Image Credit : Oil Change International

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101028/sc_afp/franceenvironmentclimatewarming

“Global warming ‘unquestionably’ due to humans: France : Global warming exists and is unquestionably due to human activity, France’s Academy of Science said in a report published Thursday and written by 120 scientists from France and abroad. “Several independent indicators show an increase in global warming from 1975 to 2003. This increase is mainly due to the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide,” the academy said in conclusion to the report. “The increase in carbon dioxide, and to a lesser degree other greenhouse gases, is unquestionably due to human activity,” said the report, adopted unanimously by academy members. The report contradicts France’s former education minister Claude Allegre, a geochemist, who published a book called “The Climatic Deception” which claimed that carbon dioxide was not linked to climate change. The report was commissioned in April by Minister for Research Valerie Pecresse in response to hundreds of environmental scientists who complained that Allegre in particular was disparaging their work. Allegre is a member of the Academy of Sciences and also signed off on the report. “He has the right to evolve,” the academy’s president Jean Salencon said. Pecresse said: “The debate is over.”…”

To my Climate Change sceptical readers, you, too have the “right to evolve”.

Come on over from the dark side to the side of light, life and understanding.

Stop the blame game, the game of suspicion, nitpicking, paranoia and irrationality, and reflect on the path of right dealing, factual research, and true and cooperative human endeavour.

Human beings are genetically encoded for pragmatic policies and practical decisionmaking; yet sometimes the fastest route to a solution is the least successful in the longer term.

Digging high calorie substances out of the ground and burning them in very large quantities is having a negative effect on the ability of the Earth to sustain Life. Ponder that for a while.

Eventually virtually all mining activities will be curtailed. As an elderly relative commented to me when discussing recycling – if we recycled all materials then people wouldn’t have to risk their lives going deep underground for new resources – like those poor miners in Chile and China.

The mines are getting deeper and more dangerous – something the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem encountered to its irrecoverable loss earlier this year.

We can live without mining. We can garner energy without mining. We can live having all our wants and needs provided for by the power of sunlight and the winds and waves it drives, and by the gravitational pull of the Moon turning the tides restlessly.

That kind of productivity will keep us in industrial development for as long as we survive as a species, whilst preventing destruction of our habitat, which would finish us off as a species altogether, along with millions of others.

That’s the kind of evolution we need.

Video Credit : Ellen MacArthur Foundation

I can’t decide whether I’m inspired or concerned by this little film from Ellen MacArthur.

It seems to focus quite heavily on cars, and one of the collaborators is Renault.

It also talks a lot about electricity, and another one of the corporate names shown is National Grid.

And then it also talks a lot about waste, and the company that sponsored Ellen’s sail around the world was B&Q, the chain that spawned a thousand home makeovers.

None of these companies appear to want to follow the sustainability principles spelled out in the movie.

Is it just a little bit too high-brow to be talking of “closing the loop”, when most people in the world are simply concerned with finding their next meal or coasting towards their next pay cheque ?

Who is this video designed for ? What’s the intended audience and how are they being asked to respond to it ?

Tell me I’m wrong to be ever-so-slightly sceptical.

Image Credit : Cape Cod Living

James Delingpole follows in a long line of commentators with zero engineering experience in pouring scorn on a technology that could quite possibly save our skins :-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056158/wind-farms-yet-another-brewing-disaster/

I don’t know what he harbours in his heart against wonderful wind turbines, but he seems to be part of a movement who delight in their failure. Just ask the Internet to show you “exploding wind turbines”.

For example :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGXoE3RFZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo

Clearly, you need to be in full protective fatigues when battling this kind of bad press…in fact “fatigue” is exactly the right word to come back at Mr Delingpole’s cracked warning (of cracks in wind turbine bases).

Any engineer worth their sprocket set will be able to tell you that materials “fatigue”, that over time, in working machines, things wear out, metal bends and cracks as the internal structure is pulled out of shape by external stress, things that get hot and cold regularly contort, anything that turns needs lubricating or it will wear down.

Over time, cement and concrete crumble, stone erodes in the elements, wood splits or rots in inclement conditions, brakes wear down, pathway stones smooth with the treads of thousands of feet, sheds collapse in the wind…and so we get back to wind.

Wind Turbine masts bend in the wind, and so it’s easy to imagine that the concrete base of a wind turbine might be under stress from repeated bending of the mast. Plus, there’s the forces generated by the turning of the wind turbine blades, that add a pull, moving the mast slightly in one direction or other.

It’s all entirely predictable, and can be calculated. And mast turbine bases can be built to withstand these kinds of stress – if they’re built well. There are heaps of guidelines, for example :-

http://www.risoe.dk/vea/recoff/Documents/Sec_5/RECOFFdoc050.pdf
http://ecocem.ie/downloads/Offshore_Wind_Farms.pdf
http://www.ecocem.ie/index.php?p=technical&q=wind_farms

And naturally, once machines are in the field, lessons can be learned from real-life running :-

http://www.middelgrunden.dk

Nick Balmer of the Claverton Energy Research Group wrote recently,

“…Middelgrunden…This pioneering offshore windfarm used concrete gravity foundations and grouted sockets. In a well recorded incident the concrete sockets were found to have developed micro-cracking. It was a major media event and lots of people used it to hit back at wind turbines. In the event it was fixed very quickly…”

All engineering carries a risk of mechanical failure, but what would you personally prefer in terms of risk : a wind turbine falling over in a remote area, or into the sea, from time to time; or a nuclear reactor cracking and sending radioactive gas over the whole of North Wales and the Irish Sea ? Just asking. These technologies both rely on concrete, after all.

Wind Farm projects built for the big energy companies are under the usual contracts. As one contact has pointed out, “The proof of the pudding will be in the Technology and Construction court – if bases are cracking, then owners will start to seek redress.”

Engineering is not a perfect art. There are known unknowns. Time will tell if one design works better than another, or one location or type of location works better than another.

Some mechanical failures are to be expected in developing any technology, but over-protective construction seems to be a theme, as Nick Balmer points out :-

“…As somebody who has priced installing wind turbine bases, I am aware that most are built to some extremely conservative designs used for many years in Germany…[criticisms] of the turbine manufacturers designs have been that generally they are over designed for the purpose. They would say that for the savings in a few cubic metres of concrete at say £70/m3 and say 50kg of steel it is just not worth skimping on materials and design. If the worst came to the worst it is not a big job to repair the turbine bases…”

And what about safety in general ? They might have to re-write the old proverb to read “as safe as wind turbines” :-

http://www.whywind.org/pb/wp_a1b4e1bf/wp_a1b4e1bf.html

“…Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 2003 : The odds of anyone being killed in a wind turbine related accident in the U.S. over his/her lifetime was 1 in 3,777,272. This compares to a 1 in 84 risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident, a 1 in 1,134 risk of drowning, and a 1 in 56,789 risk of dying from a hornet, wasp or bee sting…”

“…A Summary of Fatal Accidents in Wind Energy by Paul Gipe details the worldwide accidents in wind energy : Over the course of past 35 years their have been 20 fatal accidents in wind energy worldwide. Falling from the tower is the single most apparent occupational hazard of working with wind energy. Most accidents are due to the same common sense fatal mistake, where people did not use any form of fall protection…”

So, wind turbines are less dangerous than cars, and even bees.

And as for that other common accusation – that wind turbines are inefficient, let’s look at some data shall we ? Actually, let’s look at some data from an anti-wind farm organisation.

The group CLOWD, the Campaign to Limit Onshore Wind Development, according to data collected from Ofgem on 18th June 2010, relating to the period April 2009 to March 2010, Scottish wind power as a whole was running at 54.45% capacity – in other words, producing over half its rated power. The rated power is the figure given for the amount the turbine would produce it the wind was blowing at the right speed all the time. And for England, the same figure was 34.95% of capacity. Since Scotland has twice the wind profile on average to England, that seems like a reasonable result.

Non-expert commentators use this kind of information to talk about the “efficiency” of wind turbines, and berate the low figures. But, when thinking about efficiency and wind turbines, it is necessary to compare wind power to other forms of electricity production.

For example, in the use of Fossil Fuels to deliver electricity to our homes and offices in the UK, a large proportion of the energy from the Natural Gas and Coal used is wasted :-

When gas and coal are wasted, that’s real expense.

By contrast, when a wind turbine fails to capture some wind, that’s no cost at all.

If you’re going to argue against Wind Power, you need some arguments that have solid, uncracked foundations.

And you don’t have any, do you James ? Tilting at windmills is a complete waste of your time.

I don’t know about you, but I’m missing David Miliband from the political fish-eat-fish top table already.

If he were to ask me, which he won’t, but anyway, if he did, I would recommend that he starts reading up about Energy production and supply, over the next 18 months or so before he gets invited, acceptingly, back into the Shadow Cabinet of the UK Government.

If he were to spend his time on the train between South Shields and Westminster looking into energy security matters, into crustal petrogeology, the Middle East oil fields, Wind Power, solar and marine options, he could make a strong comeback into the limelight – as opposed to the “lemon” light he’s been cast into, thrust into, so far.

If he becomes acquainted with the ways and wiles of engineering and fossil fuels over the next few years, the viability of Renewable Energy solutions, the transport explosion phenomenon and how to control it, then he will be able to offer solid assistance to his younger brother Teddy – who appears to be mistakenly sold on the idea of new nuclear power.

And if Ed Miliband were to ask, (again, which he won’t), I’d say – atomic energy cannot save us; carbon capture technology cannot save us; algae biodiesel can only trickle, even Frankenstein GM algae biodiesel; Peak Oil is almost definitely here; efficiency of use alone cannot save us. We have to go right out for a non-combustion, Renewable Energy future.

Image Credit : Marrickville Greens

Everywhere in the world that Renewable Energy subsidies, grants or guaranteed unit price contracts have been set, there has been a gradual, or sometimes even rapid, development of new Renewable Energy assets. Which seems like quite a good reason for the State to partly finance the development of Renewable Energy systems, if you take the long view. (Note : I’m using the word “asset” in its proper, original sense here – something that has value long after it has been created, and long after it has been paid for.)

By the end of the lifetime of German roof-top solar panels, or British wind turbines, the economic signal to assist the deployment of these technologies will have long since vapourised, leaving behind a functioning electricity supply that runs without the use of expensive fuel and doesn’t run the risk of major failures and huge drops in power output – unlike large centralised power stations.

The need to invest in long-term non-fuel widely-distrubuted generation assets plugged into the electricity network is essential for its future stability – the more reliable Renewable resources of all scales the National Grid can call on, the cheaper it will be to guarantee a solid supply for all.

The large energy companies most likely consider investment in small- and medium-scale Renewable Energy by individuals and communities as a threat to their monopoly on electrical generation. And so they should. It is time for big changes in the way energy is supplied and managed in this country.

New, large, centralised power plants that the large energy companies want to build will cost their customers dearly in the form of higher energy prices – and there have been continual battles over the planning for and the financing of large new energy plants.

This is why the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) scheme in the UK is so important to keep – a stimulus to create small-scale Low Carbon power resources that will still have value in 20 or even 30 years time with very low maintenance schedules.

The threshold level of the economic stimulus for small-scale Renewables is comparatively low when compared to other forms of investment. The incentive scheme to install principally solar resources can work with funds much lower than those required to underwrite a new fleet of Nuclear Power stations, for example, and yet create a resource that could rival the new reactors without all that cost of nasty radioactive clean-up at the end of a nuke plant’s life.

But, being Great Britain, the Government have had their heads turned by the large energy companies yet again, it seems, as there are rumours that the FIT will be scrapped :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/339acf30-c757-11df-aeb1-00144feab49a.html

“Solar power subsidy under review : By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondents : Published: September 23 2010 : The recent mini-boom in solar power could be in jeopardy, as the government has privately indicated that new feed-in tariffs that have fuelled the industry could be slashed. If such cuts are adopted, renewable energy experts fear that it will scare off investors – with repercussions throughout the industry. “To change the subsidy system just when you can see the success it has had beggars belief,” said one. “Renewable energy investors . . . will lose faith in this government.” Industry insiders also accused the government of hypocrisy. They say that while Chris Huhne, the energy and climate change secretary, was promising the Liberal Democrat conference 250,000 green jobs as part of a “revolutionary” deal to cut emissions, government advisers were holding meetings in back rooms at which they flagged up potential cuts to the feed-in tariffs (FITs)…”

Don’t blame me or anybody in the Green Party or Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth or a number of other Non-Governmental Organisations or independents if in 15 years time there is still not a significant Renewable Energy resource in the United Kingdom. We have expended a lot of personal energy calling for sensible levels of sustainable funding for the renewables revolution. We can do without the limitations of a stop-start regime.

If you want new energy systems, you need to pay for them. It’s called investment, and we need to do it because our current energy systems are decrepit and high carbon. The large energy companies are not prepared to put their own capital into small-scale Renewables, so it falls to the taxpayer to fill the gap. Why not pay the least for the most by directly incentivising small-scale Renewable Energy with a long-term Feed In Tariff scheme ?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gt9FazoUMIDxODUKwX2TF5LxndsQ

“Protesters condemn ‘dirty oil’ at World Energy Congress : (AFP) : 14 September 2010 : MONTREAL — Hundreds of protesters demonstrated in the streets of Montreal Sunday, calling for an end to “dirty, risky” oil exploration, ahead of a global gathering of energy experts. A dozen protesters covered in molasses staged a “Black Tide Beach Party,” while dozens of others carried banners that read “Too dirty, too risky, go beyond oil.” A blond baby boy smeared in brown sticky molasses wailed in his activist father’s arms, while protesters used megaphones to slam the provincial Quebec government of Jean Charest for inviting oil companies to the five-day World Energy Congress at the sprawling Palais de Congres. Some 5,000 participants from industry, government and academia, were expected to attend the conference, slated to officially open Sunday evening. The event is expected to tackle global energy issues, such as improving access to energy in the world’s poorer regions and the role of new technologies in ensuring a sustainable energy future. Many protesters directed their anger at BP over a devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year. But Julien Vincent, a campaigner for Greenpeace International, said BP was only part of the problem. “British Petroleum is one part of a big industry that’s got an abysmal safety record and an abysmal record in terms of its obligations toward protecting communities,” he told AFP. “You also have oil from Shell dripping out over Nigeria right now. You have oil spills that have taken place in China that have flooded ports,” he added. “The entire industry needs to be told to sit back and listen up.” …”

http://www.wecmontreal2010.ca/en.html

http://www.gobeyondoil.org/about.php

“About Go Beyond Oil : Go Beyond Oil is a call to action. It’s a response to the BP oil spill and the prospect of rising global temperatures. It’s also necessary, if we want to have healthy lives and a healthy planet we’ve got to get ourselves off oil. It’s a journey that’s already started, but we need you to join us if we are going to get the world off oil. The BP spill in the Gulf was a wake up call for many people, now we must take this opportunity to put an end to our oil addiction which is poisoning our oceans, our lands, the air we breathe as well as destroying our climate. This is a massive challenge. Oil is a part of all our lives and the oil industry makes huge profits from our dependency on it. Oil companies are going to extremes and taking ever greater risks to squeeze the planet of its oil all the while they’re blocking the solutions that would free us from fossil fuels. The technologies already exist to wean the world off oil and we all deserve a future free of pollution – it s our choice and we can move beyond oil if we want to. It won’t be easy, but we know what needs to be done – we need to stop risky oil exploration, end subsidies for the oil industry and invest in clean energy. There will be many trials along the way as we remove the barriers to clean energy – that’s why we need your help…”

Got oil in your pension? from Greenpeace UK on Vimeo.

Unlike the United Kingdom, where political sensibility can quash the most logical enactment of energy policy, plans for progress voiced so tentatively you can bearly feel a ripple, or hear it over the whispering swoosh of a new wind turbine blade, over in Deutschland, what they say, they intend to happen, and they’re making serious proposals about how that’s going to be done :-

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,716221,00.html

“09/07/2010 : Green Visions : Merkel’s Masterplan for a German Energy Revolution : By Stefan Schultz : Giant windparks, insulated buildings, electric cars and a European supergrid: the German government on Monday unveiled an ambitious but vague blueprint to launch a new era of green energy for Europe’s largest economy. SPIEGEL ONLINE has analyzed the plans…”

It appears to be time to wave bye-bye to German coal, incidentally, even as a strong commitment to renewable, sustainable energy is put on the table.

I wish the British Government could take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror of the future and realise what a bunch of dithering duffers they appear to be.

What we need is a proper Energy Policy, chaps, and since you’re in the hot seat you better come up with it. Elected or not, our ministers and officials need to get up out of their deep leather chairs, extinguish their pipes, don their working breeches and get digging for Britain, and I don’t mean Shale Gas or Old Coal.

Matt Phillips of the Claverton Energy Research Forum, had this to note :-

“Last week the German government released its major conclusions of a review of energy policy in its Energiekonzept. If your German is up to scratch, here it is: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/entw_energiekonzept_kf.pdf”

“Some major highlights of interest in the UK are:”

“1 CO2 targets affirmed: Germany firmly commits to a 40% by 2020 CO2 reduction target.”

“2 Grid and 80% RES: Germany now commits to very high levels of RES and much greater integration of Germany into the European grid. Germany’s RE electricity targets are now: 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030, 65% by 2040, 80% by 2050. It also has a very substantial set of plans around grid expansion and integration in Europe. This would have implications for the rest of the European grid – as if Germany looks for greater integration this would have a major impact on grid across Northern Europe. Germany sees offshore wind as a major growth area with a substantial investment/incentives plan to make it so. The Energiekonzept proposes a €5bn loan scheme for the first ten German offshore wind projects, guarantees to cover losses, support to build specialist vessels, special offshore FIT design and improvements in permitting arrangements. The loan scheme will be financed by KfW – the government bank (equivalent of the Green Investment Bank proposed in the UK – but with major question marks at the moment over the extent of its capitalisation).”

“3 Financing: Germany has committed to recycling its €2bn ETS auction revenues for energy efficiency, renewable innovation and climate adaptation. In addition, the proposed life extension of existing nuclear will be accompanied by a windfall tax on the utilities that will benefit as a result. This €2.3bn tax will also be used explicitly for advancing renewables.”

(Note : none of the ETS auction revenues are proposed for Carbon Capture and Storage, unlike European-level statements on ambition that have been made previously).

“4 Energy Efficiency It calls for halving Germany’s primary energy consumption until 2050 (base year 2008), for doubling the yearly rate of modernisation of buildings (1% to 2%) and for an emissions standard for ALL buildings. And it proposes some instruments in order to reach these targets: An efficiency fund (€500m per year), tax exemptions, monetary incentives for energy management systems for industry, a pilot programme on white certificates, investment incentives for house owners, etc”

“Much of the media and political focus in Germany is the row over nuclear life-extension which has overwhelmed the rest of the content. But it is worth noting that in terms of the reaction, many on the renewable industry side fear nuclear life extension will chill new investment in RES. However it is also important to note the situation with new coal projects in Germany. Ten projects were given permissions more than three years ago and most of those are now under construction. There were 25 other projects in planning. In the last two years 15 of those have been abandoned. It is quite likely that the 10 in the planning pipeline would be affected by nuclear life extension. All of these are anyway are facing substantial public opposition.”

“On coal/CCS the Energiekonzept suggests there will be three commercial scale CCS projects by 2020 – two on coal plants and one on industrial emissions. It is worth noting that progress on this has proved very hard in Germany and the obstacles may not have been overcome just through this declaration of intent. In addition there is a proposal for a regulation to phase out inefficient coal. On the whole the ECF analysis is that the Energiekonzept has not delivered a coal/CCS policy that is sustainable as it does not grapple with the challenges of having a firm pathway for CCS on the plants being built now and nor does it remove the risk of unabated-coal-lock-in. But it is a helpful policy direction to open up the timetable for phasing out ‘old’ coal. As a footnote to this issue, you may not have seen recent comments by RWE that it is pulling out of all new coal projects as coal is uneconomic. While this was only announced in Germany, last week RWE pulled out of a new coal project in Poland.”

“The Energiekonzept is a proposal. It is perceived in Germany as a ‘centre right’ positioning on the issues. But it is important to understand that the mainstream consensus in Germany is now that the future is large scale RES. There is no political constituency in Germany calling for new nuclear plants. The Energiekonzept will almost certainly be subject to legal challenge and the proposals underneath it will be introduced in legislation or policy and so controversial measures will face political challenge.”

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

“09/01/2010 : ‘Peak Oil’ and the German Government : Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis : By Stefan Schultz…”

Hi Clavertonians,

My view on Peak Oil is that it is the tip of the iceberg – and I know that’s a totally inappropriate metaphor.

The art of petrogeology dictates that right on the heels of Peak Oil is Peak Natural Gas, and there is strong evidence for Peak Coal. In the US for example, I understand there is very little good hard anthracite left.

My position is that – since the “conventional” Fossil Fuels are depleting, there are strong moves towards the “unconventionals”, the shale gas, the deepwater oil, the smoky “half peat”, the Lake Baikal hydrates, the frozen subsea wastes of the Arctic [don't forget the Tar Sands !] and so on. People argue for “stop-gap” energy resources, but they carry with them huge risks not only to the Climate, but also the the Economy with the step-change in EROI/EROEI [Energy Return on Energy Invested - that is - how much energy do you need as input to get energy as output] and the “clean-up” costs.

My take on this is that pretending that Peak Conventionals doesn’t exist leaves a veil in front of most peoples’ minds – they believe in the Power of Technology to supply all their Fossil Fuel needs, now and into the future – it’s just that the actual location and form and dirtiness of these new resources will be different than in the past.

And here’s the rub – we need to encourage people to think about the “alternatives”, or rather, the “solutions”.

The only way forward is Renewable, Sustainable Energy resources, because of Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas and so on, and if people do not learn about that, they will not understand the privation for most people that will surely come with Peak Conventionals.

You can almost, but not quite, bypass the Climate Change problem (crisis, predicament, catastrophe) in arguing for the new energies based on a set of simple arguments about conventional Fossil Fuels. The risks of Peak Conventionals surely have to be linked in with the risks of abrupt Climate Chaos, in my mind, when finding ways to communicate and discuss policy options.

Do the energy companies have the right to expand into unconventionals, when this risks the general economic health of the industrialised countries (and the Climate) ? There are limits to what private enterprise should be permitted to innovate, we all accept that.

If the only way forward for Big Energy is yet more risk-prone marine options and very dirty, energy-wasting mixed sedimentary deposits, then people might need to know this in order to understand they need to politically ask for it to stop.

Just a thought (stream),

jo.

reply from Andrew Smith

“…You can almost, but not quite, bypass the Climate Change problem (crisis, predicament, catastrophe) in arguing for the new energies based on a set of simple arguments about conventional Fossil Fuels…”

Except that the peak conventional argument is also the argument used for unlocking EOR, shale, tar sands: all dirty, energy-inefficient, environmentally destructive, climate-disastrous …

So a peak of production in conventional fossil fuels cannot fix the climate on its own: it may make things worse, if it allows the expansion of unconventional fossil fuels.

Andrew

The whole thread of the conversation can be found here :-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/energy-discussion-group?pli=1

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/energy-discussion-group/browse_thread/thread/7d69724bad647d1f

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWsQscb6lfM

http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/application/pdf/100806_speaking_notes.pdf

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just held its regular half yearly conference to further the working parties of the Kyoto Protocol :-

http://unfccc.int
http://unfccc.int/2860.php

A number of Press commentators have been critical of proceedings, indicating that there has not been much progress at Bonn, and in fact the conference could show some ground having been lost :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9213b40-a180-11df-9656-00144feabdc0.html

“Hopes of early global warming deal cool : By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent : Published: August 6 2010 : Hopes that international climate change negotiations would produce a deal this year have been dashed as progress made at last year’s Copenhagen summit appeared to be reversed in the latest talks. Negotiations on a global warming treaty ended on Friday night amid acrimony and accusations of backsliding. Jonathan Pershing, US deputy special envoy for climate change, told reporters: “I came to Bonn hopeful of a deal in Cancún [where governments will hold a meeting in December], but at this point I am very concerned, as I have seen some countries walking back from progress made in Copenhagen.” Other people involved in the talks also spoke of their frustration that principles established at the Copenhagen summit – which failed to produce a full agreement but resulted in a partial accord accepted by the vast majority of governments – were reneged upon. The Copenhagen Accord marked the first time that both developed and big developing countries agreed to place limits on their greenhouse gas emissions. Developed countries committed themselves to absolute reductions by 2020, while developing nations including China, India and Brazil agreed to slow the rate of growth of their emissions. At the weeklong Bonn talks, some developing countries wanted to water down this agreement, by making industrialised countries’ obligations binding while the commitments of developing countries would be voluntary. That arrangement is not acceptable to many rich nations, which point out that the world’s main emerging economies are responsible for nearly 40 per cent of global emissions. China is the world’s biggest emitter, while India is rising up the table fast…”

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/338343,cancun-deal-no-closer.html

“Third round of climate change talks brings Cancun deal no closer : Posted : Fri, 06 Aug 2010 : By : dpa : Bonn – A third round of climate change talks in Bonn has brought little prospect of reaching a new deal at a UN summit in Mexico later this year, as a week of discussions ended on Friday without progress. The UN’s new climate change chief, Christiana Figueres, urged governments to “agree to further compromises” in the coming months in order to “deliver clear and unmistakeable progress” in the city of Cancun…Delegates in Bonn worked on new proposals for partial agreements to be reached in Cancun, but made no progress on binding targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, or on the shape of a future deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires 2012. “It’s hard to cook a meal without a pot, and governments are much closer now to actually making the pot,” Figueres said optimistically. “However governments also need to decide what exactly they are going to cook in the pot,” Figueres added. “To receive the desired outcome in Cancun they must radically narrow down the choices that are now on the table.” Individual agreements reached in Cancun could include issues such as forest protection, financial aid to help developing nations adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change as well as the delivery of low-carbon technologies to such countries. However, an overarching agreement would still be necessary to implement any decisions reached in Cancun. Such a deal is looking unlikely to emerge before the 2012 UN climate change summit in South Africa. Developing countries said a lack of transparency regarding the disbursement of emergency funds by rich countries, as agreed in Copenhagen, made it hard for them compromise on any future deals. US climate change legislation has stalled in the Senate, where it has met with fierce opposition, making it unclear to other states to what extent they can expect the US to cooperate on any new pledges…”

http://www.aolnews.com/story/climate-talks-appear-to-slip-backward/1192598?cid=7

“Climate talks appear to slip backward : By ARTHUR MAX : 6 August 2010 : BONN, Germany -Global climate talks appeared to have slipped backward after five days of negotiations in Bonn, with rich and poor countries exchanging charges of reneging on agreements they made last year to contain greenhouse gases. Delegates complained that reversals in the talks put negotiations back by a year, even before minimal gains were scored at the Copenhagen summit last December. “It’s a little bit like a broken record,” said European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger. “It’s like a flashback,” agreed Raman Mehta, of the Action Aid environment group. “The discourse is the same level” as before Copenhagen. The sharp divide between rich and poor nations over how best to fight climate change — a clash that crippled the Copenhagen summit — remains, and bodes ill for any deal at the next climate convention in Cancun, Mexico, which begins in November…Dessima Williams of Granada, who speaks for island states, charged that rich countries were “backsliding” on pledges of help to the poorest countries. Devastating floods in Pakistan, deadly fires and drought in Russia, a food crisis in West Africa — and reports that the first decade of this century was the hottest on record — provided a stark backdrop to the talks. “The situation in all of our countries is worsening,” Williams said. In Bonn, negotiating text doubled in length over the last week as countries put forward claims that had been deleted last year and delegations jockeyed for last-minute advantage before heading into the final stage of negotiations before Cancun…”

You have to remember that items “deleted” in Copenhagen were not agreed by all States. The so-called “Copenhagen Accord” which was only negotiated and “accorded to” by a small number of countries did not fully represent the Copenhagen 2009 conference positions of all the parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

The seesaw politicking between industrialised and developing countries will continue unless they can agree a “no regrets” shape of the “cooking pot” that Christiana Figueres metaphors.

What are the key issues ?

1. Poorer countries want richer countries to finance their Adaptation to Climate Change. Adaptation will include assistance with improving defences against rising instances of Climate Change-aggravated natural disasters such as floods and droughts. They don’t want aid. They want trade. They want the richer countries to accept their historic responsiblity for Climate Change, and pay their ecological debts.

2. Poorer countries want richer countries to finance their Mitigation strategy. Mitigation will include transfer of Green Energy, Renewable Energy technologies so that poorer countries can skirt High Carbon development paths, avoiding the history of High Emissions of richer countries. They don’t want aid. They want trade. They want the richer countries to accept that the poorer countries have spare, unused Carbon Rights that can be sold to the richer countries to offset the richer countries’ high emissions.

3. Poorer countries want richer countries to permit the poorer countries to continue Economic Development. They want such things as the clean water, electric light, good health services, education, industrial production and transportation that richer countries take for granted. They don’t want aid. They want trade. The poorer countries want the richer countries to fairly open up their markets to poorer country products – but currently the poorer country exports to richer countries are undervalued, for a variety of reasons.

4. Poorer countries want richer countries to make firm commitments to reducing richer country Greenhouse Gas Emissions. They don’t want aid. They want trade, but it won’t be physically possible to grow enough new or replacement forest in the poorer countries to permit the richer countries to carry on burning at such high rates.

Currently, the UNFCCC has passed around the hat for “donations” – pledges from the richer countries to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The sum of the collected reductions pledged does not add up to what the Science demonstrates is needed.

Under the policy of “I won’t if you won’t”, China is not prepared to commit to a legally binding emissions reduction trajectory if the United States of America does to commit to a legally binding emissions reduction trajectory. Token gestures will be offered, but no firm progress can be made.

The missing saucepan is Contraction and Convergence, the proposal from Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute. If the world could agree to move towards equal per person Greenhouse Gas Emissions rights under a Global Carbon Budget as determined by the Science, in an agreed period of Convergence, then the responsibilities of each country, richer or poorer, could become clear.

Under the Contraction and Convergence framework, everybody would have to do some work, but nobody would risk losing out, have to skim billions from their own Economy to send abroad in the form of Adaptation Aid, or re-assign billions in their domestic budgets to pay for Carbon Credits.

Moving money around, as currently proposed in the multi-billion dollar Mitigation and Adaptation Fund plans, would not necessarily solve any problems. We have numerous examples of money becoming worse than useless in this way – just look back over the history of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Some milestones are inevitable. The world has to spend a large amount of money in the next few decades on re-vitalising energy, regardless of any emissions commitments. It would take similar sums of money to revive the energy sector in a Low Carbon form, creating new opportunities for companies, community projects and engineers.

The world has to increase its “Carbon Sinks” rapidly over the next few decades – principally by stopping deforestation and forest degradation – and conversely reforesting and afforesting new areas. This will take monetary investment, but also reap wide economic paybacks, just like the Green Energy sector.

In order to shore up the global economy, and protect numerous sources of cheap raw resources, money needs to be spent on avoiding devastation from increasingly violent and frequent natural disasters associated with extreme weather. People who cannot farm cannot trade and cannot eat. People who are forced to migrate cannot farm reliably. People who lose crops due to wild weather cannot farm reliably. People in stressed environments cannot afford agrochemicals, so will need to farm organically, and harvest rainwater more efficiently.

Decarbonisation is urgent, and the High Emissions countries have to commit to it, deliberately and effectively. Carbon Trading cannot provide the richer countries with sufficient leeway in “offsets” to carry on emitting at the same rates as today.

If the richer countries start major decarbonisation now, it won’t cost them as much as it will do in a decade’s time.

It’s time to stop haggling and horsetrading over economic development and Carbon Finance, and who is a “developing country” and who isn’t, and get on with emissions reductions in the countries of major emissions origin – the industrialised/industrialising nations – the “major emitters” :-

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Major_Economies_Forum_on_Energy_and_Climate

“The 17 countries participating in the forum account for approximately 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100048905/we-need-to-talk-about-wind-farms/

“We need to talk about wind farms…” : By James Delingpole : July 28th, 2010

I know the cure for his error-riddled beliefs ! Send some real live energy engineers to his office to talk to him about their industry.

I’m sure the thought of several serious and strangely bearded, slightly obsessive individuals coming to actually talk to him about wind power might be a cue for him to actually start doing some research.

After all, it is well-known in energy circles that, from calculations by Dr Gregor Czisch, based on his extensive modelling, a Supergrid of Renewable power across Europe would bring the price of electricity down to a little under 5 eurocents a kilowatt hour.

Down ? That’s right, down :-

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/07/13/gregor-czisch-on-the-super-grid/

“The overall cost of electricity calculated for the base case scenario is 4.6 Euro cent/kWh. This can be compared to the 6-10 cents/kWh we are paying at the electricity market (EEX) for consumption shaped electricity today. This outcome is very encouraging: with a proper mix of renewable energies and a super-grid infrastructure embracing Europe, North Africa and smaller parts of Siberia, we can provide electricity to all countries at a lower cost than today, freeing the system from fossil or nuclear fuels and with no more substantial impact on the environment.”

What does James think ? James’ rather lame opinion is this : he thinks wind power “doesn’t work”. He’s rather dismissive about solar power too.

And his opinion is backed up by which credentials from which engineering academy, energy firm or technical university ?

He certainly hasn’t studied the Science of Climate Change. About Global Warming he writes : ” …it stopped in 1998. Global cooling is a much more imminent and serious problem…” This view of his is completely unsubstantiated by the data.

If a couple of strange-looking men appear at your door in the near future, James, it will because they are wind power engineers who want to take you up on your offer of talking about aeolian energy and how to harness it to generate electricity.