Category Archives: Environment

China, Economic, Environment, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations

United Nations: ‘Greenhouse gases have reached a record high’…

MORAL DUTY TO ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

It comes as a complete surprise to hear the United Nations announcing that greenhouse gases have reached a record high. This is nothing but disheartening given the increase in environmental awareness over the past decade when we consider the amount of effort that has been made by our own country and others to cut down on carbon emissions.

While strenuous and laborious efforts have been made by many developed countries in reducing their carbon footprints, these incremental shifts have not been enough to offset the vast industrialisation of emerging economies such as China, where growth is now so rapid that green and environmental considerations are far down the list of government priorities.

The Chinese, of course, want the amenity and luxury of what we in the West take for granted, but do not take kindly to being told by already developed nations that they must achieve this more ‘sustainably’. Veering away from the higher costs involved is perhaps understandable given the size of China – costs which would undoubtedly run into trillions if it were to rapidly convert to more sustainable programmes.

The net effect of the global greenhouse gas menace has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to warn that, without further remedial action, global temperatures will rise by 1.1°C by the end of the century, and sea levels will rise.

A cynic’s response would be to urge the UK government to abandon what would seem to be a hopeless cause. Realistically, though, we cannot allow ourselves the pleasure of such cynicism. The UN report is hardly an excuse to do nothing.

The assertion made that efforts by developed countries is not having any tangible effect is impossible to prove, given the number of extraneous variables involved. If we can do something extra to reduce carbon emissions, then we should at least try. One of the most compelling arguments for refusing to be deflected from reducing our greenhouse gas emissions that we have embarked upon is a moral one. How will we ever persuade others to act on climate change unless we continue to act on our own convictions?

Standard
Britain, Economic, Environment, Government, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Climate change and the need for a global price on carbon…

CLIMATE CHANGE

The recent findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are alarmingly clear. The environment is incontestably warming – evidenced through the fact that each of the past three decades has been successfully warmer than any since 1850 – and it is now beyond reasonable doubt that human activities are the cause.

The IPCC report, the fifth of its kind, whilst not containing much that is absolutely new, does offer a higher degree of certainty than the previous report delivered in 2007. It is now as sure that human beings are causing climate change (a probability of 95 per cent) as of cigarettes causing cancer. This is not the judgement of politicians or those campaigners with vested interests, but the consensus of thousands of scientists from all over the world. With scientists having considered all the available evidence, one can only hope that it will banish the scepticism of the ignorant.

The effects of the alterations in the Earth’s environment are already being felt, and not just in extreme weather patterns. The polar ice sheets are thinning, sea levels are rising and the oceans are increasingly acidic. But of concern is what is still to come. The likelihood that rising temperatures will stay below the 2°C threshold, above which changes become catastrophic, looks far less achievable.  Quantifying this is not difficult if we consider that we have already burned through 54 per cent of the ‘carbon budget’ calculated to equate to a spike of 2°C.

Without radical action, the inference implied is that the outlook is bleak. Yet, the politics of long-term, counter-factual disaster-avoidance are no easier now than they were in the past. Last week, The International Development Secretary made all the right noises, commenting that Britain must play its part, only to be countered by the Chancellor who judges the green agenda an unaffordable luxury in times of public austerity. Ed Miliband, talks of a good game, too, with his pledge of carbon-free electricity by 2030. However, his promise to freeze energy bills raises serious questions about where the investment will come from and has already spooked potential investors.

In America, John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State, responded to the IPCC in stirring terms… ‘This is yet another wake-up call: those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire.’ But while Mr Kerry went on to affirm that the U.S. is ‘deeply committed to leading on climate change’ Congress is in the midst of yet another budget fight, upon which Republicans are demanding that any new borrowing is conditional on the weakening of carbon-emission regulations.

The sceptics are certainly right when they say that the cost of mitigating climate change is high. But it is also unavoidable, and the longer we delay the greater the bill will be – both in terms of money and human lives. We must then, throw, all we have at the problem, from the incremental (such as better insulation for our houses) to the fundamental (re-thinking how industry and transport, for example, uses energy). And then there is the thorny diplomatic issues over who should pay – the rich countries that did the historical polluting, or emerging economies from the developing world that are now industrialising in double-quick time.

Ultimately, though, the solution lies with the market. Europe’s ground-breaking carbon trading scheme has floundered, and with its price being meaninglessly low it could be easy to write it off. In America, President Obama’s hopes for national cap-and-trade were dashed by the Senate, leaving only a smattering of regional initiatives. The Australian Prime Minister wants to repeal his predecessor’s ‘carbon tax’. Despite the teething problems, however, a global price on carbon is vital and must be a priority. With China and South Korea now putting together their own schemes, there is at least some progress being made in dealing with the climate change threat.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Energy, Environment, Government, Politics, Society, Technology

Fracking and drilling for shale gas…

SHALE TRAIL

Will the UK Government’s latest ‘dash for gas’ with fracking be a golden repeat of the North Sea oil boom or become a serious risk to public health and safety?

Opinion is divided between green opponents of attempts to cash in on the controversial resource and those proponents who argue vast deposits of gas below much of the country will dig Britain out of its energy crisis.

The debate has been stoked following claims in June by the British Geological Society that there could be more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas under the North of England alone.

At current predictions, around 10 per cent of this should be recoverable – enough to fuel the nation for about 40 years, according to supporters.

And last month Chancellor George Osborne unveiled some of the most generous tax breaks in the world to kick-start this energy revolution in Britain.

The Treasury says that taxation on shale gas will be cut from 62 per cent to just 30 per cent, which the Chancellor reckons could boost investment in the industry to £14 billion a year.

It won’t just be companies that will gain. Local communities in those areas where extraction takes place will scoop 1 per cent of production revenues, as well as £100,000 per fracking well.

The United States has already benefited from its own shale gas boom, relying far less on oil imports now and providing energy consumers with a much cheaper alternative. According to the ratings agency Moody’s, the shale gas boom in America has generated more than 1 million US jobs.

For investors, too, the potential is huge.

If fracking’s potential is as good as we’re being told it could be, there will soon be a surge in profitability, rising share prices and attractive returns on offer for shareholders of those firms leading the charge. While there remains a long road to travel yet in terms of legislation and testing, the excitement building in the City of London is tangible.

Companies with licences for British shale areas have understandably welcomed the tax break announcements by the Chancellor. Those set to benefit include Aim-listed IGas and Dart Energy, equipment-maker John Wood Group and British Gas-owner Centrica – which acquired 25 per cent of Cuadrilla Resources in June.

Of course, the environmental concerns have to be weighed against the commercial benefits. But even the most ardent green lobbyist must recognise that Britain is facing a crisis of epic proportions when it comes to security of energy supply.

The UK is already a net importer of gas. Any interruption in supplies risks hiking up domestic and business energy bills or even seeing some customers cut off. Our coal-fired plants are closing or already shuttered.

Meanwhile, nuclear energy is in disarray with no new plants likely for at least another decade. There is still no sign of agreement on the crucial strike price – the guaranteed minimum EDF would get for power generated at a new plant.

Green technologies like wind are as yet incapable of fulfilling all our everyday energy needs.

The introduction of a tax regime that levels the playing field for shale gas with small offshore oil and gas fields must surely be a welcome step in the right direction.

But the industry will need to be tightly regulated to minimise the chances of something going wrong. Lobbyists have legitimate concerns over the chemicals used in the fracking process contaminating local water supplies, and the anecdotal evidence elsewhere that drilling for shale gas can increase the risk of earthquakes.

Drilling and fracturing must be strictly controlled. Three government agencies, plus the local authority, will have to sign-off on every project. Environmental impact assessments will be necessary along with permits to be agreed before fracking begins.

Standard