The recommendations from the CCC, which sets legally binding carbon budgets and advises the government on how to reach them are wide ranging, and have urged a step change in government policy if future carbon budgets are to be met.
A cleaner, greener country, playing meeting it global, European and domestic targets is both possible and affordable, says the Climate Change Committee, but only if the government acts immediately to implement radical policies on energy efficiency and low carbon technologies, as well as dealing with the threat of the recession to carbon trading schemes.
A overview of some of the key recommendations:
• Market rules – investment in low-carbon generation is risky under current market arrangements. The CCC strongly recommends that Government undertakes a near-term review of options to improve the investment climate for low-carbon power generation.
• Support for CCS – the Government needs to send a strong signal to investors that there is no future in using conventional coal-fired plants beyond the early 2020s. As part of the framework to support CCS development, there should be a review of economic viability and appropriate financial support mechanisms should be in place no later than 2016.
• Strengthening the grid – investment in the power transmission network is required to support investment in new wind and nuclear capacity. Approval of necessary investments is required at the latest by 2011.
• Whole house approach – every household would be provided with an energy audit followed up by hassle free help with installing loft and cavity wall insulation, replacing boilers and installing heating controls. • Street by street approach – energy efficiency of buildings would be addressed street by street, area by area across the UK, much as the switch over to natural gas was achieved in the 1970s.
Improving the efficiency of petrol/diesel powered cars • Currently new cars emit around 160 gCO2/km travelled. This should be reduced to 95 g/km in 2020 through more fuel efficient and lowcarbon cars. If this is achieved, emissions could fall by 16 MtCO2 in 2020.
Widespread roll-out of electric cars • The Government should aim for up to 1.7 million electric cars and plug in hybrids on the road in 2020. • Electric cars are market ready and there is scope for reducing the cost of their batteries by 70% which would mean that they could in fact be priced competitively with conventional cars. • The Government has offered price support up to £5,000 per car, which should be enough to offset the cost premium of many electric cars.
• The typical range for electric cars is around 80 miles, possibly increasing to 250 miles as battery technology develops. This is currently sufficient to cover the vast majority of trips. • A charging infrastructure should be developed including: off-street home charging; on-street home charging; workplace charging; charging in public places (e.g. car parks, supermarkets); and possibly battery exchanges. • This infrastructure should be developed in the context of pilot projects to exploit economies of scale and target up to 240,000 electric cars and plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015; funding costs for pilot charging infrastructure could be up to £250 million.
Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy economist
The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.
Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries
In an interview with The Independent, Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years – at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated.
But the first detailed assessment of more than 800 oil fields in the world, covering three quarters of global reserves, has found that most of the biggest fields have already peaked and that the rate of decline in oil production is now running at nearly twice the pace as calculated just two years ago. On top of this, there is a problem of chronic under-investment by oil-producing countries, a feature that is set to result in an "oil crunch" within the next five years which will jeopardise any hope of a recovery from the present global economic recession, he said.
In a stark warning to Britain and the other Western powers, Dr Birol said that the market power of the very few oil-producing countries that hold substantial reserves of oil – mostly in the Middle East – would increase rapidly as the oil crisis begins to grip after 2010.
"One day we will run out of oil, it is not today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day," Dr Birol said. "The earlier we start, the better, because all of our economic and social system is based on oil, so to change from that will take a lot of time and a lot of money and we should take this issue very seriously," he said.
"The market power of the very few oil-producing countries, mainly in the Middle East, will increase very quickly. They already have about 40 per cent share of the oil market and this will increase much more strongly in the future," he said.
There is now a real risk of a crunch in the oil supply after next year when demand picks up because not enough is being done to build up new supplies of oil to compensate for the rapid decline in existing fields.
The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.
"If we see a tightness of the markets, people in the street will see it in terms of higher prices, much higher than we see now. It will have an impact on the economy, definitely, especially if we see this tightness in the markets in the next few years," Dr Birol said.
"It will be especially important because the global economy will still be very fragile, very vulnerable. Many people think there will be a recovery in a few years' time but it will be a slow recovery and a fragile recovery and we will have the risk that the recovery will be strangled with higher oil prices," he told The Independent.
In its first-ever assessment of the world's major oil fields, the IEA concluded that the global energy system was at a crossroads and that consumption of oil was "patently unsustainable", with expected demand far outstripping supply.
Oil production has already peaked in non-Opec countries and the era of cheap oil has come to an end, it warned.
In most fields, oil production has now peaked, which means that other sources of supply have to be found to meet existing demand.
Even if demand remained steady, the world would have to find the equivalent of four Saudi Arabias to maintain production, and six Saudi Arabias if it is to keep up with the expected increase in demand between now and 2030, Dr Birol said.
"It's a big challenge in terms of the geology, in terms of the investment and in terms of the geopolitics. So this is a big risk and it's mainly because of the rates of the declining oil fields," he said.
"Many governments now are more and more aware that at least the day of cheap and easy oil is over... [however] I'm not very optimistic about governments being aware of the difficulties we may face in the oil supply," he said.
Environmentalists fear that as supplies of conventional oil run out, governments will be forced to exploit even dirtier alternatives, such as the massive reserves of tar sands in Alberta, Canada,which would be immensely damaging to the environment because of the amount of energy needed to recover a barrel of tar-sand oil compared to the energy needed to collect the same amount of crude oil.
"Just because oil is running out faster than we have collectively assumed, does not mean the pressure is off on climate change," said Jeremy Leggett, a former oil-industry consultant and now a green entrepreneur with Solar Century.
"Shell and others want to turn to tar, and extract oil from coal. But these are very carbon-intensive processes, and will deepen the climate problem," Dr Leggett said.
"What we need to do is accelerate the mobilisation of renewables, energy efficiency and alternative transport.
"We have to do this for global warming reasons anyway, but the imminent energy crisis redoubles the imperative," he said.
Oil: An unclear future
*Why is oil so important as an energy source?
Crude oil has been critical for economic development and the smooth functioning of almost every aspect of society. Agriculture and food production is heavily dependent on oil for fuel and fertilisers. In the US, for instance, it takes the direct and indirect use of about six barrels of oil to raise one beef steer. It is the basis of most transport systems. Oil is also crucial to the drugs and chemicals industries and is a strategic asset for the military.
*How are oil reserves estimated?
The amount of oil recoverable is always going to be an assessment subject to the vagaries of economics – which determines the price of the oil and whether it is worth the costs of pumping it out –and technology, which determines how easy it is to discover and recover. Probable reserves have a better than 50 per cent chance of getting oil out. Possible reserves have less than 50 per cent chance.
*Why is there such disagreement over oil reserves?
All numbers tend to be informed estimates. Different experts make different assumptions so it is under- standable that they can come to different conclusions. Some countries see the size of theiroilfields as a national security issue and do not want to provide accurate information. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. A further factor is the expected size of future demand for oil.
*What is "peak oil" and when will it be reached?
This is the point when the maximum rate at which oil is extracted reaches a peak because of technical and geological constraints, with global production going into decline from then on. The UK Government, along with many other governments, has believed that peak oil will not occur until well into the 21st Century, at least not until after 2030. The International Energy Agency believes peak oil will come perhaps by 2020. But it also believes that we are heading for an even earlier "oil crunch" because demand after 2010 is likely to exceed dwindling supplies.
*With global warming, why should we be worried about peak oil?
There are large reserves of non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands of Canada. But this oil is dirty and will produce vast amounts of carbon dioxide which will make a nonsense of any climate change agreement. Another problem concerns how fast oil production is declining in fields that are past their peak production. The rate of decline can vary from field to field and this affects calculations on the size of the reserves. If we are not adequately prepared for peak oil, global warming could become far worse than expected.
The Low Carbon Industrial Strategy, launched today, sets out the action the Government is taking to ensure that British businesses and workers are equipped to maximise the economic opportunities and minimise the costs of the transition to a low carbon economy.
The strategy follows from Building Britain’s Future: New Industry, New Jobs, and sets out how the Government aims to ensure that the transition to low carbon is a source of quality jobs and business savings in Britain: from our rapidly developing civil nuclear industry and renewable energy sector, to energy saving in our smallest SMEs.
The strategy identifies a range of low carbon sectors with potential for job creation and growth. These include: wave and tidal power; civil nuclear power;offshore wind; and ultra-low carbon vehicles. It also sets out the Government’s strategy for removing barriers that are blocking the development of Britain’s full potential in these areas.
The strategy recognises that local and regional strengths offer a good foundation to realise future economic benefits for Britain. The first Low Carbon Economic Area in the South West of England will create a business and skills focus on marine energy demonstration, servicing and manufacture.
The strategy also sets out the first investments from the £405 million for low carbon industries and advanced green manufacturing announced at Budget 2009.
Key investments include:
•Up to £60 million to capitalise on Britain’s wave and tidal sector strengths, including investment in Wave Hub – the development of a significant demonstration and testing facility off the Cornish coast – and other funding to make the South West Britain’s first Low Carbon Economic Area.
•Up to £15 million capital investment in order to establish a Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre consisting of a consortium of manufacturers from the UK nuclear supply chain and universities.
•A £4 million expansion of the Manufacturing Advisory Service, to provide more specialist advice to manufacturers on competing for low carbon opportunities, including support for suppliers for the civil nuclear industry.
•Up to £10 million for the accelerated deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
•Up to £120 million to support the development of a British based offshore wind industry.
The strategy also recognises that there are challenges for the workforce particularly for those in high carbon industries. The Government will create a new Forum for a Just Transition to advise on how to address the issues, with representatives from Central Government, national, local and regional bodies, Trade Unions, business organisations, and third sector bodies.
Announcing the strategy Business Secretary Peter Mandelson said:
“There is no high carbon future. But if the transition to low carbon is inevitable, what is not inevitable is that we use the transition as a chance to develop new jobs, new industries here in Britain. This strategy builds on the New Industry New Jobs approach, outlining the strategic role the government will play alongside the private sector, to make the most of the potential benefits for innovation, growth and job creation in the UK.
“Low carbon and environmental goods and services are already worth £3 trillion to the global economy, and in the UK employ nearly 900,000 directly and through the supply chain. With the sector set to grow by over 4% per annum over the next six years we must do all we can to support British businesses and workers in benefitting. Today we are announcing the first investments under the £405M funding allocated in the budget. We must ensure that we equip businesses and the workforce with the capabilities and skills to take advantage of the potential benefits as the world moves towards a low carbon future.”
Green Jobs, Bill Increases, Speed and Clarity are the order of the day
Speculation is growing around the details of Ed Milliband's, renewable energy package which is due to be announced on Wednesday. This will be the third time in five years that the government will attempt to make clear their proposals on cutting green house emissions and their ideas for energy generation in the UK.
The UK government is committed to cutting carbon emissions by 34 per cent by 2020. The UK is also bound by the European Union to produce 15 per cent of the country’s energy needs from renewables by the same year.
The question is how the government intend to fund the estimated £100 billion needed for development of the renewable sector and the upgrade of the national grid to a ‘smart grid’. The fear among politicians is that the costs will and can only be met by an increase in energy bills for the voter.
An increase in bills in economic tight times will do nothing but increase voters ire and is a dangerous move in an election year. Ed Miliband and his advisers will be very aware that discussing bill increases of a pound or two are fine and may go somewhat unnoticed at the end of a heatwave in the summer months. However the political repercussions will be felt in the winter months when demand for energy increases and the prices start to spike again. But if it is not the consumer that will shoulder the burden of the government meeting its renewables target then who will?
The private sector has already claimed that there is not enough available money or investment in bringing new technologies such as marine, biomass and wind to the energy mix at the speed at which is required. Investing in the smart grid, transmission points and further storage all come with a high cost which over time will dwarf the money that was pumped into the banking crisis. Dieter Helm, an energy expert at New College Oxford was quoted in the Financial Times as saying “the enormous investment needed in renewables would have been hard to finance even when financial markets were strong, and would be even more difficult following the credit crunch” The return to investors would need to come from the public through higher energy bills.
This echoes the opinion outlined early this week by David Milborrow in his paper Managing Variability where he claims that “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 uncertainty over returns on investment in wind and solar power has already seen some large energy groups such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell from pulling back from the renewable sector. The government’s former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, sites this hesitancy by the private sector to invest is a result of the government’s failure to come up with a plan and stick to it.
In the Sunday Times he is quoted as saying “you can’t keep adjusting the energy policy, businesses need a clear signal that any investments they make now in low carbon technology and infrastructure in the UK will pay off in the future”.
On the positive side Miliband is expected to announce the creation of up to 400,000 green collar jobs. These jobs are expected to focus across the renewable sector of wind, solar, marine and biomass. But there will be funding for the nuclear sector also.
Whatever, the finer details of this weeks’ announcement Miliband must make speed and clarity as being the essence for the growth of the sector and creation of green jobs. Earlier this week Dr. Keith Maclean, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Scottish & Southern Energy in the APPCCG Westminster Debate noted that “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 will need 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”.
If the government are to find a solution to the two challenges of climate change and creating new jobs the time is to act now.
BUT MORE MUST BE DONE TO ENCOURAGE WAVE & TIDAL ENERGY IN THE UK
Bristol, England: The SeaGen tidal energy system, developed and deployed by Marine Current Turbines, has become the first–ever marine renewable energy project to be accredited by the UK energy regulator OFGEM for ROCs (Renewable Energy Certificates) and so will receive payment for the power it is generating. ROCs are the method by which the UK Government rewards the commercial generation of clean energy.
SeaGen, a 1.2MW twin turbine tidal energy system, was deployed in Northern Ireland’s Strangford Lough in May 2008 and is generating power for the equivalent of about 1000 homes via the local grid.
Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines said: “Securing ROCs accreditation is a significant step forward as it is the first time that a tidal current system has been officially recognised as a commercial power station. Up until now, marine renewable technologies have not gone beyond the R&D phase. SeaGen has changed all that.”
“SeaGen is now consistently producing full power to the grid and is performing just as we expected. At 1.2MW capacity, it is the world’s most powerful marine energy device of any kind to be grid connected, and has to date generated the most energy from the sea onto the grid.”
“We have had our challenges with the SeaGen project and we know that we still have much to do to ensure that our technology is deployed on a truly commercial basis. However, the ROCs accreditation is a positive signal that tidal energy will play a part in the country’s future energy mix.”
Whilst SeaGen is performing well, Marine Current Turbines is however seriously concerned that the current investment climate threatens the long-term future of the marine energy sector. The company, along with other parts of the marine energy sector, is therefore looking to the UK Government to adopt measures that will encourage new investment into the tidal and wave sectors.
Martin Wright said: “The Government’s forthcoming Renewable Energy Strategy Review is critical to clean-tech companies such as Marine Current Turbines. The current investment climate is the worst in living memory and following the announcement to increase the ROC multiple to 2 for offshore wind, there is effectively no market to pull marine energy forward. It will be vital that the government addresses this is in its Renewable Energy Strategy Review and takes urgent action. If not, there is a significant risk that tidal power will suffer the same fate that befell the British wind industry: no home-grown manufacturing and engineering jobs.”
Notes to Editors:
1. 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 2008, MCT was ranked in The Guardian/Library House Top 10 of European clean-tech firms and in June 2009 won Renewable Energy Developer of the Year in the UK Renewable Energy Association Annual Awards.
2. SeaGen works by generating power from sea currents, using a pair of axial flow turbines driving generators through gearboxes using similar principles to wind generator technology.
The main difference is that the high density of seawater compared to wind allows a much smaller system; SeaGen has twin 600kW turbines each of 16m diameter. The capture of kinetic energy from a water current, much like with wind energy or solar energy, depends on how many square meters of flow cross-section can be addressed by the system.
With water current turbines it is rotor swept area that dictates energy capture capability, because it is the cross section of flow that is intercepted which matters. SeaGen has over 400 square meters of rotor area which is why it can develop its full rated power of 1.2MW in a flow of 2.4m/s (5 knots).
For more information contact
Paul Taylor, Taylor Keogh Communications: Paul@taylorkeogh.com/ +44 (0) 203 170 8465
or Martin Wright, Managing Director, Marine Current Turbines, +44 (0)7785 340671
The Wright brother's historic flight in December 1903 was a defining moment for the aviation industry.Northern winds blowing in off the Atlantic provided ideal flying conditions for Orville and Wilbur Wright to glide 20 feet above the beach at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina.
From that humble but well-documented first flight to the commercial take-off of the massive Airbus A380 in October 2007, aviation has evolved from an amateur curiosity into an essential element of the global economy. Its rapid development over the last century is the model of any aspiring industry, and the Wright brothers themselves have become folk heroes in countless entrepreneurial analogies.
"Entrepreneurs are not as common as you would think," says Martin Wright, who is coincidently not a relation of Orville and Wilbur. "If you blow them away, don't think they'll come back." Wright is the current managing director of Bristol-based Marine Current Turbines in the UK.
He is increasingly concerned that the lack of capital available to the nascent marine energy sector as a result of the economic downturn will not only delay, but might even suffocate the development of wave and tidal technologies for an entire generation.
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
