photovoltaic panels – harness the sun’s energy, turning it into useful electricity, while emitting none of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that are produced by burning fossil fuels.

They are seen as green energy options that may cost more in the short term but offer long-term, environment-friendly benefits for everyone.

The scale of the latest project is comparable to the total installed solar photovoltaic capacity in Singapore currently: about 3.57 MWp for both residential and non-residential installations.

The HDB is in the midst of putting up more panels on 30 blocks in Jurong, Aljunied, Telok Blangah, Bishan, Ang Mo Kio and Jalan Besar. For this batch, one block’s solar panels will generate enough energy from a day’s sunlight to power common area services like lights and lifts for a day.

There are also solar-energy testing programmes in Tampines, Bukit Panjang, Marine Parade, Serangoon North and Wellington Circle.

Asked about the environmental benefits and cost-savings of the latest project, an HDB spokesman replied: ‘HDB is currently evaluating the tender and will announce the results at a later date. Hence, we are only able to share more on this solar initiative when the details are finalised.’

Another difference in this tender is the proposed business model. Previously, the HDB bought the solar panels and hired contractors to install and maintain them.

The current tender, on the other hand, is seeking a business model called solar leasing, in which the HDB buys only the electricity.

Solar leasing is not uncommon elsewhere, such as in the United States, but this is the first time it is being tried in Singapore.

The HDB did not explain why it is trying out this model, but industry players offered a few reasons.

‘This is more experimental. The HDB is testing the mechanism,’ said Mr Christophe Inglin, managing director of solar energy firm Phoenix Solar.

He said leasing can be attractive because users may not want to deal with buying and maintaining the panels in the same way a tenant of a house may not need to fret over furniture.

It is new here, however, so companies are cautious – only three firms had bid for the tender, with two bids in the $9 million range.

Another challenge, industry players explain, is that Singapore does not pay above-market rate for people to feed excess renewable energy back to the grid.

In many countries, this practice – called a feed-in tariff – is an incentive for people to install renewable energy in their homes and offices, as they can recoup some costs by selling spare energy to the grid.

And in the case of HDB blocks, installation is costly and difficult because many blocks are irregularly shaped and have a small roof area for panels.

Asked if the HDB’s solar-leasing tender will set a precedent for other companies and builders, Phoenix Solar’s Mr Inglin replied: ‘In the future, as prices of solar panels come down, it could certainly be an incentive for corporate entities to, say, lease their rooftops to companies for solar panels.’

Since 2008, the price of the panels has fallen by half. Still, electricity from solar panels is currently about twice as expensive as electricity from the grid.

Benefits and limitations

Why is Singapore investing in solar energy now?

Experts say possible reasons could be declining costs and growing worldwide demand.

Solar energy has become cheaper over the last decade and prices are likely to fall further with advances in technology, said Mr Christophe Inglin, managing director of solar energy firm Solar Phoenix.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last year that Singapore is focusing on solar energy because it taps the country’s strengths in electronics, silicon and semiconductors. He said this could give the country another avenue of economic growth.

What are the benefits of using solar energy?

Using the sun for electricity cuts down on the need for fossil fuels, which will become more expensive as the supply dwindles, say experts.

Solar power is also better for the environment as burning fossil fuels to create electricity results in pollution.

What are its limitations here?

Solar power now requires 20 to 30 times as much land as a gas plant to produce the same amount of power. This makes it less attractive for land- scarce Singapore, said the Energy Market Authority (EMA).

It estimated that even if all of Singapore’s accessible space was covered with panels, solar energy would contribute, at most, 10 per cent of the country’s electricity needs.

Another obstacle is price. Electricity from solar panels is still twice as costly as electricity from the grid, although costs have fallen in the last decade.

The EMA said more research and technological improvements in the panels are needed before solar energy can be commercially viable.

Source: www.eco-business.com

Australia Needs to Recognise the Power of Energy Efficiency

Low income households have the most to lose from rising electricity prices and the most to gain from energy efficiency as they spend a higher proportion of their income on energy bills. A national energy efficiency initiative provides the opportunity for the certainty industry needs to invest in energy efficiency. Despite all the media attention on the impact of a carbon price on households, there has been surprisingly little attention to the major cause of electricity price rises – increased network costs associated with increased demand and peak load.

Don’t discount the power of efficiency

John Thwaites & Rob Murray-Leach in Climate Spectator (26 May 2011):

Low income households have the most to lose from rising electricity prices and the most to gain from energy efficiency as they spend a higher proportion of their income on energy bills. A national energy efficiency initiative provides the opportunity to assist these households, streamline programs and provide the certainty industry needs to invest in energy efficiency.

Energy prices are rising much faster than incomes and the CPI. The main contributor to this price rise is increased network costs associated with increased demand and peak load. A carbon price will have a much smaller impact on energy bills than network costs, which means that even though many households will be compensated for carbon price impacts, they won’t be compensated for the other factors driving up energy costs. Energy efficiency could help households manage price rises from all these factors as well as reducing the need for some of the expensive infrastructure that is driving up electricity bills in the first place.

A coalition of welfare, business, research, and union groups –  including ACOSS, Brotherhood of St Laurence, ACTU, Clean Energy Council, Energy Efficiency Council, Property Council, the Climate Institute and ClimateWorks Australia – have released a statement calling on the federal government to implement a national energy efficiency program to assist household energy affordability.

These policies are important both for households and for the sustainable growth of the industry, ensuring Australia’s smooth transition to a low-carbon economy.

This coalition recommends a two-track strategy to increase the uptake of energy efficiency and help low income households manage energy bills.

The first involves targeted support for high-needs households, funded through carbon pollution price revenue. The program would target individual households at risk (e.g. households that are having difficulty paying their energy bills, or with very high electricity use) or high-risk communities (e.g. high electricity charges, no access to gas, high transport costs at urban fringe). The program should commence with an initial establishment, research and evaluation phase to ensure the most effective delivery. It could then be scaled up to reach between 250,000 to 500,000 homes by 2020.

The second involves a National Energy Saving Initiative (NESI) – as recommended by the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Energy Efficiency – that builds on and harmonises existing state-based schemes in NSW, Victoria and South Australia. This would place a requirement on energy retailers to pursue and facilitate energy efficiency projects in households, businesses and industry, and include a specific obligation to achieve a proportion of savings in low-income households.

Currently, the three existing state-based schemes operate differently. This means energy retailers are subject to additional transaction costs of operating in three different states and eligible energy efficiency products must go through separate and differing approval processes, again adding costs and inefficiency.

A NESI could directly accommodate these schemes in a nationally consistent framework and deliver economies of scale and lower compliance costs.

A NESI would provide benefits for households and businesses, including lower overall electricity costs – and even lower costs for individual households and companies that participate. For example, the Prime Minister’s Task Group estimated that the initiative would reduce average annual household expenditure on electricity by $87-$180 in 2020 and by up to $296 for households implementing two energy savings technologies.

Most importantly, a NESI would start to do something about rising network and generation costs driven by demand. It would reduce the need for new network and generation investment, reduce wholesale electricity costs and lower scheme costs by integrating state-based schemes into one national scheme.

A NESI ensures there is a long-term framework for the delivery of energy efficiency measures, rather than the on-again off-again policy schemes that have operated in this area in the past. It also has the advantage of being a scheme without direct government program delivery, providing certainty for the industry.

Barriers exist to low-income households participating in energy efficiency schemes such as a NESI. The NESI should therefore be designed to ensure greater uptake of energy efficiency by low-income and financially stressed households. It should also facilitate efficiency, innovation and equity by, for example, ensuring multi-sector coverage and facilitating energy efficiency projects by placing the obligation to find savings on holders of electricity and gas retail licenses.

Considerable effort will need to go into detailed design of a NESI. It would be sensible for the government to commit to a process allowing time to properly design the NESI while commencing it within this term.

Despite all the media attention on the impact of a carbon price on households, there has been surprisingly little attention to the major cause of electricity price rises – increased network costs associated with increased demand and peak load. The energy efficiency initiatives outlined provide the opportunity to reduce these costs, help households and contribute to Australia’s carbon pollution challenge.

John Thwaites is chair of Brotherhood of St Laurence, Climate Change and Equity program. Rob Murray-Leach is CEO of the Energy Efficiency Council.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Green with Envy: Low Carbon Economic Growth Creates Jobs

A move to a low carbon, clean energy economy leads to the creation of green jobs. It is happening elsewhere. When the South Korean Government committed to invest in green infrastructure, renewable energy technologies and sustainable design, the $A32.5 billion programme was expected to create one million green jobs. In 2011, Germany accounts for 2.3 million green jobs. With a carbon price and a renewed emissions reduction commitment in Australia, there will be more jobs and they will be green.

The Australian carbon price and its green jobs potential

by Julien Lacave

How many jobs can the new green economy create in Australia and, conversely, how many jobs will be lost in traditional sectors because of the internalisation of the pollution costs created by a carbon price?

What is a ‘green job’?

If we consider that green jobs are only those in the renewable energy sector, then the industry currently employs 2.3 million people worldwide . A broader definition is that a green job is a position where at least some of the responsibilities and objectives are environmentally driven or oriented. 

In other words, green jobs would include work in sustainability, resources management, green building, green transport systems, sustainable agriculture, energy efficiency, recycling and waste management, eco tourism, and ethical finance and not just renewable energy technologies.

Can a carbon tax create green jobs in Australia?

In an ideal economy, a carbon tax would effectively redirect investments from energy intensive industries to low or zero carbon technologies without impacting on traditional local sectors or triggering what some specialists have already called ‘carbon leakage,’ which is the relocation of energy intensive industries (and jobs) to less environmentally-regulated markets, such as South East Asia.

In essence, carbon leakage is exactly what we seek to avoid. Australia needs to protect its carbon intensive economy and make the transition fast, efficient and the least damaging as possible for traditional sectors.      

In 2008, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Australian Conservation Foundation released the Green Gold Rush Report which had the key message that Australia could become a world-leader in creating green industries generating up to a million green collar jobs by 2030 and multi-billion dollar export opportunities in green technology.

Similarly, in March 2011 the Climate Institute launched the website Clean Energy Jobs in Regional Australia, with the support of Independent MP Tony Windsor. The Clean Energy Jobs in Regional Australia report also re-affirms the potential of job creation.

A carbon tax would surely facilitate the creation of green jobs in existing and new sectors and technologies. Innovation drives growth and growth creates jobs; this is the world that we live in.

Green job creation across the globe

During the global financial crisis, the South Korean Government directed most of their Government bail-out plan towards green infrastructure, renewable energy technologies and sustainable design. In 2009, the government announced a $A32.5 billion program to create one million green jobs. Time will tell if they succeed, but the country will probably get close to this figure.

Germany is an interesting case study too. From 2004–06, Germany doubled the number of green jobs from 160,000 to 250,000 . In 2011, Germany also accounted for 2.3 millions green jobs.

The United States Government invested $A696 billion to rescue Wall Street after the global financial crisis, which had no guarantee of success. However, with $A347 billion investment, some say the Government could retrofit and repower the nation using clean energy and create millions of new jobs in the process.

The New Apollo Program from the United States’ Apollo Alliance (a coalition of business, labour and community leaders who promote a clean energy transition) estimates that the investment of $A497 billion in the clean energy economy over the next three years could create more than five million high-quality green-collar jobs in the US alone. Australia can do this too, on its own scale.

According to the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Australian clean energy economy is currently estimated at $A15.4 billion and is employing 112,000 people through the industries of renewable energy, water, biomaterials, green building, and recycling. 

The report says that this could grow by 2030 to a value of $A241 billion and employ 847,000 people. Australia can specifically succeed in renewable energy power generation, energy efficiency in buildings, sustainable water systems, biomaterials and waste, but also sustainable agriculture and eco-tourism.  

Overall, pricing carbon is not just about creating green jobs; it is about reducing Australia’s carbon emissions through the creation of market conditions that allow large investments in clean technologies. Green jobs creation will be a direct consequence of this.

Nuclear is not the answer

Some experts say that Australia would face major adjustment costs in achieving our 60 per cent clean technology target by 2050 if we do not have nuclear power or coal sequestration options. 

These opinions may have been revised on the matter since the devastating earthquake in Japan in March 2011. Nuclear is a heavily subsided industry, with high risks and low job creation ratio compared to renewable energies. Renewable energies will create more jobs and will enable regional Australia to benefit from those investments. Prime Minister Julia Gillard also recently re-emphasised that there will be no nuclear program under her leadership.  

Time is of the essence

The world economy needs an urgent transformation in order to avoid dangerous climate change. Our international relations are now being reshaped by the necessity to co-operate together in response to climatic events and natural disasters. More investments and jobs are also needed in climate change adaptation in Australia, not just in mitigation.   

This seems to be a case of ‘the sooner the better’, for both Australia’s economic competitiveness and climate. But to effect this, you need to price carbon so that certainty is here for investors. After all, Australia’s greatest resource may not be coal or uranium, but its people.

Julien Lacave is a Senior Consultant in Energy & Carbon at the Bradman Recruitment Group. From 200 to 2009 Julien managed the Australian Solar Energy Society to promote the use of renewable energy technologies in Australia and New Zealand.  In 2003 – 2004 Julien worked in Paris in a leading renewable energy consulting think tank for the European Intelligent Energy Agency.  Julien holds a Master Degree in International Relations & Geopolitics from La Sorbonne University (Paris) with Specialty in Asia Pacific  and a final dissertation on Climate Change International Negotiations & Sustainability in Business (2001). He also holds a Bachelor Degree in Economics and an Advanced Technical Diploma in International Business & Marketing. 

Source: www.bradmanrecruitment.com

Famous Last Words: ABC versus ABC

Dear Readers

First, I must apologise to the ABC – that’s the Australian Broadcasting Corporation – for an apparent breach of copyright. In the last issue of abc carbon express I used as part of the profile on Mike Hulme, a piece written by Sara Phillips from the ABC’s Environment Online portal.

I’m sorry ABC and I won’t do it again.

Sara – as an ABC employee – is only doing her job (and doing it well). But I should explain to one and all – including the ABC – the process I go through with the fortnightly e-newsletter – which I must emphasise, is produced and distributed freely (without charge) to all readers around the world.

This is the first time in more than three years of producing abc carbon express – which started in March 2008 – that any person or organisation has formally objected to the use of an article in this way. (This is the 144th issue, so I estimate that I have utilised in this way approximately 3000 articles from hundreds of different media – print, broadcasting and online – in that time.

To put this in context, I share with our loyal readers an email I received from Sara, who I know is a very dedicated supporter of clean, green and all things environmental:

Hello Ken,

I’m sorry to have to raise this with you again, but if you are going to use my pieces you need to seek permission.

ABC content is subject to copyright. Our terms are outlined here http://www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm and here http://www.abc.net.au/copyright.htm

Here’s the relevant part: “6.2 The right to “copy” always remains with the owner of the material. Unless expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy or republish anything you find on the internet without the copyright owner’s permission.”

As I have discussed with you previously, I am happy for you to publish a headline and introduction to any of my pieces, provided you link through to ABC Environment for the remainder of the article. In this case you have republished the entirety of the article with an incorrect attribution link. It should have been: http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/05/05//3207844.htm

I’m pleased that you use ABC Environment as a source of news and I’m flattered that you wanted to republish my piece on Mike Hulme, but your reuse of our material is not acceptable.

Could I request an apology in your next newsletter and the attribution link corrected.

Best regards,

Sara

Sara Phillips

Editor, ABC Environment Online

Sara – as an ABC employee – is only doing her job (and doing it well). But I should explain to one and all – including the ABC – the process I go through with the fortnightly e-newsletter – which I must emphasise, is produced and distributed freely (without charge) to all readers around the world.

This is the first time in more than three years of producing abc carbon express – which started in March 2008 – that any person or organisation has formally objected to the use of an article in this way. (This is the 144th issue, so I estimate that I have utilised in this way approximately 3000 articles from hundreds of different media – print, broadcasting and online – in that time.

I should point out that what I have done with ABC articles is exactly what I do with articles from all sources.  A short introduction with headline appears in the body of the email newsletter. It doesn’t always mention the original source of the article there, but by clicking on Read More, the reader is taken to my website www.abccarbon.com  where the complete article (or articles) can be accessed.

There the article is fully attributed with the name of the author, the publication, the date, website  and clearly sourced. I do not always provide the direct link to the original article but abbreviate that the website of the relevant media – e.g.Source:  www.abc.net.au

I store the correctly sourced articles, so the reader can access the article and also go to the source for more information. Often I find that the source itself does not always keep articles in its own archive and make them accessible, for as long as I do. I am storing/archiving all articles which have appeared in abc carbon express from Issue 75 (September 2009).

So in the spirit of conciliation and not aggravation, could I – as one ABC to another – suggest that the public broadcaster needs to get on board the reality of the digital communication age. I receive by email on a daily basis hundreds of articles from dozens of sources – Making Environmental News, Wotnews, Google, Green Biz, Climate Spectator, among others. I read through as many of them as I can and select a few – usually a total of between 12 – 20 per issue – to draw attention to and use in my newsletter, in this way.

I selectively source subjects and articles which I think should interest my readers. The ABC should be honoured (as Sara obviously was) to have one of its articles selected (out of thousands I see in any fortnightly period).

I should also remind readers, the ABC and all other providers of news and content, that I do not ask anyone to pay to receive the newsletter – it is freely emailed to anyone who wants it or who provides me with a business card or email address. Neither do I receive income from advertising or any other source directly for the production and distribution of abc carbon express. It is a free service.

I should also remind the ABC that I have been a regular contributor to its programmes over the years. I have on many occasions been called in to be interviewed on ABC radio, to provide my views, opinions, and to add content to their programmes. I have not once received any payment from the ABC, or any other media for that matter, for contributing content in these ways.

I have also freely provided large extracts from my book “The ABC of Carbon” to be freely used by relevant online media. More than that, the complete book – all 188,000 words – can be viewed online with Amazon Kindle. You can also buy an e-book version!

So I will say that abc carbon express – produced and distributed as a free online services to people in Australia, Singapore and around the world – will continue to draw attention to and refer to articles from many media and other sources, and put them on my website, with adequate attribution and by providing a link to the original source website.

To avoid upsetting anyone again, I will undertake not to use any original content from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in my newsletter or website. And I will also be conveniently unavailable next time I am asked to contribute to any ABC programme. That’s only fair.

One final word: While we do try to run this as part of a commercial business, we will continue to freely accept and “publish” articles and releases from businesses and NGOs. We are also ready, willing and able to accept paid advertising, sponsorship or any other commercial arrangement, if in our humble opinion, the product, service or organisation is appropriate to abc carbon express.

As we say on our masthead, we provide a fortnightly  e-newsletter on “climate change issues and opportunities: clean technologies, energy efficiency, renewable energy, water, waste, environment management & sustainability”.

Source: www.abccarbon.com

Late again with this issue! But it has been a busy couple of weeks in Singapore with visitors from abroad – Aaron George, Tim Lebbon, David Solsky, Lewis Tyndall, Jochen Kleef, among others – plus a host of events small and large. The National Energy Efficiency Conference was a major one for us as Sustain Ability Showcase Asia was a “supporting organisation”. Meeting and greeting was the order of the day – days! – so we also attended Green Drinks, to hear of fascinating projects in South East Asia. Then to cap it off, I was the guest speaker at the Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore (SEAS) AGM. The subject of my talk was “Does Sustainability Make Business Sense?” and set about to demonstrate that it is more than the triple bottom line. There are, in fact, four E’s to sustainability. I promise to turn it into an article one day, but if anyone is interested in a pdf of the presentation, email me.

It might be difficult to imagine that there is any connection with the sudden demise of Osama bin Laden and climate change. Well, we’ve found it and have it for you. Even more unlikely, surely, would be a link between Royal weddings and climate change. You have to believe it. We have secured that one too. Then you would also expect us to find that the raging tornadoes which have ravaged the US also feature in the extreme weather scenarios of climate scientists. So this issue we also have a report on the sad state of affairs for farming, food security issues in Asia and elsewhere, as well as the dreaded link between “safe” ozone gases and “dangerous” greenhouse gas emissions. The UK coalition Government has a few things on its mind which are obviously distracting it from its climate commitments, while the elections in Singapore gave a boost to the Workers Party which had a comprehensive clean and green policy platform. There’s hopeful signs that renewable energy investments are heading up, WWF also weighs up what’s going into clean tech and ethical investments are on the rise. The Rainforest Alliance is giving bananas a boost, while the Shangri-la hotel group produces its first Sustainability Report. Seems there’s no stopping one high profile sceptic from spreading his words, reports Graham Readfearn, while one of the East Anglia team comes clean in this issue’s profile. The good, the bad and the ugly! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Mike Hulme

Climate scientists frustrated at the reception of their science have started to wonder why the presentation of dispassionate data has not proved so convincing that governments and the public have immediately swung into action. Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia Mike Hulme says it all comes down to framing – or effective communication. One of his six climate “frames”: Like asbestos or nuclear waste, CO2 emissions are a potentially toxic side effect of our modern technologies. This view advocates improved energy technologies to allow us to continue our modern life, but without the hazardous side-effects.

Floating your boat on climate change

By Sara Phillips on ABC Environment (5 May 201):

The Federal Government’s plans for climate change action are desperately incomplete. So too are the Opposition’s. And the Greens’. That’s if Mike Hulme’s analysis is anything to go by.

Mike Hulme is a bit of a star in climate change circles. He is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. That’s the same university that was at the centre of the scandal involving hacked emails from climate scientists in November 2009. He featured in some of the emails.

He spoke on Tuesday night at the University of Melbourne to a packed lecture theatre. But it was not on climate science, rather it was on why climate science causes such debate.

If it’s not brawling about whether or not climate change is man-made, it’s wrestling – as the government, the opposition and the Greens are – about how to address it.

As a man who’s had a fair bit of up-close and personal experience with the global debate, he’s in a fair position to comment.

He said the differences of opinion come down to framing. He defines framing as, “The deliberate way of structuring complex issues which lend greater importance to certain considerations and solutions over others.”

For example, ‘frankenfoods’ feels more frightening than ‘genetically modified crops’, and so some green groups frame the issue in that way in order to further their campaign against them.

Hulme offered a sample of six different ways of framing climate change.

1) A market failure

In this view, business emits carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for free, but there are ultimately costs associated with that waste disposal. So to ensure the market is operating efficiently, carbon dioxide emissions should be priced.

2) A technological hazard

Like asbestos or nuclear waste, carbon dioxide emissions are a potentially toxic side effect of our modern technologies. This view advocates improved energy technologies to allow us to continue our modern life, but without the hazardous side-effects.

3) A global injustice

Climate change when viewed through this framework is seen as a problem where the West dominates and controls the global agenda, leaving the developing world out of the picture. A solution to climate change for this world view would involve what Aubrey Meyer describes as ‘contraction and convergence’, or an equal sharing of the carbon dioxide budget between all countries, regardless of their wealth.

4) Overconsumption

If our environmental impact is a function of our consumption, our population, and the technologies we use, then solving climate change through this framework would involve finding a path to a prosperous but non-growing economy, or improving contraception.

5) Mostly natural

If climate change is mostly natural, then the solution in this framework is to spend money on adaptation to the new environment.

6) A planetary tipping point

And finally, if climate change is viewed as leading to a planetary tipping point at which life on Earth becomes untenable, then no holds must be barred, and solutions would include massive geoengineering projects.

This analysis presents two interesting points. The first is how much climate change is contributing to our broader social studies. Climate scientists frustrated at the reception of their science have started to wonder why the presentation of dispassionate data has not proved so convincing that governments and the public have immediately swung into action. And so the folks in lab coats have started studying how humans receive and interpret data.

According to Hulme, our pre-existing values, beliefs, upbringing and maybe even genes cause us to frame climate change in a certain manner. Even before the scientists have whipped out the first graph, people are already disposed to interpret the data in a particular way.

Probably, reading through that list of six frames, one of them closely aligned with your own views on climate change. Whichever one you picked is a function of your own unique biases.

The other thing that is apparent with this analysis is that all the Australian political approaches to climate change are incomplete.

If everyone frames the climate change question differently, then everyone believes the solutions are different. At the moment we are really offered only two solutions: a carbon price, which addresses the first framing; and direct action, which addresses the second.

If you believe in lifting the developing world from poverty, reducing growth, adapting, or bringing in the big guns then your particular framework has not been highlighted by the mainstream Australian political parties.

That’s not to say that a single party should try to add a little bit of each into their policies. But if, for example, you firmly believe that climate change is all part of a natural process, then there is no party catering for you by campaigning on a platform of adaptation (the Greens include it, but as part of a suite of ideas).

So far, the policy options for addressing climate change are one dimensional. Some commentators have argued that this is insufficient to truly make a dent in our greenhouse gas emissions. But with the latest Newspoll results showing the government has not convinced Australians about the benefits of a carbon price, the single-dimensional nature of the policy offerings are perhaps not addressing the frameworks most important to the Australian public.

It’s possible that the public has not engaged on climate change because their framework, and the solution that it decrees, has not been articulated by those offering ideas for solving the problem.

Perhaps their particular boat has not been floated.

Like a film that will make you laugh, make you cry, with a car chase and a kiss at the end, the best policy approach may need to include something for everyone.

A multi-faceted policy on climate change could address more frameworks pertinent to more Australians and enjoy a greater popularity.

Source: www.abc.net.au

Mike Hulme’s biography – in his own words:

I am Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA, and was the Founding Director (2000-2007) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. I recently (2006-2009) led the EU Integrated Project ADAM: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies, which comprised a 26-member European research consortium contributing research to inform the development of EU climate policy.  I am Editor-in-Chief of the newly launched academic journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs) – Climate Change.  My two most recent books are Why We Disagree About Climate Change and (edited with Henry Neufeldt) Making Climate Change Work For Us, both published by CUP.

I have prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government (including the UKCIP98 and UKCIP02 scenarios), the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC.  I was co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the Third Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters.  Earlier in my career I worked on the evaluation of climate models, the development of global and national observational climate data sets, and climate change and desertification in Africa.  I have published over 120 peer-reviewed journal papers and over 35 book chapters on climate change topics, together with over 250 reports and popular articles. I have advised numerous government bodies, private companies and non-governmental organisations about climate change and its implications. I was jointly awarded the Hugh Robert Mill Medal in 1995 by the Royal Meteorological Society for work on global precipitation and I delivered the prestigious Queen’s Lecture in Berlin in 2005.  For 12 years, I wrote a monthly climate column for The Guardian newspaper.

Source: www.uea.ac.uk and www.mikehulme.org

A new study finds that global production of corn and wheat would have been 5% higher if not for global warming. Scientists have long predicted that — eventually — temperatures and altered rainfall caused by global climate change will take a toll on four of the most important crops in the world: rice, wheat soy and corn. Now, as world grain prices hover near record highs, a new study finds that the effects are already starting to be felt.

World’s Farmers Feel The Effects Of A Hotter Planet

by Richard Harris on NPR (7 May 2011):

A new study finds that global production of corn and wheat would have been 5 percent higher if not for global warming.

Scientists have long predicted that — eventually — temperatures and altered rainfall caused by global climate change will take a toll on four of the most important crops in the world: rice, wheat soy and corn.

Now, as world grain prices hover near record highs, a new study finds that the effects are already starting to be felt.

“For two crops, maize (corn) and wheat, there has actually been a decline in yields, if you account for the trend in climate — especially the warming trend that we’ve observed over the last 30 years,” says Wolfram Schlenker, who teaches environmental economics at Columbia University. He’s a co-author of the study, along with David Lobell and Justin Costa-Roberts at Stanford University.

The scientists looked specifically at places where there are warming trends, and sure enough, they found these staple crops weren’t doing quite as well.

For rice and soy, declines in some places were offset by productivity boosts elsewhere in the world, so there was no overall change. But they did see a change for wheat and corn.

The losses caused by warming thus far are still smaller than the gains made though improved agriculture.

“We’re not saying yields have gone down, just to make this clear,” Schlenker says. “What we’re saying is yields are lower than they would have been without the climate trend. So yields have still been going up over the last 30 years.”

The study is published online by Science magazine. It shows that these crops have declined about 5 percent over what they would have been in the absence of warming. That sounds small, until you consider that globally, these crops are worth about a trillion dollars a year. Five percent of a trillion dollars is $50 billion, “which I think is quite sizeable,” Schlenker says.

And that number is probably just the beginning. Gerald Nelson at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C., says that as the planet heats up in the coming decades, the 5 percent loss today could easily grow to 20 percent.

“Definitely do not consider shrugging that off,” he says. “We can expect to see higher prices that are going to cause problems around the world.”

And most of those problems hit people who can afford it the least.

“Who gets hurts most are people those who spend most of their money on food and who spend most of their money on eating commodities directly,” Nelson says.

Here in the United States, a doubling of wheat prices might only add a dime to the cost of a $2 loaf of bread, he says. But double the price of rice and people who fill their food bowl with that grain every day will really feel it.

Americans are also insulated from this effect for another reason. The new study found that the effects of warming have not been felt evenly around the world.

“The one big exception we actually found is the United States,” Schlenker says. “This is the one place that doesn’t have a big temperature trend.”

And since America’s breadbasket has not warmed, American grain farmers have been fortunate. Professor Gene Takle at Iowa State University says farmers in the Midwest have instead dealt with a long-term trend of additional rainfall in that area.

“Farmers are very good at adapting to climate change,” he says. “And when the ranges of climate are not too extreme, they can and they are adjusting.”

Midwestern farmers have adapted to the added wetness by spraying more pesticides to control fungus, by planting more per acre, and by buying bigger machines to cope with the wetter fields, he says. And Takle says the farmers will surely be able to adapt to at least some degree of warming, which is likely sooner or later.

“That’s a real critical issue — what is the range of temperature or climate conditions to which we can adapt, and when do we exceed those?”

Many other farmers around the world are already starting to find out where those limits lie as they confront higher temperatures.

Source: www.npr.org

Climate Impact & Food Resilience

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as this year`s ASEAN Chair, says “left unchecked, the food crisis will badly undermine recent gains in poverty reduction made in Asia,” he said as reported by BBC. Three Asia`s most populous countries – China, India and Indonesia – are seen as especially vulnerable to a further surge in the price of staples such as rice and wheat. Rice is the staple food for most ASEAN peoples, therefore Indonesia has called on ASEAN member countries to increase rice reserves to strengthen food resilience amid the climate change impact threat.

9 May 2011 Jakarta (ANTARA News) –

The current global food and energy price hikes have concerned President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as this year`s ASEAN Chair, calling for clear and concrete cooperation among ASEAN member countries to secure food supplies for their peoples.

“Food security will become a great challenge for ASEAN,” the Indonesian head of state said in his opening speech at the 18th ASEAN Summit being held in Jakarta, May 7-8, 2011.

He suggested that one of the steps that ASEAN must immediately take is the implementation of “The ASEAN Integrated Food Security Framework” comprehensively especially in the research and development field, and investment in food.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders adopted the ASEAN Integrated Food Security (AIFS)Framework and the Strategic Plan of Action on ASEAN Food Security (SPA-FS) in the 14th ASEAN Summit in Thailand in 2009.

The two ASEAN food security deals, which are planned for a five-year period (2009-2013), are formulated to ensure food security and to improve the livelihoods of farmers in the region.

The AIFS Framework comprises four intertwined components, namely, Food Security and Emergency/Shortage Relief, Sustainable Food Trade Development, Integrated Food Security Information System, and Agricultural Innovation.

ASEAN, which groups Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, must also pay attention to the formulation of food reserve system that could help farmers out of poverty, according to President Yudhoyono.

“The competition for energy, food and clean water will become part of the global competition,” he said, warning that scarcity of resources of daily needs could occur globally when the world population would grow from seven billion to nine billion by 2045.

“History has shown that food and energy price hikes will directly increase the number of poor people. In the meantime, we really understand and feel that reducing poverty is not as easy as it seems,” the head of state said.

Indonesia`s Cabinet Secretary Dipo Alam in Jakarta on May 4 said a World Economic Forum survey entitled Global Risk 2011 put together water, food and security as one of three factors that can cause global risks, apart from macroeconomic imbalances and illegal economies.

The food price index in February 2011 rose 2.2 percent compared to January in the same year.

Food and energy prices were determinant factors for the inflation rate. “If the prices cannot be controlled, they will have a negative impact on people`s purchasing power, especially the poor,” Dipo said.

Spiking food price is the biggest challenge facing developing countries nowadays, World Bank Group President Robert Zoellick said in Washington DR, last April 2011.

He contended that the global community should put food safety first, as food volatility hurt the poor and the vulnerable most, transnational media reported.

New World Bank Group numbers released in Washington DC, US, on April 14, 2011, showed that global food prices are 36 percent above their levels a year ago and remain volatile, pushing people deeper into poverty, partly driven by higher fuel costs connected to events in the Middle East and North Africa.

The latest edition of the World Bank`s Food Price Watch revealed that a further 10 percent increase in global prices could drive an additional 10 million people below the $1.25 extreme poverty line. A 30 percent price hike could lead to 34 million more poor.

This is in addition to the 44 million people who have been driven into poverty since last June as a result of the spikes. The World Bank estimates there are about 1.2 billion people living below the poverty line of US$1.25 a day.

As for Indonesia, the bank reminded that despite a bright economic outlook, increases in commodity prices also bring risks for Indonesia.

In the launch of the World Bank`s March 2011 Indonesia Economic Quarterly entitled “2008 Again?”, in Jakarta, last March 16, Shubham Chaudhuri, the World Bank`s Indonesia Lead Economist, said that rising commodity prices may bring positive benefits for the country`s GDP as a whole because of Indonesia`s resource wealth.

“However, risks lie for poor households who may be greatly affected by sharp increases in living costs,” he warned, adding that rising food price inflation can pose a risk to progress on poverty reduction in Indonesia.

President Yudhoyono had emphasized the importance of establishing cooperation to overcome the worldwide food price hike and energy crisis,

The problems could not be addressed by one country alone, but must be done by a group of countries, for instance in the ASEAN context, Yudhoyono`s special aide for international relations, Teuku Faizasyah, said following a meeting between Yudhoyono and Helen Clerk, the administrator of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and former prime minister of New Zealand, in Jakarta, on April 28, 2011.

The Manila-based Asian Development Bank (ADB) recently issued a warning that rising food and energy prices could impact the expected growth of the Asian economies.

Overall, economies in Asia were among the first to recover from the global recession and have experienced robust growth. However, with food prices estimated to have increased 10 percent this year and unrest in the Middle East forcing fuel prices higher, the concern is that price inflation will reverse much of the recent gains.

According to the ADB`s chief economist, Changyong Rhee,

“for poor families in developing Asia, who already spend more than 60% of their income on food, higher prices further reduce their ability to pay for medical care and their children`s education.”

“Left unchecked, the food crisis will badly undermine recent gains in poverty reduction made in Asia,” he said as reported by BBC.

Three Asia`s most populous countries – China, India and Indonesia – are seen as especially vulnerable to a further surge in the price of staples such as rice and wheat.

Rice is the staple food for most ASEAN peoples, therefore Indonesia has called on ASEAN member countries to increase rice reserves to strengthen food resilience amid the climate change impact threat.

“We hope ASEAN member countries would agree to increase food reserves in the region which could be used to assure food resilience as well as for stabilizing the price,” Indonesian Minister of Agriculture Suswono said after attending a meeting between the ASEAN Economic Community Council and the European Union Commissioner for Trade in Jakarta, on May 6, 2011.

The minister said, in fact the commitment of ASEAN member countries to maintain food security had become a topic of discussion between ASEAN and three other countries, namely Japan, South Korea and China (ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve/APTERR).

Total reserve that has been agreed upon reaches around 878,000 tons with each country responsible to provide certain amount of it.

The three countries outside ASEAN, namely Japan, China and South Korea would provide more than 200,000 tons with the rest to be provided by each ASEAN member country.

“Indonesia is responsible for providing around 12,000 tons but we have expressed readiness to provide up to 25,000 tons,” he said.

He said ASEAN`s readiness to meet the rice reserve was expected to be one of kind of recommendations to be submitted to the ongoing ASEAN summit 2011 and signed at the 33rd ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Agriculture and Forestry (AMAF) to be held in Jakarta in October 2011.

“President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has given directives that Indonesia as the host of AMAF in October must be able to encourage on how the rice reserve could be used not only for anticipating climate change but also stabilizing food price,” the minister said.(*)

Source: www.antaranews.com

Terror Aside, Now for a Climate Fix

In the US, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson says that the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden can open the door for climate change legislation in Congress. He said this at a Climate Leadership event hosted by the Earth Day Network in Washington. Meanwhile, the UK government’s chance of being the “greenest ever” – as the prime minister has claimed – is “vanishingly remote”, a former adviser Jonathon Porritt says. The former head of the Sustainable Development Commission, carried out a review, funded by Friends of the Earth, which examined 75 policies, finding little or no progress in 55.

By Matthew Reichbach in New Mexico Independent  (4 May 2011):

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson says that the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden can open the door for climate change legislation in Congress. Richardson made the statements at a Climate Leadership Gala hosted by the Earth Day Network in Washington, according to Politico.

“My hope is that from this success in the foreign policy arena two days ago, that he will be emboldened to take once again to the Congress legislation — not just to increase a renewable energy standard — but climate change legislation that this country and the world need,” Richardson said.

The foreign policy success that Richardson referred to was the death of Osama bin Laden, who was killed by United States forces in Pakistan on Sunday.

Before being elected New Mexico’s governor in 2002, Richardson served in Congress, as the Secretary of Energy and as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Any climate legislation would face an uphill battle in the current Congress. Republicans control the House of Representatives, and the Senate was unable to reach 60 votes on climate legislation in the last Congress, which had a much higher percentage of Democrats.

Source: www.newmexicoindependent.com

PM’s pledge of greenest government ‘vanishingly remote’

By Roger Harrabin, Environment analyst, BBC News (7 May 2011):

The government’s chance of being the “greenest ever” – as the prime minister has claimed – is “vanishingly remote”, a former adviser has said.

Jonathon Porritt, former head of the Sustainable Development Commission, carried out the review which was funded by Friends of the Earth.

He examined 75 policies, finding little or no progress in 55.

The government said it remains committed to the environment, but the recession had affected its policies.

Green wash

Mr Porritt said the government had scrapped a planned rise in aviation tax, failed to create a green investment bank with immediate borrowing powers and had watered down schemes promoting small-scale renewable electricity.

He added that Prime Minister David Cameron had failed to curb what he calls the Treasury’s fixation with economic growth, whether it damages the environment or not.

Mr Porritt believed that the position of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had been substantially weakened under the coalition government.

He noted that George Osborne, before the election, promised: “If I become chancellor, the Treasury will become a green ally, not a foe” – but Mr Porritt says that the opposite has proved to be the case.

“It is clear the ‘growth at all costs’ lobby has won out over the advocates of sustainable economic development,” Mr Porritt observed.

He added that there were growing fears that Treasury officials were pressuring ministers to reject new carbon reduction targets recommended by the government’s official advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change.

Mr Porritt’s report assessed the coalition government’s record on the five themes identified by ministers as central to ambitions to maintain sustainable development.

Building a Green Economy

Tackling Climate Change

Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment

Ensuring Fairness and Wellbeing

Building the Big Society

Of the 75 green policies examined in detail, 28 were judged to be “moribund”, 27 had “very limited growth”, 14 saw “encouraging progress” and “the birds were singing” for just six.

On the positive side, the report mentions: “Scrapping plans to expand airports in the south-east of England, agreeing to roll out smart meters to 30 million homes from 2014 and announcing the world’s first Renewable Heat Incentive.”

Mary Creagh, shadow environment secretary said: “The government has tried to sell off our forests, cut investment in flood defences by 27%, delayed on the waste review and Water White Paper, and abolished the Sustainable Development Commission.

“That’s not a green vision but an abject failure of the government to get to grips with the environment.”

The report was published as an annual survey by journal ENDS revealed that more than a third of organisations which responded to the survey were cutting jobs.

Also, it found that more than half of 2,000 environmental professionals that took part thought that UK green job opportunities would continue to shrink in 2011, and three-in-five expected public spending cuts to directly affect environmental employment in their organisation.

“This survey is a wake-up call for government,” said ENDS editor-in-chief Nick Rowcliffe.

“Real progress towards a greener economy is going to require exactly the multi-disciplinary skills that have built up over years in the environmental profession, and which are now under threat.”

A government spokesman said it stood by its “excellent record on green policies over the last year to protect the environment and deliver the low carbon economy”.

“Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman played a major role in securing an historic global deal to protect wildlife and habitats and, in a tough economic climate, increased the budget for farming environmental schemes by 80%, and provided hundreds of millions of pounds to clean up England’s rivers and support international forestry and wildlife projects,” he said.

“We are currently undertaking the biggest reform of the electricity market since privatisation to secure billions in investment for low carbon electricity generation.

“And there is legislation going through Parliament right now to bring about the green deal, the first scheme of its kind in the world, cutting carbon and bills in millions of homes across the UK.”

Source: www.bbc.co.uk