Solar power is cheaper than nuclear

The Holy Grail of the solar industry — reaching grid parity — may no longer be a distant dream. Solar may have already reached that point, at least when compared to nuclear power, according to a new study by two researchers at Duke University.

It’s no secret that the cost of producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years. A PV system today costs just 50 percent of what it did in 1998. Breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing combined with an increase in demand and production have caused the price of solar power to decline steadily. At the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned.

The result of these trends: “In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina,” say study authors John Blackburn and Sam Cunningham. “Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.”

Source: The Energy Collective

It also aims to reduce electricity use in selected schools and hospitals by between 5 and 10 percent, and to reduce the provincial product-to-carbon emission ratio by 10 percent, also by this date, as part of its climate-change mitigation efforts.

Source: IOL

Should we worry about engineering algae for biofuels?

The Great American Algae Rush is in full swing.

Dozens of companies and hundreds of scientists are working hard to engineer algae to produce green — literally and figuratively — fuel.

The endeavor is at the crossroads of energy and science, and the trend is spreading worldwide.Why? Because some algae strains can produce 10 or more times more fuel per acre than the corn that is used to make ethanol, or the soybeans used to make biodiesel.

Better still, you can grow algae on arid land and in brackish water, which avoids competing with food production, unlike the corn and soybeans that coat much of the Midwest’s farmland.

Best of all: algae consume carbon dioxide, combating greenhouse gas emissions.

But a new profile of the industry in the New York Times demonstrates that this technology has its share of pitfalls.

For one, efforts to engineer and manipulate the organisms has environmentalists concerned because algae are the base of the marine food chain.

For example: Screw up and over-engineer a strain, and suddenly you have an organism that’s out of whack with the biosphere, stripping water of its oxygen and harming fish — and maybe humans — in the process.

Source: Simply Green

25% solar by 2050

The International Energy Agency (IEA) presented two new solar energy analyses in Valencia, Spain this week, a Solar Photovoltaic Energy Technology Roadmap and a Concentrating Solar Power Technology Roadmap.

The key finding from these is that 20-25% of global electricity production could be from solar energy by 2050.

In a blog post on our sister site, One Block Off the Grid, I just discussed how the United States and how rooftop solar fit into this. Below, mostly from the reports themselves, is a short discussion of what government’s role in all of this needs to be.

Source: Simply Green

Thousands of people participating in Earth Hour will switch of their lights.

Tomorrow, at 8.30pm, thousands of people across the UK and maybe a billion across the world will take part in Earth Hour.

It’ll look impressive, no doubt. The big switch-off will make the news. But so what? We know that just one hour, even on this global scale, won’t in itself save energy or reduce emissions in any significant way. This is a giant photo opportunity – eye-catching and symbolic, yes – but how can it really make a difference? More importantly, why would a science-based organisation like WWF believe this is worth the effort?

I think there are many reasons, but there are three worth focusing on.

Firstly, climate change is a threat truly global in its nature. It demands global attention, commitment and action. In December last year, as the climate talks in Copenhagen came to a stuttering finish, many in the UK felt disappointed and disillusioned. But talking to my colleagues working in areas of the world already feeling the effects of climate change, emotions ran much higher. Anger and disbelief best describes what nations like the Maldives, Bangladesh and Tanzania felt on seeing the failure of world leaders to take collective responsibility. They are seeing the effects of climate change now. It is, for countries in their position, no theory for debate or distant possibility.

As I write, more than 125 countries have confirmed their participation in Earth Hour, almost 40 more than in 2009, including 56 national capitals and eight of the 10 most populated metropolises on the planet. “Earth Hour” has appeared more than 30m times online in the past 24 hours and is currently one of the top 10 trending topics on Twitter. While the UK and the US (two major global emitters) may have seen an increase in sceptical noise on climate change in recent months, I feel confident that globally, this is no waning movement.

Secondly, politicians here in the UK need a mandate to act. Unlike elsewhere in the world, our main political parties all understand the threat of climate change and say that they are committed, albeit with different policies and approaches, to dealing with the problem. However, Copenhagen largely failed and leaders need us, the voters, to keep up a demand for action.

This close to a general election, there’s no better time to make a big, bold, collective statement that as a public, we expect leadership from our next government, whatever its hue. Schools, cathedrals, large companies, small businesses, pubs, clubs, councils all add up to a pretty comprehensive slice of our population and just this week, under pressure from Earth Hour participants, supporters and many committed MPs, the Palace of Westminster and 10 Downing Street joined the Senedd in Cardiff and the Scottish parliament in Holyrood and signed up to switch off. In the US, 31 state governors are supporting Earth Hour. The people who matter do notice.

Lastly, Earth Hour is for me a brilliant analogy for how we can get to a solution. Climate change will demand big, global ambition from world leaders – the “landmarks” of our political landscape. Just as lights go off at Christ the Redeemer, the Empire State Building and the Forbidden City, we need Presidents Lula da Silva, Obama and Hu Jintao and many others to work together in order to get a binding commitment to reduce emissions.

A low-carbon future will demand small changes from all of us at home, like the families taking part in Earth Hour, perhaps eating their dinner by candlelight. Better insulation, more efficient heating, using public transport and the products we choose to consume can all have impact on the energy we use and reduce our personal impact on our environment.

Earth Hour is not about a world without light, power and the great human achievements that keep us warm and safe. It is absolutely a celebration of their positive role; we want a bright future in which the lights stay on, drawing on forms of energy and innovative technologies that have a lesser impact on people and nature around the world. As the 10:10 campaign has shown alongside Earth Hour, collective action can have an impact.

We know that a single hour, once a year is not enough. But also we know that there is no greater, global call to action available at the flick of a switch. We firmly believe Earth hour is worth it.

Source: Guardian

What will you do by candle-light during Earth Hour?

This Saturday night, hundreds of millions of people will turn their lights off in a symbolic gesture for WWF’s Earth Hour. Setting aside the question of why they’re at home on Saturday night, I wonder if those millions have actually considered what they’re going to do while the lights off, aside from firing up another light in the shape of the telly or another screen?

Some participants, like Malcolm Handoll in Orkney, clearly have commendable ideas already, such as “games, candlelit dinners, chatting with friends around a fire, a walk in the park”. But as a public service for anyone who’s signed up without a plan, here are some suggestions on things to do in the dark.

One bright suggestion from the environmentguardian.co.uk team is making shadow puppets on the wall with a torch. I recommend a cracking book I received at Christmas on this art, Hand shadows to be thrown upon a wall, a Ronseal slither of a title written by a chap called Henry Bursill in 1860 to entertain his kids. Hours of fun – or ten minutes, at least.

Other ideas from Guardian towers included looking at the stars – hopefully easier with Earth Hour’s temporary drop in light pollution – meditating, going for a run, doing press-ups or, like Malcolm, having a candlelit dinner. My own suggestions are heading to the high ground in a city to watch the lights go out in a kind of inverse Fireworks night, getting a boardgame out (Scrabble on a table still beats the iPhone version), or going to bed early for sleep and sex (Care2 suggests tantric, but is an hour really long enough for that?).

You could also be very retro and go in for a bout of storytelling, as some people recall doing during the 1970′s power cuts, or take WWF up on its idea of a candlelit quiz on animals, green living and other topics. Elsewhere on the web, Suitably Desparing’s blogger is weighing up listening to a wind-up radio against seeing Edinburgh’s landmarks, while Vancouver’s magazine Granville has a good roundup of ideas from last year, including the obvious one I’ve missed so far – making music.

That’s the limit of my imagination, social circle and web trawling; what are your, probably better, ideas for things to do in the dark this weekend?

Source: Guardian

Rajendra Pachauri: Scientific knowledge of climate change is 'something we distort and trivialise at our peril'.

The head of the UN’s climate change panel has accused politicians and prominent climate sceptics of “a new form of persecution” against scientists who work on global warming.

In a strongly worded article published on the Guardian website, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hit out at those in “positions of power and responsibility” who try to portray “dedicated scientists as climate criminals”.

Pachauri also accused critics who have used an error in the 2007 IPCC report to question the scientific basis of climate change of “an act of astonishing intellectual legerdemain [sleight of hand]“. Scientific knowledge of climate change, he says, is “something we distort and trivialise at our peril”.

Pachauri’s comments come after repeated attacks on the credibility of the IPCC following the high-profile discovery of a mistake about melting Himalayan glaciers in its report. The mistake has prompted calls for Pachauri to resign and forced the IPCC to convene an international panel of experts to review the way it operates.

In the Guardian article, Pachauri writes: “Thousands of scientists from across the world have worked diligently and in an objective and transparent manner to provide scientific evidence for action to meet the growing challenge of climate change. To obscure this reality through misplaced emphasis on an error in a nearly 3,000-page rigorous document would be unfortunate.”

He adds: “Even more unfortunate is the effort of some in positions of power and responsibility to indict dedicated scientists as ‘climate criminals’. I sincerely hope the world is not witnessing a new form of persecution of those who defy conventional ignorance and pay a terrible price for their scientifically valid beliefs.”

This appears to be a reference to James Inhofe, a US senator and long-standing climate sceptic, who last month called for a criminal investigation of climate scientists. Inhofe published a minority report from the Senate committee on environment and public works that claimed climate scientists involved with a controversy over emails from the University of East Anglia released online “violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws”.

The report named 17 US and British climate experts as “key players” in the affair and highlighted their roles in preparing IPCC reports. The list included Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and Peter Stott, a leading expert at the Met Office.

Michael Mann, a US scientist at Penn State University, who is on the list, said: “I think the following quote characterises the situation best: ‘Continuous research by our best scientists … may be made impossible by the creation of an atmosphere in which no man feels safe against the public airing of unfounded rumours, gossip, and vilification.’ The quote wasn’t made during the last few months. It was made by US president Harry S Truman in 1948, in response to politically motivated attacks against scientists associated with the dark era of McCarthyism.”

Mann added: “I fear that is precisely the sort of atmosphere that is being created, and sure, it impacts research. The more time scientists have to spend fending off these sorts of attacks and dealing with this sort of nonsense, the less time is available to them to actually do science, and to push the forefront of our knowledge forward. Perhaps that is the intent?”

Pachauri says it was “to be expected” that the critical choices that climate change asks of human society “would pose challenges for some stakeholders and sectors of the economy”.

He added: “But to ignore the IPCC’s scientific findings would lead to impacts that impose larger costs than those required today to stabilise the Earth’s climate.”

Source: Guardian

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China’s game

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Source: Guardian

Pope to Copenhagen: Saving Environment as Crucial as Fighting Terrorism

Benedict XVI’s message for the Catholic Church’s annual World Day of Peace on Jan. 1 does not mention the Copenhagen Climate Summit by name, but the target audience could not have been more obvious, nor the framing of his appeal more loaded for both foes and critics of global warming.

At the very top of the 3,800-word document, titled “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” the pope says the preservation of “creation”– that is, the natural environment that is a gift from God –”has now become essential for the pacific coexistence of mankind.”

“Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace and to authentic and integral human development — wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights. Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect — if not downright misuse — of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us.”

That’s a powerful linkage, and as Vatican-watcher John Allen noted, the title of the document was a deliberate play on the motto of Benedict’s predecessor, Pope Paul VI, who said “If you want peace, work for justice.”

The framework of “environmental protection-as-security issue” is not one you’ll see either side in the climate wars citing very often, though it could have appeal to neo-cons who tend to be global warming skeptics. Unfortunately, they will likely be put off by other aspects of the document.

For example, Benedict takes climate change and its human-based causes as fact, and his message clearly reinforces his growing reputation as the “green pope” who presents sharp challenges to those who do not support efforts to curb greenhouse gases and sweeping measures to protect rain forests and other natural resources.

He argues, for instance, that economic development must include safeguards for the environment, even if they are costly, and he calls for “a world-wide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.” Moreover, “technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency.”

Solar power is crucial to averting environmental catastrophe and developing a just world, Benedict writes, while nations must also work for “progressive disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons.”

Source: Politics Daily

Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summi

The Copenhagen climate conference COP15 resulted in a document called the Copenhagen Accord. It was hammered out by a small group of countries – including the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas polluters, China and the US. The conference as a whole did not adopt the accord, but voted to “take note” of it.

Was the summit a success?

This depends on your point of view.

On the positive side, the Copenhagen Accord, for the first time, unites the US, China and other major developing countries in an effort to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol did not achieve this – it imposed no obligations on developing countries to restrain the growth of their emissions, and the US never acceded to it. The accord also says developed countries will aim to mobilise $100bn per year by 2020, to address the needs of developing countries.

On the other hand, the summit did not result in a legally binding deal or any commitment to reach one in future. The accord calls on countries to state what they will do to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but these will not be legally binding commitments. Furthermore, there is no global target for emissions reductions by 2050 and the accord is vague as to how its goals – such as the $100bn of funds annually for developing countries – will be achieved.

What are the key points of the Copenhagen Accord?

• A commitment “to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2C” and to achieve “the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”

• Developed countries must make commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and developing countries must report their plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions to the UN by 31 January 2010

• New and additional resources “approaching $30bn” will be channelled to poorer nations over the period 2010-12, with an annual sum of $100bn envisaged by 2020

• A Copenhagen Green Climate Fund will be established under the UN convention on climate change, to direct some of this money to climate-related projects in developing countries

• Projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries will be subject to international monitoring if they are internationally funded

• Programmes to provide developing countries with financial incentives to preserve forests – REDD and REDD-plus – will be established immediately

• Implementation of the accord will be reviewed in 2015 and an assessment will be made of whether the goal of keeping global temperature rise within 2C needs to be strengthened to 1.5C

Which countries backed the accord?

The essential points of the deal were brokered by US President Barack Obama with representatives of China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Mr Obama also consulted with the leaders of France, Germany and the UK. Most countries at the conference gave it their support, but some countries were resolutely opposed, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba.

Why did the Copenhagen summit take place at all?

The majority of the world’s governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world.

Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind’s influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures.

In 2007, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.

The Copenhagen talks marked the end of that two-year period.

Why is a new global agreement needed?

The Copenhagen talks sat within the framework of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol.

But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC.

In particular, the Kyoto Protocol’s targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.

Negotiations therefore began on new treaty that was bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement, and the plan was that these would conclude in Copenhagen.

Why is climate change happening – and is it the same as global warming?

The Earth’s climate has always changed naturally over time.

For example, variability in our planet’s orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods.

According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change.

The principal cause is burning fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas.

This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which – added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere – acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun’s energy and warming the Earth’s surface.

Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute.

Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world – “global warming” – this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on.

This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label “climate change” – sometimes more accurately called “anthropogenic (human-made) climate change”.

Will the Copenhagen deal solve climate change?

The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times.

In some parts of the world this is already having impacts – and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable.

Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed.

Source: BBC News