http://en.cop-15.org/news/view+news_newsid=12888.html
“Canada: We Accept Concept of Climate Debt : Canada gives details of new “Climate Debt Mechanism,” announces details of pilot program in Africa. Ugandan delegation lauds proposal.
Peter Jensen 14/12/2009 13:20″

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/environment-canada-spoof
“Copenhagen spoof shames Canada on the truth about its emissions : An ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions 40% by 2020 seemed too good to be true – and it was, as the Yes Men strike again” Posted by Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent Monday 14 December 2009

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2340101
“Prankster group Yes Men take credit for Canada climate hoax : Kelly Cryderman, Canwest News Service Published: Monday, December 14, 2009″

http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/100457/_canada_gets_punk%27d_in_copenhagen:_work_of_the_yes_men,_mayhap/
” Canada Gets Punk’d In Copenhagen: Work Of The Yes Men, Mayhap? By The Huffington Post News Team, Huffington Post : So, did you hear the one about Canada making a huge splash at the COP15 Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen by completely reversing its climate change policy and setting aggressive new carbon reduction targets? Well, then you’ve heard about a high-concept prank, which seems to have been perpetrated by someone willing and capable of going to dizzying lengths to show policymakers what they should be doing to combat climate change. We’re guessing this is probably the work of the Yes Men, obviously!”

http://europe-wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704201404574590453176996032.html
“DECEMBER 14, 2009 : Canada Announces Major Shift at COP15 Climate Summit : Declares new emissions reduction targets, outlines pilot program on adaptation financing for Africa : By GUSTAV RAINER : Canadian delegates to the United Nation Climate Summit in Copenhagen announced a significant shift in the country’s climate stance today.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/canada-gets-punkd-in-cope_n_390992.html
“Confirmed: Yes Men Behind Prank Of Canada At COP15 : First Posted: 12-14-09 10:26 AM : UPDATE (5:55 P.M. EST): Huffington Post Green Editor Katherine Goldstein, who is in Copenhagen at the COP15 Climate Change Summit, spoke to Andy Bichlbaum of The Yes Men earlier this evening about today’s prank — and Bichlbaum confirms that the Yes Men, were behind it. Asked about whether he thought he might be sued for today’s stunt, Bichlbaum quipped, “Yes. I think Stephen Harper is so mad that he will personally sue us. And yes, so will the Wall Street Journal.”

http://tinyurl.com/y9u59tv
http://tinyurl.com/yesuvse
http://bit.ly/6q7ZrN

This is a simple Excel spreadsheet chart based on data from these sources :-

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50354.pdf

“Energy trends : March 2009 : URN 09/79a ISSN number: 0308-1222″

In the section starting on Page 19 “Carbon dioxide emissions and
energy consumption in the UK”, another document was linked :-

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file50484.xls

The last points on the right-hand side of the chart are 34% less than the 1990 figure on the left-hand side. I have assumed that 34% cuts will be required in each sector, evenhandedly.

This is what is recommended by the Climate Change Committee in their December 2008 report :-

http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs/LaunchPressRelease01.12.08.pdf

“The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) today urged the Government to commit unilaterally to reducing emissions of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the UK by at least 34% in 2020 relative to 1990 levels (21% relative to 2005). This should be increased to 42% relative to 1990 (31% relative to 2005) once a global deal to reduce emissions is achieved. The CCC says meeting these targets is necessary to contain the threat of climate change.”

Some thoughts on the meaning of this chart :-

1. In the Power Generation sector, the reduction by 34% looks doable, since between 1996 and 2000, the figure nearly dipped to what the 2020 target shows. I have asked the Department of Energy and Climate Change for reasons for the changes in the Carbon Dioxide emissions over several periods covered by this chart for the power sector. I already know part of the answer : the “dash to gas”, where power generation moved to Natural Gas thermal plant. Also, the Nuclear Power contribution to electricity supply was higher during the period 1996 to 2000 than now. New Nuclear won’t be able to contribute in 2020 (if it ever gets built) because it won’t be ready.

2. The Transport sector cuts look hard : this probably necessitates a real drop in the amount of private and retail road miles. Of note : aviation and shipping emissions are not included in the figures. This means that transport as a whole is very problematic. Don’t expect massive roll out of electric vehicles by 2020 : particularly since there probably won’t be the extra electricity supplies to power them. And if there were extra electricity supplies provided by then, they would need to be Zero Carbon, or the Power sector Carbon Budget will be blown.

3. The Domestic energy sector looks problematic, as home emissions have not really changed much since 1990, and people have not changed their attitudes much about Energy Conservation since then.

4. It is probably not possible to ask other sectors to take up the slack for the Transport and Domestic sectors – in other words, real cuts will be necessary in Transport and Domest (home) energy – of the order of 35% for home energy (since it hasn’t altered much) but closer to 40% for Transport.

5. There is no way by 2020 that Carbon Capture and Storage facilities could be available in sufficient quantity to contribute to emissions cuts from the Power sector. The Carbon Cuts in the Power sector probably have to be done through demand destruction.

6. The emissions cuts in Transport and the Domestic arena imply problems with the “economic growth paradigm”, and imply a much lower Carbon life than imagined so far.

http://www.newcarbonfinance.com/?p=services&i=voluntary

http://www.newcarbonfinance.com/download.php?n=State_of_Voluntary_Carbon_Markets_2009_May19.pdf&f=fileName&t=NCF_downloads

In the meantime, there’s stacks of money to be made in offsetting, as witnessed by the fact that ClimateCare was snaffled up by no less than J. P. Morgan, who hosted this evening’s meeting, on the baking Victoria Embankment in London, attended by people extremely well groomed, in very, very smart suits, with glow-in-the-dark white collars. Before you ask, the women wore lots of big jewellry or had fabulously glossy hair. To get noticed I suppose.

“I can buy any car I like,” J. P. Morgan’s Paul Kelly told me in the middle of our little tete-a-tete about Jevon’s Paradox. As if this would impress me. What matters most is a man’s mind, not his mint. And Paul Kelly didn’t even realise I was trying to sell him his own arguments and widen his field of view.

These Carbon Offsetting people really need to raise their game. It’s all very well selling offsets created by giving people smoke-free solar ovens in Madagascar or the villages around Mumbai or wherever. Yes, it’s a good project in itself, but it’s not really going to lower Carbon Emissions in the grand scheme of things where every good middle-class Indian wants to buy a Tata Nano.

As I was trying to explain to Paul Kelly, a Carbon Offset doesn’t create a real Carbon Reduction, it just stops an added Carbon Emission. It’s a Cap, not a Cut. It easily gets swamped by other people increasing their Emissions.

The real money to be made is in mass-selling people the cost-negative Carbon Cuts that are available through Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation and the other measures on the left-hand end of the McKinsey Cost Abatement Curves :-

http://asuccessionoferrors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us_abatement_curve.png

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/mckinsey-low-carbon-cost-curve-2009-big.gif

Currently the UK Government continues to skirt the cheap measures in favour of the high cost, high uncertainty-of-success, high technologies, like Carbon Capture and Storage and new Nuclear power.

J. P. Morgan could lead on their lack of vision, if their colleagues in the Voluntary Emissions Reductions (VERs) market didn’t have a lack of vision of their own. Guy Turner of New Carbon Finance, on overhearing me mention McKinsey said something to the effect of “McKinsey’s [rude word meaning useless]. I was working on it when McKinseys were in nappies [diapers].”

I spent some time talking with Paul Kelly about why the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) reject Carbon Offsetting. He did admit that he thought that currently VERs make up a very small percentage of the potential Carbon Market, and I tried to explain to him that this was why NGOs scorn VERs.

You can never build a tranche of VERs that will compensate for coal-fired power generation. One of the key issues is that coal-fired power stations must be shut down, because the OECD countries have got to reduce their emissions by something in the region of 60% to 80% by 2050.

Therefore, J. P. Morgan ClimateCare should consider how to close coal-fired power plants. The only way to do it is to make real Carbon Cuts, in the OECD countries, which will then obviate the need for the coal-fired power stations. “Flicking the switch” to turn off coal plants is what we need to do, Paul Kelly. And flicking the switch is where you could make a packet more money, whilst saving the planet at the same time.

The “compliance” Carbon Markets, Cap and Carbon Trading, that are more than certain to be part of the post-Kyoto global deal, only offer punishment – charging for new investment in clean Energy infrastructure, and charging for Carbon Credits at the same time. You’re penalised even as you try to adapt.

By contrast, a voluntary system of certified grants to green street after street of domestic households could be a win-win-win scenario. J. P. Morgan ClimateCare could offer an application system – if you can get 20 people in your street to sign up to have their homes made over (a Carbon Extreme Makeover) then you get a grant, in exchange for five years of savings from your Energy bills. Householders win, J. P. Morgan ClimateCare wins. Planet wins.

As Edward Hanrahan (nice sky-blue shirt) of ClimateCare said, at this stage they need to unlock business motivation – we haven’t been so good at creating an environment where offsetting is a “hygiene factor” in anyone’s strategy – to put exponentially larger numbers up on the screen. Use of Voluntary Offsets is a critical part of a Carbon Reduction strategy – we need scale. Digging for a bigger pond.

As I was popping tiny, but tasty, canapes into my trap to soak up the orange juice, after the speaker panel, I was approached by an old activist pal, now sporting a J. P. Morgan name badge, who whispered “I’m on the other side now.” “There’s no such thing as “sides”", I said. And there isn’t. There really isn’t. Anything that helps, helps. It’s just we need to do it all on a much bigger scale, and actually Cut Carbon Emissions rather than paper them over.

I found I quite liked Paul Kelly, actually, even though he is from Texas. He admitted that they had to shave his fur off and pull his long canine teeth before being allowed from the back room to the grand hall for the evening. He may not have heard of the two-car family problem, but he is a strong advocate of Wind Power. And he does understand about Carbon Taxation reaching saturation impact after around 5% of Carbon Cuts, but he needs to go figure that the same thing applies to Carbon Trading, regulatory or voluntary.

“There’ll be so much Carbon leakage,” I explained. “Nobody can enforce a Carbon Cap by trading in Carbon.”

We need to stop using dollars to try to Cut Carbon. It’s going to fail. It can only penetrate so far in a global Economy that is highly dependent on Carbon for its wealth. We have to use Carbon to Cut Carbon. In other words, make real Carbon Cuts.

“He’s alright,” said my old pal conspiratorially, “he’s just a banker.” And so perhaps I should forgive him dropping the word “fungibility” into conversation.