The BBC’s Roger Harrabin has done a piece today on the UK’s outsourced emissions, including extracts from an interview with PIRC’s Guy Shrubsole.
There is no shortage of authoritative documents advocating for a low carbon future. Nick Stern gave us a price tag for decarbonisation. The Sustainable Development Commission (RIP) gave us ‘scenarios’ and ‘pathways’ to a low carbon future. And dozens of engineering and policy analyst groups have put together compelling estimates of the sorts of energy technologies that might power our low carbon world.
So, we have some pathways to a low carbon future, we know what types of machines might be likely to inhabit that future, and we are told that it will be cheaper if we get on with this low carbon future sooner rather than later. This is all valuable information, and activists have made good use of it to persuade people to take climate change seriously. But does any of it tell us anything about what this ‘future’ will be like?
Guest post by Kate at Climate Sight.
The Arctic is getting so warm in winter that James Hansen had to add a new colour to the standard legend – pink, which is even warmer than dark red:
The official NASA maps – the ones you can generate yourself – didn’t add this new colour, though. They simply extended the range of dark red on the legend to whatever the maximum anomaly is – in some cases, as much as 11.1C:
The legend goes up in small, smooth steps: a range of 0.3 C, 0.5 C, 1 C, 2 C. Then, suddenly, 6 or 7 C.
I’m sure this is a result of algorithms that haven’t been updated to accommodate such extreme anomalies. However, since very few people examine the legend beyond recognizing that red is warm and blue is cold, the current legend seems sort of misleading. Am I the only one who feels this way?
PIRC’s new report The Green Investment Gap was today referred to in two articles by Fiona Harvey in the Guardian.
This piece originally appeared on Left Foot Forward.
New research from environmental think tank the Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC) reveals the scale of the green investment challenge facing the UK.
The Green Investment Gap report (pdf) shows that Britain devoted £12.6bn to green investment in 2009-10 – less than 1 per cent of GDP, and less than half the amount needed annually to renew the UK’s ageing energy infrastructure and set it on a course to a clean energy future.
The Green Investment Gap is the first comprehensive audit of UK green investment, launched today by PIRC.
The Coalition Government has declared it wishes to be ‘the greenest government ever’. In a time of fiscal retrenchment and huge cuts in public spending, the surest commitment to the green economy will come through policies to stimulate green investment.
The report highlights the scale of the green investment challenge facing the UK – finding that Britain devoted just £12.6bn towards green investment in 2009-10. This figure amounts to less than 1% of UK GDP; less than what Britain spends on furniture annually; and less than half the annual green investment needed over the next decade to build the green economy.
Yet this challenge also represents a huge opportunity to create thousands of new green jobs, get ourselves off the oil hook and tackle climate change all at once. At a time when the future of our national energy system is being reconsidered, we would be foolish not to invest more in clean energy options. The Green Investment Gap calls on the government to put green investment at the heart of its economic recovery strategy, and recommends that it works with industry and the third sector to:
- Produce an annual Green Investment Audit,
- Commit to closing the green investment gap,
- Legislate for a strong Green Investment Bank.
The full report is available for download here: The Green Investment Gap – PIRC
Accompanying spreadsheet of data: The Green Investment Gap – PIRC – spreadsheet
Press Release (22/03/2011): Press Release – Green Investment Gap report 22nd March 2011
This piece was originally published on Left Foot Forward.
It is the received wisdom that the UK’s emissions are falling. But this is not the case. As academic studies and government briefings show, the UK’s emissions continue to rise, once you factor in the impacts of the goods and services we import from overseas. As we have outsourced industry, so we have outsourced a large part of our contribution to climate change.
In Parliament yesterday, climate change minister Greg Barker became the latest Minister to fail to understand the size of this problem.
This piece by Guy Shrubsole originally appeared on openDemocracy.
“One of the easiest ways for the United Kingdom to meet its carbon reduction targets,” stated the Liberal Democract peer Lord Teverson in 2010, “is to send offshore even more of its manufacturing and high-carbon-based industry.”
Teverson’s words were intended as a warning rather than a recommendation. But it appears the Government has been following such advice for the past twenty years – because it’s exactly what’s been happening.
As the graph below illustrates, UK emissions as they’re ‘officially’ recorded by Government have been going down. But real UK emissions – the total once you factor in emissions embedded in the goods we consume from overseas – continue to rise.
This piece by Alex Randall and Guy Shrubsole was originally published on Guardian Comment is Free.
Last week the Guardian reported that the UK”s carbon emissions have dropped. In fact they”ve gone up. New material released under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) reveals that the government knows this, but is actively deciding to do nothing.
Recent reports show that the UK”s emissions have risen once our consumption of imported goods and services are factored in. We can now reveal that civil servants, too, have been briefing ministers on this very fact – but that they have failed to do anything about it.
Remember the Sustainable Development Commission? For ten years it”s been trying to get Government to embed sustainability into its operations and policies – until last July the Coalition pulled the plug on its funding. The SDC is currently sitting on death row, awaiting final termination at the end of the financial year this April. But there might yet be a happy twist to the sorry tale.
Just before Christmas, buried amidst the snow and news about Wikileaks, the Environmental Audit Committee released a report into the future of sustainable development across government, now that the SDC has been scheduled for the chop. Its key recommendation – which could turn the demise of the SDC into a triumph for good governance – is for responsibility for sustainable development to be handed over to the Cabinet Office.
Could the Cabinet Office help green Whitehall? Read more