Cutting the Carbon

"It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

"Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

"But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.

This list of UK climate scientists backing the underlying science of manmade climate change is impressive. And this piece by Dr Vicky Pope at the Met Office which was published in The Times is worth reading:

"For Britain’s climate science community, the past few months have come as a profound shock. First we had the so-called “climategate” scandal, where e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) showed apparent attempts to thwart Freedom of Information requests.

"More recently we have had a series of reports suggesting that “key” sections of assessments of climate change science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were in error.

"It all makes a profound contrast to the situation up until last November when the global consensus on climate change science seemed stronger than ever. For scientists, climate research was based on powerful computer models backed by a wealth of real-world evidence. Nothing was certain — in science it seldom is. But we could say with a high degree of certainty — and people believed us when we said it — that the world was warming and the consequences were likely to be serious.

"What has changed over the past few months? Certainly not the science.

The Liberal Democrat shadow Climate Change and Energy Secretary, Simon Hughes MP, this week vowed to become the first politician to live in a Passivhaus home so energy efficient it wouldn’t need central heating. Mr Hughes, who was speaking before a packed audience of planners, building control officers and architects at the inaugural Camden and Islington Passivhaus conference*, called on councils to introduce the Passivhaus standard into their planning rules.

download the conference presentations here

The Passivhaus standard was created by German engineers and architects more than 20 years ago and is now widely used for building and refurbishment in Europe. Thick walls, triple glazed windows and a heat recovery system form the basis of a Passivhaus building. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) recently said the only way to reach zero carbon buildings (Level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes) was by using the Passivhaus standard for energy efficiency.

This story is really quite worrying. According to Professor Igor Semiletov, who leads the International Siberian Shelf Study (ISSS) at the University of Alaska, methane leakage from the Arctic seabed appears to have dramatically increased.

Semiletov's team told the BBC they had recorded methane levels in the atmosphere around the region 100 times higher than normal background levels, and in some cases 1,000 times higher. Methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but 33 times if you include its indirect effect on tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapour. The Arctic methane was formerly trapped in water ice (methane hydrates), but global warming, which is far stronger at the poles than elsewhere, is causing it to melt.

A number of people have tried to suggest that this week's snowy weather is proof that global warming is a myth. The Conservative MP Ann Winterton was rightly jeered when she said this in the House of Commons. She's quite wrong, as are those at the other end of the belief spectrum who claim the cold snap is evidence that the Gulf Stream has suddenly stopped.

Here's what the Met Office has to say about the current snowfalls: "In most winters, and certainly those in the last 20 years or so, our winds normally come from the south-west. This means air travels over the relatively warm Atlantic and we get mild conditions in the UK. However, over the past three weeks the Atlantic air has been ‘blocked’ and cold air has been flowing down from the Arctic or the cold winter landmass of Europe.

"The cold temperatures in the UK have also been accompanied by snow. This is because areas of low pressure have been running in from the north-east, tracking across the North Sea and picking up moisture along the way. When they come over the land, the water falls as snow due to the cold temperatures."

It's not a literary masterpiece nor is it easy to read, but might it be the most important book ever written? Dr James Hansen, the NASA scientist who has done so much over the last 30 years to try to warn a sceptical United States about global warming, attempts to explain why most climate predictions are understatements.

Here are four key thoughts from "Storms of my grandchildren"...

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is a report which was published to coincide with the UN Climate Change Conference in December 2009. It is aimed at providing policymakers with a synthesis of the latest climate science published since the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report serves as an interim evaluation of the evolving science midway through an IPCC cycle. The last IPCC report was published in 2007 and the next one is due in 2013. The Copenhagen Diagnosis was written by 26 authors, many of whom were lead authors of chapters in the 2007 IPCC report.

See here for the most significant recent findings:

Copenhagen was a catastrophic fiasco. Here’s why:

• The US refused to accept responsibility for its historic emissions which amount to more than 25% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
• The host nation Denmark tried to bounce developing nations into dropping the Kyoto Protocol, under which the developed countries still have emissions reductions commitments
• Denmark was also caught trying to pull together a secret deal struck with only a few rich countries
• The EU failed to lead from the front by offering to increase its emissions reduction target (from 20% to 30%) and is still only offering about half of what scientists say we need by 2020 (a 40% reduction on pre-industrial levels)
• A leaked UN analysis showed that developing countries were offering higher emissions cuts than developed countries
• The money offered to developing countries was woefully inadequate and turned out to be mostly already promised funds or loans
• The rich countries were quick to blame China for the impasse but unwilling to take adequate responsibility for the mess that they have caused
• Barack Obama flew in to universal acclaim but offered nothing new to break the logjam and flew out before the end saying a successful deal had been reached when it hadn’t and still hasn’t

One of the most important climate change campaigners in the US, Dr James Hansen of NASA, was in London this week for an Environment Agency conference. It was a privilege to hear him speak because he's been the only significant voice in a public position in the US speaking out about climate change over the last eight years. The Bush Administration and NASA both tried to shut him up, but he refused to stay silent.

Two years ago Dr Hansen said: "We have at most 10 years - not 10 years to decide upon action, but 10 years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions." He now believes we have to have to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to under 350 parts per million. The problem is we’re at 385ppm at the moment and rising by 2ppm a year.

Most people now realise that the challenge in terms of housing stock and carbon emissions is not the new buildings but the old ones. 80-90% of our homes will still be standing in 2050. We therefore have to retro-fit them with energy efficiency and energy generation measures if we are to have any chance of hitting the government's new national 80% emissions reduction target. Local authorities have the ability to provide a solution so long as they concentrate not on eco bling like solar panels but on the boring stuff like insulation and double glazing.

At last there is a real debate in high places about how we need to eat less meat to reduce carbon emissions. The highly respected Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has now pitched in saying: “meat production accounts for about 18% of the world’ s total greenhouse emissions so among options for mitigating climate change changing diets is something one should consider.”

It's good to see that Gordon Brown has apparently ruled out direct cash help for fuel bills and will instead concentrate on energy efficiency measures for homes which is by far the more sustainable solution. But there is another answer - tax energy profligacy not profits.