Post Copenhagen

So what was the fuss about? You'd be forgiven to think that the Copenhagen meeting was a failure and that the environment has fallen off the agenda of most leaders. In fact, in the UK and in most other countries 2010 will be a year of new environmental legislation for many companies. And, Copenhagen, far from being a failure, may well turn out to be a precursor to a legally binding treaty signed in Mexico at COP16 this year.


Copenhagen was always going to be difficult to produce a success. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was agreed right at the last minute and then the Americans pulled out. It wasn't until the Marrakesh Accords in 2001 that the mechanisms for Kyoto were agreed and only when the Russians voted to accept the treaty in 2004 did it formally begin in 2005.


At Copenhagen, a rough agreement includes India, China and the USA. Reducing Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) is also included and pretty much agreed. Forestry or the reduction of it accounts for 17% of global emissions and any target here is to be welcomed. The EU is willing to reduce emissions by 30% and there is very little challenge to the science of climate change. It won't be easy, but there will be a legally binding agreement in Mexico this year.



Regardless of Copenhagen, the EU is committed to a 20% cut in emissions which equates to a 34% by 2020 for the UK. If Mexico 2010 is successful, it's likely that the EU will increase its emissions reduction to 30% which equates to a 42% for the UK by 2020. Even if you include the reduction in emissions since 1990, there is a still a lot to do by 2020. Every business and household will need to reduce emissions by around 30%.


That's why 2010 is going to be an important year for the UK. In April, the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme and a new Feed-in-Tariff regime begins. One is about energy efficiency for large firms; the other is a subsidy regime for households and businesses for renewable generation.





The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme will include every school, hospital, most public buildings as well as large firms that have an energy bill of around £500000. For every tonne of CO2 emitted, the organisation will have to pay £12 a tonne. For Norfolk County Council that's nearly £1million. They will get most of this back, but it depends on how much energy they have reduced compared to other organisations. All CRC participants will be part of a league table where the position will dictate the additional fee you pay or the bonus you receive.


Norfolk County Council emissions are rising and, like other councils, face a rising CRC bill unless they can conserve energy hence the move to switch off street lights. Organisations that claim to be green will soon be exposed by the CRC league table. What's interesting about the CRC is that organisations won't be able to reduce emissions by investing in renewables: they have to reduce energy consumption.


In the next few posts, I will be writing about what households and businesses can do reduce energy use and increase renewable investment under the CRC and the new FiT regime. I'll be analysing the impact of voltage optimisation, change behaviour, solar PV, AD and much more.

Blogs as a learning tool

One of our latest modules: Theories of Sustainable Consumption has, as part of our homework, a request from tutors that we all use blogs to write down our thoughts. It's a great idea for sharing ideas and resources.

I'm really looking forward to this course as it looks at some of more radical green ideas that people are doing now. In marketing and innovation we talk of diffusion of technology, here we're talking about the diffusion of ideas - I think the term is social diffusion of ideas. I remember recycling 10 years a ago and people thought I was a bit mad - well we've come a long way.

Perhaps the Transition Towns movement will eventually diffuse into society - who knows, but if we can find out what works early on then it becomes easier to reduce emissions. So, I'm looking forward to sharing all those crazy ideas and trying to be as open minded as possible.

Here's a quick reminder why we need to figure all of this out....

Climate Talks Jargon buster

With many thanks to The Guardian's Damian Carrington

Copenhagen: The venue in December for the final UN negotiations to deliver a successor to the Kyoto treaty. There are preparatory meetings in Bangkok and Barcelona before then.

Carbon intensity: How much fossil fuel you have to burn to make something or deliver a service. Reducing carbon intensity does not mean cutting overall emissions, but it does mean that a country can expand its economy without driving up emissions at the same rate.

Implicit targets: A diplomatic phrase deployed by India to describe targets India has chosen for itself and for which it will not be held to account by anyone else. Appearing to cave in to foreign demands for specific cuts would be political poison in Dehli.

Mitigation: This simply means actions to reduce global warming, most importantly cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Afforestation: The replanting of trees. About 20% of all global carbon dioxide emissions come from the destruction of forests. Preventing that is the main focus of the UN talks but China is also keen on creating new forests.

Cap and trade: One way of setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions for a region or industry. Polluters are given carbon permits that add up to the cap. They can then sell permits if the have cut their emissions to those who have not. In theory, it allows a market to deliver cuts efficiently.

Carbon tax: A direct tax on activities that result in carbon emissions. Much less bureaucratic than cap-and-trade but cannot deliver an exact cut in overall emissions.

Offsetting: Paying for reductions in emissions elsewhere to compensate for polluting activities. Popular on a voluntary basis for flights, but criticised on a national level for allowing rich nations to butt their way out of making cuts at home.

Peak emissions: The time at which global greenhouse gas emissions stop growing and begin to fall. Scientists say that year must be 2015 if dangerous climate change is to be averted but current trends will not achieve this.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): The international scientific body, involving thousands of scientists, used by the UN since 1988 to provide a neutral source of information on climate change. Its reports are approved by national governments. It was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Al Gore.

Waxman-Markey Bill

US law makers always have great sounding names for their bills and acts as they are normally named after the legislators themselves rather than some drab sounding government diktat.


One bill that is going to potentially change the world is the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill attempts to replicate the EU-ETS in the US creating a federal cap and trade scheme. It passed the first hurdle getting through the House of Reps after some last minute compromises to appease the farm and coal lobbies. In the end, Republicans saved the bill from Democrats who represented the rust belt and the coal lobby. It now has to go through the Senate in September where a tough fight is expected.

So what does it entail? The Grist has a great summary of the 1000 page bill. First, the bill is asking for cuts of 17 % from 2005 levels by 2020 and an 80 % reduction by 2050. Sounds impressive, but it's only 3.6% below 1990 levels by 2020 compared to the EU where the reduction is 20%. However, the scope is far wider in the US system. It includes transport fuel, aviation and covers 80% of emissions compared to 46% in the EU.

Included in the bill is a standard requiring utilities to meet 20 percent of their load needs using renewable sources or energy efficiency by 2020, with at least 15% coming from renewable electricity and new funding for new clean energy technologies, including renewable-energy, energy-efficiency and clean-coal technologies

Unlike the Phase 2 EU-ETS, where 90% of carbon allowances were granted free to industry, the US system is auctioning 60% of theirs. Those allowances that are free will be granted to the usual industry sectors such as gas and coal, but also to adaptation which might mean renewable energy companies. There is also a price floor of $10/tonneCO2 which many have argued for the EU-ETS.

Offsets will be allowed but capped and 50% must be in the US with farming and forestry to play a large part. The EU has the CDM and JI Kyoto Protocol initiatives which may change after Copenhagen in December.

The bill is a radical departure from the Bush years and is receiving fierce criticism from everyone: farmers, the oil business, greens and the coal lobby. It won't please everyone, but if it gets passed we have a real chance to make progress on climate change. Americans, the world needs you to make the right choice!

Countdown to Copenhagen09

Two hundred and seventy four days to Copenhagen 09. Who cares? Well, I do, for one, and I'm trying to make sense of amount of information we have on climate change. I started the grandly titled Strategic Carbon Management MBA at the UEA in January and thought I was pretty well informed. Renewables is the future, no need for nuclear and bio-fuels seem troublesome and coal is a really bad idea in the race to reduce carbon emissions.

It's more complicated than that. There are hard choices, for sure, but there's also a lot of muddled thinking. So I'm aiming to get some clarity. For me, I have some key questions:

1. Renewables. Will they be enough? If we have solar panels on every house, an increase in tidal and wave energy and continue with our wind development will we be able to cut emissions by 40%?
2. How do we change consumer behaviour? We're talking about cutting emissions by 40% in ten years. Can you think of one example where government initiatives or the private sector have managed to achieve such a target in such a short space of time? So what role does carbon marketing have?
3. What new technologies are out there? There's been a lot of focus on, say, green cars and how they will assist us to reduce emissions. You can see how revolutionary the Internet has been in the space of ten years. Is there a green equivalent?
4. Is there a carbon margin? Kyoto and current UK legislation is focused on tradeable pollution permits making the assumption that the profit motive is essential to reducing emissions. Will this work?
5. Finally, if the government is too slow to react will it be too late to reduce emissions or will the market simply adjust prices? In other words, will businesses reflect a carbon price once profits start to decline? Who will this impact the most?