Paul Taylor (Taylor Keogh Communications) on +44 (0)20 3170 8465 / +44 (0)7966 782611
MARINE CURRENT TURBINES REVEALS DETAILS OF SEAGEN’S GENERATING PERFORMANCE
Tuesday, November 3rd 2009
Lisbon, Portugal: Speaking today at the Lisbon International Ocean Power Conference, Peter Fraenkel, Technical Director and co-founder of Marine Current Turbines, the Bristol company that designed and developed SeaGen, the world’s only commercial scale tidal stream turbine, told delegates that SeaGen is running at full power and fully automatically, exactly as planned.
Peter Fraenkel said: “We are delighted with SeaGen’s performance. It is running reliably and delivering more energy than originally expected in an extremely aggressive environment. It should be remembered it is being driven by a wall of water 27m deep, similar to the height of the Tower of London, that surges back and forth with every tide through the StrangfordNarrows in Northern Ireland at speeds of up to 10 miles per hour. We are getting more energy than expected mainly because the resource is more energetic than originally predicted during earlier surveys.”
SeaGen has already delivered over 350MWh of power into the Northern Irish electricity grid. The twin generators typically produce an average of 5MWh of electricity during the 6¼ hours of each ebb and each flood tide. This is enough energy to meet the average electricity needs for 1500 UK homes.
The SeaGen turbine, with its twin 16m diameter rotors, is officially accredited by OFGEM as a “UK power station”, the first tidal power system to secure this. It is earning revenue from the sale of the power that is being generated and it also earns ROCs, the Renewable Obligation Certificates that are awarded for clean renewable generation.
Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines, commented: “We are delighted to have moved on from the initial period of commissioning and testing to demonstrating that this is a practical method of generation that really does do exactly what it says on the label. It is a hugely significant milestone for the company to be selling electricity consistently and earning revenue.”
Although SeaGen has been operational for most of this year, it was not until September that consent was given to operate it without having to have environmental scientists (marine mammal observers) on board and onshore. This was an initial requirement under the licensing arrangements to ensure that SeaGen did not adversely affect the marine mammals that are a protected feature of the local waters and restricted SeaGen’s uninterrupted running. However extensive experience gained so far suggests the seals and porpoises are not at any significant risk and as a result SeaGen is now permitted to operate unattended and by remote control, as was originally intended.
For the time being. an operator onshore will continue to monitor a sonar image of the passing flow which can show up any seal that ventures too close to the rotors, and the operator has the facility to stop the machine. As confidence and the body of evidence grows, it is expected that full running will be permitted in the near future.
Martin Wright added: “Building on our experience in Strangford Lough, the team at MCT are working to deploy tidal turbine arrays in UK and overseas waters, and we are working on new scaled-up developments from SeaGen that promise to generate power at a lower cost. The expectation is that this radical new technology can be developed within five to ten years to make a significant contribution to our future energy needs. Given suitable market incentives, SeaGen demonstrates that marine renewable energy is at the cusp of forming the basis for a new UK industry with considerable world-wide export potential.”
Notes to Editors:
Marine Current Turbines Ltd (www.marineturbines.com) is based in Bristol, England. The company was established in 2000 and its principal corporate shareholders include BankInvest, ESB International, EDF Energy, Guernsey Electricity and Triodos Bank. In September 2009, MCT was ranked the world’s top tidal energy company in The Guardian/Clean Tech Global 100 survey, and in June 2009 won Renewable Energy Developer of the Year in the UK Renewable Energy Association Annual Awards.
Today in New York world leaders are sitting down to discuss their plans to fight climate change. Attention is likely to focus on Chinese President Hu Jintao, who is expected to unveil stringent new plans to tackle global warming. China, out of all the developing countries it is agreed have moved quickly. Yes indeed they do have a high level of emissions hover they are taking steps and investing in renewable energy and talking openly about emissions and what they want to do.
With Just 76 days left before Copenhagen the pressure is on for global leaders to come to agreement.
The cacophony of noise from politicians, pressure groups, and the public is rising. However the real challenge has not changed over the last ten months. The divide between developed and developing countries and the level of CO2 each must cut still remains the main bargaining point.
In the Daily Telegraph Lord Stern Summarises the situation as a "deadlock consists of an approach by rich countries which collectively involves inadequate emissions reductions and unwillingness to make financial commitments without being able to approve the plans for developing countries to move to low-carbon growth. And on the part of developing countries, an unwillingness to make commitments on reductions without a clear indication of financial support from the rich countries, together with an unwillingness to have their own plans for low-carbon development determined by, or subject to the approval of, the rich countries".
Writing in the Guardian Ed Miliband, appeals for the deal makers not to have a re-run of Kyoto, Doha and Gleaneagles where 'piecemeal' arrangements were the results of these rounds of talks.
Tony Blair reappeared on the world stage this time talking about the threat of Climate Change. While the liberal democrats are calling for no one to nominate him for the position of future European President he was in New York presenting his paper titled 'Cutting the Cost' to UN Secretary General Ban –ki-moon.
The paper focuses on the economic advantages of a global response to rising temperatures caused by the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. In the findings the Rt hon. Blair claims that over 10 million jobs can be created in fighting climate change. In a foreword to the report, Mr Blair attempts to head off criticism of the proposals.
Blair states: ''Some may choose to quibble about the exact numbers in the analysis, while others may argue that the policy scenarios used are unrealistic. This misses the point. Our objective is not to prescribe the targets and timetables that should be adopted: that is the job of scientists and governments”.
However in reality this week all eyes will be on China. They have the political will, the ability to invest in new green technology. They have the willingness to move ahead at speed in cutting emissions. If they decide to do so this week they will leave the US, the EU and the rest of the world behind.
Taylor Keogh Communications Public Affairs and PR for the Energy and Clean Tech sectors
Today Taylor Keogh joined with thousands of people and organisation it its support the 10:10 UK the grass roots campaign aims in which individuals and institutions make a personal vow to cut their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010. In a first step to try to stop runaway climate change,attracted 5,000 signatures in the hours following its launch. To support the campaign and find out what you can do click here 10:10
To read more media reviews click the links below: The Guardian
The latest round of international climate talks in Bonn last week ended with disappointing results, raising concerns that a lack of progress is now effectively making a comprehensive climate deal in Copenhagen in December unrealistic. Background:
The global community is currently engaged in negotiations to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bonn (29 March–8 April) launched negotiations for a draft agreement in view of the final conference in Copenhagen later this year.
The draft negotiating text, prepared ahead of June's second round of climate talks, revealed a divide between rich and poor countries. Developing nations are asking their industrialised counterparts to commit to sizeable CO2 reductions and to offer financial aid to help poor nations in their efforts. But developed countries have not made any firm commitments on funding, and only the EU has taken on a firm CO2 reduction target, which nevertheless fails to meet the developing world's demands.
In the meantime, the negotiating text has ballooned to hundreds of pages as all parties have reacted with amendments. No agreement was reached at the June talks on financing for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to global warming.
At the sidelines of a G8 meeting in Italy on 9 July, the Major Economies Forum, comprising 17 countries that are accountable for 75% of global emissions, agreed for the first time to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius but failed to come up with targets.
The informal talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 10-14 August were intended to cut down the negotiating text, which swelled to over 200 pages after the last talks in Bonn in June.
Only "selective" progress was made to consolidate the huge text, according to UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer stated. "If we continue at this rate, we are not going to make it," he warned.
Anders Turesson, climate negotiator for Sweden, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, agreed that progress is too slow. He argued that a dramatic change of gear will have to happen at the next round of talks in Bangkok in late September if a deal in Copenhagen is still in the cards.
Disagreement over who picks up the bill
Funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries remains the main stumbling bloc.
Poor countries that are just going through with industrialisation insist that rich nations have a historical responsibility for climate change and should assist them in acquiring technologies needed to halt greenhouse gas emissions. But the EU and other industrialised countries want the developing countries to chip in, at the very least, by compiling national emission reduction strategies, before they put any money on the table.
Another central disagreement remains the scale of each party contribution to emissions reductions in the spirit of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Little progress was made however last week to define the respective responsibilities.
Figures released by the UNFCCC on 11 August showed that the emission reduction pledges so far tabled by industrialised countries would result in a 15-21% cut from 1990 levels. But this falls far short of the 25-40% that the UN scientific body Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is necessary to halt global warming below the critical 2°C threshold.
Crucially, these numbers exclude the US, which did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Including the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China would water down the overall goal as it only plans a return to 1990 emission levels by 2020 in its draft climate bill that pledges to cut emissions by 17% from 2005 levels.
Developing countries have called for the developed countries to shoulder their full responsibility by committing to at least 40% cuts in the midterm. The EU has so far made the most ambitious offer by pledging to raise its 20% goal to 30% in case other industrialised countries, notably the US, take on comparable targets.
The US has, however, clearly indicated that it will not budge from its 2020 targets, preferring to focus on the long-term instead.
"There has been a general feeling of unhappiness about the level of efforts that [developed nations] say they will take," China's climate ambassador Yu Qingtai told Reuters on the sidelines in Bonn. He accused the rich nations of trying to shift the burden to developing countries instead by demanding them to take action that might jeopardise their economic growth.
Industrialised countries, however, insist that developing countries make their contribution to the fight against climate change.
"We also need to see the cards of the developing countries," the EU's climate negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger argued. He said it is still not clear what these nations are prepared to contribute while developed countries have by and large already put their cards on the table.
Observers are now toning down their expectations for Copenhagen, as a complete agreement seems to be slipping out of sight in favour of a basic framework that could then be filled with substance in the course of 2010.
The next meeting carrying real political weight will be the Bangkok meeting at the end of September. Between now and the December climate conference in Copenhagen, only fifteen negotiating days remain, with the last meeting taking place in Barcelona in November.
Most of the changes in climate that will happen over the next 30 to 40 years have already been determined by past and present emissions of greenhouse gases. This means that changes in our climate are inevitable, even if we can successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. The kind of changes we could see include warmer and wetter winters, hotter and drier summers, sea level rise, and more severe weather events such as storms, floods, droughts and heat waves. Adapting to climate change is the process of building resilience and preparing households, businesses, infrastructure, public services and vulnerable parts of our society to cope with the impacts of climate change, and to take advantage of any new opportunities that result.
The Committee has commissioned a review from the National Audit Office (NAO) on climate change adaptation (see http://www.nao.org.uk/what_we_do/support_to_parliament/select_committees.aspx).
This provides an overview of climate change adaptation policy in England, including the implications of the Climate Change Act 2008, the cross-government 'Adapting to Climate Change' programme and the current capacity across Government Departments to assess and manage risks to their objectives from future climate change impacts.
The NAO's review is the starting point for a new inquiry into adaptation that is launched today. The purpose of the inquiry is to assess whether the Government is on the right path to embedding effectively climate change adaptation, and management of risks from future climate change impacts, into Government programmes, policies and decision making, and into those of the wider public and private sectors.
The Committee will also examine whether climate change adaptation is being sufficiently funded and supported as a challenge for the long-term and the extent to which short-term pressures could prevent effective adaptation.
In particular the Committee is interested in receiving written evidence that looks at:
* the extent to which the Adapting to Climate Change Programme will increase resilience by embedding adaptation and climate change risk assessment into the work of Government Departments; * the extent to which Government departments have identified the risks from a changing climate that will stop them from meeting their objectives; * the suitability of the processes and structures in and across Government departments for identifying, mitigating and managing these risks and determining the future priorities of central government's approach to adaptation (and the National Adaptation Programme); * how well the overall direction for work on adaptation has been set, the effectiveness of the statutory framework (including the use of the Reporting Power and its accompanying statutory guidance), the allocation of powers and duties and how well issues like social justice are addressed in adaptation policies; * whether short-term priorities for action including identifying and protecting key infrastructure and systems (for example power, food, water, transport infrastructure, defence and security), have been identified and how these are or might be addressed; * the funding, support, training and other resources available, including at a local and regional level, for: o building capacity to adapt to climate change o specific actions to adapt to climate change, such as investment in flood risk management or the resilience of critical national infrastructure o helping individuals and organisations conduct their own climate change risk assessments and judge what actions they need to take;
* the monitoring and evaluation of work on adaptation, including thoughts on how progress on adaptation can be quantified and success measured; *the effectiveness of communication within and between departments; and between government, local government, business and the general public on adaptation; * whether work on adaptation should be embedded into existing sustainable development frameworks and, if so, how this might be achieved.
Responses dealing with one or two of the issues above are as welcome as more wide ranging responses. Those responding to this call for evidence are encouraged to look at the work done for the Committee by the NAO
(see http://www.nao.org.uk/what_we_do/support_to_parliament/select_committees.aspx).
In general the announcement focused on the renewable sector which is expected to increase its production of electricity from 6 per cent to 31 per cent over the next eleven years to 2020. The government wants to encourage all forms of low-carbon energy, Marine, Biomass, Onshore & offshore wind, nuclear power and clean coal (CCS) power stations that capture and store their emissions.
At the heart of the government's plans are giant offshore wind parks. The renewable energy industry will be given £120m to develop offshore wind technologies. The Government is allocating up to an additional £60 million for a suite of measures which will help accelerate the development and deployment of wave and tidal energy
The government reiterated their support for clean coal power generation and the progress being made in the area but were not forthcoming with any more statements. The June 2009 CCS consultation document along with the four site trials that are being funded will determine the future of the industry in the UK. In a new move the government are to open an Office of Carbon Capture and Storage to support the delivery of CCS. Full details will be announced in the autumn of this year.
Nuclear energy received little mention in the announcement apart from the government saying that it still had a part to play in the energy mix. The government are looking at streamlining the planning and regulatory approvals processes for new nuclear power stations. A national policy statement and a consultation document is due to be launched later in 2009.
The Government will provide capital investment to establish a Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre that combines the knowledge, practices and expertise of manufacturing companies with the capability of universities. This will complement the existing Advanced Manufacturing Centres in Sheffield and Glasgow and the Nuclear Laboratory in Sellafield.
Low Carbon Transport Plan
The Low Carbon Transport Plan focussed on decarbonising transport by moving to an integrated transport system with cycling, cars, rail, public transport and aviation all playing their part.
Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary pledged to reducing CO2 emissions from transport by 14 per cent by 2020. Under the new proposals the government will offer consumers grants of up to £5,000 if they purchase low polluting cars such as electric and plug in hybrids. Under the new proposals only cars that emit 75g per km of C02 or below will be eligible for these grants. The best-performing hybrid in the market in of 2009 is the Toyota Prius emitting 89g/km per KM of CO2.
The transport white paper has been welcomed environmentalists and business groups and is expected to become law by the end of the year. An overall a package of £250m of consumer incentives is being invested by the government to stimulate the take up of electric and plug-in-hybrid vehicles (This £250m figure is not new this announcement was made by Lord Mandelson the spring 2009).
One area where the move to more electric vehicles and hybrids has been falling down is in the area of charging points. There are very few in London and even less per square mile across the UK. This is significant. The move to electric vehicles will be slow if the consumer has the hassle of having no charging points outside their home. There is a serious need for charging points to be rolled out across the UK transport infrastructure quickly.
Recognising this as an issue the government have launched a new Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Grant Programme. The government will also unite Whitehall interests through the new Office for Low Emission Vehicles.
But this will not be the end of the debate. The government are working closely with industry and key stakeholders to develop a roadmap to 2050 by spring 2010. In autumn, the Committee on Climate Change will provide further analysis of the pathway through 2030 to 2050. The Government will work with the Committee, taking its analysis and recommendations into account when developing the roadmap to 2050. So there are several more negotiations and steps to go in the UK energy debate.
A fair, new international climate regime should include sector-based agreements, leading to binding targets for emissions cuts in developing countries, the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), an influential group of CEOs, said in a paper published yesterday (15 July).
Background:
International negotiations are proceeding at full speed in order to agree a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
The first United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bonn (29 March–8 April) launched negotiations for a draft agreement in view of the final conference in Copenhagen later this year.
The draft negotiating text, prepared ahead of June's second round of climate talks, revealed a divide between rich and poor countries.Developing nations are asking their industrialised counterparts to commit to sizeable CO2 reductions and to offer financial aid to help poor nations in their efforts. But developed countries have not made any firm commitments on funding, and only the EU has taken on a firm CO2 reduction target, which nevertheless fails to meet the developing world's demands.
In the meantime, the negotiating text has ballooned to hundreds of pages as all parties have reacted with amendments. No agreement was reached at the June talks on financing for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to global warming.
At the sidelines of a G8 meeting in Italy on 9 July, the Major Economies Forum, comprising 17 countries that are accountable for 75% of global emissions, agreed for the first time to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius.
The EU will be able to upgrade its 2020 objective of slashing emissions of global warming gases from 20% to 30% only if an international agreement is struck to spread obligations evenly among the global community in order to avoid competitive distortions, the group said in the paper.
"Seen from a European perspective, an effective international framework is one that allows the EU to continue competing in the global market by ensuring that the gap is minimised between those leading on the implementation of emission constraints and those following as their economies build capacity to manage emissions," said Jeroen van der Veer, former CEO of Shell and chair of the ERT's Energy & Climate Change Working Group.
The ERT is a forum of around 45 chief executives and chairmen of major national companies, including E.ON, GDF Suez, Siemens, Nokia, BT and Fiat.
The business leaders see a global greenhouse gas emissions market as the principal tool to deliver emission cuts. Industrialised countries with binding targets should link national cap-and-trade systems together to finance clean technology programmes in developing countries, the group said.
"This will establish a widespread market price for emitting CO2 (and other GHGs) into the atmosphere and deliver the reductions at lowest cost to the global economy," the paper reads.
UN projects to go large-scale
The UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows industrialised countries to earn offset credits by financing mitigation efforts in the developing world, should be redesigned to support large-scale projects - notably in the electricity sector - that are driven by a carbon price, the ERT argues. Lower-cost measures such as energy efficiency would largely be financed by developing countries themselves, it says.
More advanced developing countries, on the other hand, should "stabilise their absolute emissions in the medium term through nationally appropriate actions and thereafter, make a firm commitment to reduce absolute emissions," the report states.
This could be done via sectoral agreements with industrialised countries, the paper argues. The agreements would enable developing countries to adopt emissions reduction programmes in specific sectors like cement or steel to tap into funding and build capacity.
"Each agreement should include the eventual implementation of a long-term binding target for the sector or sectors in question," the ERT says. It adds that the approach could be extended to areas such as deforestation and afforestation. This has been envisaged under the UN's REDD mechanism, which is likely to feature as part of the deal in Copenhagen (EurActiv 20/04/09).
In order to reduce the need for protection for EU sectors that have the price of carbon added to their production costs, each agreement would have to involve at least 80% of world production of products in each particular sector and lead to CO2 reductions comparable to what the EU has set, the paper states.
One of the technologies that the business group would like to see transferred to the developing world through revamped CDM projects is carbon capture and storage (CCS). It calls for an international carbon storage certification, which would deliver a certificate for each tonne of carbon buried underground.
The G8, meeting in Italy this week, have agreed for the first time to recognise that the rise in average global temperature should be limited to 2°C. The G8 leaders subsequently pledged to support global targets to cut emissions by 50% by 2050, with an extended intention support an ambitious long-term target of 80% for more industrialised countries. However, the plans have been criticised by some green groups, due to the base year for calculating emission reductions being left ambiguous. The declaration states that the reductions should be "compared to 1990 or more recent years". The wording could lead to wrangling between nations, especially between Western European countries and developing nations. The conference has been quick to promote the fiscal stimulus packages that have focused resources towards energy efficiency measures and support for renewable energy technologies and clean coal. However, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticised leaders of the G8 or failing to make deeper commitments to combat climate change. Ki-Moon, stated that the agreement by the G8 are insufficient to counter climate change.
“The climate problem brings along a responsibility, which is historical and mandatory for our planet’s future, Ban Ki-Moon told the press at the end of the G8 Summit.
The debate around renewables is still open. While they are accepted as being a key part of the energy mix and necessary in decarbonising energy the variety of technologies used to generate power has often been cited as being a barrier to increasing their use in the UK.
As part of its legally binding EU renewable energy target (EUTS), analysts have suggested the UK may need up to source 35-40% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. A high proportion of the UK's renewable electricity is likely to come from onshore and offshore wind, whose variability needs
to be managed.
One week ahead of when the UK government is expected to publish its ‘Renewable Energy Strategy’, a new report Managing Variability, by energy analyst David Milborrow, claims that the UK’s grid could cope with the variable energy input generated from wind farms.
The UK can meet its targets of generating more than a third of its electricity from wind by 2020 without raising the risk of blackouts at an additional cost of £2 for every £100 electricity bill.
The report commissioned by WWF, RSPB, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth looks at the options already available to manage variability on the system, identifies solutions for the future and assesses ways to minimise costs.
Yesterday evening the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group (APPCCG) held a Westminster debate discussing the report findings and the many opportunities that exist for delivery of UK renewable energy targets and grid development and management.
The debate was chaired by Colin Challen MP, and the panel included Dr. Keith Allott, Head of Climate Change, WWF-UK, Chris Bennett, Future Transmission Networks Manager, National Grid, Dr. Keith Maclean and Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Scottish & Southern Energy.
The overall message from the panel was that using more wind energy is ‘do-able’. Countries such as Denmark and Germany have already ‘removed the myths’and have proved that a variety of sources can be used to generate energy and supply the network.
Chris Bennett spoke confidently that the ‘changes in transmission and to the national grid could and have already been made’. Similar to other commentators he noted that more “investment will be needed” and that the focus must be put on the ‘market to ensure the right levels of generation” is reached. He said that that they had “already started work on increasing the numbers of interconnectors with Europe and it is now that market questions need to be put on the table”.
Dr. Keith Maclean called for a ‘sensible discussion to be had around renewables and a real debate around capacity demand’. He noted that the ‘real thing to note is that renewables replace fossil fuels so in essence they are reducing emmissions’.
The complexity of the energy mix and how to reach supply is one the reasons that Maclean called for caution in “going all out in support of one technology or the other”. He said that he was “pleased that the government was looking at biomass and issues around storage”. He believes that “the real challenge is in the timing, getting everything right and delivering the policy, the investment and building of new plants for biomass, thermal and wind farms at the right time”.
One key point that he did raise is “the uncertainty that there is around small projects because of issues in relation to transmission charges. Smaller developers need to be able to show the bank that they can make a return on their investment and for this to be done DECC needs to use their powers under the energy act very quickly to make this happen”. His fear is that unless action is taken in this area soon there will be no investment for more small to medium generators going into the market”.
Unfortunately it was very hard to hear anything that Dr. Keith Allot from the WWF said. But from what we did record he said “there are other renewables out there and we need to look at marine, biomass and geothermal. CCS looks like a very expensive way of producing energy but the WWF will
wait and see”.
Key points in debate:
•The WWF and members from the BWEA were pushing for wind as being the main solution members of the panel kept repeating that focus needed to be put on the mixed energy approach.
•Both Bennett and Macclean said emphasised the point that planning is an area that needed to be focused on and speed up.
•The panel agreed that both biomass and marine would have a lot to play in energy supply but to make this happen companies will need to receive more investment. In order to do this smaller companies will need to be supported in being able to demonstrate their ability to generate power and get it onto the network so banks and investors can explicitly see return on investment.
•The discussion around ‘capacity’ and ‘demand’ and what renewables such as wind, biomass, marine and geo-thermal must be clearer.
•The energy must start to focus on integration of smart grids, smart meters and smart tariff plans for customers.
This week the leaders of the seventeen of the worlds largest economies will meet in L’Aquila, Italy at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF). While some commentators have already called this “the meeting of the millennium” the outcome of this meeting is set to dictatethe results of the Copenhagen Conference in December 09.
Obama and Brown have thrown down the gauntlet to the other leaders and arrive with clear policy positions already outlined. We will see if they will have the power to win over the other members of the group.
Despite the fact that the Italian organisation is reported to have been close to chaotic this meeting will be significant in setting the global policy for energy and climate change for the next four years and beyond.
The stage is set for the world to see President Obama’s commitment to fighting climate change and how far he will be willing to push fellow world leaders to reduce their emissions. As President of one of the world’s biggest polluting countries Obama will have a job to do in showing the US commitment and real action on the ground in fighting climate change.
This is the key to influencing both the G8 set of countries and developing countries. At a recent speech to the Fabian Society Ed Miliband, highlighted the fact that gone is the day when the G8 or developed countries can tell developing countries to lower their emissions while not leading by action.
Obama will be keeping an eye on the domestic audience as the Markey-Waxman Bill heads the Senate. Should the 100-seat Senate pass the bill, ACES would be signed into law. The main criticism of the bill is the fear that the bill's stricter emissions standards would spike prices and weaken cap-and-trade impacted companies. In recent months the lobbying against the bill has intensified with the battle lines been drawn.
Republicans claim the bill has no chance of making it past the Senate. In addition to carbon trading, ACES would develop green buildings, requiring residential and commercial buildings to follow a green code.
Gordon Brown arrives to the summit calling for rich nations to establish a $100bn fund to help poor countries deal with climate change; the understanding is that the figures on the table so far at the G8 are very much lower than this. On Monday Tony Blair called on the G8 to invest in ‘new technologies that will create employment and fight climate change. Blairs’ Climate Group NGO has produced a new report which champions green technologies, arguing that they offer the chance of "substantial job creation and growth".
The report also says that the technologies needed to meet emissions reduction goals set for 2020 are "already proven, available now and the policies needed to implement them are known”.
Finally a group of the worlds leading scientists have called for the world leaders to “recognise the impact of existing climate change in climate are primarily due to past emissions by developed nations, and that unless the burden of poverty in developing nations is alleviatedby significant financial investment, the ability for developing countries to pursue sustainable development” is greatly reduced.
So the heat is being turned up on the G8 leaders to come up with a solution.
On Saturday the 20th of June the Fabian Society hosted a day-long seminar discussing the challenges that the international community has in the build up to the United Nations COP 15 Climate Change Conference hosted by Denmark from the 7th to the 15th of December.
Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change gave the key note speech where he outlined the challenges facing developed and developing countries to reduce carbon emissions.
In a speech that largely focused on the international challenges between developed and developing countries Miliband called for all stakeholders to get involved. Climate change as an issue is something that is not restricted to one continent or country but will affect everybody. The key to reducing global emissions will be in striking a balance where steps are taken collectively by all nations and all industries.
Text from key note address
Let me start by thanking the Fabians for organising this event.
There is no more important and no more difficult a challenge in politics at the moment than getting an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen.
I am very grateful also that we have such a wide range of organisations represented here.
But I want to argue today not just that we need a global deal at Copenhagen, but we also need to lay the ground for action not just in the next six months, but well beyond that.
Let me start with the scale of the challenge.
This week we published our UK Climate projections---they graphically lay out the risks which we know we face—here in the UK.
The most telling fact for me comes from Nick Stern—if we carry on as we are and see global warming of 5 degrees centigrade by 2100, it will mean the planet is hotter than it has been for 30 to 50 million years and humans have only been on the planet for 100,000 years.
But while it is easy to get bogged down in the science, personal experiences bring it home more vividly.
Two years ago on a Wednesday in June I saw people in my local high street in Toll Bar, Doncaster---a high street with people in canoes, plucking people out of first floor windows---raging at what had happened, bewildered and scared.
And two months ago in a village in North West in China, in Minqin, a remote part of the country, I talked to a local farmer about his battle against the pincer movement of two deserts threatening the livelihoods of 300,000 people.
For the people of Toll bar, the people of Minqin, the question is whether the politics can rise to the challenge of the science.
And what do we see?
On the one hand, we see the compelling issue of the reality of climate change and the science, and we see politicians around the world starting to rise to the challenge.
At the same time though, we can also see the compelling constraints that different governments face, from China to the United States.
China now produces more emissions than any country in the world but has 500 million people living on less than $1 a day who they want to lift out of poverty through sustained high levels of economic growth.
The United States which produces more emissions per person than any country in the world but must persuade 60 out of 100 US Senators to support legislation and 67 to support an international treaty, when the debate on climate change is less advanced than some other countries.
The 27 countries of Europe, with countries richer and poorer, all facing economic difficulties, and yet must play its part in financing a global agreement.
Every single country struggles with the gap between what is needed and what looks possible, the conflict between the demands of science and the constraints of politics.
But the task of people who want to bring about transformation in politics in this cause, as in all causes, is to find ways to overcome what seem like not just compelling but insurmountable constraints.
And that’s what I want to talk about today: how the politics we advance can live up to the science.
We need three things:
the right political argument,
the right sort of deal and
the right sort of campaign to make it happen.
First, the political argument.
If we leave climate change to a question of managerialism around targets, finance and technology, we will be sunk.
You cannot sustain radicalism for decades or even for months without an appeal to the deeper reservoir of people’s values.
At the core of action on climate change is a fundamental moral question about whether we care about the legacy we leave to future generations: about whether we think it is fair or just to take advantage of the planet’s resources as if there were no tomorrow.
The question we must pose is whether we break the bond of the human race over our time on this planet: that the earth is held in trust by each generation for the next.
This is an issue of equality, of fairness, of morality and we should say it.
As we seek to advance our political argument, we should not shy away from this and we should honestly ask people how they want to be remembered by history.
And yet at the same time, we know progressive movements only build broad coalitions, only sustain themselves if they can promise not just a better life for others but for people themselves.
So, alongside the appeal to values, we also need a message of prosperity not austerity—for China as well as for the UK.
Part of the reason I am optimistic not pessimistic about the prospects for a global deal, is that the debate about climate change has been transformed by the debate about the green economy.
Suddenly, people can see the argument that this is an essential part of building the post-recession economy—in developed and developing countries.
And we shouldn’t be embarrassed about appealing to economics: when I look at my constituency, there are committed activists on climate change, but there are also people for whom jobs for them and their families are top of mind.
People whose living standards have been dramatically improved over the last fifty years by economic growth.
People who are prepared to be part of action on climate change, but people who also want to know that they can continue to have a better life, and that the costs will be fairly spread.
And so the argument must be not for low growth but for low carbon growth and we must avoid a sense of subscribing to a no growth hair-shirtism
Of course, our appeal to self-interest should go beyond economics: the interests in better air quality, better public transport and in communities coming together, which the transition towns movement has done well.
So the political argument must appeal to people’s values and people’s interests.
Secondly, if we are to transform the politics, we have to make the argument for the right kind of deal.
And here we get to what might seem like the paradox:
that developed countries are responsible for the situation we find ourselves in.
Thirty percent of global emissions 1850-2000 are from the EU, 30% from the US and just 6% from china.
And Per capita emissions are still significantly higher in developed than developing countries: 10 tonnes per capita in the UK versus 5 tonnes in China.
Yet at the same time, when we look ahead, 75% of the predicted increase in global emissions over the next two decades come from developing countries, 50% from China alone.
So there is no global deal worth its name without developed and developing countries action.
The way to resolve what seems like a paradox is that developed countries need to accept their responsibility to take the lead: the lead in cuts in emissions, not just with goals for 2050, but tough and ambitious interim targets.
At the same time, developing countries have to show they can move from high carbon growth to low carbon growth, with growth in emissions tailing off and eventually put into reverse.
And the bridge to get developing countries from high to low carbon growth must be action on finance and technology in particular by developed countries.
If we are to ask developing countries to show substantial deviation from business as usual by 2020 and beyond, we need certain and stable flows of finance, including public finance.
We also need institutions that command their respect in the way they operate, in their accountability mechanisms and in their governance.
How can the UK play its part as a developed country in making this sort of deal happen?
We need to accept our responsibility to lead in our commitments to carbon emissions—as we have with 80% by 2050 and reductions of one third by 2020.
We need to show a willingness to take action on public finance and we will be saying more about this soon. In this context, we need to understand that it is not an abdication of responsibility to help build a global carbon market, but it is a way of helping ensure we have the scale of finance we need for developing countries.
And we need to be helping to drive forward the key technologies and sharing the know-how about them. This is why action on CCS and coal is so important. It’s not just about UK emissions, it is about pushing forward CCS as quickly as possible.
And we need to be persuaders for a global agreement consistent with the science.
We need to show that whatever the agreement we reach at Copenhagen it will help us prevent dangerous climate change—consistent with minimising the chances of temperature rises above 2 degrees.
So we need the right political case for Copenhagen. We need the right sort of deal. And to change the politics, we need the right sort of campaign too.
Why can’t Copenhagen simply be left to governments?
Because look at the great advances in the past:
Against slavery
For rights to representation in Parliament and at work
For equal rights for gay people
For freedom from racial discrimination
All of them took progressive action by government; but none could happen without progressive forces in society. What makes change happen is popular pressure.
And in fact, it’s not in the same category but let me add another successful campaign to that list, one which could only have succeeded with popular mobilisation, and in which many of you in this room played a role: the campaign on coal in the UK.
Campaigning by green organisations and their supporters has changed the politics and I am glad it has.
Unfortunately, the Copenhagen task is even bigger. And I’ll be honest: we don’t yet have the domestic or global campaign that we need.
Next week we will launch our Copenhagen manifesto, seeking to explain to the public the urgency of acting, the ambition we need, and the international co-operation that is required.
We will seek to give our manifesto as wider currency as possible.
But we need you too.
When I thought last December about how much mobilisation there would be now, with six months to go, I thought there would be more than there is.
The honest truth is: we’re behind. Outside of people who are prepared to give up their Saturdays for it, how many people know that this December is the make-or-break moment for our planet?
I do know that people care, and that the popular pressure is there waiting to find expression.
The time to influence this debate is not in December, it is this month, it is now, now when the Major Economies Forum of the top 20 countries is meeting every month, and now that countries are coming out with their proposals – Japan last week, Australia the month before.
And I look to a movement which shows as much determination to get a global deal to save the planet as it has done on UK coal-fired power stations, as much attention to the detail, as much creativity, as much imagination.
And just as we must appeal to the population at large not to be remembered as the people who didn’t act, when the scale of the problem was apparent, so we must avoid being people who lost sight of the bigger prize: the deal at Copenhagen.
So, today, I hope will produce concrete ideas about how to upscale the campaign, how to fix people’s minds on a simple ask, the equivalent of debt, aid and trade and how to build a broader coalition not just here but around the world.
Let me end on a note of optimism.
Nine months ago, some people told me that president Obama would never be interested in a bill on cap and trade in his first year in office. They were wrong.
Other people told me China would never want a deal, but I know having been there, they were wrong.
Other people told me a few months ago that Australia was far too timid and would never be part of an ambitious agreement, but now they have upped their offer.
Still people say Copenhagen is so complicated that we can’t possibly resolve the issues in time.
We can prove them wrong too.
We can get the framework we need if we advance the right arguments, if we seek a genuinely global deal and if we strive for the broadest-based campaign.
We can still help win a victory over climate change.
Taylor Keogh Communications is an independent full service Public Relations, Public Affairs and Reputation Management consultancy.
Established in 2003, Taylor Keogh provides clients with a strategic and independent perspective to their communication requirements. The consultancy has a strong but not exclusive focus in the following sectors: energy and utilities, clean tech and Infrastructure Development.
For more information please visit http://www.taylorkeogh.com
