Green Providers and Carbon Sinks

This is a first for the Mabinogogiblog - a guest article from Gary Robertshaw
of The Green Providers Directory which seems to be a useful all-in-one-place portal for buying green products.

I have a different take on Gary's message, and my critique is at the foot.


Science fiction and pragmatism



Reading through some scientific papers recently I was struck by the many, well-intentioned ideas for tackling climate change. These included solar arrays in space beaming back microwave energy to Earth, burying charcoal, pumping iron into the oceans and various ingenious devices designed to block out the sun’s rays.



Whilst not questioning the need to seek new and innovative ideas to halt climate change, I couldn’t help but think that they were missing a more fundamental point. That is, they assume that we can carry on as we are and that technology will somehow get us out of our self-created mess. The reality is that it can’t - it’s like trying to build a perpetual motion machine. The planet’s capacity to provide for an unsustainably large and growing population of increasingly consumptive people is inherently limited. Beyond this point no amount of technology can fix the problem. That’s not an opinion from a ‘green-minded’ person – it’s a statement of fact.



Ironically, the solutions are already at hand and require no complex science or new technology. However, like an alcoholic who wants to give up drinking, it firstly requires a recognition that a problem exists. Analogously, governments need to understand that our volatile, oil-dependent capitalist structures cannot survive in the longer-term. Depletion of fossil fuels, increasing consumption and competition for scarce resources will inevitably lead to conflict and market collapse at some point in the future. Whilst this may seem self-evident, it remains the case that our entire economic model and cherished economic growth are predicated on this unsustainable platform – increasing output from a limited source.



In contrast, a shift towards a more sustainable economy, greater energy efficiency and investment in renewable energy would not only introduce greater stability into the markets but would also create many new job opportunities in the ‘green’ sector and associated spin-off businesses.



However, this process of change needs to be accelerated with meaningful investment and genuine commitment as progress remains slow. To put that in perspective, today less than 2% of the UK ’s energy comes from renewable energy sources. We are jostling with Malta and Luxembourg for the accolade of being bottom of the EU league table. The UK has potentially the largest offshore wind resource in the world. Some estimates put this at enough to power the UK several times over (source: Friends of the Earth). Other relatively simple measures could potentially have a huge impact on energy consumption. For example, legislation to remove standby buttons on electrical devices, banning standard light bulbs and patio heaters, etc….



In parallel, the global population needs to be stabilised. The Earth simply cannot support over 10 billion people without something giving. Whilst populations in some European countries are actually declining, this is being offset by large increases in countries such as India and Nigeria . This is an often ignored and politically sensitive aspect of sustainability policy yet it is one of the most significant problems we face, requiring a co-ordinated, global approach to the problem. Unfortunately, population control has traditionally been regarded as a national or religious issue rather than a global issue; consequently assistance from developed nations in the areas of women’s education, empowerment and birth control has often been inadequate.



What we need is not more science fiction type technology but a sober, concerted effort to tackle the core issues in a pragmatic and effective manner.

In my view, it is not a choice between CO2 reduction OR CO2 sinks.
We have to go for CO2 reduction and CO2 sinks.If we magically cut our CO2 emissions to zero today, we would still need to stimulate Earth's ailing carbons sinks tomorrow, because we are at the stage now when positive feedback loops are already in play, which will cause accelerating global warming even at present CO2 levels.

Try this thought experiment: two households, both identical in numbers of persons, energy usage and both with optimal energy conservation measures. One gives about £150 per annum to plant trees in an ecologically and socially sensitive way; the other does not. Who does less damage, the one who plants, or the one who does not plant?

Clearly, trees have virtues of their own, irrespective of their carbon sink properties. The provide for biodiversity, they modify microclimate, they provide shelter, food and forage, and also a useful and beautiful building material, wherein their carbon is locked for as long as the wooden structure lasts - so the better the quality of the structure, the longer it lasts.

Lastly, forests nourish our spirits.

So we should cut our carbon footprint and stimulate carbon sinks.

Feed in tariff : HMG logical challenge

Dear David

Since feed-in tariffs are roughly 100 times more successful than the UK system, and since the overarching imperative is that we must move from carbon to renewables, if the liberalised energy market structure is the block, then it logically follows that the liberalised energy market structure must either be replaced, or must adapt itself so that it can support a feed in tariff.

Correct me if there is a fault in my logic.

Best regards

Richard Lawson

.
Enquiry Enquiry (. E) IMSV01 wrote:

Dear Richard,

Thank you for e-mail.

Feed-in tariffs are fixed price contracts backed by Government used in some European countries such as Germany.  We recognise the success of feed-in tariffs in some countries as a means of promoting renewable distributed generation technologies.  However, a feed-in tariff is not appropriate for our liberalised energy market structure.
 
We use the Renewables Obligation (RO), a market-based mechanism, to drive forward deployment of renewable electricity generation.  Along with exemption from the climate change levy, the Renewables Obligation will be worth up to £1b p.a. to the renewables industry by 2010.  Since the introduction of the RO in 2002 the amount of eligible generation has more than doubled from 1.8% of UK electricity to 4.4% at the end of 2006. More information on the RO is available on our website at http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/policy/renewables-obligation/what-is-renewables-obligation/page15633.html.
 
We are also taking steps to ensure that exported electricity is adequately rewarded, as outlined in the Energy White Paper, as well as making it easier for microgenerators to access renewables obligation certificates, or ROCs. Ofgem are currently examining how green homes can benefit more from the prices paid to them when they sell electricity back to the grid.  All 6 big electricity suppliers, and some smaller ones, now offer an "export reward" to microgenerators.
 
This is part of a whole package of measures aimed at developing a sustainable microgeneration industry, brought together in the Microgeneration Strategy that the Government published in 2006 (http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/sustainable/microgeneration/strategy/page27594.html).  These include the incorporation of microgeneration in the next phase of the energy efficiency commitment, removal of barriers within the planning system and a target for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016.

Regards,

David
BERR Enquiry Unit,
Phone: 020 7215 5000
Fax: 020 7215 0105



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Lawson
Sent: 28 November 2007 20:31
Subject: Feed-in tariff in Energy Bill


Dear Malcolm Wicks,

I am writing to ask you to introduce a feed-in tariff to boost demand for domestic micro-generation technologies and to ensure the necessary powers to establish such a scheme are included in the forthcoming Energy Bill.

A recent report for Friends of the Earth by Dr Brenda Boardman of Oxford University has found that in order to reduce the UK's household carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, every home in the UK will need to have some form of small scale renewable heat or electricity generation installed.

A study by the Energy Saving Trust for your department suggested that 30-40% of the UK's electricity demands could be met through micro-generation technologies by 2050. This massive transformation will not be possible without a feed-in tariff to make installation of the technology far more cost effective.

Micro-generation from homes and communities could also play a significant role in helping the UK to meet the European target of generating 20 per cent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Currently homes that generate their own renewable electricity and export it to the grid are paid a substantially lower price than the cost of electricity used in the home. A feed-in tariff would work by guaranteeing homeowners and landlords who want to invest in micro-generation technologies, a long term premium price for their electricity. This would transform the market for these technologies and act as incentive for many more people to take them up.

Many European countries have adopted a feed-in tariff system to support both large and small scale renewables with considerable success. Since enacting a feed-in tariff in 2000, Germany now generates 12 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources and employs 214,000 people in the renewable energy sector.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee of MPs recently called for a feed-in tariff to be introduced to encourage the take-up of micro-generation technologies as part of a 'Citizens Agenda' on climate change and the Governments own energy regulator, Ofgem have specifically asked the government to look at how a feed-in tariff could work in the UK.

Please take action to support the introduction of a feed-in tariff without delay.

You can contact me by email or at the following address:


Yours sincerely,

Richard Lawson

George Monbiot Hates Trees Shock

Went last night to hear George Monbiot and speakers from Oxfam and World Development Movement talk about climate change. Packed audience, George his usual brilliant self; message being that its the same the whole world over, its the poor what gets the blame, its the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.

Glacier melts in India are causing floods. When glaciers gone, they get droughts. Poor countries suffer for our CO2 emissions.

Yes. Action needed. Government is sucking its thumb while blowing its own trumpet, not making a good job of either. They need to take up Contraction and Convergence.

Where I dsagree with George is his opposition against planting trees. He does the tired old either cut down CO2 or plant trees argument (I have been doing both, it is possible to do both you know, bit like walking along and holding a conversation), and the "bad monoculture of eucalyptus displacing communities" (well, help communities to plant useful native trees that they want), and the Indulgences argument (buy your way out of guilt) which really gets up my nose. Paying money to priests so you can sin is one thing, planting trees to mop up our emissions is quite another.

Here's a nice link about trees.

Carbon Offset Debate goes satirical

The debate on climate offsetting continues, this time on CheatNeutral
They are heavy on the guilt-offsetting objection to carbon offsets.

Try this thought experiment:

2 people heat identical homes with identical gas condensing boilers, both fully insulated, using identical amounts of gas.

One pays a green enterprise to plant indigenous diverse woodlands locally, in such a way that the local community benefits. He plants so much that the weight of usable timber (i.e. the boles, and discounting the firewood from the branches which will be recycled into domestic heating energy) produced in 100 years time will be equivalent to the carbon that he has used to heat his house.

The other does not, because he thinks this is a silly and un-green thing to do.

Q: Which of these 2 has done more harm to the planet?
A: The one who does not plant the trees, because trees, if planted with due regard for the local community and ecology, are an asset to the locality and the planet.