So carbon capture and storage is finally happening. Scientific American reports on the first power station to not only capture carbon dioxide- which in this case you do by liquifying the gas with bakers’ ammonia then separating it- but also store it 2,375 metres under West Virginia.

The New Haven ‘Mountaineer’ project (pictured right) only captures 1.5% of the CO2 currently. When it is expanded to 20% of the Alstom’s plant, it will cost an extra 4c per Kilowatt hour on top of the 5c that the plant currently costs. The research and development outlay will be $700million. This isn’t cheap but it is becoming a reality and that is what is important- with some Federal funds thrown in.

This is all good news for the UK government. The Department of Energy and Climate Change published its Framework for the Development of Clean Coal earlier this week alongside a series of National Planning Statements on energy policy.

Coal currently provides almost a third of our energy and is extremely polluting and this is not a trivial issue. My instinct is that we should build no more coal-fired power stations at all. Given the uncertainty about whether technology will actually reduce carbon emissions at an affordable cost and if the carbon can stored safely and without leakage I had a degree of initial scepticism. It just sounded too good to be true.

However, that would be the right policy response if the UK was the only country in the world but it’s not.

The reality is that others will continue to build coal-fired power plants regardless of whether we do or not. Just take China (sorry China I’m always picking on you which is mean): 80% of its energy comes from coal-fired power stations; it now consumes more coal that Europe, Japan and the US combined; it may build some of the most efficient power stations in the world but its emissions are still forecast to increase by 3% per year according to the IEA; and it is building these power stations at an eye-popping rate of one per week.

So we need to have a crack at developing the technology. It might as well be here in the UK. Ed Miliband’s plan is for any new power plant to be completely CCS from 2020 with the four proposed CCS demonstration projects fully retrofitted by 2025.

Of course, there is not just an environmental consideration here but there is naked economic self-interest involved as well. There could be a £40billion market in this creating 30,000 to 60,000 jobs in the process. In the dry inhuman language ofeconomics, I guess you could describe that as a ‘positive externality.’

In the context of the credit crunch and as we look to re-balance our economy away from an over-reliance on financial services that is no bad thing. It is important to state though that the economic opportunities offered by clean coal are not sufficient reason to pursue its technological development.

However, when you combine the environmental benefits with the economic and our energy requirements then what might seem like a policy of evasion becomes a compelling proposition instead. If we all going to keep on building coal-fired power stations then we have to do something about the emissions. This may be a solution; it’s worth a try.

If the conversion to electric powered cars is to happen more rapidly and we are to limit use of petrol powered vehicles in the meantime then some road pricing will have to be considered. It could incentivise the move to electric also. Revenues from any road pricing could be used to build the infrastructure of charging points etc. for electric vehicles and could be used to subsidise the purchase of new electric vehicles.

The CCC refused to take this discussion off the table. To quote:

“There is good economic rationale to introduce road pricing and thereby reduce congestion. Evidence in this report suggests that road pricing would result in a significant emissions reduction (e.g. around 6 MtCO2 in 2020) if there were no offsetting reductions in other aspects of transport pricing (i.e. fuel duty, VED.)”

There is an equity issue. There are many people on lower incomes or whom are performing essential tasks who may find themselves hit hard by any introduction of road pricing. This particularly becomes the case if the journeys are unavoidable. Perhaps there is a simple way of deadening the impact (and there must be an impact if there is to be a disincentive) for people in such a position. The reality may be that it is only longer distance journeys, i.e. those over 30 miles or so, that would attract some sort of price.

What cannot happen is that we just bury equity issues when we consider new ways of incentivising lower carbon emitting behaviour. For example, just as we provide opportunity for shared ownership social housing for healthcare workers, we may wish to provide additional grants for the purchase of new electric cars so they could avoid road charges altogether (electric cars would not attract any charges.)

This is a controversial area but one that can not be ducked if the UK is to hit the most ambitious carbon reduction targets possible. There is an environmental necessity for the UK to be a world leader, a moral necessity (we kicked all this off after all…), but also potentially a huge economic gain as we become a world leader in the science of climate change, research, manufacturing, services etc; if we get this right, the UK would become a net exporter of environmental goods and services. Let’s not leave this one to Germany, the US, China, and Japan.

Just returning to the infrastructure point for a moment, it was very pleasing to see that the Mayor of London has included consideration of on-road infrastructure needed to make electric vehicles work in the city in his new London Plan. One in five new parking spaces will need to have an electric power point. Not enough in my view but a good principle to embed in the planning system nonetheless.

***UPDATE***

Boris, I was nice but then you announce eye-popping public transport fare increases. Why? Because you are refusing to take the tough choices on the environment, bowing instead to the Chelsea tractor and big haulage brigade. As Simon Fletcher explains on LabourList:

“It is claimed – though we will have to see – that the higher fares will raise an extra £125million. Yet Boris Johnson’s own actions have cut millions from TfL’s budgets – £50m-£70million a year will go when the western extension is abolished; £50million a year has been lost through the cancellation of the £25 CO2 charge on gas guzzlers; millions are being wasted through the new Routemaster plan, the removal of bendy buses and the ending of the mutually beneficial agreement with Venezuela.”

************

Finally, I’d encourage you to have a quick read of The great BBC global warming swindle piece I posted a few days ago. One to watch….

The top-lines of the report are: we should not be fooled that we are hitting the underlying targets for carbon emissions by the fact that we are in recession. This reduces emissions but, more worrying, lowers the price of carbon so disincentivising low-carbon investment which will slow the transition to a low-carbon economy. To hit our targets, i.e. to meet the government’s carbon budget, there needs to be a step-change in three main areas: energy, buildings, and transport.

Most intriguingly though, the discussion took an interesting turn when Tim Yeo MP, Chairman of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (and who was very supportive of the report), questioned the panel about the UK exporting its emissions. Tantalisingly, Lord Turner indicated that investigating the consumption model of emissions (current policy is geared towards production of carbon rather than consumption) was beyond the legal remit of the Committee. However, it was absolutely clear that he would welcome that remit being widening so as to investigate the question further.

The problem with measuring production of carbon without considering consumption alongside that is that off-shore emissions are not taken into account, i.e. so the emissions embedded in the products and services we import and international transportation are not properly considered.

Lord Stern made it clear that as part of their evidence base feeding into the 12th five-year plan, the Chinese will be publishing the historical data of emissions of each country going back to the 19th century.

China seems to have an interest in provoking this discussion as they are a surplus nation exporting products that they manufacture and we consume. They could make an argument that the West, and the UK is majorly implicated here, is not consuming either its historical and current smoke.

However, as someone pointed out to me, it may not be in China’s interests to push the issue too far. It may provoke a discussion about global imbalances and the rate of the Renminbi. Why would the resolution not be to appreciate the Chinese currency so that production was moved elsewhere?

China is likely to have many developing world allies with this argument but it could become explosive. At the very least, the UK will need to have its own assessment of the impact of its consumption patterns (net environmental impact.) So it is right that the Committee’s legal remit should be expanded.

This ocean ecosystem devastating process is another consequence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide intensification alongside climate change. In fact, climate change and ocean acidification interact with one another creating the type of feedback loop that is so unpredictable and unhelpful in terms of its environmental consequences. Cold water absorbs carbon dioxide at a faster rate than warm water.

This means that cold waters- such as the Arctic Ocean- acidify quicker (Co2 dissolves in water to produce Carbonic Acid) but as waters warm up they will leave more Co2 in the atmosphere hastening global warming. The oceans have absorbed half the Co2 we have produced since the industrial revolution. According to the research quoted in The Observer piece, they are now only absorbing 25 per cent of it- 6 million tonnes per day.

According to a report by the Royal Society published in 2005, the issue is not just the increasing acidification of the world’s oceans- 100 per cent of the Arctic Ocean is forecast to be corrosively acidic by 2100. But it is the rapid nature of change also. To quote Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide:

As CO2 continues to enter the atmosphere from human activity, a proportion will be taken up by the oceans. If CO2 emissions are not regulated, this could result in the pH decreasing by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This is beyond the range of current natural variability and probably to a level not experienced for at least hundreds of thousands of years and possibly much longer. Critically, the rate of change is also probably at least 100 times higher than the maximum rate during this time period. These changes are so rapid that they will significantly reduce the buffering capacity of the natural processes that have moderated changes in ocean chemistry over most of geological time.

Like global warming, the issue is not just volumes but the rapidity of change and the inability of ecosystems to adapt to rapid change.

What is the impact of this acidification? Well, whole ecosystems could collapse- organisms who rely on calcified shells, mussels etc, could be threatened as could fish that feed on them. Coral reefs could simply dissolve. For humans the economic cost could be considerable, the natural cost immense (e.g. coral reefs protect coastlines from erosion), and the whole thing is mightily unpredictable.

What’s more, the ocean that has been shielding us from from much of the negative impact of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will not be able to cope with the continued intensification. The Royal Society report details that photosynthesising plankton only increase their CO2 absorption by 10 per cent with each doubling of atmospheric CO2. Again, over to the Royal Society:

In almost all of the phytoplankton species examined to date, it has been found that doubling the present atmospheric CO2 concentration has only a small direct effect, 10% or less, on the rate of photosynthesis.

Finally, almost no mitigation technique (bunging limescale in the oceans for example) will work other than on a local scale. Only one thing will work: reducing the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. There are no easy routes out of this one.

Which brings us nicely onto the EON’s decision to postpone the construction of a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth. I am extremely agnostic about carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Pragmatically, it may well be essential but it almost seems too good to be true and so probably is. Even if the UK does not adopt the technology, other nations will build coal-fired power stations and so globally technological progress may be necessary. The UK, with government leadership, has the opportunity to be at the forefront of that.

EON’s decision is an economic one. The government’s insistence that any new coal-fired power stations should be carbon capture and sequestration ready has altered the economics and certainty of any new investment. The company clearly wishes to pause for breath while it considers these issues more thoroughly.

From the UK’s perspective, it would be possible to rapidly increase the deployment of renewable energy generation. Indeed, it is necessary to do so. However, the pragmatist in me suggests that globally CCS may be a necessary technology. So why not make the innovation here for export? It would be a major aspect of a UK comparative advantage in the provision of low and zero carbon energy generation.

Some leapt for joy, others were less impressed but the moment of this week’s UN Conference on Climate Change was clearly President Hu Jintao of China’s speech.

The Telegraph found it underwhelming. The Guardian thought it very significant.

Nicholas Stern was full of warm praise for China and also India as he sees that they have moved on significantly and will reduce their carbon emissions by a greater amount than almost anyone else compared with trend (perhaps….) To suggest that China and India are leading the way is, to put it mildly, over-egging the pudding somewhat. The rhetoric from China was indeed significant but it has been creeping in this direction for some time.

Of course, the US, despite the commitment from President Obama, is both the real culprit and the real villain when it comes to climate change. Europe has embraced its responsibility to significantly cut its carbon emissions and now it would seem so is Japan. Friends of the Earth was right that President Obama’s speech was a disappointment. But his hands are tied.

This is the real issue with China and why it is not playing a leading role as Nicholas Stern suggests. Unless it commits to some measurable target of carbon intensity reduction to begin with and then declare a commitment to actually cut its emissions within, say, a decade then Congress will have an excuse not to act. If they are genuinely planning the cuts then they should commit to them. That will enable President Obama to more forcibly demand action from Congress. This game of playing hard to get that China is playing benefits absolutely no-one.

There is an attitude in the US that China doesn’t play by the rules. It had exactly the same attitude towards Japan in the past. See the recent decision to take action against Chinese tyre imports. It is part of the mindset that China is a free-rider. If China fails to agree to actual targets then suspicions will be raised and the US will have an excuse not to act.

Can all this be resolved by December? Possibly. However, even it is not December is the beginning not the end of a process. There does need to be a seizing of the moment while international attention is on this issue so there is no better time for China, India and the US to make meaningful commitments.

What is important is that whatever happens in Copenhagen, there is an understanding that this is just one staging post on a long and grueling road. There is a good piece in this month’s edition of Foreign Affairs by Michael Levi- Copenhagen’s Inconvenient Truth (subscribers only)- that makes this precise point. I don’t think we should let China off the hook just because Copenhagen marks the beginning of a process rather than its end-point and Levi seems to suggest that we should be willing to do so. But the characterisation of Copenhagen as a WTO-style process rather than a one-off treaty is useful.

What this week has shown is how far there is still to travel. I’m more towards the Telegraph’s scepticism than the Guardian/ Stern’s praise for China. In fact, I don’t think that the US, China, or India get even close to a five out of ten for their performance this week.

Not good enough…..but there is still time. Just.

OK, so it’s Friday. It’s Thursday in the US- can I cheat that way? Anyway, Japan, the most technologically advanced nation in the western world has a leading business hotel without wifi. So this is late as I had a dash and frantic search for a USB to LAN cable. The MacBook Air that I’m using is so technologically advanced that it does not have an ethernet port. Caught between two stools.

However, it’s an intriguing time to be in Japan as its new government is about to be formed with the coalition negotiations completed. In Japanese political terms this is, of course, seismic with the Liberal Democratic Party’s almost complete lock on post-war Japanese politics being broken.

It is also important in the process of securing a deal at Copenhagen in December. Yukio Hatoyama, Leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, and Prime Minister-designate is a committed environmentalist. Well, he is committed other than a few of those glaring contradictions you get in all things Japanese- wanting to eliminate road tolls and such like.

However, on the central commitment- a major cut in Japan’s greenhouse emissions relative to 1990 levels- he is rather bold. Currently, Japan, the host of the Kyoto negotiations and agreement (the clue’s in the name), stands to fall short of its own commitments. It is 16 per cent out with three years to go.

On top of this, the LDP, famously entwined in an iron triangle of politics, bureaucracy and big business was proposing a rather tame 8 per cent cut on 1990 levels by 2020. Hatoyama, used to walking on the wild side (his wife was abducted by aliens) is going for a rather more robust 25 per cent. There was a deluge of 1980s and early 1990s literature called things like Japan as Number One. When it comes to cutting greenhouse emissions Japan might just be about to challenge the EU for number one spot. Keep bidding up guys.

Of course, there are get outs to the commitment. It only applies if the other major polluters- notably the US and China- make significant commitments also. It includes Japan’s investment in carbon saving technology in developing countries and that will require there to be close watch on what is included in that. The Clean Development Mechanism has thrown up all sorts of challenges: additionality, measurement, monitoring, etc. Ultimately though, these are broader issues faced by all the signatories of Kyoto and the forthcoming (fingers crossed) Copenhagen treaty.

The prospects of a substantive deal have increased significantly in the last 18 months or so. Starting at the end of 2007 with the election of Kevin Rudd, followed by Barack Obama’s victory in November 2008 (watch out for Congress though….), the EU’s strong 20-20 commitment at the end of January of this year, and now this commitment from the incoming Japanese government have significantly shifted the prospects of a deal.

China though is still talking in terms of peak emissions in 2030. That is a long way short of what is required. However, empty moralising won’t win the argument. There should also be an acknowledgment that China’s issues are genuine- it is our development that has got the world to this position not China’s (until recently) and it does import a great amount of our emissions as it manufactures many of the products we consume. Equally, we need a major cut in global emissions and so can’t allow China to continue even with a less than baseline target. It will need some vision and finesse to find a way out of the coming impasse.

Though the changes in the US, Australia, the EU, and now Japan place increasing pressure on China, the last thing that should happen at Copenhagen is that China should be isolated (it won’t be anyway as other major developing nations with align themselves but that is equally problematic.) With the changes in the Japanese government’s attitudes at least the moral authority of the developed world is now stronger. There is still, however, an enormous distance to be traveled.

I would add- though Kathryn doesn’t make this point- that there should be some sort of incentive/ disincentive beyond that to really manage our individual emissions. This could be introduced further down the line once we have reliable measurement. Here is an article from a few weeks ago where I argue that case.

Here is a quote from Kathryn’s piece:

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it”, is an oft used and misused quote in business, attributed to the business management theorist Peter Drucker (points to anyone who can actually find when and where he actually said it) and attributed to a certain style of management consultancy.

The Labour government has often, and in many cases rightly, been criticized for taking such measurement + management sentiments to the max with target driven policies. Yet there is one new initiative where such thinking is desperately needed otherwise it is doomed to only go as far as any good PR person can take it – the media and no further.

To make matters worse the big launch of this project, supported by the Guardian, has all the veneer of measurement – or at least a target – in its title.

Yes, 10:10. Ten percent by Twenty Ten. http://www.1010uk.org

Also, on the site today is a piece from Fiona Millar, Chair of Comprehensive Future, on the back of a pamphlet they have published about abolishing selective education and the 11 plus. Fiona says:

“End the 11 plus. It is not a new idea but it should shoot straight into the manifestos of all the mainstream political parties.

Why?

Because they all claim it doesn’t work.

Because we are in an era where affluent parents think nothing of shelling out between £3000 and £5000 to coach their children to pass the test.

Because the chances of a poor child getting into a grammar school are virtually nonexistent – they take on average 1- 2% of children on free school meals.

And above all because the children who fail the test, poor but also often with special needs, frequently they end up in secondary modern schools, , many of which do a heroic job but still struggle with an unbalanced intake of children who feel the system has rejected them.”

Let’s start off with the high impact this week. The UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change has launched a ‘Road to Copenhagen’ document which details its aims, analysis, arguments, proposals, and action. It is worth a read- you can download the document here.

There is now a Copenhagen portal website also where they are seeking your support for a deal at Copenhagen. Go on, sign.

The UK government is seeking a deal where:

- Developed countries commit to cutting their emissions by 25%-40% by 2020 on 1990 levels and by 80% by 2050;

- Ensure developing countries- with the support of the developed world- cut their levels by between 15%-30% compared with the ‘business as usual scenario’ by 2020;

- Encourage developing countries to complete low carbon development strategies so a sound assessment of how much support they will need can be undertaken;

- Ensure emissions from international aviation and shipping are included;

- Establish robust reporting, monitoring and verification systems to ensure that committed emission reductions are achieved.

It is a very positive approach from the UK Government. Some of the analysis in the document shows how far there is to go:

As can be seen, Japan, the USA, and Russia are considerable laggards when it comes to climate change with the EU and Canada- those socialist idylls with their healthcare and their equality and their public investment- way out in front. When you bear in mind the extent of EU expansion eastwards, this is a considerable target.

And just in case there was any doubt about the strong link between carbon emissions and growth. Here is a table that maps carbon emissions per capita with GDP per capita:

And finally, for a low impact approach to carbon emissions, see the story of Colin Beavon in this week’s New Yorker. He tried to make his life as close to zero environmental impact as he could- he became “No Impact Man” with supposedly hilarious results. Only they are not really, they are predictable. And his family are miserable. He writes a book, blog, and gets the film deal. The book is No Impact Man: The Adventures of a Guilty Liberal Who Attempts to Save the Planet and the Discoveries He Makes About Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process. Narcissus is alive and well.

As Elizabeth Kolbert’s review concludes:

What’s required is perhaps a sequel. In one chapter, Beavan could take the elevator to visit other families in his apartment building. He could talk to them about how they all need to work together to install a more efficient heating system. In another, he could ride the subway to Penn Station and then get on a train to Albany. Once there, he could lobby state lawmakers for better mass transit. In a third chapter, Beavan could devote his blog to pushing for a carbon tax. Here’s a possible title for the book: “Impact Man.”

Give me the high potential impact of Copenhagen any day over metropolitan guilt and obsession. And self promotion.

However, it appears that the public sector itself is not setting a good example. According the parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, recycling in the public sector has declined in 2006-07 to 2007-08 from 38.5 per cent to 35 per cent and the use of renewable energy has declined from 28.3 per cent to 22 per cent over the same period. The problem with this is not just its impact on emissions which is the primary concern but also that it will cost the government cash.

Under the Carbon Reduction Commitment, public sector organisations and local authorities will have to buy carbon credits from the private sector- costing us all money and, as it is a market-based solution, there is no way forecasting what that cost could be. Moreover, what sort of example does it set?

There is further information available about the scheme here if you are interested.

The other government under the microscope this week is the US. Under the Obama administration they appear to be getting on the case. The stimulus and investment package passed included significant investment in renewable energy, retro-fitting of public buildings, and the creation of a more efficient grid. The administration’s budget did the same thing. However, it is starting from a very low base.

In an interview with the New Scientist, John Holdren, President Obama’s scientific advisor, said:

“Two things are obvious: the industrialised nations have an obligation to lead, and the developing countries have to join pretty soon, or we’re going to be cooked.”

It is unsurprising that the US is beginning to stir on climate change given the catastrophic consequences it faces if the world fails to act. The only mystery is what took it so long. Just take the agricultural oasis of California as a case in point. A while ago, Energy Secretary, Nobel prize-winning, Steven Chu, said:

“We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California. I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”

Now, to have any chance of a comprehensive climate deal at Copenhagen, the Waxman-Markey bill- which introduces a US cap and trade system much like the EU’s Emissions Trading System and sets targets for renewable energy- must pass the Senate following its successful navigation of the House of Representatives on June 26th.

There are fears that with healthcare sucking out all of the legislative energy from Congress that the bill could be punted into next year. That would be a disaster for Copenhagen unless a clear direction of travel had been established. Without the bill, what chance that China, Russia, and India, will commit to a substantive deal at Copenhagen?

As reported in the New Scientist this week, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Climate Change (try saying all that while eating a bowl of Rice Krispies) believes that even if the developed world manages to reduce its emissions by 80% on 1990 levels by 2050 there is still only a 4-5% chance of staying within the 2°C limit. We have already churned up the environment to the extent that we will find it desperately difficult to turn back.

Of course, climate change deniers have a full array of excuses and bogus science at their disposal. A good deconstruction of their arguments can be seen on YouTube through Peter Sinclair’s Climate Denial Crock of the Week series. A taster is below:

The harsh reality is that we are taking increasing, multiple, and layered risks with our world that could well have catastrophic consequences. Why take the risk? Using science, markets, and political will we can build a world where we are not taking those risks. We are up to the task so let’s get to it.

This is why the G8 was so disappointing. The glacial pace with which the governments are moving is simply not good enough. In the case of the UK government- one of the exceptions- the Low Carbon Transition Plan published last week was exceedingly well received and rightly so. As the environmental guru Jonathon Porritt pointed out, it was the first time that a coordinated plan of action that will have a measurable impact on carbon emissions has been produced. Ed Miliband and his department deserve credit for that. It will have legs as it matches environmental improvements with economic opportunity and jobs. That is the golden mix.

The Prime Minister also deserves credit for forcing the pace of agreement with Mexico’s idea for a $100 billion a year green fund. However, developed countries are still not doing anywhere near enough. Far from all have made the type of commitment that the UK and a few others such as Sweden have made. We built our prosperity on pollution and so have a moral responsibility to ensure that the developing world does not have to choose between the environment and growth. Finally, our consumption- and this is where the government still falls short- means that others pollute on our behalf. An 80% cut in emissions by 2050 is in the emissions we produce not the emissions we consume is not enough. We have a broader responsibility.

So amidst all the self-congratulation of the G8 there is still a very long road to travel down. As for those climate change deniers: it is very unlikely you are right so why on earth should we take ever increasing risks with our world? If you have the vast bulk of scientific evidence saying one thing that predicts disaster, why would you choose just to ignore it or cry conspiracy? It’s bizarre.

I argued that a more radical approach needed to be taken in my LabourList column a couple of weeks ago (see comments also.) That article concluded with a quote from Thomas Homer-Dixon which is the strongest riposte to those in denial:

“Driving fast in the fog is, of course, not sensible. But it’s exactly what we’re doing today.”

And the world’s leaders have to take more responsibility in order to slow us down.