I met several people in the finance-with-conscience crowd the other week, when I went for a spot of champers and Marmite soldiers at the House of Commons for National Ethical Investment Week.

I learned about various views on social and positive impact investment, and about elements of the Coalition Government’s “Big Society” and the proposed Green Investment Bank.

Ethical Investment appears to have come a long way since I put some money into a Fair Trade company many moons ago, where I knew I would never see a dividend, or even be able to sell the shares at some point.

Grown up people in sharp suits and big name frocks now do moral banking, and often reap a healthy return on their investment – “doing well” as well as “doing good”, as Adam Ognall of UK Sustainable Investment and Finance says.

I was challenged to think about what faith communities do with their money around a month ago, all precipitated by a conversation I had with Martin Palmer of the Alliance of Conservation and Religions, and then I heard something at a recent meeting that caused me to investigate a little…

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Adam Ognall, UK Sustainable Investment and Finance (UKSIF)
date: 19 November 2010
subject: When can this rumour be confirmed or denied ?

Dear Adam,

Good to meet you again at the ECCR [Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility] meeting this afternoon.

I overheard something interesting, and I would like your advice about when and where and by whom this rumour could be confirmed or denied.

Somebody who shall remain nameless was talking to somebody else I shall not name, and I overheard the first person claim something that the second person appeared unaware of : that the Church of England have been compelled to review their policies on fiduciary duty as regards the management of the Church’s investment portfolio, and that this would be happening in the very near future.

If the Church of England Commissioners will be obliged to consider a different screening process on their holdings than they have up until now, this would be a very big deal indeed, and highly newsworthy.

So, who do you think could be approached to confirm or deny this rumour, in your expert opinion ?

Many thanks,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Adam Ognall, UKSIF
to: Jo Abbess
date: 19 November 2010
subject: Re: When can this rumour be confirmed or denied ?

Jo

Good to see you last night. This I not something I am aware of. Can I suggest you contact Edward Mason who is Secretary to the church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group. He is based in Church House. If there is such a discussion Edward will be aware.

Adam

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edard Mason
date: 19 November 2010
subject: Question regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio

Dear Edward,

Adam Ognall has offered me your name and e-mail address, to contact you regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio.

The central question surrounds sustainability screening.

I have been attempting to understand the dichotomy displayed by, on the one hand, the Anglican Communion undertaking a commitment to environmental protection with the Fifth Mark of Mission, and yet, on the other hand, the Church Commissioners maintaining an investment portfolio that includes holdings in energy and mining companies.

There are two angles to sustainability – the sustainability of the environment and the sustainability of the business model for each company.

As an example of the latter, as my fellow students and I attempted to research at the beginning of this year, BP shows a reticence to admit areas of stress in its engineering programme, and projects the end of the “Oil Era” to be several decades into the future, and cannot seem to face the possibility that this might be brought forward by several factors, including potentially emerging global policies on Carbon pricing.

The question is : does it make investment sense to hold BP stock, given that the company appears to be in denial about its long-term survivability ?

Naturally, one would expect investment fund managers to have reached behind the glossy corporate presentations to pick out the risks, but it seems that many “ethical” investment funds are not including business survival risks in their screening.

Does the Church of England intend to alter its guidance on fiduciary duty for the work of the Church Commissioners to embed all issues of sustainability into their remit and directive ?

Is there a timetable for reform of the screening that is applied to Church of England investments ? How are holdings included or barred ? And will this be reviewed ?

Some in [my Christian organisation] are mulling advice to be offered to our members on the subject of ethical investment, and how our members could bring the subject up in their local and national church structures. It would be of great interest to hear of any suggestions of change in the stance that the Church of England takes towards balancing environmental sustainability and business sustainability in their investment.

Obviously, a failed energy company would not be able to offer any return on investment. However the rates of return that an emerging energy company can offer will still be some years off. Investment always implies a fallow period in “payback” times, yet the long-term prospects in cleantech and clean energy are looking more in focus and solid as time passes. The general economy is in the doldrums, so it will be hard to make lasting returns from any sector currently. While there is general lowered expectation, it would seem a good time to divest from fossil fuels and minerals mining into start up “ambient” clean energy companies, pending the economic recovery. In fact, this move could precipitate recovery by itself.

Thank you for any and every opinion on this matter.

Regards,

Jo Abbess

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: 24 November 2010
subject: RE: Question regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio

Dear Jo

Thank you for your e-mail.

At the moment the Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) is reviewing its long-standing ethical investment exclusions relating to military products and services (now completed), pornography, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, human embryonic cloning and doorstep lending. There is no current intention to introduce other kinds of screening, although the EIAG may recommend disinvestment from individual companies that are not responding to engagement on serious ethical concerns – hence the Vedanta Resources disinvestment earlier this year.

The EIAG does not take the view that investing in oil companies is unethical. When the EIAG has reflected on the oil industry we have come to the view that it would be very damaging to the billions of people who rely on fossil fuels for energy and the functioning of the economy precipitously to starve the oil industry of investment. Declining oil production now would impact us all and would have the biggest impact on poorer people in developing countries.

The EIAG only advises the investing bodies on ethical issues rather than fiduciary issues, although the investing bodies are naturally very sensitive to their fiduciary responsibilities, short term (pensions and support for the Church have to be paid now) and long term (the Commissioners’ endowment is for perpetuity).

The EIAG and investing bodies are very much involved in the process of transition to a low carbon economy. All the national investing bodies are members of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC). This is a group of investors taking a lead on integrating climate change considerations into investments. We lobby for appropriate public policy, share good practice, and complete an annual questionnaire process. See http://www.iigcc.org/ and, for the IIGCC Investor Statement of which all the national investing bodies are signatories, http://www.iigcc.org/iigcc-investor-statement.

In its engagement activities on behalf of the investing bodies, the EIAG asks oil companies to prepare for and contribute to the transition to a low carbon economy including through investment in renewable energy. We also discuss sustainability with a wide range of companies including supermarkets and consumer products manufacturers.

In their diversified portfolios, the investing bodies hold investments in renewable energy – see for example Impax Environmental Markets which is held by the Church Commissioners (http://www.impax.co.uk/funds/listed-equity-funds/impax-environmental-markets-plc). The Commissioners also invest with Generation Investment Management, the investment fund co-founded by Al Gore to invest in only the most sustainable companies (http://www.generationim.com/).

In case you have not seen the ethical investment policies on the environment and climate change, they can be found on the following links:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/environment.pdf

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/policyclimatechange.pdf

The investing bodies are also members of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment which is about the integration environmental, social and governance issues into investment practice – http://www.unpri.org/.

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards

Edward

Edward Mason
Secretary to the Church of England Ethical Investment Advisory Group
Web: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: 24 November 2010
date: 24 November 2010

Dear Edward,

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply in detail to my questions.

The information was very helpful.

May I be permitted to share your words with my colleagues, some of whom are in the energy industry ?

Our conversation is currently centring on the recent International Energy Agency 2010 World Energy Outlook and the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, both of which indicate that oil and gas companies have a business model that is at risk from resource depletion, and therefore highly unsustainable :-

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
http://peakoiltaskforce.net/

It may not yet be considered “unethical” by the EIAG to invest in potentially collapsing energy companies, but it could become considered unsustainable, and a risk to future returns on investment. I suppose this will not become generally accepted until the next oil shock, but I suspect that within a few years the question will be well-established.

It is interesting to me that the EIAG considers disinvestment from the oil and gas majors as being a social development risk. It is true that there is high dependency on fossil fuels in the global economy, but if depletion is going to cause serious issues of scarcity and high prices in the next decade, as the IEA and others consider is possible, it would surely be better to switch horses to ambient energy sooner rather than later, for the good of all. Investment in a full range of renewable energy technologies, at all scales, can be appropriate for any economy, at whatever stage of development and of whatever wealth levels.

The oil and gas companies are not showing signs of planning to make major shifts to renewable energy, despite a few percent here and there for wind power, solar power and green diesel (wherever that is these days). It is therefore highly likely that they will be tied to their heavy carbon liabilities, which will weigh them down, and they will become progressively submerged. Even higher prices for liquid fossil fuels will probably not be high enough to justify large numbers of drilling platforms in the Arctic Ocean; and making liquid fuels from gas or coal is energy and carbon inefficient, and besides, natural gas also has depletion issues, that are particularly sharp in the shale gas provinces.There is likely to be a global convention on stabilising the price of fossil fuels, as both buyers and sellers have an interest in keeping prices manageable. However, if there are standard prices for fossil fuels, further exploration will be ruled out, as this is becoming progressively more expensive. High prices will create general inflation because of high economy dependency, and thereby rule out exploration. Low prices will rule out exploration. Either way, in a scenario of depletion, if you consider this a valid scenario, new fossil fuel resources are unlikely to be added to reserves. The oil and gas companies operate on rather slim margins – if they cannot pass on costs, they will not develop their reserves. To me this indicates that the future of oil and gas companies is poor, and that investing in them holds risks.

The decline in oil resources that you mention is coming regardless of whether funds invest in oil and gas companies, it seems, so those at the “bottom of the pyramid”, the poorer people of the world are bound to suffer anyway, particularly if they are encouraged to take up the use of fossil fuels, even as the scenario of depletion looms.

I congratulate the EIAG for your wisdom, foresight and ethics for the exclusions that are in place, and for the counsel on divestment from Vedanta. I understand that issues of child labour may have also been discussed, and Chinese working conditions.

I applaud the EIAG involvement in the IIGC and UNPRI processes and Generation.

It is to be hoped that increasing levels of investment into clean energy become a priority for the Church of England, not just on our own church roofs as in the case of St Silas and others, but also in our funds grown for the future.

I note with irony a conversation I had with a churchman (naming no names) in late Spring, who I had met through a Diocesan Environmental Group. Even though he was very much involved in local environmental matters, he regretted to admit that he had lost a lot of his retirement fund from having held shares in BP. I trust that the Church of England as a whole stays aware of the risks of continued high levels of investment in oil, gas, coal and uranium.

Best wishes,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: 25 November 2010

Dear Jo

Do feel free to share my e-mail with colleagues.

Thank you also for elaborating your views further. We could clearly debate these issues for some time! However the key question you raise about the risk/return profile of oil companies is an investment issue and beyond the remit of the EIAG. All I can say is that from my knowledge of the national investing bodies, future energy issues are discussed by trustees, including peak oil.

I’d be happy to meet if you are ever in or near Church House.

Best wishes

Edward

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edward Mason
date: 25 November 2010

Dear Edward,

Thank you for your summary.

I suppose, from my point of view, investment issues are ethical issues, as every financial transaction has the potential to do good or harm, cause growth or damage. For example, Fair Trade is good, but the degrading exploitation of labour and resources is not. Where the rate of return on investment is high, but environments and peoples are left poorer, that is an ethical question; but so also is the risk of the collapse of the very engines of trade. If, as the former chief of BP, Tony Hayward, said, we have four more decades of good oil and gas, at which point can we expect the economic edifice built on hydrocarbons to begin to crumble ? Is it ethical to continue to make investments into combustion energies when they cannot sustain the future ?

As you say, we could continue to discuss this at length, but I think your summary indicates that you believe that a programme of divestment out of carbon liabilities is SEP – somebody else’s problem. For me, there are ethical dimensions to the question of how the decarbonisation of our energy supplies gets started if, in the short-term, the fossil fuel sector continues to be attractive to investment. As depletion begins to be more noticeable, however, and prices start to rise, as production costs start to rise, and returns start to fall, the risk/return equation will tip towards liability, I’m sure, and it could be rapid, and many could suffer extensive losses. The instability that would bring, I believe, is a scenario that contains a moral imperative to address beforehand, in a preventative fashion.

Thank you for your invitation to meet at Church House.

Blessings and abundance,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: Fri, Nov 26, 2010

Thanks Jo

I think it would be best to discuss face to face! It is neither my nor the EIAG’s – nor the investing bodies’ – position that the low carbon transition is someone else’s problem, just that the integration of changing energy futures into ethical investment and investment generally is not a big bang. Do let me know when you want to meet.

Best wishes

Edward

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edward Mason
date: 2 December 2010

Dear Edward,

Thanks for your suggestion of a meeting.

I am conducting a piece of research and it could be useful to take a sounding from you as part of my study, if you could spare the time to answer 20 minutes of questions.

This would have to be in the New Year.

I would contend that “…the integration of changing energy futures into ethical investment and investment generally is not a big bang…yet.”

How exactly is human civilisation going to go cold turkey on our fossil fuel addiction when major investment continues to support itself on oil and gas platforms ?

How will major investors react, and what will happen to the economy, when the G20 gets serious about abolishing global fossil fuel (and maybe nuclear power) subsidies ?

The deliberations at Cancun this month are chasing a few percentage points of real change without firm commitments to emissions reductions by industrialised countries and the emerging economies.

Firm commitments to emissions reductions would necessarily involve major change for the energy companies. Will they comply ?

To take just one oil and gas major example – BP boasts it has shaved emissions from its production facilities and business processes – but not in the products that it sells, which is where the significant changes could come from.

Many people have joined 10:10 this year and pledged to cut back on emissions. What will the net result be, given that the commitment has not been universal in society ?

At the moment “sustainability” is merely a mass exercise in tinkering, it seems to me, unless we substitute the resources that we use for our energy.

When I say “we”, I mean the large energy supply and production companies, of course, as the lowly end consumer of energy bears no responsibility.

I would expect the eurocent to drop within the next five years, as it becomes clear that the trade in Carbon is not working, that green taxes are not stimulating change, and that the climate is continuing to worsen.

What could then ensue would rock the economic system, and cause major financial and political fallout. If sustained social stability is an ethical objective, maybe chaos prevention is better than cure ?

These are questions of right and wrong, to my mind. The climate doesn’t do compromise.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

I rubbed my eyes, but the logo didn’t disappear. The Independent newspaper article had a graphic explaining that the article was “in association with Shell” :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/newenergyfuture/a-climate-for-european-action-2068570.html

Further clue : the author was Tom Burke, “Mr Clean Coal” to those of us that know of him.

The article was great, up until the paragraph :-

“Without deploying carbon capture and storage technologies for coal and gas, Europe has no workable climate policy…”

Well, we knew Tom Burke was going to say that, didn’t we ?

But why was the article “in association with Shell” ? Is this the start of advertising masquerading as opinion articles ?

What could possibly link Royal Dutch Shell to Carbon Capture and Storage ? The “Enhanced Oil Recovery” (EOR) angle, possibly – Shell offering to pump Carbon Dioxide down into its depleting oil and gas wells in an attempt to raise the pressure on the remaining hydrocarbon, to squeeze it out.

Also – if Shell are going to diversify out of Petroleum and Natural Gas, they need to be doing something to do with Energy – how about offering to pump Carbon Dioxide underground on behalf of the Coal-burning power plant companies, as Coal will be the only fuel left in North-West Europe after the North Sea is significantly depleted of Oil and Gas… ?

Are you beginning to get with the programme here ? This article is ostensibly about the transition to the Low Carbon Economy – but is really all about selling the idea that Royal Dutch Shell should be paid to pump Greenhouse Gas underground – “The EU has already committed several billion euros to meeting this challenge…” as the article points out.

So…is Carbon Capture and Storage actually an excuse for the failing oil and gas companies to beg for public money for “green stimulus” ?

Is CCS just a springboard for a massive bailout of Shell, BP and ExxonMobil ?

Carbon Capture and Storage is always going to be expensive – capturing and pumping Carbon Dioxide underground will take make the plants burn more Coal fuel – and although there are a number of small-scale projects around the world, CCS may never make the jump to being a widely-used technology.

However, I’m sure BP, Shell and ExxonMobil would love to have government and EU money thrown at them to dig big holes and build big pumps and pipelines – that’s their current bread-and-butter in engineering.

When Tom Burke writes, “Only when the ratio of low carbon to high carbon energy investments is clearly changing in Europe and the United States will the rest of the world take our talk of climate change seriously”, although that’s a good piece of logic, underneath it all, what he’s really urging is public money budgets being poured into the new energy systems that the industrialised countries needs.

But, where’s the capital ? Surely BP, Shell and ExxonMobil, who have been making packets of varying sizes in the last decade, can put some of their own money into New Energy ?

It can’t be that all the Oil and Gas institutional pension fund shareholders are going to pull all their funds out tomorrow ? I doubt it.

A recession is a great time to start a new phase of investment, while shareholders are not expecting huge returns on prior holdings, as the general market is depressed.

We don’t need Carbon Capture and Storage, as other solutions to avoid Carbon Dioxide emissions to air will be much more efficient :-

http://rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2010/September/DoWeReallyNeedCarbonCaptureStorage.asp

Carbon Capture and Storage applied to the tailpipes of coal-burning power plants is simply going to eat more Coal fuel, and there are signs that the supply of good quality Coal is stressed – so CCS could get progressively more expensive.

Plus, mining dirtier and dirtier Coal to feed into power plants fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage facilities will create increasing local environmental pollution.

And is he really leaving, or is he being hounded out by propaganda ?

The reports of his demise may be premature, but the clock is probably ticking on his tenure anyway.

You know as soon as the board of a company, or a central government expresses “full support” for an executive or a minister, their job is at risk.

At least BP didn’t have to invent a scandal about his private life to get shot of him, like the (I think, despicable) way they ousted John Browne, the “sun king”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10753573

“25 July 2010 : BP chief Tony Hayward ‘negotiating exit deal’ : Mr Hayward has been with the company for 28 years BP’s chief executive Tony Hayward has been negotiating the terms of his exit, with a formal announcement likely within 24 hours, the BBC has learned. Mr Hayward has been widely criticised over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. An official statement issued by BP in response said he had the “full support of the board and senior management”. BBC business editor Robert Peston says Mr Hayward is likely to be replaced by his American colleague, Bob Dudley, who is in charge of the clean-up operation…”

Is Bob Dudley a fan of solar and wind power ? Only asking…

And will a change of figurehead on the prow stop the BP vessel sinking ?

Dr Gregor Czisch’s meisterwerk is being translated into English for publication this Summer :-

Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply: Cost-Optimised Variations on Supplying Europe and Its Neighbours with Electricity from Renewable Energies

You would never know from the plainspeaking title just how exciting this is : seriously cheap Energy and peacemaking collaboration all in one shot !

The management consultants PriceWaterhouseCooper (couldn’t they think of a more speakable name ?), have just published their own view on Europe and North Africa combining to provide a one hundred percent renewable Energy solution :-

http://www.pwc.co.uk/sustainability/

http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/100_percent_renewable_electricity.html

Mark Delucchi (one half of the “two Marks” Jacobson and Delucchi) is coming to London, England for a presentation on Zero Carbon Transport Futures in May :-

http://futurity.org/earth-environment/totally-clean-and-green-by-2030/

http://www.claverton-energy.com/pipermail/claverton-group_claverton-energy.com/2010-March/003805.html

http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/delucchi/index.php

Meanwhile, investors crowd into the DESERTEC project :-

http://www.gsjournal.com/2010/03/first-solar-joins-the-desertec-industrial-initiative/

http://www.scienceknowledge.org/?p=6309

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/56974

And of course, the Centre for Alternative Technology will be launching Zero Carbon Britain 2030 in June 2010 :-

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/content/blogcategory/1/35/

Britain could be a Renewable “Titan” :-

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/britain-could-be-wind-and-wave-titan/

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=15311437

There’s money in them there sloshing waves and swirling winds :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-bonds

There’s a remarkable amount of synergy going on with all the moves towards Renewables.

1. The Aligned and Related Risks from Climate Change and Peak Fossil Fuels

1a. Key Conclusions
The Low Carbon Transition in Energy in developed countries is inevitable (Climate Change Act, 2008; EU Package, 2008; UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol, 1997); yet policy thinking and decision-making seems to still focus on the debateable “how to do it” rather than the more essential “how long do we have ?” If the window of opportunity for industrialised society to de-Carbonise proves to foreshorten rapidly, then the next few decades could be a story of economic collapse, unless there is concentrated, concerted endeavour (Sustainable Business, 2010).

1b. Discussion
A simplistic first-order risk assessment of the coincident onset of Climate Change (Four Degrees and Beyond, 2009; Nature Web Log, 2009) and Peak Fossil Fuels (Heinberg R., 2009; IEA, 2008a; Jakobsson K. et al., 2009; Macalister T., 2009b; Rutledge D. B., 2010; UKERC, 2009) powerfully suggests they should be treated collectively, as an urgent “blended threat” (Symantec, n.d.) to developed countries (Gjelten T. 2009; Post Carbon Institute, 2008). Consideration of the short timescales involved (Perkins J. L., 2009; Royal Society, 2009) offers a strong case for a rapid and deliberate transition to Low Carbon Energy (DECC, 2009; Energy Enviro Finland, 2009). For the core OECD nations, where Energy consumption is high, implementing the transition to Low Carbon Energy principally means increasing electricity generation from natural, renewable sources and, where necessary, altering the manufacture of products such as vehicles to use the new Renewable Electricity, a highly flexible Energy vector (Monbiot G, 2006; Socolow R. H. and Pacala S. W., 2006). In the industrialised economies, the overwhelming majority of social and manufacturing systems and services are directly dependent on Fossil Fuels (IEA 2009a, 2009b). The major Energy agencies and suppliers assume the continued wide use of Fossil Fuels even when new Low Carbon Energy Technologies are in place (EIA, 2009a; Ramavarman T., 2010; WEC, 2009); society cannot afford gaps in provision (EAC, 2005; Patterson W., 2007 p.82). It's a “warm start”, in Information Technology terms, (The Free Dictionary, n.d.; Your Dictionary, n.d.) implementing a new operating system without having to restart the economic machine. Depleting Fossil Fuels and current Carbon Energy infrastructure will be used as a “springboard” for developing the first phase of self-renewing Sustainable Energy systems. The infrastructure required cannot be built using current Renewable Energy output – the “bootstrap problem” : you cannot pick yourself up by your bootstraps. The conundrum is that even as Fossil Fuels will power the step up to Renewable Energy, Fossil Fuels should be used less copiously overall, as Climate Change considerations imply restraint in their use. Given the potential application of sharp Carbon control measures globally in the next couple of decades (Stern N., 2009a, 2009b, 2009c), the rapid development of Renewable Energy technologies is dictated, and implies a massive increase of Fossil Fuel Carbon Energy “invested” in developing the Energy sector. This effectively signals a diversion of Fossil Fuel Carbon Energy away from other sectors to the goal of developing the Renewable Energy infrastructure, committing a good proportion of our Primary Energy and Electricity to engender the kind of massive and complete “revolution” we need to see in Energy (Astyk S., 2008; Monbiot G., 2008). Electricity sector growth, the largest component of “green” Energy, mandates mass Energy efficiency in the Economy at large, perhaps even contraction in other sectors. The need to divert Carbon Energy and material resources such as steel, concrete and glass into building the Carbon-free Energy infrastructure overrides any consideration of cost comparison between technologies (Green R., 2009; Patterson W., 2007 p.87). It suggests Carbon Energy and material resource-intensive expensive technologies are a distraction : a new Nuclear Power programme to replace defunct plant, or Carbon Capture and Storage for “Clean” Coal are both “stop-gap” technologies without long-term prospects (Abbess J., 2009a; MacKay D. J. C., 2008 p. 158, p. 164, p. 169, p. 174). In managing this resource appropriation, the boundary conditions need to be scoped : what is the time period necessary to accomplish this feat of de-Carbonising the Energy Supply ? Under a Global Carbon Budget is there enough Fossil Fuel sanctioned in order to kick-start Renewable Energy systems ? Will stringent Energy Conservation measures be needed ? Will the implemented fiscal policy work fast enough or extend widely enough to effect the totality of change required within the desired timeframe ?

2. Questioning the Size and Accessibility of Fossil Fuel Reserves

2a. Key Conclusions
We will not be using Fossil Fuels forever; in fact, supply stress may appear within two decades (Lozanova S., 2008), a development with strong implications for the Low Carbon Energy Transition. An ongoing risk assessment of the scarcity becoming seen in the mined fuel supply chain is urgently needed. Much industry data is considered “company confidential”; a lack of transparency which replicates itself into the IPCC Assessment Reports. There are risks to further development of centralised and complex Energy plant, given depletion scenarios for the “easy” Energy of conventional Fossil Fuels and Uranium. Construction and engineering could be beleaguered by shortages or Carbon Permit costs under any Climate Change regime.

2b. Discussion
Some Energy analysts (Brecha R. J., 2008; Fleming D., 2008; Hirsch R. L. et al., 2005; Howden D., 2007; Hoyos C., 2008; Kavalov B. and Peteves S. D., 2007; Leng R. A., 2010; Zittel W. and Schindler J., 2007a) have called into question the IEA (WEO), WEC and IAEA projections and calculations of “economically viable” conventional Fossil Fuel and Uranium reserves (IAEA, 2008), foundational information for IPCC Working Group III, who discuss Mitigation of Climate Change through the Energy supply (IPCC, 2007). Although the numbers are nowhere near verifiable, this work suggests establishing ongoing analysis to assess risks that official figures are unreliable. As corollary, a deeper ongoing assessment is required regarding the Energy security risks from an increasing fraction of Coal or Nuclear generation in the supply, and the Climate risks of the exploitation of unconventional Fossil Fuels (Aleklett K., 2010; Fleming D., 2007; Heinberg R., 2007; Kharecha and Hansen, 2008; Nature, 2009; Simmons M., 2009; van Leeuwen J. W. S., 2006). There’s no doubting that Fossil Fuel fields are stretched. Some petroleum oil wells are already near the bottom of the “active” organic lithosphere, the layer affected by Carbon sequestration from biological deposition over geological timescales (Mufson S., 2009); at these depths the temperatures cause a degradation of the oil and a high Natural Gas component (IOEC, 2007; Head I. M. et al., 2003). Some project that all seven oil-producing regions are close to depletion, past their peak (Hirsch R. L., 2007). Although oil exploration is projected to expand in hope of discoveries, new finds of oil are marginal in size : despite the excitable business press, “large” fields could have very low production “flow rates” that would meet only tiny percentages of demand (BBC, 2006; Hoyos C. and McNulty S., 2008; Macalister T., 2009a; Science Daily, 2008; The Oil Drum, 2007; USA Today, 2009; Vail J., 2006). Petroleum oil discoveries have been falling since the mid-1960s (Zittel W. and Schindler J., 2007b). The last remaining “elephants” are mostly in “sensitive” places subject to under-development (Aleklett K., 2009; Robelius F., 2005; Simmons M., 2002). Mining geologists enjoy the prospect of new Fossil Fuel finds in the melting polar regions, yet nobody has good numbers on potential (Crooks E., 2009). Strangely, there seems to be real reluctance of the major Oil and Gas corporations and Coal companies to diversify out of Fossil Fuels. Expanding production of “unconventional” Fossil Fuels such as Tar Sands will require a higher investment of Energy compared to the Energy return, so global socio-economic concerns may well move against this (Crooks E., 2010b; FairPensions, 2010; Greenpeace, 2009). If a stable “Carbon Price” sought by Oil & Gas Majors and the UNFCCC alike, cannot be established, even Gas Shale may become uneconomic (Lean G., 2010; Thorn T., 2009; The Sunday Times, 2009). The risk persists that if a tight global Carbon Budget is set, total Energy available in industrialised countries could become constrained, because Sustainable Energy systems have not developed rapidly enough. Global management of markets to keep costs of Fossil Fuels relatively affordable would jeopardise entirely the exploitation of such potentially costly unconventionals as undersea Methane Hydrates, deep degraded oil and petroleum matrix strata. The combination of Peak conventional Fossil Fuels and a Climate Change Mitigation framework could create a regime of scarcity; in particular, an earlier-than-expected peak in good quality Coal could make Carbon Capture and Storage projects for “Clean Coal” untenable, since they are expected to consume somewhere between a 10% and 40% extra Coal fuel in their operation (Greenpeace, 2008; IPCC, 2005; Owen E. and Stimpson J., 2009). More strategically, Peak Oil could terminate the renaissance in Nuclear Power, as Energy from Carbon fuels underpin the full complex lifecycle of fission technologies. Peak Uranium from ground mines is itself a risk, as flow rates of the collection of secondary sources of Uranium would be low (MacKay D. J. C., 2008; Mullins J., 2009). Under Energy austerity measures, or resources being consecrated to Renewables projects, complex Energy systems could flounder. An extra layer of fragile complexity is attached to incompletely developed high technology, such as Nuclear Fusion Power, and Generation IV Nuclear Fission reactors. It cannot yet be known if these technologies will succeed, be generally reliable for base load, or be supportable in a Carbon-constrained economy (Crooks E., 2010a). Given the “brittle” nature of current Nuclear Power (Boselli M., 2009; CAT, 2007; NucWatch, 2009; The Connexion, 2010), its random cost and “stretchy” build time, economic factors besides disaster insurance should be included in risk assessment of decisions to adopt these technological designs.

3. The Great Planning Transition

3a. Key Conclusions
It is not possible to replace Fossil Fuel-supported Energy systems with Renewable Energy systems on a like-for-like basis. Making the Low Carbon Energy Transition will require an enormous shift in policy, planning and engineering, but offers significant advantages. Large centralised Energy systems, developed as a public good in the last Century, require high inputs and fail to account for all outputs. They depend on a high one-time-through consumption of raw materials, close engineering maintenance, waste disposal and well-maintained infrastructure. By contrast to the high complexity of “traditional” centralised Energy systems, most Renewable Energy Technologies are simplistic, flexible and closed-loop, cradle-to-cradle, the notable exception being Solar Photovoltaics. The economics of Renewable Energy can really improve over time because the “fuel” is free, making self-replication of the Energy systems viable. The material resources would be cheap, as many elements can be recycled. Developing this self-renewing infrastructure would be a real investment, compensating for the lower Energy densities of the sources. Climate Change offers a direct threat to fixed-site centralised Energy systems, for example Nuclear plants by the sea and oil rigs at sea, but Renewables are flexible, although Wind Power and some Solar technologies are simply not viable in towns and cities, where the vast majority of the human population reside, so long-distance electricity transmission is still necessary.

3b. Discussion
Renewable Energy has a different nature to the burning of Fossil Fuels. It churns and turns instead of burns. It comes as diffuse sources of Energy, which means that plant must be dispersed. There are issues of variability and intermittency to circumnavigate, and the implied geographical spread dictates high-level cooperation between peoples – a recognised factor in Electricity supergrid proposals (Claverton, 2009a; Czisch G., 2010; Jacobson M. Z. and Delucchi M. A., 2009; Sibley L., 2009). A diverse, widely-spread Renewable Electricity network could be used to promote international accord. Interaction between Europe, North Africa and a post-Fossil Fuel Middle East could result in a unified economic region of mutual dependency and cooperation. Renewable Energy technologies offer reduced risks of resource conflict due to indigenous supply, security of social development and economic security. A “Permaculture” approach to the Low Carbon Energy Transition will design out waste and losses, turning outputs into inputs. Energy technologies must evolve; the best choice is re-development that is genuinely sustainable, that self-perpetuates after the first push to develop it; flexible, fast-to-build and “fast-to-grid”. The “fuels” for Renewable Energies are naturally self-sustaining, effectively free of charge; but equally relevant, many raw materials of a Renewable Energy system can be recycled, re-used. Glass and metal can be re-cast as self-perpetuating resources. Even concrete plinths can be put to new uses. Ground used for Wind Farms can be re-utilised, in distinct contrast to, say, Coal ash repositories, Tar Sands ponds and Nuclear reactor sites. Most ingredients of Renewable Energy technologies are widely abundant in the geological strata, and the actual mechanisms of the technologies are simple, non-complex, and require minimal maintenance. Research into cheap, recyclable photovoltaic technologies is in progress, but Solar Energy can already be gathered resource-efficiently with glass mirrors in Concentrating Solar Power. Alongside the shift in Energy, the quest is on for less complex, more sustainable products and more efficient production methods. Smaller is more beautiful. Surrounding every Energy technology is social and provisional infrastructure. The experience of using large, centralised complex units such as Nuclear Fission Power showed limitations and dependences in engineering, maintenance and decommissioning. Applying the same failed technologies and compromising approach to the new Energy infrastructure is a “mismatch for the problem” : the “Golden Hammer” anti-pattern (Brown W. J. et al. 1998), repeating mistakes from the past, using the wrong tools for the job. Fortunately, requirements for complex components in Renewable Energies are sparse : the engineering for supergrid HVDC and tidal systems would not necessarily be high risk, for example, trans-Atlantic ocean cables have been in place for decades with low overheads. Climate Change affords some risk to permanent Energy facilities in the way Energy systems are currently organised, predominantly on low-lying ground near water, in terms of long-term sea-level rise and changes in rainfall patterns. By contrast, Renewable Energy technologies are not restricted to a tight geographical territory. For example, if a wind turbine has been found to be in the wrong place, it can be easily moved. Plus, development time can be short : it can take less than five years for a new large wind farm to be providing power to the UK National Grid. Despite this flexibility, Renewable Energy generation is limited in built-up urban areas (The Independent, 2010), guaranteeing the future for grid-delivered electricity. Combined Heat and Power requires extensive public works to install heating grids, and could still be based on Fossil Fuel combustion. Hydropower is not generally possible in low-lying urban areas with high population density, and Biomass combustion for home energy would require extensive home renovation programmes and development of wood product fuel distribution systems.

4. Policy Frameworks and the Falling Value of Money

4a. Key Conclusions
Policymakers envision reduction in the Carbon Intensity of Energy as a slow descent, employing the language of incremental targets, but there are distinct problems with this scenario. The lack of a risk assessment of the value of money is a serious anomaly. There must be a step-change in Energy provision to avoid new capacity becoming additional rather than replacement. Carbon is a negative commodity, so it is unclear if a Carbon Market will diffuse very far into the Global Economy, as nobody wants to buy it. Competitive factors could mean that Carbon Emissions Pricing, whether through taxation or marketisation causes investment resistance as actors struggle as a priority to off-load Carbon charges and stranded “sub-prime Carbon assets” (Laumer J., 2008). A mechanism to cost the “environmental bads” externalities through Carbon Pricing is unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the deployment of Renewable Energies, and may well simply lead to universal inflation as Carbon is so pervasive in the economy, thereby levelising any disincentive effect after a time (Komanoff C., 2009; New Zealand Herald, 2007).

4b. Discussion
Policy experts hold to the pragmatic view that transition to Sustainable Energy can be effected by a fiscal framework, incentivising piecemeal, gradual change through creating artificial price gradients towards the desired Low Carbon Energy investment and supply (Bodansky D. et al., 2004; Carbon Capping and Pricing Policies, 2010; IPCC, 2007; Lewis J. and Diringer E. 2007; Kosonen and Nicodeme, 2009; Pew Center, 2008; Stern N., 2009a, 2009b; Tickell O., 2008). However, since Economic Growth and Fossil Fuel use have remained tightly coupled (EIA, 2009b; Meyer A., 2004; PA, 2010; Stern D. I., 2003), the contraction of the use of Fossil Fuels under a Global Carbon Budget essentially dictates de-growth (décroissance), or at best a steady-state Economy (Davey B., 2009; nef, 2009; Turner G., 2008; SDC, 2009), unless there is a rapid and deliberate Low Carbon Energy Transition. The process of de-Carbonising the Economy could cost of the order of 1% or 2% per annum (Jowit J. and Wintour P., 2008; Stern N., 2006) which could eat up any economic growth (Hopkins K., 2010; UN 2009). This could be compounded by rising Climate Damages (Langston R., 2010; Phalnikar S., 2010), making the value of the whole Economy fall sharply away. The prevailing myth of continual progress (Kurzweil R., 2001) declines to mention that modern civilisation largely depends on the free availability of cheap, dense Carbon Energy sources in wealth creation, and that Fossil Fuels are at risk of depletion, or restriction and Carbon Pricing under a Global Carbon Budget. This scarcity could not be corrected by cost. Carbon Energy will be used to power the Low Carbon Energy Transition, but if Fossil Fuel resources are constrained, this could cause a tourniquet on economic activity and actually hold back the Low Carbon Energy Transition. Less Transition would mean less Energy supply overall (Moriarty P. and Honnery D., 2009), and so less purchasing power for money. This issue may well compound the ongoing economic “readjustment”, in turn impacting on ability to invest further in the Transition. Are there signs of “Peak Build” in construction and “Peak Metals” in rare Earth element mining (Cohen D., 2007; Mobbs P., 2010) ? Synergistic effects, a “Peak Everything” in economic and resource exploitation (Cleveland C. J. and Ruth M., 1996; nef, 2008; Michaelis L., 2008), would risk completion of the Low Carbon Energy Transition. Accentuating subsidies and tax breaks for Renewable Energy includes “The Spanish Windmill Problem”, officially known as the “Rebound Effect” and other names (Herring H., 1998; Orford L., 2010). Spain rapidly ramped up its Wind Power provision, but simultaneously, electricity consumption rose (Global Wind Energy Council, n.d.; Index Mundi, 2009; Wind Power Monthly, 2009). This virtually free Wind Energy resource was effectively additional to Fossil Fuel provision, not replacement for it (Radan S., 2010; Willstedt H., 2009). The “shareholder effect” creates a barrier to new investment without some guarantees of high short-term return. Companies and organisations looking for quick wins, “low-hanging fruit”, often plump for Energy Efficiency measures, either reducing the energy intensity of their processes, or through Energy Conservation. Energy efficiency is its own destroyer : some efficiency measures are one-time-only, and efficiency gains offer an increasing return on investment to shareholders, locking in expectation of similar future returns. To reach beyond a first plateau of achievement (Doppelt B., 2000; Interface n.d.), new technology or Low Carbon Energy supplies are needed. It is hard to justify the increased spending needed in order to climb to a new efficiency level. The global shift towards the privatisation of utilities has shown that there can be gaps in levels of new investment, in repair, maintenance and switching (of fuel and systems) (Beder S., 2005; Estrin S. et al., 1990; Renewable Energy Focus, 2008). State-fostered Energy is not necessarily better (Esparza P., 2009; Suggett J., 2010). Maintaining existing Energy plant and infrastructure will require major funds, as lack of interim investment mean some is coming to end of life (Pagnamenta R., 2008; Patterson W. 2007 p. 56; Science and Technology Committee 2003). Even without the Energy “revival” for new Renewable Energy infrastructure, revitalised investment is required (IEA, 2003, 2008b, 2008c; ADB, 2009). It will always cost more to build new Energy systems than to patch up existing ones, even in a Carbon Emissions pricing framework. The Oil and Gas companies have too much invested in Carbon – they cannot justify to their shareholders to expend capital on Solar and Wind Power (NPR, 2009). Pension Funds invest in those organisations in charge of the current arrangements for Energy provision : these companies are naturally dis-inclined to risk losing share price value by de-Carbonising. It is not clear if a fixed Carbon Price, as a flat tax or floor price in a Carbon Trading system (Stern N., 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Tickell O., 2008; EU, 2009), or even a floating value in a Capped Market, would alter that underlying inertia. Even reallocating the balance of taxation from income to Carbon (Green Fiscal Commission, n.d.) may not create incentives to invest in Clean Energy. Some analyse that markets cannot deliver the new green Energy (Helm D., 2009; Stern N., 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Webb T., 2010), which offers validity in moving from punitive anti-Carbon charging to rewarding good behaviour. Getting over this Green Energy “Investment Hump” in the private sector has led to calls for public money in a number of areas (Pagnamenta R., 2009). A grand “bailout” for the Energy industry holds clear risks of spending on failing or over-costly technologies such as new Nuclear and “Carbon Capture and Storage” (CCS) (Abbess J., 2009b; EP, 2008a, 2008b; EurActiv, 2009; Foley S., 2004; Goodall C., 2009; Justin, 2009; Lawson J., 2006; Lea R., 2009). If public money is used to revitalise the Energy system, justified to navigate uncertainties surrounding the Economy, then should components of the outcome remain under state ownership ? Is there a case to be made for re-asserting a “natural monopoly” over the National Grids for electricity and gas, especially with plans for the Europe-wide Supergrid ? Climate Change is recognised as a market failure (Stern N., 2009a), but the current paradigm for the Transition out of Carbon Energy is generally expected to rely on market platforms, using various policy instruments. How realistic is it that this will create the mass incentive to invest in the new infrastructure ? Given the soft value of Carbon under the EU ETS, it seems unlikely a Carbon Pricing framework alone can tip Energy suppliers into a new phase of investment in good time. Carbon Pricing could actually be a negative incentive to invest, as it depletes profits to continue to pay for Carbon, if costs cannot be passed to customers. Most analyses have relied on cost projections to select technologies – but these costings are unreliable, as with different types of Energy you are not comparing like with like, especially as Renewables Energy systems are new developments : most have not yet been built. What is required is an explicit directional push to get this fledgling flying, giving positive value to Renewable Energy to recognise the long-term advantage from having fully de-Carbonised Energy and self-renewing infrastructure. This implies regulation and subsidy, for example, Government obligations and tariff support for new wind and tidal farms, or retaining tax breaks for Fossil Fuel Energy that is used solely for the construction of new infrastructure (Eilperin J., 2009). Currently there is little evidence that effective competition exists between Carbon and Renewable Energies, implying a lack of appropriate incentivisation, with a resulting lack of innovation. To minimise development time, it is optimal to re-use parts of the existing Energy system, such as pipeline and wire grids. Cost is then relative to the state of the investments already made.

5. The Technology

5a. Key Conclusions
Technology futures may not be shinier; the technicalities of orchestrating the Low Carbon Energy Transition are more intractable than any technological development will be to “keep the lights on” (Cobb K., 2009; Great British Refurb, 2009; OFGEM 2010). We already have most, if not all, of the technologies we need, using current best practice; plus, there are limited environmental risks from Renewable Energy technologies. The public narrative of trust in innovation for the development of new technologies needs to be treated to some caveats. Some technologies may well not be sustainable after 2030. Some technologies will not be able to scale up for delivery in the 2030 critical timeframe (Cookson C., 2010; IPCC, 2007), due to a combination of a lack of research investment, ineffective incentive schemes and non-universal policy reach. A strong hand on Energy Conservation via demand reduction, may be the fastest, cheapest policy. The removal of inefficiencies from the processes of Energy production and use can enable a natural cap in Carbon Emissions and ensure optimal future provision. Making use of the infrastructure we already have, Renewable Energies can be developed in stages and linked together, with outputs becoming inputs (Abbess J. 2009c) and with solutions absolving other problems.

5b. Discussion
Research and Development spend is often several orders of magnitude smaller than subsidies into Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Energy (Business Green, 2010; Wynn G. and Doyle A., 2009). Even so, most of the physical mechanisms for Energy production and delivery in the new Low Carbon economy are known and scoped. The technology is all very “doable”, and it is unlikely a radical new way of harnessing Energy will appear : it seems that Energy Technology discovery, like Fossil Fuel discovery, has “peaked”. Evolutionary step-wise development of Renewable Energy Technologies is likely to follow an improvement S-Curve (Bowden M. J., 2004; Schilling M. A. and Esmundo M., 2009; van der Merwe C., 2009), but technology “hops” will have progressively less relevance to the task of Low Carbon Transition. The issue is more one of deployment than development : to delay would be futile as well as dangerous. Things such as fuel switching are easy pickings (Abbess J., 2009b; IPCC, 2007). Some cost-neutral, even cost-negative initiatives could provide a large proportion of what is needed (McKinsey & Company, 2009). Despite “Peak Technology”, there does need to be continued Research and Development into cheap Solar Energy. But even so, deployment of proven Solar has a better risk profile than CCS or Nuclear Power – in terms of the very basic assessment of “how long do we need to wait to see if it works ?” Some proposed new energy technologies break the Laws of Physics, but more worryingly, some proposed new technologies, when implemented, are found to fail on emissions reduction criteria (Biofuelwatch, 2007). Some proposed technologies face limited lifespan, for example the anomaly in Waste-to-Energy (incineration) plans, confronting European Union Directives on minimisation of packaging and landfill waste. The municipal waste stream collapses, under economic contraction and material consumption changes, and so do prospects of power from waste, an outcome untreated by MacKay (2008). A pincer effect may affect Coal-fired generation, where CCS is not widely implemented before new power stations are required (IPCC, 2007), barring Coal as a fuel for thermal generation. A social system without inefficiencies in the use of material resources or Energy would be a sustainable matrix, with two-way electricity networks allowing microgeneration (Galbraith K., 2009), and avoided traffic (Simms A. et al., 2009). The challenge is to rein in the acceleration in transportation, re-localise manufacture and agriculture, and yet still retain the virtues of international trade. Governments insist they are not in the business of “picking winners”, yet considering how slow markets are moving, there is a logical case for barring some practices, such as burning Coal or exploiting unconventional Fossil Fuels (or both). Given the timeframe, it’s important to re-use what we’ve already got, including extensive and well-maintained Natural Gas and electricity grids, which can incorporate Renewables directly. Development of Renewable Electricity and Renewable Gas from sources such as Wind Power, Concentrated Solar Power, BioMethane (BioGas) and Wind Power-reformed Hydrogen is a logical, low-cost fit (CAT 2010). Turning outputs into inputs, agricultural and domestic wastes can be harvested to produce BioMethane via Anaerobic Digestion, which could be burned for electrical generation, or used to top up the National Grid gas network, where it could replace something like 20% of current Natural Gas consumption (Abbess J., 2009c). Excess Wind Power from slack demand can be used to reform Hydrogen via electrolysis, which could be fired for electricity generation at peak times, or used to supplement local gas grids, with other renewably-sourced gases (the new “Town Gas”) (NREL, 2009), avenues not discussed by MacKay (2008). Various kinds of new Energy Storage, such as low technology underground compressed air and other gases will help smooth out the Electricity supply from intermittent and time-varying Renewables, significantly reducing the backup generation capacity required for Wind Power, which is anyway low, contrary to some views (Sinden G., 2005). Wind Power could have a deep penetration into the UK’s electricity network (Abbess J., 2009d; Claverton, 2009b), but given the real risk of a significant “Energy Gap” in the UK’s near-term future, electricity demand reduction in the short-term is crucial; and could also form part of the long-term strategy. Domestic solutions for alternative Energy are subject to a psychological price threshold, easy loans under £2,000 would cover the best initial plan : insulation, insulation, insulation; followed in terms of expense and building fabric upheaval fabric by : air (sometimes ground) source heat pumps, Biomass burner installation and Solar Thermal roof-mounted systems. Community management of food chilling, communal cooking and bathing facilities would optimise electricity and grid gas use. The urban infrastructure would be more Energy-efficient with deployment of greywater systems, rainwater harvesting, urban farming, cart or bicycle provision deliveries, re-localisation of work to home, using Internet retail extensively, prolific cycleways, moped-safe routes and extra walkways, plus massively ramping up all forms of Public Transport such as light rail. Greening electricity is convoluted, but heat is the largest fraction of Energy. Fixing the heat problem for buildings could be managed with robust public programmes to make full use of ambient Energy, which would then offer grid gas capacity for electricity generation, and would soak up some anticipated Energy demand increase (BBC, 2009).

References

Acronyms

IEA International Energy Agency
EIA Energy Information Administration (United States Government)
WEO World Energy Outlook
WEC World Energy Council
IAEA International Atomic Energy Association
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (under UNFCCC)
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
EU ETS European Union Emissions Trading Scheme

Abbess J. 2009a

“Carbon Capture and Storage – merely an ‘Elastoplast’ Technology”
report on a talk by Lord Ron Oxburgh, honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, at the Tenalps Energy and Environment 2009 conference.

http://www.joabbess.com/2009/03/26/carbon-capture-and-storage-merely-an-elastoplast-technology/
(Accessed 26 March 2009)

Abbess J. 2009b

‘An Irritating Truth : Which technical solutions offer the best potential for decreasing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions over the next 50 years?’ article on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 3, Chapter 4 ‘Energy Supply’

‘Because of the sheer number of variables in the Climate Change decision matrix, authorities need to be decisive. Fuel-switching in electrical power generation, efficiency in Energy supply and Renewable Energy technologies are clearly winners where big gains
are possible. The irritating truth is that the technical solutions are not
necessarily ‘big hitter’ new technologies, but firm and rapid decision-making, and universal intervention in Energy supply. Policy has to rapidly firm up to become a reliable regulatory framework in order to make progress on reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. This requires strong political will.’
http://www.joabbess.com/2009/09/22/an-irritating-truth/
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Abbess J. 2009c

‘Renewable Gas versus Nuclear Renaissance’
by Jo Abbess
writing on Claverton Energy
Research Group website
28 December 2009

‘Professor David J. C. MacKay, newly Chief Scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), whom many of you know has written a splendid book called ‘Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air’, is slightly infamous for his optimistic stance on
the potential of new Nuclear Power.’

‘When dipping into the details of his publication this ‘holiday’ week, I realised that the much-hyped ‘renaissance’ of Fission generation is perhaps more apparition than fact, and that this ectoplasmic future painted for us depends on the promotional skill of large mining and project construction companies more than the potential for actual delivery.’

‘I did a crude, back of the Christmas card calculation and concluded that BioMethane offers a similar ballpark of Energy provision to the new ‘fleet’ of Nuclear reactors planned in the United Kingdom, and without all the delay and risk of project failure and spiralling costs…’

http://www.claverton-energy.com/renewable-gas-versus-nuclear-renaissance.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Abbess J., 2009d

“Wind Power : Superior Variability”
by Jo Abbess
17 August 2009

http://www.joabbess.com/2009/08/17/wind-power-superior-variability/
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

ADB 2009

http://www.adb.org/
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Energy-Outlook/Energy-Outlook.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘The Energy Outlook for Asia
and the Pacific’
The Asian Development Bank
ISBN 978-971-561-804-5

http://solarfeeds.com/energy-boom/9678-asia-pacific-must-invest-up-to-97-trillion-by-2030-to-meet-predicted-energy-demands-
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘Asia Pacific Must Invest Up To $9.7 Trillion by 2030 to Meet Predicted Energy Demands’
06 November 2009

‘A new report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) claims the Asia Pacific region must invest between $7 and $9.7 Trillion into the energy sector by 2030.’

‘Titled The Energy Outlook for Asia and the Pacific, the report has been launched at the Pacific Energy Summit and projects regional energy demand to grow 2.4% every year between 2005 and 2030, outpacing the world average of 1.5%. Predicted to be out of the
economic downturn sometime in 2010, the gross domestic product for Asia and the Pacific will climb, which also means an increase in energy demand…’

Aleklett K. 2009

‘Global Energy Resources – The Peak Oil View’
University of Aberdeen
05 March 2009

http://www4.tsl.uu.se/~aleklett/ppt/20090305_aleklett_aberdeen.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

‘Iraq’s oil and the future’
by Kjell Aleklett
15 November 2008
in Aleklett’s Energy Mix,
via Energy Bulletin
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47225
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Aleklett K. 2010

‘The Peak Oil Year 2009′

http://www.peakoil.net/headline-news/the-peak-oil-year-2009
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Astyk S. 2008

‘A New Deal or a War
Footing? Thinking Through Our Response to Climate Change’
11 November 2008

‘…That is, underlying the assumptions of a Gore-style New Deal is the idea that we can do temporary bail outs because our consumption is going to go back up – only this time we’ll be consuming green products, including our electric cars. There are several problems with this – the obvious one being that it isn’t clear what will fund our ability to buy these new cars in the coming years. The assumption is that the new green jobs will do so – and perhaps that’s true, but
there’s a ‘turtles all the way down’ quality to this analysis – the new deal will give us the ability to make these shifts, and the money will then only be spent for good (despite the fact that historically, the more we spend, the more we consume)….I’m not convinced anyone knows how that might happen.’

‘The less obvious problem is this – investment and purchase of all these things includes an enormous front-load of fossil fuels. And as far as I know, no one knows whether a comprehensive investment in these resources might not actually push us over the edge of a climate tipping point.’

‘In order to understand this, I think we have to divide the kinds of changes we make into two categories – the first are those that require a large initial investment, usually of both money and fossil energies, and that provide a later payback of those investments. Think of it as the mortgage-model of addressing fossil fuel usage – the bank pays a lot of money upfront to the house seller, and then you gradually pay back the investment over time. We assume that the investment is a good one if, in the long term, we get more out of it than we put in.’

‘But consider this in the context of Al Gore’s proposal, and James Hansen’s observation that we have less than a decade to make significant inroads into addressing global warming. What Gore is proposing is a massive investment of fossil fuels – these are used at every stage of the manufacture of wind turbines, concentrated solar thermal plants and geothermal plants. Most insulations are made from fossil fuels, with fossil fuels. Cars use tons of fossil fuels in manufacturing at every stage from mining of metals to welding
of materials.’

‘In the very long term, we can imagine having enough fossil energy to use wind to weld the cars and run the mining equipment – but we’re a very, very long way from that kind of payback – at this point, we’ll be using enormous quantities of fossil fuels across the board to piggyback us to renewable energies. And we’ll be using them to meet all of our other needs in the meantime. The assumption is that it is a good idea to have one long, last party, if that gets us to lower energy usage in the first place – but the question is, does it get
us to the lowest total energy usage we could get to? Or are there are other approaches that have less risk of long term harm, and that ultimately reduce our fossil fuel usage further – such as getting out of private cars altogether and focusing heavily on energy consumption.’

http://sharonastyk.com/2008/11/11/a-new-deal-or-a-war-footing-thinking-through-our-response-to-climate-change/
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

http://sharonastyk.com/2008/11/25/george-monbiot-is-arguing-with-methat-has-to-be-good/
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

BBC 2006

”Huge oil find’ in Gulf of Mexico’
by staff writer, writing on
BBC News online
06 September 2006

‘Three companies led by US-based Chevron say they have found an oil field under the Gulf of Mexico that could boost US reserves by more than 50%. Drilling at a test well yielded “a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of crude oil per day”, Chevron said. The discovery may rival the biggest US oil field in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Experts caution that the true size of the oil field is not yet known and it will be a long time before any of the oil there enters the market. “In the last 15 years, there’ve been so many great projects that started out and then petered out,” Matt Simmons, the head of a group of energy
investment bankers, told Reuters news agency. Recently in the Gulf of Mexico, “there’s been a lot more bitter disappointments than phenomenal surprises”, he said.’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5318776.stm
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

BBC 2009

“Housing tops Brown’s
policy plans”
29 June 2009

“The policy document unveiled by Mr Brown in the House of Commons is called “Building Britain’s future” although many proposals relate to England only as a result of devolution in areas such as health and education. Among pledges he told MPs investment in housing would be trebled to £2.1bn, funding 110,000 new affordable homes to rent or buy over the next two years and creating 45,000 jobs in construction. MAIN PROPOSALS : 110,000 affordable homes by 2011…”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8123723.stm
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Beder S. 2005

“Critique of the Global Project to Privatize and Marketize Energy : Envisioning a Renewable Public Energy System”
by Sharon Beder
Korean Labor Social Network
on Energy (KLSNE)
Seoul, South Korea, June
2005, pp. 177-185.

“Dozens of governments have embarked on the pathway to electricity deregulation and privatisation since the mid-1990s. It has become the accepted wisdom amongst governments and opinion leaders despite the consequent price rises and disasters that have followed in its wake: the series of blackouts that have been experienced from
California to Buenos Aires to Auckland; the government bailouts of electricity companies that have been necessary in California and Britain; the need for electricity rationing in Brazil; and the fact that it has become too expensive for millions of people from India to South Africa. Electricity deregulation and privatisation is referred to as ‘liberalisation’ by its advocates who use the term to disguise what is in essence a massive shift of ownership and control of electricity from public to private hands, in the name of economic efficiency
and in the cause of private profits. ‘Liberalisation’ has meant that
maintenance teams that were once fully staffed have been dramatically cut leading to frequent equipment failures. It has meant that privately owned electricity conglomerates are able to blackmail governments into bailouts and high prices with threats of blackouts. And it has meant that the planning function of electricity authorities that once ensured adequate generating reserves for times of peak demand, and kept infrastructure up to date in developed countries, have been abandoned to market forces. Because of market forces electricity prices are based, not on the cost of production, but on how desperately consumers want electricity and this has led to sky-rocketing prices whenever private companies have been able to
limit supply in times of high demand…”

http://herinst.org/sbeder/privatisation/critique.html
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.herinst.org/sbeder/
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://herinst.org/sbeder/privatisation/afr-power.html
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Biofuelwatch 2007

“Agrofuels : Towards a
reality check in nine key areas”
June 2007

http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/agrofuels_reality_check.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Chapter 1
‘Do agrofuels really mitigate climate change? : Agrofuels and Climate Change A recent report from the International Energy Agency predicts that transport fuel consumption will increase faster than the amount of fossil fuels which can be replaced by agrofuels. Another concern is that the production of agrofuels requires large inputs of fossil fuels – in fertiliser production, refineries and agricultural machinery and for transport, something which is rarely considered in calculating emissions savings. There is strong evidence that any
emission savings from reduced fossil fuel combustion are undone by far greater emissions from deforestation, peat drainage and burning, other land use change, soil carbon losses and nitrous oxide emissions. According to the Stern Review, agriculture and deforestation contribute 14% and 18% respectively of the
greenhouse gases associated with global warming. However this includes neither emissions resulting from soil degradation nor
emissions from peat oxidation or fires…’

See also :-
http://www.foodfirst.org/files/pdf/Agrofuels_in_the_Americas.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
http://www.gaiafoundation.org/documents/Agrofuels&MarginalMyth.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Bodansky D. et al. 2004

Pew Center on Climate Change

‘INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE EFFORTS BEYOND 2012: A SURVEY OF APPROACHES’
by Daniel Bodansky with contributions from Sophie Chou, Christie Jorge-Tresolini
PEW CENTER ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
December 2004

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/2012%20new.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/international_climate_efforts/

(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Boselli M., 2009

‘EDF to publish nuclear
outages per unit in 2010′
23 November 2009

‘* To publish projected data per output unit by mid-2010 * To publish unplanned outages within 30 minutes of event’

‘PARIS, Nov 23 (Reuters) – French electricity producers will start publishing projected output data per unit of production by mid-2010 and unplanned outages and restarts by end-2010, the French electricity producers’ union (UFE) said on Monday. The French energy regulator, the European Commission and traders have put increasing pressure on state-owned EDF (EDF.PA), the former power monopoly, to boost the data transparency of its 58 nuclear reactors.’

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKGEE5AM0NS20091123?sp=true
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Bowden M. J. 2004

“Moore’s Law and the Technology S-Curve”
by Murrae J. Bowden
published in Current Issues
in Technology Management, Issue 1 Volume 8
Winter 2004

http://howe.stevens.edu/fileadmin/Files/research/HSATM/newsletter/v08/v8i1/bowden.pdf
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Brecha R. J. 2008

‘Emission scenarios in the face of fossil-fuel peaking’

http://campus.udayton.edu/~physics/rjb/Articles/Emissions%20scenarios%20and%20fossil-fuel%20peaking%20-%20final.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Brown W. J. et al. 1998

‘AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis’
William J. Brown, Raphael C.
Malveau, Hays W. “Skip” McCormick, Thomas J.
Mowbray
20 March 1998
ISBN-10: 0471197130
ISBN-13: 978-0471197133

http://www.amazon.com/AntiPatterns-Refactoring-Software-Architectures-Projects/dp/0471197130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264954430&sr=1-1
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

‘If patterns are good ideas that can be re-applied to new situations, ‘AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis’ looks at what goes wrong in software development, time and time again. This entertaining and often enlightening text defines what seasoned developers have long suspected: despite advances in software engineering, most software projects still fail to meet
expectations–and about a third are cancelled altogether.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument
(Accessed
31 January 2010)

Business Green 2010

“UK government launches £125m Environmental Innovation Fund’
26 January 2010

‘New government-backed clean tech investment fund to target start–ups committed to improving resource efficiency’

‘The government has today formally launched the UK Innovation Investment Fund (UKIIF), with the first closing of a new £125m fund for investing in cutting-edge environmental technologies.’

‘The UKIIF was announced last June and was followed by the appointment of Hermes Private Equity and the European Investment Fund as managers for two new funds, one focusing on low carbon technologies and the other addressing life sciences, low carbon, digital technology and advanced manufacturing.’

‘The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills announced today that it has closed the first round of funding for the Hermes Environmental Innovation Fund, raising £125m, including
£50m of government funding and £75m from private sector investors.’

‘The new fund will now begin investing in small growing businesses, startups and spinouts, including pre-profit and pre-revenue stages of development that are primarily focused on improving resource efficiency.’

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2256793/uk-government-launches-125m
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Carbon Capping and Pricing Policies 2010
A brief outline of some key proposals

MAJOR FRAMEWORKS

Contraction and Convergence
http://www.gci.org.uk/contconv/cc.html

Tradable Energy Quotas
(TEQs)
http://www.teqs.net
TEQs Forum
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=41

OTHER APPROACHES

Cap and Share
http://www.capandshare.org
(http://www.feasta.org)

Cap & Dividend
New Rules Project
http://www.newrules.org/de/carboncaps-dividends.html

Carbon Share
http://carbonshare.org

British Columbia Carbon Tax
:
http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_library/notices/British_Columbia_Carbon_Tax.pdf

Sky Trust
http://www.climatedividends.org

Kyoto2
http://www.kyoto2.org
(Oliver Tickell)

EcoEquity
Greenhouse Development
Rights : Tom Athanasiou and Paul Baer
http://www.ecoequity.org

350.org
http://www.350.org

Climate Solutions (extract)
:-
http://onthecommons.org/files/Carbon_Capping_Citizen’s_Guide.pdf

CAT 2007

‘Zero Carbon Britain – an alternative energy strategy’
Centre for Alternative Technology

Chapter 14 : Nuclear
‘It has nevertheless been decided to exclude new nuclear capacity from the model, for reasons of its unique political and technological ‘brittleness’ in the face of potential instabilities in the 21st century. Nuclear power poses many uncertainties, but in this scenario, it is rejected on the perhaps less obvious basis of energy security.’

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/images/process.php?file=zerocarbonbritain.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

CAT 2010

NOT YET PUBLISHED
‘Zero Carbon Britain 2′
April 2010

Provisional findings :-
http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/zerocarbonbritainCopenhagen.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Cohen D. 2007

“Earth’s natural
wealth: an audit”
by David Cohen
writing in New Scientist
magazine, Issue 2605
23 May 2007

“…Platinum is a vital component not only of catalytic converters but also of fuel cells – and supplies are running out. It has been estimated that if all the 500 million vehicles in use today were re-equipped with fuel cells, operating losses would mean that all the world’s sources of platinum would be exhausted within 15 years. Unlike with oil or diamonds, there is no synthetic alternative: platinum is a chemical element, and once we have used it all there is no way on earth of
getting any more. What price then pollution-free cities?”

“It’s not just the world’s platinum that is being used up at an alarming rate. The same goes for many other rare metals such as indium, which is being consumed in unprecedented quantities for making LCDs for flat-screen TVs, and the tantalum needed to make compact electronic devices like cellphones. How long will global reserves of
uranium last in a new nuclear age? Even reserves of such commonplace elements as zinc, copper, nickel and the phosphorus used in fertiliser will run out in the not-too-distant future. So just what proportion of these materials have we used up so far, and how much is there left to go round?”

“Perhaps surprisingly, given how much we rely on these elements, we can’t be sure. For a start, the annual global consumption of most precious metals is not known with any certainty. Estimating the extractable reserves of many metals is also difficult. For rare metals such as indium and gallium, these figures are kept a closely guarded secret by mining companies. Governments and academics are only
just starting to realise that there could be a problem looming, so studies of the issue are few and far between…”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426051.200-earths-natural-wealth-an-audit.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Diagram “How Long Will It Last” :-
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg
(Accessed 03 February
2010)

Claverton 2009a

Claverton Energy Research Group
“European Supergrid and 100% Renewable Energy”
House of Commons presentation
18 June 2009

http://www.claverton-energy.com/note-from-trec-on-extra-supergrid-desertec-links.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Claverton 2009b
Claverton Energy Research Group

“Wind Energy Variability and Intermittency in the UK : New Reports”
written by Claverton Energy
Research Group specialists
posted on the Claverton
Energy website posted by Jo Abbess
17 August 2009

http://www.claverton-energy.com/wind-energy-variability-new-reports.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Cleveland
C. J. and Ruth M. 1996

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a778720567
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘Interconnections Between the Depletion of Minerals and Fuels: The Case of Copper Production in the United States’
Cutler J. Cleveland and Matthias
Ruth, Department of Geography, Boston University
DOI:
10.1080/00908319608908775
Published in: Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 18, Issue 4 June 1996 , pages
355 – 373
Previously published as:
Energy Sources (0090-8312, 1521-0510) until January 2006

‘Abstract : Analyses of the relationship between natural resources and economic development frequently neglect the interdependency between the depletion of one resource and the depletion of other resources. Of particular interest is how energy resource extraction is affected by the depletion of nonfuel minerals due to the important role of energy in upgrading minerals to a useful state. Although this
relationship has been described in theoretical terms, there is little detailed empirical support. To quantify the relationship between the depletion of mineral and fuel resources, we develop a dynamic model that is based on physical, technological, and economic data. Our analysis quantifies the relationship between the depletion of copper in the United States and the depletion of fossil fuel and uranium energy resources stimulated by the increase in demand for refined copper that is forecast for the next 50 years. The model calculates the increase in the energy cost of extracting energy due to the depletion of copper. The results of the model indicate that this feedback is significant. The energy cost of producing a refined ton of copper
increases 23% over the 50-year simulation period due to the diminution in ore grade and diminishing returns to technical change. The increase in the energy cost for copper increases the production of fossil and uranium fuels, which diminishes their quality and increases their energy cost.’

Climate Change Act 2008
Published by United Kingdom HMSO

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080027_en_1
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

‘It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.’

Cobb K. 2008

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2008/09/net-energy-cliff.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
“The net energy cliff”
Kurt Cobb
writing in Resource Insights
web log
14 September 2008

“Charles Hall, the father of the energy return on investment (EROI) concept, once told me that our current society would probably not be able to function if the EROI for the entire society slipped below five. What does that mean? First, a quick review. It takes energy to get energy. EROI is a measurement of how efficient a process, an enterprise or a society is in obtaining energy. EROI is usually
expressed in a ratio, say, 20 to 1. That would mean that the process being studied produced 20 units of energy for every one unit expended. As it turns out, that’s about what conventional crude oil returns. Hall estimates that the United States is currently running on an EROI of just under 40 to 1. This looks like a fairly substantial margin of safety over the 5 to 1 that might lead to societal breakdown. But worrisome developments in the oil, natural gas and coal fields may send us rushing toward that figure. A post earlier this year on The Oil Drum suggests that the EROI for natural gas in North America is dropping like a stone. This is, in part, reflected in the price of natural gas which is up fourfold in this decade. It is also reflected in the number of wells and the number of total feet drilled just to maintain production. We are having to drill faster and deeper just to stay even. The recent uptick in U. S. supplies may represent a small flattening of the EROI decline, but those supplies are the product of furious drilling and huge exploration expenditures…”

Cookson C. 2010

‘Nuclear fusion may be worth the long wait’
Financial Times : Special
Report : Clean Energy
18 January 2010

http://media.ft.com/cms/60dffcb4-017c-11df-8c54-00144feabdc0.pdf
(Accessed 20 January 2010)

Crooks E. 2009

“Shell postpones Arctic drilling plan”
by Ed Crooks
7 May 2009
writing in Financial Times Energy web log

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/05/07/shell-postpones-arctic-drilling-plan/
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

“Royal Dutch Shell has confirmed it is not planning to drill off Alaska’s north coast this summer, in an admission that the controversy that has dogged its Arctic exploration plans has set back its ambitions for another year.”

“In a statement, Shell said it had told the US Minerals Management Service that it had withdrawn its Plan of Exploration for the Beaufort Sea for 2007-09, meaning that it will miss the short window for drilling in the area this summer.”

“The move is really only a formal acceptance of a position that was generally understood already: drilling this year was going to be too difficult. Shell insists, however, that this is a setback, not a defeat. In the Arctic, one of the last great frontiers for oil and gas exploration, it is playing the long game.”

“…As Mr van der Veer put it: “I think what is a very interesting development, not necessarily this year, but for the coming decade and after that, is the Arctic. This is the north of Canada and north of Alaska. We think there is a lot of oil and gas over there. We do think that from a safety point of view and from an environmental point of view, you can work safely there…”…”

Crooks E. 2010a

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d233202e-0160-11df-8c54-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

‘Nuclear power: Wonder of new technology may be a dangerous diversion’
By Ed Crooks
15 January 2010

‘Nuclear power is an industry that is perpetually in thrall to dreams of a better tomorrow. From the earliest claims that electricity would be ‘too cheap to meter’, there have always been engineers holding out the prospect of technological breakthroughs that would transform energy production. Today there are plenty of those putative advances
competing for attention, from the proposed small-scale reactors that would fit in a garden shed, to Iter, the €10bn ($14.5bn) international research project into nuclear fusion, based in France. The technologies that have the most immediate promise are ‘fourth-generation’ reactors: designs intended to offer advantages over current state-of-the-art third-generation models in terms of
fuel efficiency and waste production. James Hansen, the Nasa physicist who has become a campaigner for action on climate change, is a strong advocate of fourth-generation nuclear power. None of these new reactors is likely to be available for deployment this decade. However, one version of the technology is now being put forward for political support as a ‘timely’ answer to the question of what to do with US nuclear waste, because it can use the waste
created by today’s reactors as a source of fuel. Yet for some in the nuclear industry, the lure of the fourth-generation reactor is a distraction. They worry that a focus on technologies of the future risks diverting investment from reactors that can be deployed today…’

Crooks E. 2010b

‘Shell to look beyond tar sands’
By Ed Crooks in London
Published: January 24 2010

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f7283aa8-0927-11df-ba88-00144feabdc0.html
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

‘Shell to shift away from tar sands as chief targets conventional fields’
By Ed Crooks in London
Published: January 25 2010

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a34f042-0951-11df-ba88-00144feabdc0.html
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Czisch G. 2010

“Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply: Cost-Optimised Variations on Supplying Europe and Its Neighbours with Electricity from Renewable Energies”
by Gregor Czisch

NOT YET PUBLISHED
Institution of Engineering
and Technology
07 August 2010

ISBN-10: 1849191565
ISBN-13: 978-1849191562

“This book pursues the fundamental idea of using renewable energies in a rational economic way to come to a climate friendly electricity supply. An electricity network for the whole of Europe and parts of the neighbouring continents Africa and Asia is found to
be the most cost effective solution. The sources of renewable and partly decentralised electricity generation could be connected in a comprehensive power supply, to meet the electricity needs of the whole region. Gregor Czisch examines which options will lend themselves in the future, from both a technical and an economic viewpoint, to meeting European electricity requirements. He shows that extremely promising and affordable options exist in the use of renewable energy in all its diversity in a system facilitating international cooperation. In this book, Czisch examines different scenarios for a CO2-neutral electricity system under different political, technological and economic conditions for Europe and its closer surroundings. The aim was to find in each variation the economically optimal solution, whereby the supply area
embraces approximately 1.1 billion inhabitants and an electricity consumption of roughly 4000 Terawatthours per annum (TWh/a).”

Dagdeviren H. 2007

“Privatisation of electricity and water – Is it still worthwhile?”
Hulya Dagdeviren
Conference on POVERTY AND
CAPITAL
2 – 4 July 2007

Global Poverty Research
Group and Brooks World Poverty Institute Conference
held at Hulme Hall, University of Manchester

”Finally, the mania for privatisation has meant that large scale projects such as hydropower had to be abandoned in favour of new the technologies employed by IPPs, such as Combined Cycle
Turbines. Cheaper and cleaner generation with hydro plants are
unattractive for private investors because recovering investment costs takes much longer and financing investments is more difficult.’

http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyandcapital/dagdeviren.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Davey B. 2009

‘After Copenhagen’
by Brian Davey
21 December 2009

‘Copenhagen was supposed to be the last chance for humanity on an assumption that emissions in the future would continue to grow as they have in the past. But what if the future is one of contraction and disorganisation anyway?’

‘In the lead up to Copenhagen it was repeatedly said that this was ‘the last chance to save the climate’. This idea was constructed on an assumption about ‘business as usual’. If emissions continue to grow on current trends then, with little time left to put on the brakes and decarbonise the global economy at a sufficient rate, the task appears to be totally unfeasible.’

‘With many scientists credibly arguing that we are already over the safe limit for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere this may be true. There is now a good case that we need to go beyond decarbonising in the economy to actually finding technologies and processes to take CO2 that is already in the atmosphere out again.’

‘So is the situation now quite hopeless? Perhaps so… but perhaps not. A reason for being at least a little bit hopeful is the questionable assumption of what ‘business as usual’ will be like. The common assumption is that the global economy will continue to grow as it has done over the last few decades. But is this assumption true in the light of peak oil and peak gas?’

‘In the last year global emissions did not grow. As the economy slid into a recession emissions fell with them. One way of constructing the events of the last year are that rising energy prices played a major role in undermining many peoples ability to service their debts. A reckless financial system was undermined. Of course there was more to the financial crisis and the recession than merely a rise in energy and food prices but that was surely an important part of the crisis.’

http://www.opendemocracy.net/brian-davey/after-copenhagen
(Accessed 20 January 2010)

DECC 2009

United Kingdom Government Department of Energy and Climate Change
‘The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan’

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/lc_trans_plan/lc_trans_plan.aspx
(Accessed 16 July 2009)

http://www.decc.gov.uk/Media/viewfile.ashx?FilePath=White%20Papers\UK%20Low%20Carbon%20Transition%20Plan%20WP09\1_20090724153238_e_@@_lowcarbontransitionplan.pdf&filetype=4
(Accessed 16 July 2009)

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn081/pn081.aspx
‘Press Release – UK at
forefront of a low carbon economic revolution’
15 July 2009
(Accessed 16 July 2009)

Doppelt B. 2000

‘Overcoming the Seven Sustainability Blunders’
by Bob Doppelt
from The Systems Thinker,
Vol. 14, No. 5

“In response to growing environmental and social equity problems, hundreds of private and public ‘sustainable development’ initiatives have blossomed across the globe since the mid-1980s. Despite the increased activity, most experts would agree that progress toward sustainability has been, at best, modest. But why have so few
organizations successfully adopted effective sustainability measures? And when companies do launch such efforts, why do so many plateau after a short time, fall short of making the jump from rhetoric to action, or even fail? To learn the answers to these questions, I spent three years researching how more than
25 public and private organizations have approached the issue of sustainability (for details about this study, see my forthcoming book Leading Change Toward Sustainability: A Change Management Guide for Business, Government, and Civil Society, Greenleaf Publications, UK)…”

http://www.pegasuscom.com/levpoints/7blunders.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

EAC 2005

UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
‘Keeping the Lights On : Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change’

’71. A key argument put forward by the nuclear industry is that a new generation of nuclear power stations is vital in order to address the potential shortfall in generating capacity resulting from the decommissioning of old coal and nuclear plant. As we have set out above, some 20GW of new electricity generating capacity will be
required by the end of 2015, and possibly as much again required by 2025.’

’72. All the evidence the Committee received indicated that a new series of nuclear power stations could not be built in time to address the need for new capacity by 2016 or even earlier. Those arguing against nuclear power tended to provide more pessimistic
assessments such as the timescale for nuclear new build which Tom Burke set out in his evidence to us:’

‘Government decision in 2008;
2 years to draw up detailed
design specification (to 2010);
2 years for the Nuclear
Installations Inspectorate to approve the design (2012);
3 years for a public inquiry
resulting in construction start in 2015;
5 years construction (to
2020);
1 year operational testing
(to 2021);
commencement of commercial
generating (2021).[100]‘

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/584i.pdf
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/58402.htm
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

EIA 2009a

United States Energy Information Administration
‘Annual Energy Outlook 2009 : With Projections to 2030′

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

EIA 2009b

United States Energy Information Administration
International Energy Outlook 2009
Release Date: May 27, 2009
Chapter 8 – Energy-Related
Carbon Dioxide Emissions

‘Economic growth is the most significant factor underlying the projections for growth in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the mid-term, as the world continues to rely on fossil fuels for most of its energy use. Accordingly, projections of world carbon dioxide emissions are lower in the IEO2009 low economic growth case and
higher in the high economic growth case.’

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Eilperin J. 2009

“G20 Leaders Agree to Phase Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies”
by Juliet Eilperin
writing in The Washington
Post online
25 September 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502453.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Esparza P. 2009

“Dark truth about Latin American energy”
20 November 2009
by Pablo Esparza
writing in BBC Mundo online

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8368785.stm
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

“Several Latin American countries have recently been hit by major power shortages, raising concerns that the region is facing a serious energy crisis. In some countries, like Venezuela and Ecuador, blackouts have become increasingly regular. But there have also been other less frequent outages as far afield as Cuba and Brazil.
Earlier this month tens of millions of people in Brazil and Paraguay had dinners by candlelight due to a massive blackout in both countries. The authorities in Brazil said the problem was caused by a severe storm which hit transmission lines that take power from the hydroelectric Itaipu dam on the border with Paraguay. But if that was a one-off electricity cut, in neighbouring Venezuela, most provinces have had power shortages nearly every day in the last few weeks. In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa was forced to introduce emergency measures earlier this month to deal with an energy crisis there. Cuba too is facing similar troubles. Reports say the authorities are
planning “extreme” measures which are said to include the closure of
some factories to save fuel. Experts are now asking how is this possible in a region with such an abundance of natural resources? Some governments have blamed the energy crisis on global warming. Countries like Venezuela and Ecuador are experiencing their worst droughts in 40 years. A drought in Ecuador has led to big reductions in water at the Paute dam. This has led to a huge
reduction in water levels at hydro-electric plants which supply electricity. The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, says the drought is being caused by the climatic effect of the El Nino weather phenomenon. Venezuela has seen a 40% increase in demand for energy in the last 10 years, and President Chavez says this too is contributing to the problem. He also thinks Venezuelans are wasting
energy and especially water which is in short supply…”

Estrin S. et al. 1990

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907434206&db=all
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘Conflicting aims in electricity privatization’
Authors: Saul Estrin; Alan Marin; Michael J. P. Selby

‘Abstract : Electricity
supply in the UK provides an example of the conflicts governments face in privatizations, between raising maximum revenue and ensuring satisfactory industrial structure and behaviour. The discussion involves modern share valuation theory as well as the particular problem of the nuclear sector.’

Energy Enviro Finland 2009

“EU to speed up transition to eco-efficient economy”
21 October 2009

“The EU environment ministers are in agreement about speeding up the transition to an eco-efficient economy for increased welfare and reduced environmental impact.”

http://www.energy-enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE=2873&NODE_ID=2873&LANG=1
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

EP 2008a

European Parliament

“EU Emission Trading
Scheme: use permit revenues to fund climate change protection, says Environment Committee”
07 October 2008

“Voting Tuesday on the revision of the EU’s Emission Trading System, the Environment Committee backed Commission plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from most industrial sectors by 21% from 2005 levels by 2020 and phase out free emission permits, leading to full auctioning, with an exception for energy-intensive sectors. MEPs want permit auction revenues to be used for climate change protection measures.”

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=IM-PRESS&reference=20081006IPR38798&language=EN
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

EP 2008b

European Parliament

“Air pollution, greenhouse gas emission: allowance trading system of the Community (amend.
Directive 2003/87/EC)”
Reference : COD/2008/0013

“Clean technologies: up to 300 million emission allowances will be set aside for the financing of clean technologies (estimated value EUR 6 to 9bn). They will contribute to the funding of up to 12 demonstration projects in carbon capture and storage and
also innovative renewable energy projects.”

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5588462
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

EU Package 2008

Final versions of some documents : 5 July 2009

Legislative Package includes
:-

Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the
Community Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas
emission reduction commitments up to 2020 Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (5 June 2009)
Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide
Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council Directive
1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm
[Accessed 24 January 2010]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0400:FIN:en:PDF
[Accessed 24 January 2010]

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/energy-climate-change-integrated-eu-policy/article-160957
‘Energy and climate change: Towards an integrated EU policy’
Published: Tuesday 23 January 2007
Updated: Monday 6 July 2009
See ‘Links’
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

EU 2009
European Union

“Emissions trading: public consultation on future EU ETS auctioning rules launched”
04 June 2009

“From 2013 at least half of the allowances under the EU ETS will be auctioned instead of being allocated to businesses free of charge. A smooth introduction of auctioning is therefore of crucial importance for the continued efficient functioning of the EU ETS and for protecting confidence in the market for emission allowances.”

“The consultation covers all aspects of auctioning that may be relevant for the future Regulation. It seeks views notably on the timing, size and frequency of auctions, auction design and regulatory aspects relating to issues such as pre-registration of participants, collateral, payment and delivery, information disclosure and monitoring. It also addresses the question of the number of auction processes that could be used and the appropriate degree of coordination between Member States.”

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/874&ampformat=HTML
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

EurActiv 2009

“EU mulls €7 billion subsidy for carbon capture”
30 June 2009

“The European Commission yesterday (29 June) estimated that up to €7 billion could be made available to fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology from the EU’s emissions trading scheme (EU ETS). Meanwhile, renewables projects would get around €5 billion…”

http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-mulls-7-subsidy-carbon-capture/article-183621
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

FairPensions 2010

‘FairPensions joins with investors and NGOs to take action on the ‘dirtiest possible’ fuel’

‘FairPensions, working with a coalition of investors and NGOs, has succeeded in co-ordinating a shareholder resolution to be discussed at Shell’s 2010 Shareholder meeting (Royal Dutch Shell plc AGM, May 18th).’

http://www.fairpensions.org.uk/Shell
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Fleming D. 2007

‘The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy’

http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Fleming D. 2008

Posted on The Oil Drum web log :-
‘New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea?’
by David Fleming
posted by Chris Vernon on 04 January 2008

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3450
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Foley S. 2004

‘Rebel investors attack
British Energy rescue’
By Stephen Foley
26 July 2004

‘Rebel investors have launched a campaign to scrap the proposed £5bn rescue deal at British Energy, the nuclear power generator, which would leave shareholders owning just 2.5 per cent of the company. Rebel investors have launched a campaign to scrap the
proposed £5bn rescue deal at British Energy, the nuclear power generator, which would leave shareholders owning just 2.5 per cent of the company…!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/rebel-investors-attack-british-energy-rescue-554482.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Four Degrees and Beyond 2009

International Climate Conference
28 – 30 September 2009
Hosted by the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford

Presentation Slides and Audio Recordings
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/programme.php
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/4degrees/ppt/1-2betts.pdf
‘Regional climate changes at 4+°C’
Presentation from Dr Richard Betts
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

Galbraith K. 2009

“Electric Cars and a Smarter Grid”
by Kate Galbraith
writing in Energy &
Environment, New York Times
17 February 2009

“Electric cars and a smart electric grid have a bright future, according to panellists at a roundtable discussion on the subject that I attended last Friday in Boston. ‘I would say that electricity is a vastly superior fuel for the light vehicle fleet,’ said Willett Kempton, a professor and alternative energy specialist at the University of Delaware. And in a true smart grid, electric cars will not only be able to draw on electricity to run their motors, they will also be able to do the reverse: send electricity stored in their batteries back into the grid when it is needed. In effect, cars would be acting like tiny power stations. ‘Most days, most cars are going to have lots of extra battery capacity,’ said Mr. Kempton, noting that on average, American automobiles get
driven for just one hour each day. Electrifying the entire vehicle fleet would provide more than three times the U.S.’s power generation, he said. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates interstate transmission of electricity, is on board with the idea.’Vehicle-to-grid is, I believe, the salvation of the automotive industry in the United States,’ declared Marc Spitzer, an agency commissioner who was also on the panel…”

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/electric-cars-and-a-smarter-grid/
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Gjelten T. 2009

Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change
14 December 2009
Tom Gjleten writing in the NPR, National Public Radio online

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Global Wind Energy
Council n.d.

‘Spain : Total Installed Capacity’

http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=131
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Goodall C. 2009

“The wider lessons from nuclear power cost inflation”
by Chris Goodall
writing for CarbonCommentary online
22 October 2009

“The Guardian newspaper of Monday 19 October broke the story that the UK government is preparing to guarantee a minimum price for carbon dioxide emissions to encourage the development of nuclear power stations. Putting a high cost on greenhouse gas emissions from power stations will force up the wholesale price of electricity,
ensuring a better financial return for nuclear power stations (and for
renewables such as wind). The decision to create a floor price for carbon demonstrates that the full costs of nuclear technology are probably well above today’s wholesale electricity prices. We may well need nuclear power but we are going to pay heavily for it. The government’s optimistic noises from 2006 to the middle of this year about the commercial viability of nuclear power have turned out to be wrong.”

“More generally, this note argues that the failure to incentivise nuclear construction in the current liberalised electricity regime may oblige the UK to introduce high guaranteed ‘feed-in’ payments for all low-carbon generators, including the very largest power stations. Guaranteed tariffs may be a more effective instrument for incentivising low carbon generation than the carbon dioxide price.”

http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/10/22/776
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Great British Refurb 2009

http://www.greatbritishrefurb.co.uk/retrofit-rethinkkevin-talks-to-inside-housing-magazine
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
“Retrofit rethink: Kevin talks to Inside Housing magazine”
03 November 2009

“Kevin McCloud was interviewed by Inside Housing Magazine about the Great British Refurb campaign last week.”

“Q: Tell us about your Great British Refurb campaign…”

“A: The campaign is partly about grant aid, partly about tax and partly about getting the skills and accredited workers. We’re aiming to get half a million homes refurbished to green standards by 2020, so we’re there for the long haul. Clearly, getting informed policy into government white papers is a key part of the campaign. Whether or not you actually get there by a certain date is less important than
having a target to form an objective for industry, as well as raising public awareness.”

“Q: Do you think there is much public awareness of the need to retrofit?”

“A: I think it is on people’s radar – partly because of the lack of energy security, partly because of the high cost of maintaining and running homes that are leaking energy. Fossil fuel allowed people to be profligate. If you have to grow your own fuel – and we grow fuel for our wood burners – then you have to chop it down first, then you
have to chop it up. Between the hedgerow and the fire there about four wheelbarrow journeys. It really teaches how valuable the energy that goes into the fuel is!”

Green Fiscal Commission n.d.

“The focus of the Commission’s work has been greening the UK tax system – that is moving taxes from ‘goods’ like labour, to ‘bads’ like environmental damage. The key to a green tax shift is that it is revenue neutral – tax cuts on ‘goods’ must be balanced by equivalent tax increases on ‘bads’.”

“The Commission does not have a view on what level of overall taxation is appropriate but considers that a significant shift from taxing ‘goods’ to ‘bads’ could make a important contribution to the cost-effective resolution of environmental problems.”

http://www.greenfiscalcommission.org.uk
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Green R. 2009

http://www.economics.bham.ac.uk/people/Academic_Staff/green.shtml
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
Richard Green

‘Climate-change mitigation from renewable energy: its contribution and cost’
writing in the book
“The Economics and Politics of Climate Change”
edited by Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn
Oxford University Press
ISBN 978-0-19957-328-8

Figure 14.1 Table 14.3

Greenpeace 2008

‘False Hope : Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate’

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/false-hope.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Greenpeace 2009

‘Shifting Sands: How a changing economy could bury the tar sands industry’
Publication Date: 27 Jul 2009

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/climate/shifting-sands-bp-shell-rising-risks-update-2.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Head I. M. 2003

‘Biological activity in the deep subsurface and the origin of heavy oil’
Ian M. Head, D. Martin Jones & Steve R. Larter
NRG petroleum group, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

http://www.permedia.ca/pdf/nature_biodegradation.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

‘At temperatures up to about 80 °C, petroleum in subsurface reservoirs is often biologically degraded, over geological timescales, by microorganisms that destroy hydrocarbons and other components to produce altered, denser ‘heavy oils’. This temperature threshold for hydrocarbon biodegradation might represent the maximum temperature boundary for life in the deep nutrient-depleted Earth. Most of the world’s oil was biodegraded under anaerobic conditions, with methane, a valuable commodity, often being a major by-product, which suggests alternative approaches to recovering the world’s vast heavy oil resource that otherwise will remain largely unproduced.’

‘The deep biosphere’s origin and survival is intimately linked to the large scale tectonic processes that form, deform and destroy sedimentary basins. Observations of petroleum systems shed light on several key processes in deep biosphere evolution. Plate tectonics form and destroy sedimentary basins, accumulating organic carbon and converting it into mobile petroleum, which may migrate hundreds of kilometres before being consumed by microorganisms in transit or following accumulation in reservoirs. Mineral diagenesis and water flow in deep sediments control key nutrient supply to the petroleum biosphere, with low nutrient levels in petroleum reservoirs resulting in low metabolic rates and lower maximum temperatures for the survival of life. It appears from the distribution of biodegraded oils that temperatures near 80 °C represent the base of heterotrophic life in the crust, and this temperature may well be the base, in
oligotrophic sediments, of all life in Earth. Uplifted reservoirs heated above 80–90 °C generally do not have biodegraded oils, indicating that they are effectively isolated from the surface over geological timescales, and thus the deep biosphere must be populated through burial processes, its organisms being inherited from the surface and sustained over geological timescales.’

Heinberg R. 2007

‘Peak coal: sooner than you think’

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5869&page=1
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Heinberg R. 2009

‘Blackout : Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis’
Publisher: New Society
Publishers (July 1, 2009)
ISBN-10: 0865716560
ISBN-13: 978-0865716568

p. 21
‘On one hand, as more coal is discovered, as the price goes up, or as new mining machines are developed, coal reserves expand. On the other hand, as we extract and use enormous amounts of coal each year, we draw down those reserves. One might expect that overall
reserve figures would change fairly slowly and in a predictable fashion. In fact, as we will see, reserves figures for several nations have collapsed in recent years; and over the past few decades, centuries’ worth of coal has disappeared from global reserves…’

Helm D. 2009

‘Nuclear Power, Climate Change, and Energy Policy’
by Dieter Helm
writing in the book
“The Economics and Politics of Climate Change”
edited by Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn
Oxford University Press
ISBN 978-0-19957-328-8

Dieter Helm argues for a variety of public subsidy, including fixed price contracts and disaster insurance, used to underwrite new Nuclear Power.

Herring H. 1998

‘Does Energy Efficiency Save Energy: The Implications of accepting the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate’
by Horace Herring, EERU, the Open University
Draft 3. April 1998

http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom%E2%80%93Brookes_postulate
(Accessed 17 January 2010)
‘See also : Jevons paradox,
Energy conservation, Rebound effect (conservation)’

Hirsch R. L. et al. 2005

‘Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management’

http://www.oilcrisis.com/us/NETL/OilPeaking.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peaking_of_world_oil_production_study_hirsch.htm
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Hirsch R. L. 2007

‘Peaking of World Oil Production: Recent Forecasts’
Robert L. Hirsch
DOE/NETL2007/1263
05 February 2007

Table II
‘Important Recent Peak Oil
Forecasts Ranging to 2012 (5 years)’

http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/peakoil/hirsch_2007.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Hopkins K. 2010

‘World Economic Forum warns of further economic crises ahead : Government debt levels and slowdown in China are highlighted as major threats by WEF’
Kathryn Hopkins
Writing in The Guardian online
14 January 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/14/world-economic-forum-future-crises-warning
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Hoyos C. 2008

“Running on empty? Fears over oil supply move into the mainstream”
By Carola Hoyos
writing in the Financial Times
19 May 2008

“For years…Most of the world’s oil executives, government ministers, analysts and consultants reject the “peak oil” theory – the notion based on the 1950s work of Marion King Hubbert, a Shell geologist, that crude production will soon enter terminal decline. They say it understates remaining reserves, plays down the contribution of technological advances and ignores the role of market forces in
shaping future supply.”

“But with the oil price at a record $126 a barrel, more than 1,000 per cent higher than a decade ago, fears of the end of the hydrocarbon age have seeped into the mainstream. Many in the industry itself now accept that supply constraints are shaping the price as much as rampant demand. Calls for greater investment to ease these
constraints formed the crux of many of the discussions at last month’s meeting in Rome between energy ministers of the world’s main oil producers and consumers. A few weeks later, analysts at Goldman Sachs and elsewhere, as well as ministers of the Opec oil cartel, predicted that prices could reach $200 within two years.”

“So are the peak oilists right? A series of recent events certainly appears to lend credence to those who argue that the world’s ageing oilfields are being sucked dry amid China’s and India’s determination to lift themselves out of poverty and the west’s reluctance to give up the luxuries of modern oil-dependent life.”

“The fact that Russia’s oil production declined almost half a percentage point in April, the first drop in a decade, was shocking enough news from the world’s second biggest oil producer, whose output was growing at a rate of 12 per cent just five years ago. But Russian oil executives have gone a step further: Leonid Fedun,
vice-president of Lukoil, told the Financial Times the country’s production may have already reached its peak.”

“Just days later Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer and by far the largest exporter, confirmed it had put on hold plans to increase the kingdom’s production capacity. Ali Naimi, Saudi energy minister, said the demand forecasts he was reading did not warrant an expansion past the 12.5m b/d capacity Saudi Arabia’s fields
will reach next year, following a laborious investment of more than $20bn (£10.3bn, €12.9bn). King Abdullah, the country’s ruler, put it more bluntly: “I keep no secret from you that, when there were some new finds, I told them, ‘No, leave it in the ground, with grace from God, our children need it’…”

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto051920081458230482
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Hoyos C. and McNulty S. 2008

‘Arctic holds 90bn barrels of oil and gas equal to Russia’s reserves’
24 July 2008

‘The Arctic holds as many as 90bn barrels of undiscovered oil and has as much undiscovered gas as all the reserves known to exist in Russia, US government scientists have said in the first state assessment of the region.’

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3c386de2-5917-11dd-a093-000077b07658.html
(Accessed 27 January 2010
subscription behind paywall)

Comment on Financial Times piece :-
http://www.odac-info.org/node/3495
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

United States Geological Survey (USGS) outline opinion :-
http://energy.usgs.gov/arctic/
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Press Release from USGS :-
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980&from=rss_home
’90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic’
23 July 2008

Campaign website referencing Financial Times material :-
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/07/24/arctic-has-90bn-barrels-of-crude/

European Union view on exploiting the Arctic :-
http://www.odac-info.org/node/5364
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Howden D. 2007

‘World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists : Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies will start to run out in four years’ time’
By Daniel Howden
writing in The Independent newspaper online
14 June 2007

‘Scientists have criticised a major review of the world’s remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit. BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough “proven” reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry. However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before
entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives…’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

IAEA 2008

Annual Review 2008

The Year in Review
‘Uranium Supply Issues’

‘The 22nd edition of the OECD/NEA–IAEA’s “Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand” (the ‘Red Book’), published in 2008, reported an increase in uranium resources, reflecting recent growth in exploration activities worldwide. The report noted that resources would last 83 years at the current rate of consumption. This compares favourably to reserves to production ratios of 30 – 50 years for other commodities (e.g. copper, zinc, oil and natural gas). However, demand is projected to grow, and resources in the ground need to be mined. Existing, committed, planned and prospective uranium production facilities could satisfy requirements in the Agency’s high projection until about 2025. For the longer term, preliminary results show sufficient uranium resources in the ground.
However their accessibility will depend on a range of financial considerations and public acceptance of nuclear power.’

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2008/review.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Reports/Anrep2008/index.html
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

IEA 2003

International Energy Agency
Press Release
04 November 2003

‘World Energy Investment Outlook Sees Need for $16,000 billion of Energy Investment through 2030, Highlights Major Challenges in Mobilising Capital’

’04 November 2003 Paris — “If present trends continue, the world will need to invest $16 trillion over the next three decades to maintain and expand energy supply,” Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said today. This number, much larger in real terms than the comparable figure for the past thirty years, is equivalent to 1% of annual global GDP over the period. “Without new policy actions, world energy demand will rise by two-thirds between now and 2030, and the world economy will falter if these energy supplies are not made available.” Mr. Mandil made his remarks in introducing the World Energy Investment Outlook (WEIO), a major new IEA study, at the Oil and Money Conference in London…’

http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=107
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

IEA 2008a

International Energy Agency
World Energy Outlook 2008 -
Presentation to the Press
12 November 2008

http://www.iea.org/speech/2008/Birol_WEO2008_PressConf.pdf
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

page 1
“…supply-crunch…”
page 12 “…The era of
cheap oil is over…”

IEA 2008b

International Energy Agency Fact Sheet

‘ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVES 2008: FACT SHEET – THE BLUE SCENARIO : A sustainable energy future is possible – How can we achieve it?’

‘Total additional investment needs for the period 2010-2050, on top of the investments in the Business-as-usual scenario, amount to USD 45 trillion. Total learning investments (investment needed to get to a mature technology) for the next 20 years alone are USD 1.75 trillion, and another 5.25 trillion between 2030 and 2050. A massive increase of energy technology Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) is needed in the coming 15 years, in the order of USD
10-100 billion per year. These financing needs may be affordable, but important burden sharing issues exist.’

http://www.iea.org/techno/etp/fact_sheet_ETP2008.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

IEA 2008c

International Energy Agency
Energy Technology
Perspectives 2008
presentation at Tokyo launch

http://www.iea.org/techno/etp/ETP_2008.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
http://www.iea.org/techno/etp/index.asp
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Green Facts report :-
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/energy-technologies/
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/energy-technologies/l-2/2-scenarios.htm
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

IEA 2009a

International Energy Agency
World Energy Outlook 2009
Executive Summary
“Fossil fuels remain the dominant sources of primary energy worldwide in the Reference Scenario, accounting for more than three-quarters of the overall increase in energy use between 2007 and 2030.”

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/WEO2009_es_english.pdf
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

IEA 2009b

International Energy Agency
World Energy Outlook 2009
Excerpt

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/climate_change_excerpt.pdf
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Index Mundi 2009

‘Spain Electricity – consumption’

http://www.indexmundi.com/spain/electricity_consumption.html
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Interface n.d.

Global EcoMetrics
“Interface began its journey to sustainability by focusing on the elimination of waste. At Interface, we define waste as anything that does not provide value to the customer. This includes traditional forms of waste such as off-quality and scrap, as well as nontraditional forms of waste such as overuse of materials,
inventory losses, etc.”

Energy Use
Total energy used at carpet manufacturing facilities (per unit of product) is down 44% since 1996.

NOTE : Recent Energy use has levelled out.

http://www.interfaceglobal.com/getdoc/7e96b54e-ad49-4eff-9877-38a55df0396d/Global-EcoMetrics.aspx
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

IOEC 2007

http://www.ioec.com/news.aspx?nid=26

Temperatures 30,000 feet below the ocean floor can reach 400 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to turn oil into natural gas.

IPCC 2005

‘IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage’
Edited by Bert Metz,
Ogunlade Davidson, Heleen de Coninck, Manuela Loos, Leo Meyer
Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

’4. The net reduction of emissions to the atmosphere through CCS depends on the fraction of CO2 captured, the increased CO2 production resulting from loss in overall efficiency of power plants or industrial processes due to the additional energy required for capture, transport and storage, any leakage from transport and the fraction of CO2 retained in storage over the long term. Available technology captures about 85–95% of the CO2 processed in a capture
plant. A power plant equipped with a CCS system (with access to geological or ocean storage) would need roughly 10–40% [4] more energy than a plant of equivalent output without CCS, of which most is for capture and compression.’

‘[4] The range reflects three types of power plants: for Natural Gas Combined Cycle plants, the range is 11–22%, for Pulverized Coal plants, 24–40% and for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants, 14–25%.’

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

IPCC 2007

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Fourth Assessment Report
Working Group III
Mitigation of Climate Change
Chapter 4 : Energy Supply

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf
(Accessed 25 June 2009)

Jacobson M. Z. and Delucchi M. A. 2009

“A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030″
Scientific American
November 2009

“Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. HERE’S HOW”
by Mark Z. Jacobson
and Mark A. Delucchi

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/susenergy2030.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Jakobsson K. et al., 2009

Published in Energy Policy
Volume 37, Issue 11,
November 2009, Pages 4809-4818

“How reasonable are oil production scenarios from public agencies?”
Energy Policy, Volume 37,
Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 4809 – 4818

http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/MDRM_article.pdf
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

“It thus appears likely that crude oil production will start to decline before 2030. An imminent peak in production cannot be ruled out.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.042
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Jowit J. and Wintour P. 2008

‘Cost of tackling global climate change has doubled, warns Stern’
‘· Author of landmark report says 2% of GDP is needed : · Inaction would mean far greater economic damage’
Juliette Jowit and Patrick Wintour
writing in The Guardian newspaper online
26 June 2008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘The author of an influential British government report arguing the world needed to spend just 1% of its wealth tackling climate change has warned that the cost of averting disaster has now doubled. Lord Stern of Brentford made headlines in 2006 with a report that said countries needed to spend 1% of their GDP to stop greenhouse
gases rising to dangerous levels. Failure to do this would lead to damage costing much more, the report warned – at least 5% and perhaps more than 20% of global GDP. But speaking yesterday in London, Stern said evidence that climate change was happening faster than had been previously thought meant that emissions needed to be reduced even more sharply. This meant the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would have to be kept below 500 parts per million, said Stern. In 2006, he set a figure of 450-550ppm. “I now think the appropriate thing would be in the middle of that range,” he said. “To get below 500ppm … would cost around 2% of GDP.”…’

Justin 2009

“EDF and nuclear subsidies: how times change”
by Justin
writing on the Greenpeace
“Nuclear Reaction” weblog “Blogging the meltdown of the nuclear
industry”
01 June 2009

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/06/edf_and_nuclear_subsidies_how.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Lozanova S. 2008

“Peak Coal as Early as 2025″
by Sarah Lozanova
writing on CleanTechnica website
24 April 2008

“…The European Commission’s Institute for Energy in 2000 estimated global supplies of coal to last 277 years. In 2007, that number was lowered to 155 years. This forecast may sound like plenty of time to adjust to meeting our energy needs in from
other sources, but how accurate are these numbers really? The National Academy of Sciences Report on Coal, from June 2007 isn’t very encouraging. A 2007 report issued by Energy Watch anticipates global coal reserves to peak as soon as 2025. Policy-makers have been using forecasts issued by the International Energy Agency, which relies on official reserves figures. It is certainly hard
to create effective policy when reserve estimates vary so widely…

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/04/24/peak-coal-as-early-as-2025/
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Kavalov B. and Peteves S. D. 2007

‘The Future of Coal’
Institute for Energy (IFE),
prepared for European Commission Joint Research Centre

http://ie.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/scientific_publications/2007/EUR22744EN.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Komanoff C. 2009

“Bipartisan Senate Bill Could Breathe Fresh Air into Climate Debate”
by Charles Komanoff
writing on Carbon Tax Center website
12 November 2009

“CTC’s Carbon Tax Impact Model suggests that the economic incentives from this price trajectory will only lead to a 7.5% drop in U.S. CO2 emissions from 2005 levels in 2020. (And 2020 emissions would actually be 1.5% greater than the likely depressed 2009 figure). Reportedly, Cantwell’s staff believe that the clean-energy investment provisions in the bill will make up the to for the 20% goal, suggesting that they view the permit mechanism more as a funding source than an inducement to cut carbon directly.”

http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/12/11/bipartisan-senate-bill-could-breathe-fresh-air-into-climate-debate/
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Kosonen and Nicodeme 2009

http://www.ifo.de/pls/guestci/download/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%202009/CESifo%20Working%20Papers%20July%202009/cesifo1_wp2719.pdf

‘The Role of Fiscal Instruments in Environmental Policy’
Katri Kosonen and Gaetan Nicodeme

http://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_2719.html
http://ideas.repec.org/r/ces/ceswps/_2719.html

Kurzweil R. 2001

‘The Law of Accelerating Returns’
by Raymond Kurzweil
07 March 2001

‘An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.’

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325936.300-lets-not-go-back-to-nature.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325950.100-the-pace-of-progress.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Langston R. 2010

“FSA issues insurance guidelines for climate change”
by Rob Langston
writing for FTAdviser online
21 January 2010

“The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has issued new insurance guidelines on the effect of climate change, as it anticipates higher and more frequent building and contents claims. The regulator said changing weather patterns could cause a surge in claims prompting it to issue new guidance for general insurers. It said the aim was to ensure consumers received clear and accurate information about what is covered and any significant exclusions. A spokesperson for the regulator said: “Climate change poses risks to all businesses through physical damage to assets, long-term damage to growth prospects and short-term business disruption. “For the insurance industry, the challenges are even greater as changes in climate could also result in higher and more frequent claims through flooding, windstorms or forest fires.”"

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Regulation/Regulators/FSA/News/article/20100121/df1a1d26-06ae-11df-9b61-00144f2af8e8/FSA-issues-insurance-guidelines-for-climate-change.jsp
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Laumer J. 2008

“Time To Ditch Those Sub-Prime Carbon Assets”
by John Laumer, Philadelphia
writing on TreeHugger online

15 February 2008

“Nobel laureate Al Gore advised Wall Street leaders and institutional investors Thursday to ditch their “subprime carbon assets” – businesses too reliant on carbon-intensive energy – or prepare for huge losses down the road.”

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/time_to_ditch_t.php
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Lawson J. 2006

“Chain reaction: the UK nuclear industry”
by Jane Lawson
July/August 2006
Ethical Consumer Issue 101

But in summer 2005, starting with a pro-nuclear article in the Independent by James Lovelock, a steady stream of articles started
appearing suggesting that the nuclear industry, with its ‘clean’ energy, was an essential part of the fight against climate change.

Since then it has become apparent that, in spite of two government-commissioned reports rejecting it on practical, economic and environmental grounds, nuclear has high level government backing as an energy source. It is now widely expected that new nuclear power stations will be recommended as a part of the UK’s future energy strategy when the government publishes its Energy Review this summer.

But nuclear power will only be viable if the government provides subsidies and changes the current regulatory framework.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that BNFL wants to fast-track the planning process by pre-licensing reactors before sites are selected, and restrict the scope of local planning enquiries so that issues such as security, safety and
environmental impact are discussed behind closed doors.[1]

And for new nuclear reactors to be profitable, the companies need a guaranteed price for their electricity and/or the introduction of a Nuclear Obligation, which would oblige all electricity companies to sell a certain amount of nuclear-generated electricity.

They are also looking for assurances that they will not be left with a huge bill for disposing of their own nuclear waste. Unsurprisingly, the government’s current subsidy is already helping to fund a well-thought out PR strategy to give the nuclear industry what it wants.

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/CommentAnalysis/CorporateWatch/NuclearIndustry.aspx
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Lea R. 2009

“The hidden carbon cost of nuclear”
by Robert Lea
writing in The Evening Standard
16 November 2009

‘…De Rivaz this week made it plain what EDF’s nuclear plans mean for the nation: not only national energy security but thousands of jobs and scores of contracts for British companies. But there is now a caveat. In a studied aside, de Rivaz added: ‘There is a large consensus that recognises the importance of a strong carbon price…a strong carbon market will facilitate decarbonisation by discouraging investment in carbon polluting plant and therefore promoting investment in low carbon technology.’ What de Rivaz is talking about is the tradeable market in carbon emissions. Companies receive allowances for the carbon dioxide they emit. In
the generating industry those like nuclear that emit negligible carbon can sell their allowance (a permit or a credit) to those polluting companies that need to buy them like say dirty coal-fired generators which exceed their allowance. The money a nuclear generator will make in the future from selling carbon permits effectively underwrites the present cost of building the reactor. The
problem is that the price of carbon has halved during the recession: weakened economies are producing less carbon and the demand for carbon credits is being outstripped by the supply. What de Rivaz is demanding is a floor to the carbon price, a threshold under which it must not fall. The threat is implicit: whether it is agreed at the upcoming climate change summit in Copenhagen or unilaterally by a British government, unless EDF gets guaranteed carbon prices
it can not possibly commit to build reactors in Britain. This is nothing so tawdry as an EDF demand for a taxpayer subsidy. But a demand for a carbon price floor is a backdoor tax on the consumer. Guaranteed carbon prices mean the cost of producing electricity at gas-powered and coal-fired power stations goes up and given that gas and coal currently produce around 80% of the country’s
electricity, it is the consumer that ends up paying the price. It is a national carbon tax by any other name. If you take in environmental considerations and the unspecified but massive cost of treating toxic waste, the financial cost of nuclear is already and alarmingly beginning to tot up…’

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23768310-the-hidden-carbon-cost-of-
nuclear.do
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Lean G. 2010

‘Natural gas could provide a fossil-fuel miracle : New drilling and refining techniques for natural gas have
opened up a vast new supply, says Geoffrey Lean.’

By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 7:57PM GMT 15 Jan 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6998565/Natural-gas-could-provide-a-fossil-fuel-miracle.html
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Leng R. A. 2010

‘The impact of resource depletion is being overshadowed by the threat of global warming’
14 January 2010
By R A Leng AO, D Rur Sc

‘The increased public and political focus on global warming has diverted discussion away from world resource depletion, particularly the depletion of fossil fuel energy with its potentially disastrous impact on world food production. According to its own internal whistleblowers, the International Energy Agency appears to have
falsified information on world fossil fuel depletion– on the grounds that telling the truth that world energy resources may already have peaked in production and are exceeded by demand, could cause skyrocketing oil prices and stampede the world into a new recession.’

‘Depletion of finite resources such as oil, gas, useable water or minerals is likely to impact on world GDP well before the worst impacts of global warming. The two together are likely to constrain world food production seriously, particularly in countries with high
population densities or insufficient fertile lands. Food security in these countries is behind the huge ‘land and water grab’ by foreign nationals that is now occurring across the developing world…’

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions-global-food-crisis/20101401-20498.html
(Accessed 20 January 2010)

========

Lewis J. and Diringer E. 2007

‘POLICY-BASED COMMITMENTS IN A POST-2012 CLIMATE FRAMEWORK’
Pew Center May 2007

http://www.pewclimate.org/working-papers/policy-based-commitments
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Policy-Based%20Commitments%20in%20a%20Post-2012%20Climate%20Framework.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Macalister T. 2009a

‘Giant oil find by BP reopens debate about oil supplies’
‘Discovery could be as large as Forties field in North Sea and comes hard on heels of 8.8bn barrel find by Iran’
by Terry Macalister,
industrial correspondent, writing in The Guardian newspaper online
02 September 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/02/bp-oil-find-gulf-of-mexico
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Macalister T. 2009b

‘Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower : Exclusive: Watchdog’s estimates of reserves inflated says top official’
9 November 2009
Terry Macalister writing in The Guardian online

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
[Access 15 January 2010]

‘Now the “peak oil” theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. “The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,” said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. “The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today’s number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.’

‘”Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access
to oil resources,” he added.’

MacKay D. J. C. 2008

‘Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air’
Professor David J. C. MacKay

http://www.withouthotair.com/
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_161.shtml
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

page 158
Chapter 23 “Sustainable fossil fuels?”
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c23/page_158.shtml
(Accessed 17 January 2010)
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c23/page_158.shtml
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

page 164
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_164.shtml

page 169
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_169.shtml

All the expense is up-front, so it’s inappropriate to calculate the cost as being spread over the entire lifetime of the plant – after all, the project may fail and the investment may be lost.

“Building a nuclear power station requires huge amounts of concrete and steel, materials whose creation involves huge CO2 pollution. The steel and concrete in a 1 GW nuclear power station have a carbon footprint of roughly 300 000 t CO2.”

page 174
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c24/page_174.shtml
“Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium from seawater. The price estimate of $100 per kg is from Seko et al. (2003) and [y3wnzr]; the estimate of $300 per kg is from OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2006, p130). The uranium extraction
technique involves dunking tissue in the ocean for a couple of months; the tissue is made of polymer fibres that are rendered sticky by irradiating them before they are dunked; the sticky fibres collect uranium to the tune of 2 g of uranium per kilogram of fibre.’

NOTE WELL : Potentially a very slow rate of extraction from seawater. Number of kilograms of tissue to produce yearly 280 000 tons = 280 000 * 1000 / 2 = 140 000 000 tons. Imagine the maintenances and administration of that !

McKinsey & Company 2009

“Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy”
Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve
January 2009

https://solutions.mckinsey.com/climatedesk/
https://solutions.mckinsey.com/ClimateDesk/default.aspx
(Not Accessed 31 January
2010 since it requires user registration)

http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1226616/Pathways%20to%20a%20Low-Carbon%20Economy,%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
See graph : “Exhibit 1″

See also :-
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-stabilizing-at-450-ppm-has-a-net-cost-near-zero/
“McKinsey 2008 Research
in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero.”
by Joseph Romm
29 December 2008
on the ClimateProgress web
log
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

“The McKinsey Global Institute has done some of the most comprehensive and credible recent analyses on energy efficiency potential and carbon mitigation cost curves (see ‘Must read McKinsey report shatters myths on cost of curbing climate change’). They
have summarized their work in ’2008 Research in Review,’ so this is a good opportunity to create one universal link for their work.”

“One core MGI factoid you can use: Nearly 40% of the U.S. emissions reduction potential by 2030 is from energy efficiency.”

“MGI is best known for its comprehensive cost curve for global greenhouse gas reduction measures, which concluded measures needed to stabilize emissions at 450 ppm have a net cost near zero — the same conclusion as the International Energy Agency and IPCC.”

See also :-
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/events/carbonWorkshopMay09/Brinkman.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Meyer A. 2004

“GCI Briefing : “Contraction and Convergence”"
by Aubrey Meyer
presentation material for HM Treasury in the UK Government

Diagram “GWP, Carbon Lockstep”

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/GCI_Briefing_C&C.pdf
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Michaelis L. 2008

“Triple crunch ! Credit, commodities and climate”
by Laurie Michaelis
writing in The Friend Vol 166 No 42
17 October 2008

http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/385/419/4392/3/2
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

http://www.livingwitness.org.uk/home_files/Triple%20Crunch%20Briefing.pdf
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

========

Mobbs P. 2010

“Face up to natural limits, or face a 70s-style crisis : Why the depletion of Britain’s energy resources represents a fundamental shift – for better or worse – in the operation of the UK’s economy”
by Paul Mobbs
writing in The Ecologist
January 2010

“Recent gas shortages may have made politicians focus on energy security once more, but the deeper systemic problems of Britain’s energy economy go far deeper than the limited capacity of our gas importation system. Energy represents far more to the economy than just a fuel source; understanding the biophysical limits on our
future use of energy, and how this affects the general economy, is essential if we are to create a strategic vision that can address the ecological crises of the Twenty-First Century…”

Shortened and dereferenced article on The Ecologist’s website :-
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/401049/face_up_to_natural_limits_or_face_a_1970sstyle_energy_crisis.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Longer, referenced and illustrated version online :-
http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/papers/ecologist-201001.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Monbiot G. 2006

‘Heat : How to Stop the Planet Burning’
28 Sep 2006

ISBN-10: 0713999233
ISBN-13: 978-0713999235

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Heat-How-Stop-Planet-Burning/dp/0713999233
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/heat/
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Monbiot G. 2008

“The planet is now so vandalised that only total energy renewal can save us : It may be too late. But without radical action, we will be the generation that saved the banks and let the biosphere collapse”
George Monbiot writing in The Guardian online
25 November 2008

“The costs of a total energy replacement and conservation plan would be astronomical, the speed improbable. But the governments of the rich nations have already deployed a scheme like this for another purpose. A survey by the broadcasting network CNBC
suggests that the US federal government has now spent $4.2 trillion in response to the financial crisis, more than the total spending on the second world war when adjusted for inflation. Do we want to be remembered as the generation that saved the banks and let the biosphere collapse?”

“This approach is challenged by the American thinker Sharon Astyk. In an interesting new essay, she points out that replacing the world’s energy infrastructure involves “an enormous front-load of fossil fuels”, which are required to manufacture wind turbines, electric cars, new grid connections, insulation and all the rest. This could push us past the climate tipping point. Instead, she proposes, we must ask people “to make short term, radical sacrifices”, cutting our energy consumption by 50%, with little technological assistance, in five years.”

“There are two problems: the first is that all previous attempts show that relying on voluntary abstinence does not work. The second is that a 10% annual cut in energy consumption while the infrastructure remains mostly unchanged means a 10% annual cut in total consumption: a deeper depression than the modern world has ever experienced. No political system – even an absolute monarchy – could
survive an economic collapse on this scale.”

“She is right about the risks of a technological green new deal, but these are risks we have to take. Astyk’s proposals travel far into the realm of wishful thinking. Even the technological new deal I favour inhabits the distant margins of possibility.”

“Can we do it? Search me. Reviewing the new evidence, I have to admit that we might have left it too late. But there is another question I can answer more easily. Can we afford not to try? No, we can’t.”

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/25/climate-change-carbon-emissions
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

Moriarty P. and Honnery D. 2009

‘What energy levels can the Earth sustain?’
03 March 2009
Published in: Energy Policy,
Volume 37, Issue 7, July 2009, Pages 2469-2474

http://www.peakoil.net/publications/what-energy-levels-can-the-earth-sustain
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘Abstract: Several official reports on future global primary energy production and use develop scenarios which suggest that the high energy growth rates of the 20th century will continue unabated until 2050 and even beyond. In this paper we examine whether any combination of fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy sources can deliver such levels of primary energy—around 1000 EJ in 2050. We find that too much emphasis has been placed on whether or not reserves in the case of fossil and nuclear energy, or technical potential in the case of renewable energy, can support the levels of energy use forecast. In contrast, our analysis stresses the crucial importance of the interaction of technical potentials for annual
production with environmental factors, social, political, and economic concerns and limited time frames for implementation, in heavily constraining the real energy options for the future. Together, these constraints suggest that future energy consumption will be significantly lower than the present level.’

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4W034C2-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ec4453fbc3713d680ee04de047a4badd
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://nyc.theoildrum.com/pdf/theoildrum_5393.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.mendeley.com/research/what-energy-levels-can-the-earth-sustain/
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Mufson S. 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203560.html
03 September 2009
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

“BP Finds ‘Giant’ Oil Source Deep Under Gulf of Mexico : Extreme Conditions Mean It Will Be Years Until Production”
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, September 3, 2009

“BP said Wednesday that it made a “giant” oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, and analysts said that the find deep below the sea floor raised hopes that further exploration in the region could help sustain U.S. offshore oil production.”

“The discovery, known as Tiber, was made 250 miles southeast of Houston and was “in the same league” as other big fields BP has discovered in the Gulf of Mexico, BP spokesman Daren Beaudo said. The company would not make any estimates on the amount of oil its latest find could yield, but the biggest platform in those other fields, Thunder Horse, is producing as much as 300,000 barrels a day.”

“The exploration well used to find the Tiber field was the deepest vertical well ever drilled, according to Guy Cantwell, communications director at Transocean, the offshore drilling company that owns the rig. Working conditions were challenging, he said. The rig, the Deepwater Horizon, dangled about a million pounds of well
casing while floating in 4,132 feet of water, and then drilled another 30,923 feet below the sea floor. Temperatures at the sea floor were about 35 degrees, while the temperature of fluids in the well miles below was 250 degrees…”

Mullins J. 2009

New Scientist (2009)
“Nuclear fuel: are we heading for a uranium crunch?”
25 November 2009 by Justin Mullins

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427364.500-nuclear-fuel-are-we-heading-for-a-uranium-crunch.html
(Accessed 08 January 2010)

Nature 2009

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/climate.2009.19.html

Nature Web Log 2009

Climate Feedback – the climate change blog
“4 Degrees and Beyond: How soon is it coming?”
28 September 2009

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2009/09/4_degrees_and_beyond_how_soon.html
[Accessed 15 January 2010]

“Depending on the strength of the feedbacks, 4 degrees of average warming could be reached well before 2100 – as early as 2060 in a worst case scenario, and in the 2070s according to the team’s best guess.”

nef 2008

New Economics Foundation

“Triple Crunch : Joined-up solutions to financial chaos, oil decline and climate change to transform the economy”
04 November 2008

“A pamphlet of articles from new economists seeking joined up solutions for the interlinked challenges we currently face. The global economy is facing a ‘triple crunch’. It is a combination of a credit-fuelled financial crisis, accelerating climate change and an encroaching peak in oil production. These three overlapping events
threaten to develop into a perfect storm, with potential consequences not seen since the Great Depression. As this pamphlet goes to press the global financial system is in meltdown, the consequences of which are, as yet, unknown. The system may well save itself this time. But unless fundamental changes are made to the global economy the resurrection will only be temporary. And the
consequences of the next crisis will be beyond our control. We are at a unique historical moment. Grasp it, and we could rebuild a more stable, equitable system able to withstand the coming crises.”

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/triple-crunch
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

nef 2009

New Economics Foundation

‘The Great Transition : A tale of how it turned out right’
19 October 2009

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/great-transition
(Accessed 20 January 2010)
http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/The_Great_Transition_2.pdf
(Accessed 20 January 2010)

New Zealand Herald 2007

“Carbon tax could pose inflation headache”
08 November 2007

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10474731&pnum=1
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Owen E. and Stimpson J. 2009

Ministers urged to develop clear carbon capture policy
29 October 2009
By Ed Owen, Jo Stimpson
writing in New Civil Engineer

http://www.nce.co.uk/home/low-carbon/ministers-urged-to-develop-clear-carbon-capture-policy/5210088.article
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

NucWatch 2009

‘UK’s BE sheds 2.4 GW nuclear capacity in unplanned outages’
05 January 2009
(Platt’s)

‘British Energy has taken offline four nuclear power units, totalling some 2.4 GW of power capacity, in four unrelated unplanned outages, company spokeswoman Sue Fletcher said Monday. ‘The latest BE unit to come offline was the 610 MW Hinkley Point B-4 plant in
the early hours of Monday morning, Fletcher said. The spate of unscheduled outages began 08:00 Friday, when the 555 MW Dungeness B21 tripped and was taken offline. At about 15:00 Friday, the 610 MW Hinkley Point B-3 unit tripped. The 635 MW Torness-2 unit was then taken offline at about 16:30 Saturday.’

http://www.nucwatch.com/platts/2009/platts090116.txt
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

NPR 2009

‘BP Cuts Back Its Alternative Energy Division’
09 July 2009

‘…”Beyond Petroleum” has been a multimillion dollar ad campaign for British Petroleum. In it, the company spent the past several years touting its alternative energy plans. But now the oil giant is trimming back the division, according to Financial Times reporter Ed Crooks….’

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106437880
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

NREL 2009

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

“Wind-to-Hydrogen Project”
29 September 2009

“NREL, in partnership with Xcel Energy, launched a wind-to-hydrogen (Wind2H2) demonstration project at the National Wind Technology Center in Boulder, Colorado. The Wind2H2 project links wind turbines to electrolyzers, which pass the wind-generated
electricity through water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be stored and used later to generate electricity from an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell. The goal of the Wind2H2 project is to improve the system efficiency of producing hydrogen from renewable resources in quantities large enough and at costs low enough to compete with traditional energy sources
such as coal, oil, and natural gas…”

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

OFGEM 2010

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets
Project Discovery
Options for delivering secure and sustainable energy supplies
Date of publication: 3 February 2010

Overview

“This document presents the conclusions from Project Discovery, Ofgem’s year-long study of whether the current arrangements in GB are adequate for delivering secure and sustainable electricity and gas supplies over the next 10-15 years. We have identified a number of concerns with the current arrangements and have concluded that
significant action will be called for given the unprecedented challenges facing the electricity and gas industries. We are keen to work with consumers, industry and government to find the best way forward. Prompt action will reduce the risk to energy supplies and environmental objectives, and can help reduce costs to consumers.
We have put forward for consultation a wide range of possible policy measures, ranging from improvements in pricing and/or obligations on suppliers to deliver specific levels of supply security, through to models that mandate or secure specific investments in new generating capacity and gas infrastructure.”

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/MARKETS/WHLMKTS/DISCOVERY/Documents1/Project_Discovery_FebConDoc_FINAL.pdf
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Orford L. 2010

‘Jevons’ Law: Enforcing the Age of Energy Decline – Part 1′
Lionel Orford
writing in The Oil Drum
posted by Gail the Actuary
11 January 2010

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6116
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘This is a guest post by Lionel Orford. Lionel is a professional electrical engineer with an interest in peak oil and sustainability. This past year he has been researching and developing a book with the working title, “Peak Capitalism: Our Opportunity to Choose between Transformation and Collapse.” His web site can be found at this link.’

‘In his 1865 book ‘The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of our Coal-Mines,’ English economist William Stanley Jevons made
the observation ‘Of the Economy of Fuel’ that when improvements in technology make it possible to use a fuel more efficiently, the consumption of the fuel tends to go up, not down.’

‘This is known as Jevons’ Paradox. It occurs because as the efficiency of a type of machinery is improved, it becomes profitable for many more customers and feasible to apply it to new applications. This results in rapid growth of the number of machines
in use and consequently, an increase in fuel consumption overall.’

Pagnamenta R. 2008

“National Grid chief Steve Holliday: blackouts will be common in 7 years”
Robin Pagnamenta
writing in The Times
22 December 2008

“Britain could face regular blackouts within seven years if the Government does not intervene in the energy market to ensure that more power stations are built, the head of National Grid says today.”

“In an interview with The Times, Steve Holliday, chief executive of the company that operates the power and gas transmission network, said that Britain was facing an acute shortage of generating capacity because a string of ageing nuclear and coal-fired plants were due to be retired from service.”

“The warning came after Ofgem, the energy industry regulator, said on Friday that it was to consider fresh incentives to encourage the development of renewable energy schemes in Britain.”

“Mr Holliday said that National Grid’s own analysis indicated that, under a business-as-usual scenario, Britain would fail to attract enough investment in new plants and would lack sufficient generating capacity to meet peak demand around 2015…”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article5380590.ece
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Pagnamenta R. 2009

‘Make state-run banks invest in renewable energy, urges ex-BP chief Lord Browne’
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
writing in The Times online
06 July 2009

‘State-controlled banks such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group should be forced to invest in renewable energy schemes, helping to kickstart a transition to a lower-carbon economy, Lord Browne of Madingley writes today.’

‘In an exclusive interview with The Times, the managing partner of Riverstone Holdings, the private equity firm, and former chief executive of BP says that the Government’s commitment to
build 25 gigawatts of offshore wind generating capacity by 2020 — equivalent to a fortyfold increase from present levels — is an ‘ambitious but achievable’ target.’

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6644545.ece
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Patterson W. 2007

‘Keeping the Lights on: Towards Sustainable Electricity’
by Walt Patterson

Publisher: Earthscan
Publications Ltd (1 Jul 2007)
ISBN-10: 1844074560
ISBN-13: 978-1844074563

p. 56
‘An asset to produce or deliver electricity earns revenue only when it is functioning…If you can’t sell its output you can lose a lot of money, very fast…Accordingly, in a competitive framework, traditional large-scale generating stations, long-term investments,
become acutely risky…’

p. 82
‘Needless to say, where traditional and what we might call ‘post-traditional’ or ‘transitional’ electricity systems already exist, any radical change is going to be both piecemeal and gradual. Around the world, electrical loads in thousands of gigawatts expect to have electricity available as before, without interruption or dislocation. In many instances significant interruption could threaten lives. The very continuity of electricity use makes any change in system characteristics, especially technical characteristics, demanding and difficult, even when the whole system except the loads belongs to a single owner and operates as a monopoly. For a post-traditional, transitional system, maintaining the system in continuous stable operation while changing technical characteristics multiplies the difficulties. For those in charge, the simplest answer is not to change…’

p.87
‘When the choice is between technologies so fundamentally different as, say, gas-fired combined cycles and photovoltaics, the use of such purported cost comparisons becomes egregiously tendentious. In any case, moreover recent studies suggest that traditional techniques to estimate the anticipated cost of electricity from a proposed
generator may be inherently and seriously flawed…Engineering economics fails to apply a premium to account for the risk that, over the life of the generator, fuel prices and fuel taxes may vary from those used to estimate the cost of electricity [in the planning stage].’

http://www.waltpatterson.org/ktlointro.htm
(Accessed 25 January 2010)

Perkins J. L. 2009

‘Energy Resource Depletion and Carbon Emissions : Global Projections to 2050′
Dr John L Perkins
National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, Melbourne, Australia
UN Project LINK
United Nations Conference
Centre, Bangkok, Thailand
28 October 2009

‘In consideration of global warming issues, it is generally assumed that longterm depletion of global fossil fuel resources will come too late to have any bearing on policies designed to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. It is argued here that this assumption is incorrect. It does not account for the geographical distribution of fossil fuel deposits, local depletion in particular countries, and the bearing this will have on global fuel transportation and distribution. Consideration of these factors indicates that depletion should have a bearing on choice of appropriate carbon pollution mitigation policies.’

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Fuel2050v2a.pdf
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Pew Center 2008
Pew Center on Climate Change

‘Modeling Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenarios’

http://www.pewclimate.org/post2012modeling
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/SB28SideEvent-PewCenter.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Phalnikar S. 2010

“Insurance giant warns of rising costs due to climate change”
edited by Sonia Phalnikar
from newsfeeds
writing in Deutsche Welle
01 January 2010

“A report by German insurance company Munich Re says 2009 was a year of relatively few natural disasters. But it warns that climate change remains a threat in 2010 and beyond, impacting on insurance costs…”

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5075155,00.html
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Post Carbon Institute 2008

‘The Real New Deal : Energy Scarcity and the Path to Energy, Economic, and Environmental Recovery’

http://www.postcarbon.org/files/real-new-deal.pdf
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Executive Summary “Our continued national dependence on fossil fuels is creating a dangerous vulnerability to both long-term fuel scarcity and catastrophic climate change.”

PA 2010

“UK carbon emissions fell by 2% in 2008, figures show : The UK exceeded its Kyoto target to cut emissions by 12.5% on 1990 levels, but will not meet the goal of 20% by 2010″
Press Association report in
The Guardian newspaper online
02 February 2010

“The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by almost 2% in 2008, official figures showed today. The final estimates for the year showed a fall of 1.9% in the group of six greenhouse gases and a drop of 2% for the most common of them, carbon dioxide. According to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the decrease is the
result of continuing to switch from coal to natural gas for making electricity, combined with lower consumption of fossil fuels in industry and transport…”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/carbon-emissions-kyoto
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

Radan S. 2010

Renewable Energy will not be a Threat to Oil Firms
Silvia Radan writing in the Khaleej Times
18 January 2010

‘ABU DHABI — The UAE plans to generate seven per cent of its energy requirement from renewable sources such as solar and wind power by 2030. Majid Al Mansouri, secretary-general of Environment Agency – Abu Dhabi (EAD), told Khaleej Times that renewable energy
will not be a threat to oil-producing companies. ‘Oil companies will not slow down or reduce production,’ he said. ‘The renewables would instead supply the energy from the annual growth in demand,’ he added. Al Mansouri was speaking on the sidelines of the World Future Energy Summit (WFES) which got underway in Abu Dhabi on Monday…’

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2010/January/theuae_January542.xml&section=theuae
(Accessed 20 January 2010)

Ramavarman T. 2010

“World must unite to produce renewable energy”
T. Ramavarman writing in the Khaleej Times
20 January 2010

‘All countries, including oil-producing nations, must unite to develop renewable energies and reduce carbon emissions, said the head of IRENA [International Renewable Energies Association], on Tuesday.’

‘Helene Pelosse, the Interim Director-General of IRENA, speaking to Khaleej Times on the sidelines of the World Future Energy Summit on Tuesday, said all oil producing, and consuming countries, were united on the need to develop renewable energies on a large scale.’

‘…’But the oil producing countries should urgently take the initiative in develop renewables without waiting for their fossil fuel reserves to dry up.’

”They may have considerable reserves now, but they should realise that those reserves are going to dry up one day or the other.’

”But solar energy and other renewables will be with use for millions of years. Also there are issues of carbon emission and global warming.’

”Are they going to wait till the global temperatures to go up to unbearable levels before embarking on renewable energy programmes?”

‘…Pelosse said IRENA accepted that different countries will have varying levels of renewables and other forms of fuels in their future energy mix, and it was difficult to prescribe a uniform energy mix for all the countries.’

‘However she said all the countries agreed that the share of renewables should be increased as quickly as possible. Pelosse said she was optimistic that discussions by world leaders at the energy summit this week would contribute to strengthening follow-up action
on the recently concluded Copenhagen Climate Summit.’

‘…She maintained that subtle differences among the countries taking part in the summit will not slow the momentum that has been gained in strengthening global efforts to identify and develop sustainable forms of energies and reduce dependence on high carbon-emitting and finite fossil fuel sources…’

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2010/January/theuae_January587.xml&section=theuae
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

Renewable Energy Focus 2008

“Power to the People?”
19 August 2008

“The fragility of our energy infrastructure and an emphasis on climate change provide new business opportunities for materials science. Fortunately, the impact on domestic users, business, and public services was limited, but what is of additional concern is
that this event occurred at a time of year when electricity consumption was not excessive and there were no extreme weather events contributing to the problem. The fact is, the UK is paying for its lack of major investment in its electricity generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure over the last 30 years. This is against a background where the UK and global energy
landscape is changing dramatically. Climate change is now widely accepted and the drive to reduce CO2 emissions has never been fiercer or taken more seriously. We face record oil prices fast approaching $150 per barrel, and fuel poverty and security of supply are now a reality…”

http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/1645/power-to-the-people/
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Robelius F. 2005

‘Giant Oil Fields of the World’
Presentation : AIM
Industrial Contact Day
Monday 23rd May 2005
Fredrik Robelius

http://www.peakoil.net/AIMseminar/UU_AIM_Robelius.pdf
(Accessed 20 January 2010)

Royal Society 2009

http://royalsociety.org/Preventing-dangerous-climate-change/
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294969323
(Accessed 15 January 2010)
“Preventing dangerous climate change : The need for a global agreement”
December 2009

‘There is no such thing as ‘safe’ climate change. Even the global temperature increase to date (about 0.75°C) is contributing to effects that are impossible to adapt to in some regions, notably small low-lying islands and coastal areas…A maximum global temperature increase of 2°C since preindustrial times has been adopted by many
nations as a goal to prevent dangerous climate change. If global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are reduced at 3-4% per year after 2020, it has been estimated that there is a fifty-fifty chance of limiting global temperature increase to roughly 2°C; but only if GHG emissions begin to decline within the next decade. By 2050, emissions would need to be down to near 50% of their 1990 levels, with continuing reductions in the second half of this century.’

========

Rutledge, D. B. 2010

Professor David Rutledge
California Institute of Technology (CalTech)
“Hubbert’s Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change”

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rutledge/Hubbert’s%20Peak,%20The%20Coal%20Question,%20and%20Climate%20Change.ppt
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Science Daily 2008

Science News
‘Huge Amount Of Fossil Fuels In Arctic: 90 Billion Barrels Of Oil And 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet Of Natural Gas’
24 July 2008

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724115043.htm
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

SDC 2009
Sustainable Development Commission

‘Prosperity Without Growth ?’
March 2009

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/prosperity_without_growth_report.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

‘Prosperity Without Growth : Economics for a Finite Planet’
video of Tim Jackson
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/mpd/permalink/m3SFJBVX3GDIH5

(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Schilling M. A. and Esmundo M. 2009

“Technology S-curves in renewable energy alternatives: Analysis and implications for industry and government”
Melissa A. Schilling and Melissa Esmundo,
Energy Policy Volume 37,
Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 1767-1781

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4VP1CS1-1/2/4d41c86b862f4f3e525c6fe5159f42c2
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

“Abstract : Plotting the performance of a technology against the money or effort invested in it most often yields an S-shaped curve: slow initial improvement, then accelerated improvement, then diminishing improvement. These S-curves can be used to gain insight into the relative payoff of investment in competing technologies, as well as providing some insight into when and why some technologies overtake others in the race for dominance. Analyzing renewable energies from such a technology S-curve perspective reveals some surprising and important implications for both government and industry. Using data on government R&D
investment and technological improvement (in the form of cost reductions), we show that both wind energy and geothermal energy are poised to become more economical than fossil fuels within a relatively short time frame. The evidence further suggests that R&D for wind and geothermal technologies has been under-funded by national governments relative to funding for solar
technologies, and government funding of fossil fuel technologies might be excessive given the diminishing performance of those technologies.”

Science and Technology Committee 2003

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Session 2002-03 Fourth Report
The published report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 March 2003

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmsctech/55/5502.htm
“Select Committee on Science and Technology Fourth Report”
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmsctech/55/5507.htm
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘PRIVATE SECTOR RD&D’

’70. Before privatisation in the early 1990s British Gas and the Central Electricity Generating Board had corporate RD&D facilities that conducted a large amount of energy RD&D. This has declined dramatically. According to the Tyndall Centre, in the 1970s
and 1980s, public expenditure of RD&D was typically several hundred million pounds, and much of this would have been conducted in these laboratories. For example, British Gas typically spent around £70 million before privatisation. Lattice, which took over most of British Gas’s research functions spent £14 million in the 15 months to March 2002. In 2000 nine companies invested a total of just over £130 million in RD&D. The ‘nuclear’ companies, BNFL and British Energy, contributed just under half of the total expenditure in the sector. The ERRG suggested that privatisation and a more market-oriented business strategy has resulted in less of energy RD&D conducted by UK industry. This view is supported by several witnesses. The Advanced Power Generation Technology Forum, a Foresight Associate Programme, comments that privatisation has had a “negative effect” on RD&D, claiming that the generation companies “are increasingly risk averse”. Professor Ian Fells from the New and Renewable Energy Centre in Newcastle argues that the liberalisation of the energy market has “wholly malign” effect on RD&D. The Institution of Electrical Engineers agrees, stating that with
exception of some RD&D to meet the Renewables Obligation, there is no incentive. The evidence from the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in relation to energy efficiency is similarly forthright:

“Privatisation of the gas and electricity utilities has resulted in a catastrophic loss of a number of major centres of expertise in the UK associated with energy utilisation research. Energy price reductions, although advantageous to the economy, have had the effect of reducing interest in developing new energy sources and improving energy efficiency”.

71. The Government disagrees, attributing this decline in expenditure to the maturation of a range of important technologies and a shift to energy providers in the North Sea and the renewables sector. In this case the reduction in expenditure might have been expected, yet a discussion paper produced for the Government’s PIU noted in 2001 that “It was … anticipated that a liberalised market might be more open to innovation in meeting customer needs than a monopoly”.
However, it said that “Liberalisation introduced commercial competition to the R&D process and with it, improved efficiency in the allocation of resources. However, there were costs associated with this and R&D budgets have seen substantial reductions. Moreover, there is some evidence that increased competition has shortened the time horizons for R&D expenditure creating a focus on short-term commercial goals rather than long-term investment.”. We are puzzled by the Government’s assertion that privatisation and liberalisation has not led directly to a decline in energy RD&D—it has led to a dramatic decline, by far the largest decline in all OECD countries. The forces that drove innovation in the past are at least as
strong as they ever were and it seems hard to believe that the Chief Scientific Adviser’s energy group and several of our witnesses are so ill-informed. We are concerned that the Government is poorly placed to stimulate energy RD&D investment in industry if it is in a state of denial over its causes.

72. More efficiently run private enterprises may have streamlined their RD&D effort and improved its focus. Brian Count of Innogy told us that research conducted by the CEGB (Central Electricity Generating Board) was muddled and that it “developed many ranges of steam technology and … almost nothing of that is world competitive”. The PIU concluded in 2001 that “The CEGB’s system of innovation was inefficient with significant levels of research funding being wasted through lack of proper controls and monitoring and inadequate financial commitments by manufacturers”. The fall in private sector RD&D expenditure has been higher than would have been expected from simply improving its focus. We conclude that there has been a real and damaging reduction in the amount of private energy RD&D spend since privatisation and liberalisation of the market.

Sibley L. 2009

“Al Gore: Super grid is critical to combating the climate crisis”
by Lisa Sibley
Cleantech Group
20 November 2009

http://cleantech.com/news/5331/al-gore-super-grid-critical-combati
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Sinden G. 2005

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/sinden-praseg.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
Graham Sinden
Environmental Change Institute
presentation to PRASEG 25
October 2005
slide 17

Simmons M. 2002

‘The World’s Giant Oilfields’
White Paper, January 9, 2002

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/giantoilfields.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Simmons M. 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZLX2aJ1YQI
“$300 oil ?” Matt Simmons interviewed on TVO 10 November 2009

http://www.chainbridgeinvesting.com/2010/01/24/simmons-oil-supply-is-at-risk/
‘MATT SIMMONS: OIL INDUSTRY NEEDS A SHOCK, OIL SUPPLY IS AT RISK’
January 24th, 2010 at 6:45
by CB

Transcripts of recent speeches :-
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Simms A. et al. 2009

“The Consumption Explosion : The third UK Interdependence Report”
from New Economics Foundation
authored by Andrew Simms, Victoria Johnson, Joe Smith and Susanna Mitchell
with additional
contributions from: Fred Pearce, Lindy Sharpe and Aniol Esteban
September 2009

ISBN 978 1 904882 62 6

http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/The_Consumption_Explosion_1.pdf
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

Socolow R. H. and Pacala S. W. 2006

‘A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check’
by Robert H. Socolow and Stephen W. Pacala

http://www.rivernetwork.org/resource-library/plan-keep-carbon-check
(Accessed 17 November 2009)

http://www.rivernetwork.org/sites/default/files/A%20Plan%20to%20Keep%20Carbon%20in%20Check.pdf
(Accessed 17 November 2009)

Stern D. I. 2003

‘Energy and Economic Growth’
April 2003
David I. Stern
Department of Economics,
Sage 3208, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street Troy,
NY, 12180-3590, USA

‘The principal finding is that energy used per unit of economic output has declined, but that this is to a large extent due to a shift in energy use from direct use of fossil fuels such as coal to the use of higher quality fuels, and especially electricity. When this shift in the composition of final energy use is taken into account energy use and the level of economic activity are found to be tightly coupled. When these and other trends are taken into account the prospects for further large reductions in the energy intensity of economic activity seem limited. The implications for environmental quality and economic sustainability are discussed.’

http://www.localenergy.org/pdfs/Document%20Library/Stern%20Energy%20and%20Economic%20Growth.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Stern N. 2006

‘The Economics of Climate Change : The Stern Review’
Nicholas Stern
Cabinet Office – HM Treasury
ISBN-13: 9780521700801

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521700801
(Accessed 31 January 2010)

http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm
(Accessed 17 January 2010)
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
(Accessed 17 January 2010)
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_summary.htm
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts
is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.’

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summary.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Stern N. 2009a

“Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity”
by Nicholas Stern

Publisher: The Bodley Head
Ltd (2 April 2009)
ISBN-10: 1847920373
ISBN-13: 978-1847920379

pages 146, 147
“The structure of a global deal – the key elements”

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/interviews-lectures-conversations/Lord-Nicholas-Stern-on-the-threat-of-climate-change?SQ_PAINT_LAYOUT_NAME=chapter&start=395&end=3276&sgmt=7732

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0905/pdf/climate.2009.34.pdf

Stern N. 2009b

“The Global Deal : Climate Change And The Creation Of A New Era Of Progress And Prosperity”
by Nicholas Stern
Chapter 8 “The Structure of a Global Deal”

Publisher:
PublicAffairs,U.S.; 1 edition (7 April 2009)
ISBN-10: 1586486691
ISBN-13: 978-1586486693

Stern N. 2009c

by Nicholas Stern

“KEY ELEMENTS OF A GLOBAL DEAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE’
The London School of Economics and Political Science
by Nicholas Stern

http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern_papers/Key%20Elements%20of%20a%20Global%20Deal%20-Final01may.pdf
(Accessed 8 January 2010)

Suggett J. 2010

‘Venezuelan Electricity Minister Resigns, Electricity Rationing in Capital Suspended’
15 January 2010
by James Suggett

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5071
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘Mérida, January 15th 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordered the suspension of programmed power outages in the capital city on Wednesday, and asked for the resignation of his minister for electricity, citing errors in the management of the country’s plan to conserve energy amidst a nation-wide electricity shortage. ‘Only in Caracas, I have ordered the suspension of electricity outages, because this government has to be capable of recognizing and rectifying errors committed,’ Chavez announced late on Wednesday night, only one day after the scheduled power outages had begun in the heavily populated, sprawling capital…’

Also, on the structure of the market :-
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/170782212.html
(Accessed 17 January 2010)
http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/2020eng.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Sustainable Business 2010

‘Investor Conference At UN Calls For Quick Climate Change Action’
15 January 2010

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/19572
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘On the heels of international climate treaty talks in Copenhagen, the world’s largest investors Thursday released a statement calling on the US and other governments to move quickly to adopt strong national climate policies that will spur low-carbon investments to reduce emissions causing climate change.’

‘The investor statement was announced at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk, a meeting of 450 global investors at the United Nations that included UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, United States Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, billionaire investor
George Soros and former Vice President Al Gore.’

‘Saying ‘we cannot wait for a global treaty,’ U.S., European and Australian investor groups representing $13 trillion in assets called on U.S. Congress and other global decision-makers ‘to take rapid action’ on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable
energy, financing mechanisms and other policies that will accelerate clean energy investment and job creation. Investors made clear today that there are competitive advantages for countries with comprehensive climate and energy policies…’

Symantec n.d.

http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/glossary.jsp#b
‘Blended Threat’
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

The Connexion 2010

http://www.connexionfrance.com/brittany-power-cuts-electricity-shortage-edf-warning-winter-weather-view-article.html
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

‘Blackout warning for Brittany’
January 05, 2010

‘HOMES in Brittany have been told to cut their electricity usage to a bare minimum tonight due to a “real and imminent” risk of power cuts. The region has been placed on red alert by electricity supplier EDF and the préfecture – a warning that could last until the end of this month. Homes and businesses have been sent emails and text messages advising them to reduce their energy consumption particularly during the peak hours of 17.00 to 20.00 this evening. The region was first put on alert in mid-December, along with Paca, but power cuts then were avoided. Brittany only produces 8% of the electricity it uses, with the remaining 92% brought in from neighbouring regions. This is not a problem until a prolonged
period of cold weather, when energy use across France increases by about 2,100 megawatts for every 1°C that the temperature drops. For more information on reducing your power consumption and for power alerts in the Brittany area visit www.ouest-ecowatt.com. France is having to import large amounts of power from overseas this winter for the first time because a number of nuclear reactors are out of action due to maintenance work. Météo France is expecting snow to
affect travel conditions today across Brittany, Basse-Normandie and parts of the Pays de la Loire…’

The Free Dictionary n.d.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/warm+start
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

The Independent 2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/british-engineers-slam-home-wind-turbines-as-ecobling-1876748.html
(Accessed 31 January 2010)
“British engineers slam home wind turbines as ‘eco-bling’”
23 January 2010

‘Installing wind turbines and solar panels in people’s homes is “eco-bling” that will not help meet Britain’s targets on cutting carbon emissions, engineers warned Wednesday.’

‘In a new report by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE), Professor Doug King said it was better to adapt buildings to make them more energy efficient than try to offset energy use with “on-site renewable energy generation.”‘

The Oil Drum 2007

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3269
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

‘Tupi, the new kid in town’
posted by Luis de Sousa
22 November 2007
The Oil Drum: Europe

‘On the morning of November 12th a friend called me saying that the largest oil field in the world had just been found off Brasil. I then explained to him what the largest oil field in the world was like, and how implausible that information was. In fact since the late hours of the previous day the media was reporting ‘the largest world oil find in the last 20 years”. Once again our energy problems were over, goodbye 90 dollar oil and so on. Déja vu? Didn’t this all happen last year with the Jack field in the Gulf of Mexico?’

The Sunday Times 2009

‘Shale gas blasts open world energy market’
American firms have cracked the technology to tap vast new reserves
November 1, 2009

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6898015.ece
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Tickell O. 2008

‘Kyoto2 : How to Manage the Global Greenhouse’
by Oliver Tickell

http://www.kyoto2.org/docs/kyoto2_leaflet_complete.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Oliver Tickell proposes global Carbon Auctions of Carbon Permits to those wishing to feed Fossil Fuels into the Energy supply system.

Thorn T. 2009

‘Shale Gas: Savior or Treadmill?’
By Terence Thorn
writing in Energy Tribune
Posted on Jan. 05, 2009

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1174
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

Turner G. 2008

‘A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality’
CSIRO
ISSN: 1834-5638

http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/peakoil/csiro_2008.pdf
(Accessed 30 January 2010)

UKERC 2009

The United Kingdom Energy Research Centre
“Global Oil Depletion”
Launched 08 October 2009

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/Global%20Oil%20Depletion
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Presentation 7 October 2009
:-
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=322
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Full Report :-
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=283
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

UN 2009

United Nations
‘World Economic Situation and Prospects 2009′

‘The world economy is expected to shrink by 2.6 per cent in 2009, after an expansion of 2.1 per cent in 2008 and nearly 4 per cent per year during the period 2004-2007. While a mild recovery is expected in 2010, risks remain on the downside. Developing countries are disproportionately hard hit by the crisis.’

http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp2009files/wesp09update.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

========

UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol 1997

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
(Accessed 24 January 2010)

from Article 2

“Enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the national
economy;”

“Research on, and promotion, development and increased use of, new and renewable forms of energy, of carbon dioxide sequestration technologies and of advanced and innovative environmentally sound technologies;”

“Progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal
incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors that run counter to the objective of the Convention and application of market instruments;”

USA Today 2009

‘BP finds huge oil field deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico’
03 September 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2009-09-02-bp-giant-oil-discovery-in-gulf-of-mexico_N.htm
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

‘The well, 250 miles southeast of Houston, was discovered after BP drilled one of the world’s deepest exploration wells. It went down 35,000 feet, a distance on par with the cruising altitude of many domestic flights.’

‘BP hasn’t released specifics on the size of the field. But if it turns out to be truly “giant,” it’ll contain more than 500 million barrels of recoverable oil, according to definitions by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The last giant discovered in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico was Thunder Horse in 1999. It’s also operated by BP…’

‘While a big find, the field’s potential production won’t constitute more than a “drop in the bucket” when it comes to U.S. oil consumption, says Perry Fischer, editor of trade journal World Oil in Houston. The U.S. consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day.’

NOTE WELL : 35,000 feet = 10.668 km

Vail J. 2006

‘EXTRA: Oil Discovery Saves Civilization!’
05 September 2006

‘EXTRA: Oil Discovery Saves Civilization! For 35 days. In 2013. Except for decline in other fields. Maybe. The huge news today is that Chevron, Norway’s Statoil, and Devon Energy have jointly discovered our collective salvation in the “Jack 2″ deepwater oil platform in the
Gulf of Mexico. CNN, Fox, and ABC have all been carrying this as the top story all day. MSNBC and CBS have relegated it below the much more significant story of the Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin’s death–where it belongs. Before we discuss conspiracy theories of why this news is coming out now, let’s first look at the facts in the absence of cable-news hype. This larger field, of which Jack 2 is just a small part, may someday yield between 3 and 15 billion barrels of recoverable crude. It won’t even start to produce oil until 2013, if
everything goes according to schedule. Then, it (the entire tertiary GOM zone) may eventually produce 400,000 barrels per day. That’s about how much Mexico’s Cantarell field declined in production this year. And how much it will decline next year. And the year after. Ultimately, 3 billion barrels of oil will fuel the world–at current consumption levels–for about 35 days…’

http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/09/extra-oil-discovery-saves-civilization.html
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

van der Merwe C. 2009

“SA expects S-curve growth for renewables sector”
by Christy van der Merwe
writing in Creamer Media’s
Engineering News online
9th October 2009

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/govt-reiterates-commitment-to-renewable-energy-2009-10-09
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

van Leeuwen J. W. S. 2006

Energy from Uranium
Oxford Research Group
July 2006
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

‘Uranium peak
• The currently known recoverable uranium resources will be depleted in about 50 years, if the world nuclear capacity remains at the current level.
• The easily discoverable and easily mineable uranium resources are already known and in production.
• The mines with relatively rich uranium ores currently in production will get depleted in about 28 years.
• During the years after 2034 the specific CO2 emission of the nuclear process chain will rapidly rise, if the world nuclear capacity remains at the current level and if no new large uranium resources will be discovered, which are as easily accessible and mineable
as the current rich ores.
• During the same years after 2034, under the same conditions, the net energy production of the nuclear system will decline and fall off the energy cliff by the year the currently known resources will get depleted.’

http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/Energy%20from%20Uranium%20-%20July%202006.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

A rebuttal of a dismissive report by the World Nuclear Association :-
http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Rebuttal_WNA.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Webb T. 2010

“Ofgem: UK cannot trust energy companies to keep the lights on : Regulator says free market approach will leave UK short of energy supplies by 2015″
by Tim Webb
writing in The Guardian newspaper online
03 February 2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/03/ofgem-uk-energy-supplies
(Accessed 03 February 2010)

WEC 2009

World Energy Council (2009)
Survey of Energy Resources
Interim Update 2009

http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_interim_update_2009/default.asp
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Willstedt H. 2009

‘Here comes the sun rising : Spain 2009: Renewable power goes up while emissions and electricity prices go down’
By Heikki Willstedt, Energy
Expert WWF/Spain

http://assets.wwf.es/downloads/here_comes_the_sun_2009_2.pdf
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

Wind Power Monthly 2009

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/login/963070/
(Accessed 17 January 2010)

‘Peak wind rising in Spain’
01 May 2009

‘Spanish wind power has hit another all-time production record with as much as 11.2 GW of the country’s nearly 17 GW of wind power feeding power to the grid at the same time during the morning of March 5, reports system operator Red Eléctrica de España (REE).
At the time, demand was running at 37.9 GW, with wind supplying 29.5% of electricity required. Earlier that day when demand was about 24 GW, wind penetration hovered for several hours at around 40%, peaking at 42% in the early hours of the morning. The Spanish power system’s ability to cope with that level of wind power demonstrates that the decision to unplug large volumes of wind power back in November when penetration reached 38% was made in error, says the Spanish wind power association. REE has admitted it was a mistake
(story right). The highest wind penetration yet recorded for the whole of Spain is 43%, achieved on November 24 when 9.25 GW was helping meet demand of 21.26 GW.’

Wynn G. and Doyle A. 2009

“G20 fossil fuel subsidy push may aid climate talks”
Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle
25 September 2009
writing for Reuters news wire

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58O3RN20090925

(Accessed 31 January 2010)

“LONDON/OSLO (Reuters) – A draft G20 commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium-term,” pushed by U.S. President Barack Obama, could be a step to help a new U.N. climate deal in December. The Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh planned to agree on Friday to phase out subsidies on oil, gas and coal, and so curb global greenhouse gases by about a tenth by 2050, said a draft text seen by Reuters. Scrapping fossil fuel support could highlight cheap emissions cuts for developing nations, chiefly responsible for such handouts, and so aid U.N. talks meant agree a new climate pact in Copenhagen in December. “It could be a critical element for Copenhagen from the side of what developing nations might do,” said Helen Mountford, head of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development’s climate, biodiversity and development division. “Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies…is one of the few options where there are win-win benefits both for the economy and the environment,” said Mountford. A phase-out would also enable nations such as Russia, which has high fossil fuel subsidies, to hold greenhouse emissions low, she said. The U.N.
climate talks are stuck on how to split cuts in carbon emissions between rich and poor countries and are due to resume in Bangkok Monday. Scrapping subsidies could also push up world economic growth, U.N. studies suggest. Chinese President Hu Jintao won praise Tuesday by committing to limit emissions growth by a “notable” amount — a highlight at a U.N. climate summit in New
York where other leaders made vaguer pledges to agree a new climate pact. Fossil fuel subsidies are costly, add to global warming and lead to more wasteful use of limited fossil fuel supplies, but may also improve energy access for millions of people off grid, who would otherwise depend on dung or wood for heat and cooking. A phaseout may be achieved within a decade, according to International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol. “In
some countries it can take five to six years depending on the level of
subsidies and the sensitivities of the countries,” he told Reuters, adding that subsidies now often benefited middle-income families, not the poor. Birol estimated fossil fuel subsidies paid by non-OECD countries at $310 billion, chiefly in Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and India. That compared with various estimates for low-carbon subsidies, for nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels at about $40 billion annually…”

Your Dictionary n.d.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/computer/warm-boot
(Accessed 15 January 2010)

Zittel W. and Schindler J. 2007a

‘Coal: Resources and Future Production’
Dr. Werner Zittel, Ludwig
Bölkow Systemtechnik GmbH
Jörg Schindler, Ludwig
Bölkow Systemtechnik GmbH

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Commentary :-
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/28287
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

http://energybulletin.net/node/28085
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2396
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

http://www.capandshare.org/download_files/C&S_peak.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

‘The timing and rate of decline of coal output is less clear. For years, the consensus was that there was abundant coal but in April 2007, Werner Zittel and Jorg Schindler released a report Coal: Resources and Future Production which concluded that the world’s coal reserves had been over-estimated and that global coal production was likely to peak around 2025 at 30% above present production levels. It would then decline and from 2060 onwards, the fall would be about 2% a year. However, as with oil and gas, the amount of energy the coal would be able to provide would decline even faster than the actual output because of the increased effort required by the mining process. Most politicians and climate campaigners have been reluctant to accept the idea that the world’s oil and gas supplies
will peak soon. However, the energy crisis and its climate counterpart both indicate that humanity has to cap its fossil fuel use immediately and then reduce its consumption by at least 3% a year. This is the minimum initial level at which the annual caps have to fall. Fossil fuel depletion adds a powerful argument to the climate campaigners’ cause.’

Zittel W. and Schindler J. 2007b

‘Crude Oil : The Supply Outlook’
Report to the Energy Watch Group
October 2007
EWG-Series No 3/2007

Figure 1
History of oil discoveries
(proved + probable) and production
(peak global petroleum oil discoveries in mid-1960s)

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-2007.pdf
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

Source Data (paid for) IHS
Energy 2006 :-
‘Petroleum Exploration and Production Statistics (PEPS)’
IHS Energy, Geneva and London 2006
http://energy.ihs.com/Search.htm?query=discoveries
(Accessed 27 January 2010)

For decades we have been spoonfed Science Fiction about the future of flight and space exploration as if it were fact.

Richard Branson (“Sir”, if you insist) has drawn us to his vision for commercial passenger space flight :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8400353.stm

Yet his participation in the Industry Taskforce for Peak Oil and Energy Security leads him back down to Earth :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/7203172/Britain-faces-oil-crunch-within-five-years-Richard-Branson-warns.html

“Britain faces ‘oil crunch’ within five years, Richard Branson warns : An oil crunch more serious than the financial crisis threatens to strike Britain within five years, Sir Richard Branson and other business leaders have warned. : Published: 10 Feb 2010″

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/02/09/richard-branson-warns-of-peak-oil-in-five-years/

“…While theories differ on when the world will experience the hard hitting times of peak oil, Virgin boss Richard Branson is boldly predicting that will happen in the next five years. In the foreward to a new report being released shortly, Branson urges UK leaders to be proactive rather than reactive to peak oil. “The next five years will see us face another crunch – the oil crunch. This time, we do have the chance to prepare. The challenge is to use that time well,” Branson will say. “Our message to government and businesses is clear: act,” he says in a foreword to a new report on the crisis. “Don’t let the oil crunch catch us out in the way that the credit crunch did.” According to one consultant, the current worldwide recession has only delayed the inevitable. “The next major supply constraint, along with spiking oil prices, will not occur until recession-hit demand grows to the point that it removes the current excess oil stocks and the large spare capacity held by Opec,” said Chris Skrebowski. “However, once these are removed, possibly as early as 2012-13 and no later than 2014-15, oil prices are likely to spike, imperiling economic growth and causing economic dislocation.”…”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g8M712Y7XdnGaTVbH_BRDqr2iB1g

“Branson warns UK over ‘oil crunch’ : The UK risks being hit by painful hikes in the cost of food, heating and travel because it is unprepared for surging oil prices, Sir Richard Branson and other business leaders have warned. Their report, entitled “The Oil Crunch – a wake up call for the UK economy”, warns the world is running out of oil and predicts shortages and price spikes as soon as 2015. It said the challenges facing the UK would exceed those presented by the financial crisis and said the poorest in society were most vulnerable to potentially significant increases. The report said Government must acknowledge the risks to the economy and to produce contingency plans for transport, retail, agriculture and alternative power. “Unless we do so, we face a situation during the term of the next government where fuel price unrest could lead to shortages in consumer products and the UK’s energy security will be significantly compromised,” it said. The report was compiled by the Industry Taskforce for Peak Oil and Energy Security, a group of private British companies whose members include Sir Richard; Brian Souter, chief executive of Stagecoach; Scottish & Southern Energy boss Ian Marchant and Philip Dilley, chairman of consultancy firm Arup. Virgin Group founder Sir Richard – whose airline and rail businesses are sensitive to volatility in the cost of crude – said businesses and Government should work together to prepare the economy. “UK competitiveness will be hampered unless we can develop viable, affordable and secure long term sources of alternative energy,” he said. While the report did not address climate change directly, it stressed “massive areas of overlap” between the issues of depleted resources and pollution. It said transportation was particularly vulnerable to rising oil prices, with businesses from supermarkets to manufacturers reliant on delivery networks. The group said alternative methods of powering vehicles – for example electrification of the railways – should be explored and infrastructure developed.”…”

If the Energy infrastructure and the benevolent governmental tax regimes required to support and maintain the aviation and space industries can no longer be justified, then the future of flight is probably airships rather than supersonic jets :-

http://www.airships.net/blog/movie-lady-hay-graf-zeppelin-farewell

http://www.idfa.nl/industry/Festival/films-2009/film.aspx?id=068e6e30-75cb-4727-b852-c6be7363155a

“…Constructed entirely of archive footage, Farewell is the story of English journalist Lady Grace Drummond-Hay. In August of 1929, two months before the stock market crash would plunge the world into the Great Depression, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst added Drummond-Hay to the passenger list of the Graf Zeppelin as the only female. This impressive airship would be the very first to make a voyage around the world. For this prestigious project, a symbol of hope and progress, Hearst was looking for someone who wanted to write about the trip “from a female perspective.”…”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/07/branson-warns-peak-oil-close

“Branson warns that oil crunch is coming within five years : Virgin chief and fellow business leaders call for action : Energy crisis threatens to be more serious than credit crunch : Terry Macalister : guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 February 2010″

Branson: Get ready for oil crunch within 5yrs”

“Tuesday, February 9, 2010 : Business & Finance : p43 : The world is hurtling towards an oil crisis as demand rises and supplies fall, business leaders will warn tomorrow. Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson will say the world has five years at most to plan for an ‘oil crunch’ creating bigger problems than the credit crunch…”

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=499344

“Britons may face soaring costs for food, heating and travel because the country is unprepared for surging oil prices, Sir Richard Branson and other business leaders warned today. Their report, entitled ‘The Oil Crunch – a wake up call for the UK economy’, warns the world is running out of oil and predicts shortages and price spikes as soon as 2015. It said the challenges facing the UK would exceed those presented by the financial crisis and said the poorest in society were most vulnerable to potentially significant increases…”

Now’s the right time to talk about gardening. Not just any old gardening, no. I mean food gardening, urban farming, home cropping, edible landscape-type gardening.

Now is the time to be thinking about enriching your soil for your next bumper harvest.

Get your resilience genes working !

http://www.londonwaste.co.uk/media/Compost%20Bag%20Leaflet_May09.pdf

OR

http://www.islington.gov.uk/Environment/RubbishAndRecycling/recycling_new/hrrc/compost_offer_HRRC.asp

Get into Transition mode !

In Transition 1.0 from Transition Towns on Vimeo.

“Oil and gas will remain the mainstay of the “Energy mix”. We’ve said that publicly…”

So they’re telling the world what to believe, are they ?

“…The fact is, given that developing countries will develop as rapidly as they can, [and Fossil Fuels are the only option readily available], Fossil Fuels will remain a [large factor in the global economy]. Renewable Energy will probably account for between 5% and 6% by 2030. The real [opening] is for [Natural] Gas, the transition…cleaner burning fuel…new resources…shale gas in the US…”

I posed the question of falling EROEI to the representative of the UK’s largest company formerly known as British Petroleum :-

“About a Century ago for American petroleum, you invested one unit of Energy for every 100 units returned; this has slowly dropped until it’s about 30 units for every unit input. Shale gas is hard to mine. You put more energy in for the same return…”

The BP man did not understand. He thought I meant you put more Energy in overall for the Energy returned, which would be ridiculous. I explained I meant you need to use more Energy to get gas from shale than with “conventional” sources of Natural Gas.

BP Guy got the point, sort of : “The cost of supply is not solely down to a function of the technology. Yes, Energy is used as an input, to make the gas available to the market. Yes, we are going into more challenging technologies. [It's like we assert] if you have an economic price of Carbon all these sorts of issues would then become apparent and Renewable Energy would become more competitive. [Carbon pricing would] help us all make rational decisions…the same argument as [critiquing the exploitation of] oil sands. Let’s say the price of Carbon is universally [applied] – then business will only invest in projects that are economically viable…”

Talk about skirting the issue. The issue is not cost, or even relative cost. The issue is : Fossil Fuels are depleting.

“Unconventional” Fossil Fuels are more energy-intensive to mine and could become unviable under peaking scenarios – especially if there were a Carbon Emissions rationing mechanism – so they should not be relied upon.

In fact, the very fact that the Oil and Gas “Majors” are diving into “unconventional” Fossil Fuels should be the clearest of indications that Fossil Fuels are depleting – past the peak of production, but also past the peak of supply in the Earth’s crust.

All the recent oil and gas wells are really, really deep. They’re scraping the bottom of the geological barrel.

The timeframe for Peak Fossil Fuels could be right upon us, staring us in the face.

We need to have a darn sight more Renewable Energy on-stream before 2030.

Yet BP continue to live in denial.

Instead of calling it for what it is : Fossil Fuel Depletion, the CEO Tony Hayward introduces us to his fantasy narrative of “Peak Demand”, just so the shareholders don’t get scared, I suppose :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/04/tony-hayward-bp-interview

“I personally – and BP – have never believed we will see peak oil because of supply. We always believed we would see peak oil because of demand. There will come a time – I believe it is beyond 2020 – when because of the changes in the energy portfolio, because of the drive for energy efficiency, because of the introduction of biofuels, demand for oil will peak.”

Could it be that he’s started this line of argument because the Biofuels projects aren’t working ?

For years the large oil and gas companies have promised us they will do better. BioDiesel didn’t work out, so they’ve been promising us BioTechnology from Genetically Modified bacteria to make “second generation” BioFuels from non-food crops and food crop waste.

This green dream could well have imploded.

All we read in the Press is that the Biofuels projects have a fine and dandy future, but that could just be to keep the Carbon bean counters and the shareholders happy.

These new plants could well be merely showy window-dressing. Nobody can tell us about potential production volumes :-

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2236895/bp-biofuels-grass

Reaction from the Developing countries is general dismay. The Non-Governmental Organisations, “civil society”, feel they have been blocked from taking part. It’s been a complete shambles.

The time has come to start spelling out the future in graphic, technical detail – not just about the damages that Climate Change will bring – but about the only real solutions.

Real solutions do not include Carbon Trading, nor Carbon Taxation. They don’t include technofixes and technofudges like Carbon Capture and Storage and New Nuclear Power. They certainly don’t include partial commitment on Avoided Deforestation.

We have to say it and say it again : whether the leaders and corporations agree or not, the future is Carbon Emissions Reductions. The Consumer Economy is being eroded by the minute. Peak Oil, Coal, Natural Gas and Uranium are just around the corner.

Several key minerals and metals used in hi-tech manufacturing are facing acute shortages. Drought and flooding is compromising food harvests. Warmer nights are threatening forests and crops too. Freshwater stress is ramping up.

Things have to change. Things will inevitably change, whether we call for it or not, whether we have a Climate deal or not.

There are Limits to Growth and we’ve crossed several boundary conditions for serious change to be enabled.

The so-called “Recession” is probably permanent. Renewable Energy will have to be rolled out with increasing acceleration as Fossil Fuels face supply constraints. Some things in the Economies will just stop working.

Social services around the globe are already adversely affected, bringing productivity down. There has been a huge lack of investment in Energy, a trend which will be hard to reverse, since we need huge new systems to replace the failing Fossil Fuels and Nuclear plant.

Without a “Green” New Deal to start us on the path to Zero Carbon Energy the whole of the industrialisation of the Global North and West will have been in vain – Developed countries face the sharpest crash ever experienced.

I’m not telling you that a network or group will rise up, revolt and make this happen – I’m telling you it’s going to happen anyway. You won’t need to be prepared to make sacrifices for Carbon Emissions Reductions – sacrifices will come to you anyway.

Without a truly meaningful agreement on Climate Change, the global trade system, particularly in food, could partially collapse within five years. Just go ogle “Peak Rice”, and check the IRRI figures sourced from the USDA on global imports and exports of rice :-

http://beta.irri.org/solutions/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=250

Your standard of living is seriously under threat of extinction.

For every ounce of frustration I feel about the sloth-like pace of the international Climate negotiations, he must feel a pound of nerve-wrecking agitational sweating stress.

The United States of America has been trumpeting its progressive politics again this week, asserting itself as the world’s Climate Change leader at the G8 talks in L’Aquila in Italy.

The world’s industrialised and developing economies are going to commit to “substantial” emissions cuts, although exact numbers by exact dates are a bit hard to pin down :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/09/g8-climate-change-agreement

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-agrees-landmark-pledge-to-slash-emissions-1738047.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8142825.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8141977.stm

http://www.undispatch.com/node/8569

But Aubrey’s done the math, and the commitments being made fall well short of Climate Safety :-

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment/environment-and-rural-affairs/comment-govt-climate-change-policy-is-suicide-$1309679.htm

“Comment: Govt climate change policy is suicide : Wednesday, 08, Jul 2009 12:01 : Twenty years of negotiations, and the temperature continues to rise. The government needs to change its strategy. By Aubrey Meyer : We’ve had twenty years of international negotiations to prevent runaway rates of climate change taking hold. These have created a process of increasingly chaotic guesswork where we knowingly continue to cause this problem much faster than we act to avoid it. The danger is that the problem accelerates out of control…That framework of ‘truth and reconciliation’ is the now very widely cited and supported Contraction and Convergence (C&C) framework. Targets in the UK government’s Climate Act and their document, ‘The Road to Copenhagen’, are loosely based on C&C, but at rates that are just too slow. The government is quite incorrect to claim that a global contraction in emissions of 50 per cent by 2050 is sufficient to prevent a globally averaged temperature rise of more than two degrees Celsius. It is too little, too late…Consequently, their claim that an 80 per cent cut in the emissions of the developed countries by 2050 is fair to developing countries who get the balance of entitlements under that cap is quite meaningless. The reality is that a well-intentioned but insufficiently numerate international response to global climate change completes the process of mutually assisted suicide (MAS) that we have been creating since 1992. Sustained emissions and repeated cycles of internationally incoherent guesswork has led to this MAS.…When our government argues this, governed by a bare minimum of 80 per cent global emissions cut by 2050, their claim to leadership may become meaningful.”

Aubrey’s not a young man any more, and I’m sure he remembers, like I do, some of ecology’s early big sellers :-

1. Small is Beautiful
(by E.F. Schumacher)

I read this in my formative years, and it had a formative influence on me.

2. Limits to Growth
(by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William W. Behrens III)

I read this in and in my student years and it influenced my choice of studies.

There has been several updates to the “Limits to Growth”, the most recent being the 30 Year update :-

Were the authors right ? Did they get their predictions correct ?

Well, several studies suggest they did. Here’s one from 2008 :-

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4T7D8DY-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9389df0a9508236f9382b05131343239

page 50

“As shown, the observed historical data for 1970 – 2000 most closely matches the simulated results of the LtG [ Limits to Growth ] “standard run” scenario for almost all the outputs reported; this scenario results in global collapse before the middle of this century [ 21st ]. The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time. Given the complexity of numerous feedbacks between sectors incorporated in the LtG World3 model, it is instructive that the historical data compares so favourably with the model output. By comparison, the “comprehensive technology” scenario is overly optimistic in growth rates of factors such as food, industrial output and services per capita, and global persistent pollution… In addition to the data-based corroboration presented here, contemporary issues such as peak oil, climate change, and food and water security resonate strongly with the feedback dynamics of “overshoot and collapse” displayed in the LtG “standard run” scenario (and similar scenarios). Unless the LtG is invalidated by other scientific research, the data comparison presented here lends support to the conclusion from the LtG that the global system is on an unsustainable trajectory unless there is substantial and rapid reduction in consumptive behaviour, in combination with technological progress.”

And Matt Simmons, the Oil Energy analyst, also appraised it in 2000 :-

http://www.greatchange.org/ov-simmons,club_of_rome_revisted.pdf

My key point in this flashback is to point out that it seems likely that the “standard run” parameters of the original 1972 Limits to Growth modelling are somewhere in the ballpark of what Aubrey Meyer is suggesting needs to be followed in his framework “Contraction and Convergence” (see charts below).

This will necessitate an acceptance of a global contraction of economies. That means the end of “Economic Growth” as it is currently constructed – as Economic Growth is currently made out of the building blocks of Hydrocarbon Energy, Coal and unreplaced Forest.

The danger is if we have a rogue element such as the doubling of natural (Energy) resources, say, for example, using the water-bound Methane clathrates as a source of Natural Gas – then the model will produce exponential levels of pollution which would be unsupportable :-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.100-ice-on-fire-the-next-fossil-fuel.html

“Ice on fire: The next fossil fuel : 24 June 2009 by Fred Pearce : Magazine issue 2714 : DEEP in the Arctic Circle, in the Messoyakha gas field of western Siberia, lies a mystery. Back in 1970, Russian engineers began pumping natural gas from beneath the permafrost and piping it east across the tundra to the Norilsk metal smelter, the biggest industrial enterprise in the Arctic. By the late 70s, they were on the brink of winding down the operation. According to their surveys, they had sapped nearly all the methane from the deposit. But despite their estimates, the gas just kept on coming. The field continues to power Norilsk today. Where is this methane coming from? The Soviet geologists initially thought it was leaking from another deposit hidden beneath the first. But their experiments revealed the opposite – the mystery methane is seeping into the well from the icy permafrost above. If unintentionally, what they had achieved was the first, and so far only, successful exploitation of methane clathrate. Made of molecules of methane trapped within ice crystals, this stuff looks like dirty ice and has the consistency of sorbet. Touch it with a lit match, though, and it bursts into flames. Clathrates are rapidly gaining favour as an answer to the energy crisis. Burning methane emits only half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal, and many countries are seeing clathrates as a quick and easy way of reducing carbon emissions. Others question whether that is wise, and are worried that extracting clathrates at all could have unforeseen and perilous side effects…”

This is the simple truth that Aubrey Meyer has been struggling to convey for the last few decades, and no doubt he will have to carry on with his business, as usual, to counteract the very dirty “Business as Usual” going on to maximise Energy production and consumption.

Continuing to burn with the same kind of growth rates as projected by the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook will lead us to Climate Hell.

If it takes us until we’re in our 90′s, ranting and railing, to get some sense from our political and social leaders on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, we’ll just have to keep lobbying and rallying and writing, even if we’re toothless in wheelchairs.

But actually, we don’t have that long to make big changes. If I live to be 50, that will be the year we need to peak in Greenhouse Gas Emissions – whether that’s through massive Economic shock, Resource limit brick walls or the fact that the Arctic Ice Cap has completely melted and stunned everyone into Contraction and Convergence emergency mode.

If we don’t get serious cuts in deforestation and the use of dirty Energy, this will be no country for any men, young or old.

Aubrey Meyer’s Contraction & Convergence Framework :-
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf

http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/limits_to_growth.htm

Chart : Paul Chefurka’s projection of World Energy :-

Cartoon/Chart : Peak Oil :-

Chart : Peak Oil :-

Chart : Contraction & Convergence as charted by Stephen Schneider at Stanford :-

Chart : “Projection for Disaster” taken from the original LtG :-

Chart : Dave Rutledge LtG Scenario :-

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2960

“When Is “Global Peak Energy?” According to Publicly Available Data, Probably Sooner Than You Think : Posted by Prof. Goose on September 10, 2007 – 10:00am”