Tag Archives: fossil fuels

Advert ban tries to wean the Dutch off fossil fuels

How do you wean the Dutch off fossil fuels? Well, you could always start by banning advertisements that promote them.

LONDON, 6 May, 2021 − Three days ago Amsterdam, capital of the Netherlands, “Venice of the North” (and destination of many travellers who appreciate a little something extra with their coffee), took a serious step into the future. It sought to wean the Dutch off fossil fuels by banning many advertisements for the pollutants.

The ban isn’t total − yet. But this prohibition of what are described as “fossil fuel products”, including air travel as well as fossil-fuelled cars, means the adverts will no longer be seen in Amsterdam’s subway stations.

The city says it’s the first in the world determined to keep fossil fuel advertising off its streets. Never before has a city decided to ban advertising solely on the basis of climate change, it insists.

The agreement about advertisements in its metro stations is the municipality’s first step towards making advertising everywhere in Amsterdam fossil-free. The Dutch capital is still investigating a wider ban on advertising, and on marketing festivals by fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell (or, to give it its original name, Royal Dutch Shell).

“We don’t have any time to waste. Adverts that portray fossil fuels as normal worsen climate disruption”

Ban Fossil Advertising (Reclame Fossielvrij) is a Dutch citizens’ group working for a nationwide ban on advertising by the fossil fuel industry and on adverts for polluting transport. Its co-ordinator, Femke Sleegers, said: “The decision to ban fossil fuel advertising from subway stations comes at a crucial moment in the fight against climate change.

“We don’t have any time to waste in working towards the Paris climate goals. Adverts that portray fossil fuels as normal worsen climate disruption and have no place in a city − or a country − that has complied with Paris.”

The decision by Amsterdam’s city council to start banning fossil fuel adverts followed pressure by Ban Fossil Advertising and 51 other local groups. The city’s public transport company, GVB, had already decided to sharpen up its advertising policy in order to keep greenwashing advertisements (when polluters falsely present themselves as environmentally responsible) out of its vehicles, after a call by Extinction Rebellion Amsterdam.

Ban Fossil Advertising is working for a nationwide law to cover the fossil fuel industry, modelled on the Dutch advertising ban on the tobacco industry, which is regarded by campaigners as an indispensable step in the fight against smoking. It is seen not only as a step which changed social norms, but as one that removed temptation. Today’s campaigners say an identical approach is needed towards fossil fuels.

Global pressure

Three more cities in the Netherlands − The Hague, Utrecht and Nijmegen − say they are open to a ban on fossil fuel ads. Similar moves are under way in a number of other countries in Europe, North America and Australia, some at national level and some in individual cities, with media backing in several cases.

A Canadian group, for example, the Citizens’ Initiative for a fossil fuel advertisement-free Canada,  urges Parliament “to demand accountability from the fossil industry and legislate a ‘tobacco law’ for oil, gas and petrochemical companies; a ‘fossil law’”.

This would ban adverts for Big Oil, air travel and cars with fossil fuel engines, with fossil fuel money used for marketing redirected into “an unbranded fund that helps the transition.” A similar initiative is under way in France.

In the US, the city of New York is suing three major oil companies and the top industry trade group, arguing that the companies are misrepresenting themselves by selling fuels as “cleaner” and advertising themselves as leaders in fighting climate change.

In the UK the Badvertising campaign is seeking to stop adverts from fuelling the climate emergency, and the environmental lawyers ClientEarth are urging policymakers to ban all fossil fuel company ads unless they come with tobacco-style health warnings about the risks of global heating to people and the planet. − Climate News Network

How do you wean the Dutch off fossil fuels? Well, you could always start by banning advertisements that promote them.

LONDON, 6 May, 2021 − Three days ago Amsterdam, capital of the Netherlands, “Venice of the North” (and destination of many travellers who appreciate a little something extra with their coffee), took a serious step into the future. It sought to wean the Dutch off fossil fuels by banning many advertisements for the pollutants.

The ban isn’t total − yet. But this prohibition of what are described as “fossil fuel products”, including air travel as well as fossil-fuelled cars, means the adverts will no longer be seen in Amsterdam’s subway stations.

The city says it’s the first in the world determined to keep fossil fuel advertising off its streets. Never before has a city decided to ban advertising solely on the basis of climate change, it insists.

The agreement about advertisements in its metro stations is the municipality’s first step towards making advertising everywhere in Amsterdam fossil-free. The Dutch capital is still investigating a wider ban on advertising, and on marketing festivals by fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell (or, to give it its original name, Royal Dutch Shell).

“We don’t have any time to waste. Adverts that portray fossil fuels as normal worsen climate disruption”

Ban Fossil Advertising (Reclame Fossielvrij) is a Dutch citizens’ group working for a nationwide ban on advertising by the fossil fuel industry and on adverts for polluting transport. Its co-ordinator, Femke Sleegers, said: “The decision to ban fossil fuel advertising from subway stations comes at a crucial moment in the fight against climate change.

“We don’t have any time to waste in working towards the Paris climate goals. Adverts that portray fossil fuels as normal worsen climate disruption and have no place in a city − or a country − that has complied with Paris.”

The decision by Amsterdam’s city council to start banning fossil fuel adverts followed pressure by Ban Fossil Advertising and 51 other local groups. The city’s public transport company, GVB, had already decided to sharpen up its advertising policy in order to keep greenwashing advertisements (when polluters falsely present themselves as environmentally responsible) out of its vehicles, after a call by Extinction Rebellion Amsterdam.

Ban Fossil Advertising is working for a nationwide law to cover the fossil fuel industry, modelled on the Dutch advertising ban on the tobacco industry, which is regarded by campaigners as an indispensable step in the fight against smoking. It is seen not only as a step which changed social norms, but as one that removed temptation. Today’s campaigners say an identical approach is needed towards fossil fuels.

Global pressure

Three more cities in the Netherlands − The Hague, Utrecht and Nijmegen − say they are open to a ban on fossil fuel ads. Similar moves are under way in a number of other countries in Europe, North America and Australia, some at national level and some in individual cities, with media backing in several cases.

A Canadian group, for example, the Citizens’ Initiative for a fossil fuel advertisement-free Canada,  urges Parliament “to demand accountability from the fossil industry and legislate a ‘tobacco law’ for oil, gas and petrochemical companies; a ‘fossil law’”.

This would ban adverts for Big Oil, air travel and cars with fossil fuel engines, with fossil fuel money used for marketing redirected into “an unbranded fund that helps the transition.” A similar initiative is under way in France.

In the US, the city of New York is suing three major oil companies and the top industry trade group, arguing that the companies are misrepresenting themselves by selling fuels as “cleaner” and advertising themselves as leaders in fighting climate change.

In the UK the Badvertising campaign is seeking to stop adverts from fuelling the climate emergency, and the environmental lawyers ClientEarth are urging policymakers to ban all fossil fuel company ads unless they come with tobacco-style health warnings about the risks of global heating to people and the planet. − Climate News Network

Greenhouse gas levels surge despite slow economy

The global economy has been hard hit by the Covid pandemic. But greenhouse gas levels have worryingly shot upwards.

LONDON, 13 April, 2021 – It’s a set of statistics likely to send shivers down the spine of any climate scientist – or everyone concerned about the future of the planet. Despite a slowing world economy due to pandemic shutdowns and other Covid-related factors, climate-changing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere surged last year.

The US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the world’s leading scientific institutions, says the global rate of increase in CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels in 2020 was the fifth highest on record. If there had been no economic slowdown, NOAA says, the increase in CO2 levels last year would have been the highest since records began.

“Human activity is driving climate change”, says Colm Sweeney, assistant deputy director of NOAA’s global monitoring laboratory. “If we want to mitigate the worst impacts, it’s going to take a deliberate focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions to near zero – and even then we’ll need to look for ways to further remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”

Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are measured on a parts per million (ppm) basis. Based on measurements gathered at various monitoring stations around the world, NOAA calculates that CO2 levels increased by 2.6 ppm in 2020 to 412.5 ppm, an increase of 12% since 2000 and a concentration level believed to have last been present during the mid-Pliocene Warm Period around 3.6 million years ago.

Methane prompts concern

At that time global sea levels were more than 20 metres higher than they are today, and vast forests are believed to have covered many Arctic regions.

Of even more concern than the surge in CO2 is a jump in levels of methane (CH4) in the atmosphere last year.

Methane is generated from various sources besides fossil fuels, including decaying organic matter, rice paddies, livestock farming and landfill sites.

The worldwide fracking industry is also a significant source of methane emissions. The gas is not as longlived in the atmosphere as CO2, but it is more than 30 times as potent.

“Human activity is driving climate change. If we want to mitigate the worst impacts, it’s going to take a deliberate focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions to near zero”

NOAA says atmospheric concentrations of methane increased last year by the largest level since records began nearly 40 years ago. Scientists have described this jump as surprising – and disturbing.

“It is very scary indeed”, Euan Nisbet, professor of earth sciences at Royal Holloway University in the UK told the Financial Times.

NOAA says the recent increase in methane levels is likely to have more to do with biological sources such as wetlands and livestock than with emissions from fossil fuels.

One theory is that, as temperatures rise and rainfall increases in many tropical regions, more methane is released from wetlands, crops and vegetation: a climate change “tipping point” is reached, as one warming event encourages and reinforces another.

Gas plumes detected

A new generation of highly sophisticated satellites is able to target with ever-increasing accuracy separate incidents of methane escape around the world.

In recent days unusually large releases of methane – known as plumes – have been recorded over Bangladesh, a densely populated low-lying country among those most at risk from changes in climate. The Bangladesh government says the plumes are likely sourced from rice paddies, rubbish dumps and landfill sites.

Earlier this year satellites monitored large amounts of methane escaping from gas pipelines in Turkmenistan in central Asia. Similar plumes were detected over the country last year.

In May 2020 a massive methane plume was detected by satellite over Florida. Investigations are ongoing, but it is thought to have come from the state’s gas pipeline system. – Climate News Network

The global economy has been hard hit by the Covid pandemic. But greenhouse gas levels have worryingly shot upwards.

LONDON, 13 April, 2021 – It’s a set of statistics likely to send shivers down the spine of any climate scientist – or everyone concerned about the future of the planet. Despite a slowing world economy due to pandemic shutdowns and other Covid-related factors, climate-changing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere surged last year.

The US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of the world’s leading scientific institutions, says the global rate of increase in CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels in 2020 was the fifth highest on record. If there had been no economic slowdown, NOAA says, the increase in CO2 levels last year would have been the highest since records began.

“Human activity is driving climate change”, says Colm Sweeney, assistant deputy director of NOAA’s global monitoring laboratory. “If we want to mitigate the worst impacts, it’s going to take a deliberate focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions to near zero – and even then we’ll need to look for ways to further remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”

Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are measured on a parts per million (ppm) basis. Based on measurements gathered at various monitoring stations around the world, NOAA calculates that CO2 levels increased by 2.6 ppm in 2020 to 412.5 ppm, an increase of 12% since 2000 and a concentration level believed to have last been present during the mid-Pliocene Warm Period around 3.6 million years ago.

Methane prompts concern

At that time global sea levels were more than 20 metres higher than they are today, and vast forests are believed to have covered many Arctic regions.

Of even more concern than the surge in CO2 is a jump in levels of methane (CH4) in the atmosphere last year.

Methane is generated from various sources besides fossil fuels, including decaying organic matter, rice paddies, livestock farming and landfill sites.

The worldwide fracking industry is also a significant source of methane emissions. The gas is not as longlived in the atmosphere as CO2, but it is more than 30 times as potent.

“Human activity is driving climate change. If we want to mitigate the worst impacts, it’s going to take a deliberate focus on reducing fossil fuel emissions to near zero”

NOAA says atmospheric concentrations of methane increased last year by the largest level since records began nearly 40 years ago. Scientists have described this jump as surprising – and disturbing.

“It is very scary indeed”, Euan Nisbet, professor of earth sciences at Royal Holloway University in the UK told the Financial Times.

NOAA says the recent increase in methane levels is likely to have more to do with biological sources such as wetlands and livestock than with emissions from fossil fuels.

One theory is that, as temperatures rise and rainfall increases in many tropical regions, more methane is released from wetlands, crops and vegetation: a climate change “tipping point” is reached, as one warming event encourages and reinforces another.

Gas plumes detected

A new generation of highly sophisticated satellites is able to target with ever-increasing accuracy separate incidents of methane escape around the world.

In recent days unusually large releases of methane – known as plumes – have been recorded over Bangladesh, a densely populated low-lying country among those most at risk from changes in climate. The Bangladesh government says the plumes are likely sourced from rice paddies, rubbish dumps and landfill sites.

Earlier this year satellites monitored large amounts of methane escaping from gas pipelines in Turkmenistan in central Asia. Similar plumes were detected over the country last year.

In May 2020 a massive methane plume was detected by satellite over Florida. Investigations are ongoing, but it is thought to have come from the state’s gas pipeline system. – Climate News Network

The price of coal weighs heavy on planetary health

In air pollution terms alone, the price of coal is huge. The true price of energy in almost any fossil form is colossal.

LONDON, 11 March, 2021 − Does anyone think fossil fuels should be more expensive? The true price of coal, oil and gas − the cost they exact on human health and in environmental destruction − in the energy and transport sectors worldwide could add up to very nearly US$25 trillion (£18tn).

And in the economists’ favourite measure of wealth, that is more than one fourth of the whole world’s Gross Domestic Product, or GDP.

That fossil fuels are subsidised and their “external” costs rarely factored in to the price is well known and widely condemned.

But researchers in the UK and Korea report in the journal Energy Research and Social Science that they decided to try to put a price on all the “externalities” − both the unrecorded or unexpected costs and the unconsidered benefits to be connected with the supply of electricity, energy efficicency, and transport.

“Our research has identified immense hidden costs that are almost never factored into the true expense of driving a car or operating a coal-powered power station”

Their considered estimate? It adds up to $24.662 million million. And measured against the global GDP, that reaches 28.7%.

What the scientists see in this accounting is a measure of the way the market has failed the world’s energy systems. If governments included the social costs as well as the production costs of nuclear power plant and fossil-fuelled generation systems, they’d pronounce them economically unviable.

“Our research has identified immense hidden costs that are almost never factored into the true expense of driving a car or operating a coal-powered power station,” said Benjamin Sovacool of the University of Sussex, UK, who led the study.

“Including these costs would dramatically change least-cost planning processes and integrated resource portfolios that energy suppliers and others depend on. It is not that these costs are never paid by society, they are just not reflected in the costs of energy. And unfortunately, these costs are not distributed equally or fairly.”

Coal’s highest price

The “externalities factor” extends to all human action: there are unconsidered costs to wind, hydro, solar and other renewable energy systems too. What Professor Sovacool and his colleagues did was scrutinise 139 separate studies of these hidden costs to identify 704 separate estimates of externalities. Of these, 83 were for energy supply, 13 for energy efficiency, and 43 for transport.

Coal exacted by far the highest hidden price across the energy markets of just four countries and regions: China, Europe, India and the US. Coal had three times as many “negative externalities” as solar photovoltaic power generation, five times that of wind turbines and 155 times more than geothermal power.

Climate risks from fossil fuel emissions could cost some countries 19% of their GDP by 2030: developing nations would be hardest hit.

That coal and oil combustion has, over two centuries, cost lives, damaged human health and blighted natural ecosystems is not news. Indoor and outdoor pollution, from power utilities, exhaust pipes and household ovens is behind 4.7 million deaths and the loss of 147 million years of healthy life, every year.

Guiding post-Covid recovery

Pollution kills three times more people than malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-Aids combined. The surprise is in the scale of economic costs.

The point of research like this is to help national and regional governments to make practical and sustainable decisions in a concerted effort to revive economic activity but at the same time to contain climate change.

“Our findings are timely and we hope they will help inform the design of Green New Deals or post-pandemic Covid-19 recovery packages around the world,” said Jinsoo Kim, a co-author, of both Sussex and Hanyang University in Korea.

“Some of the most important commonalities of many stimulus packages have been bailouts for the fossil fuel, automotive and aeronautic industries, but a global and national recovery may not be sustainable if the true cost of these industries is not factored in.” − Climate News Network

In air pollution terms alone, the price of coal is huge. The true price of energy in almost any fossil form is colossal.

LONDON, 11 March, 2021 − Does anyone think fossil fuels should be more expensive? The true price of coal, oil and gas − the cost they exact on human health and in environmental destruction − in the energy and transport sectors worldwide could add up to very nearly US$25 trillion (£18tn).

And in the economists’ favourite measure of wealth, that is more than one fourth of the whole world’s Gross Domestic Product, or GDP.

That fossil fuels are subsidised and their “external” costs rarely factored in to the price is well known and widely condemned.

But researchers in the UK and Korea report in the journal Energy Research and Social Science that they decided to try to put a price on all the “externalities” − both the unrecorded or unexpected costs and the unconsidered benefits to be connected with the supply of electricity, energy efficicency, and transport.

“Our research has identified immense hidden costs that are almost never factored into the true expense of driving a car or operating a coal-powered power station”

Their considered estimate? It adds up to $24.662 million million. And measured against the global GDP, that reaches 28.7%.

What the scientists see in this accounting is a measure of the way the market has failed the world’s energy systems. If governments included the social costs as well as the production costs of nuclear power plant and fossil-fuelled generation systems, they’d pronounce them economically unviable.

“Our research has identified immense hidden costs that are almost never factored into the true expense of driving a car or operating a coal-powered power station,” said Benjamin Sovacool of the University of Sussex, UK, who led the study.

“Including these costs would dramatically change least-cost planning processes and integrated resource portfolios that energy suppliers and others depend on. It is not that these costs are never paid by society, they are just not reflected in the costs of energy. And unfortunately, these costs are not distributed equally or fairly.”

Coal’s highest price

The “externalities factor” extends to all human action: there are unconsidered costs to wind, hydro, solar and other renewable energy systems too. What Professor Sovacool and his colleagues did was scrutinise 139 separate studies of these hidden costs to identify 704 separate estimates of externalities. Of these, 83 were for energy supply, 13 for energy efficiency, and 43 for transport.

Coal exacted by far the highest hidden price across the energy markets of just four countries and regions: China, Europe, India and the US. Coal had three times as many “negative externalities” as solar photovoltaic power generation, five times that of wind turbines and 155 times more than geothermal power.

Climate risks from fossil fuel emissions could cost some countries 19% of their GDP by 2030: developing nations would be hardest hit.

That coal and oil combustion has, over two centuries, cost lives, damaged human health and blighted natural ecosystems is not news. Indoor and outdoor pollution, from power utilities, exhaust pipes and household ovens is behind 4.7 million deaths and the loss of 147 million years of healthy life, every year.

Guiding post-Covid recovery

Pollution kills three times more people than malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-Aids combined. The surprise is in the scale of economic costs.

The point of research like this is to help national and regional governments to make practical and sustainable decisions in a concerted effort to revive economic activity but at the same time to contain climate change.

“Our findings are timely and we hope they will help inform the design of Green New Deals or post-pandemic Covid-19 recovery packages around the world,” said Jinsoo Kim, a co-author, of both Sussex and Hanyang University in Korea.

“Some of the most important commonalities of many stimulus packages have been bailouts for the fossil fuel, automotive and aeronautic industries, but a global and national recovery may not be sustainable if the true cost of these industries is not factored in.” − Climate News Network

Carbon emissions slow, but not nearly fast enough

Global shutdown during Covid-19 has forced down carbon emissions. But no inadvertent pause can replace global resolve.

LONDON, 8 March, 2021 − Five years after a planet-wide vow to reduce carbon emissions, it happened. In 2020, the world’s nations pumped only 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a drop of 2.6bn tonnes on the previous year.

For that, thank the coronavirus that triggered a global pandemic and international lockdown, rather than the determination of the planet’s leaders, businesses, energy producers, consumers and citizens.

In fact, only 64 countries have cut their carbon emissions in the years since 195 nations delivered the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015: these achieved annual cuts of 0.16bn tonnes in the years since. But emissions actually rose in 150 nations, which means that overall from 2016 to 2019 emissions grew by 0.21bn tonnes, compared with the preceding five years, 2011-2015.

And, say British, European, Australian and US scientists in the journal Nature Climate Change, the global pause during the pandemic in 2020 is not likely to continue. To make the kind of carbon emissions cuts that will fulfill the promise made in Paris to contain global heating to “well below” 2°C by 2100, the world must reduce carbon dioxide emissions each year by one to two billion tonnes.

That is an annual increase of ten times the cuts achieved so far by only 64 out of 214 countries.

“It is in everyone’s best interests to build back better to speed the urgent transition to clean energy”

Researchers have, since 2015, repeatedly made the case − in economic terms, in terms of human safety and justice, in terms of human health and nutrition − for drastic reductions in the use of the fossil fuels that, ultimately, power all economic growth.

They have also repeatedly warned that almost no nation, anywhere, is doing nearly enough to help meet the proposed goal of no more than 1.5°C warming by the end of the century. The world has already warmed by more than 1°C in the last century, thanks to human choices. Soon planetary temperatures could cross a dangerous threshold.

And although the dramatic pause in economic activity triggered by yet another zoonotic virus, the emergence of which may be yet another consequence of human disturbance of the planet’s natural ecosystems, is an indicator of new possibilities, the planet is still addicted to fossil fuels.

“The drop in CO2 emissions in response to Covid-19 highlights the scale of actions and international adherence needed to tackle climate change,” said Corinne le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia, UK, who led the study.

“Now we need large-scale actions that are good for human health and good for the planet. It is in everyone’s best interests to build back better to speed the urgent transition to clean energy.”

Inching towards cuts

The latest accounting suggests that there has been some movement, though simply not enough. Between 2016 and 2019, carbon emissions decreased in 25 out of 36 high income countries. The USA’s fell by 0.7%, the European Union’s by 0.9% and the UK’s by 3.6%, and those emissions fell even after accounting for the carbon costs of goods imported from other nations.

Of the middle income nations, Mexico’s carbon emissions dropped by 1.3% and China’s by 0.4%, a dramatic contrast with 2011-2015, when China’s emissions had grown by 6.2% a year. But altogether, 99 upper-middle income economies accounted for 51% of global emissions in 2019, and China accounted for 28% of the global total.

Even in the US and China, money is still going into fossil fuels. The European Union, Denmark, France, the UK, Germany and Switzerland are among the few countries that have tried to limit fossil fuel power and implement some kind of economic “green” stimulus.

The message is that, after a series of years in which temperature records have been repeatedly broken, years marked by devastating fire, drought, flood and windstorm, nations need to act, and at speed, to honour the Paris promise to cut their carbon emissions.

“This pressing timeline is constantly underscored by the rapid unfolding of extreme climate impacts worldwide,” said Professor Le Quéré. − Climate News Network

Global shutdown during Covid-19 has forced down carbon emissions. But no inadvertent pause can replace global resolve.

LONDON, 8 March, 2021 − Five years after a planet-wide vow to reduce carbon emissions, it happened. In 2020, the world’s nations pumped only 34 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a drop of 2.6bn tonnes on the previous year.

For that, thank the coronavirus that triggered a global pandemic and international lockdown, rather than the determination of the planet’s leaders, businesses, energy producers, consumers and citizens.

In fact, only 64 countries have cut their carbon emissions in the years since 195 nations delivered the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015: these achieved annual cuts of 0.16bn tonnes in the years since. But emissions actually rose in 150 nations, which means that overall from 2016 to 2019 emissions grew by 0.21bn tonnes, compared with the preceding five years, 2011-2015.

And, say British, European, Australian and US scientists in the journal Nature Climate Change, the global pause during the pandemic in 2020 is not likely to continue. To make the kind of carbon emissions cuts that will fulfill the promise made in Paris to contain global heating to “well below” 2°C by 2100, the world must reduce carbon dioxide emissions each year by one to two billion tonnes.

That is an annual increase of ten times the cuts achieved so far by only 64 out of 214 countries.

“It is in everyone’s best interests to build back better to speed the urgent transition to clean energy”

Researchers have, since 2015, repeatedly made the case − in economic terms, in terms of human safety and justice, in terms of human health and nutrition − for drastic reductions in the use of the fossil fuels that, ultimately, power all economic growth.

They have also repeatedly warned that almost no nation, anywhere, is doing nearly enough to help meet the proposed goal of no more than 1.5°C warming by the end of the century. The world has already warmed by more than 1°C in the last century, thanks to human choices. Soon planetary temperatures could cross a dangerous threshold.

And although the dramatic pause in economic activity triggered by yet another zoonotic virus, the emergence of which may be yet another consequence of human disturbance of the planet’s natural ecosystems, is an indicator of new possibilities, the planet is still addicted to fossil fuels.

“The drop in CO2 emissions in response to Covid-19 highlights the scale of actions and international adherence needed to tackle climate change,” said Corinne le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia, UK, who led the study.

“Now we need large-scale actions that are good for human health and good for the planet. It is in everyone’s best interests to build back better to speed the urgent transition to clean energy.”

Inching towards cuts

The latest accounting suggests that there has been some movement, though simply not enough. Between 2016 and 2019, carbon emissions decreased in 25 out of 36 high income countries. The USA’s fell by 0.7%, the European Union’s by 0.9% and the UK’s by 3.6%, and those emissions fell even after accounting for the carbon costs of goods imported from other nations.

Of the middle income nations, Mexico’s carbon emissions dropped by 1.3% and China’s by 0.4%, a dramatic contrast with 2011-2015, when China’s emissions had grown by 6.2% a year. But altogether, 99 upper-middle income economies accounted for 51% of global emissions in 2019, and China accounted for 28% of the global total.

Even in the US and China, money is still going into fossil fuels. The European Union, Denmark, France, the UK, Germany and Switzerland are among the few countries that have tried to limit fossil fuel power and implement some kind of economic “green” stimulus.

The message is that, after a series of years in which temperature records have been repeatedly broken, years marked by devastating fire, drought, flood and windstorm, nations need to act, and at speed, to honour the Paris promise to cut their carbon emissions.

“This pressing timeline is constantly underscored by the rapid unfolding of extreme climate impacts worldwide,” said Professor Le Quéré. − Climate News Network

India’s energy policy is key to the planet’s future

India must adopt a clean energy policy, a real industrial revolution, if the world is to slow the rising climate crisis.

LONDON, 18 February, 2021 − Here’s the bad news. Unless India opts for a totally new energy policy, a revolutionary switch to a clean future, the world has no chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.

But there’s some much better news too: with the right policies, it can both improve the lives of its own citizens and offer the entire planet hope of a livable climate.

That is the view of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which says that as it is the world’s third largest consumer of energy after China and the United States, the direction India takes is crucial to everyone’s future.

In a report, India Energy Outlook 2021, the Agency says the country’s energy use has doubled in the last 20 years, with 80% of the energy consumed still coming from coal, oil and wood.

“The stakes could not be higher, for India and for the world. All roads to successful global clean energy transitions go via India”

Despite this growth, India’s emissions per capita are still only half the world average. But this is set to change. Economic growth is expected to accelerate dramatically, and the rate of energy demand growth is already three times the global average.

Millions of Indian households are expected to buy new domestic appliances, air conditioning units and vehicles. Increasing urbanisation means four million people need new urban homes annually, requiring a city the size of Los Angeles to be built every year.

To meet this growth in electricity demand over the next twenty years, India will also need to add a power system the size of the whole European Union to what it already has, the IEA says.

The report describes the huge developments taking place in what is soon to overtake China as the world’s most populous country and explains how this growth can be achieved without destroying the planet in the process. The IEA has just entered what it calls “a strategic partnership” with India to help it towards a clean energy transition.

Huge opportunity

Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, admitted it was a daunting task: “The stakes could not be higher, for India and for the world. All roads to successful global clean energy transitions go via India.

“What our new report makes clear is the tremendous opportunity for India to successfully meet the aspirations of its citizens without following the high-carbon pathway that other economies have pursued in the past.”

The report agrees. Transformations in the energy sector – on a scale no country has achieved in history – require huge advances in innovation, strong partnerships and vast amounts of capital.

The extra funding for the clean energy technologies required to put India on a sustainable path over the next 20 years is US$1.4 trillion (£1tn), or 70% higher than in a scenario based on its current policy settings. But the benefits are huge, including savings of the same magnitude on oil import bills, the IEA calculates.

Solar’s bright future

At present the Indian government’s projected 50% rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 is enough to offset entirely the projected fall in emissions in Europe over the same period.

The Agency says these high emissions can be avoided. Although solar energy accounts for less than 4% of India’s electricity generation at the moment, and coal 70%, this will change: “Solar power is set for explosive growth, matching coal’s share in the Indian power generation mix within two decades.”

Even so, the government is not going far or fast enough. The scope for rooftop solar panels, solar thermal heating and pumps for irrigation and drinking water is very great.

Transport is another problem area. “An extra 25 million trucks will be travelling on India’s roads by 2040 as road freight activity triples, and a total of 300 million vehicles of all types are added to India’s fleet between now and then,” the report says.

Health will improve

India has many good policies to reduce the effect of this by electrifying rail routes and vehicles. But even so, without more policy improvements, its demand for oil is set to increase more than any other country’s.

Perhaps the most difficult area to control emissions is in the construction sector, with cement and steel production heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Ways to use electricity made with renewables for manufacturing rather than fossil fuels must be found.

There is also a need to replace and improve cooking stoves using gas and electricity instead of firewood and other traditional fuels, like animal dung.

The report makes the point that all the moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also help the country’s balance of payments and security by substituting home-produced renewables for fossil fuel imports. This cuts air pollution as well and improves people’s health, further improving economic output. − Climate News Network

India must adopt a clean energy policy, a real industrial revolution, if the world is to slow the rising climate crisis.

LONDON, 18 February, 2021 − Here’s the bad news. Unless India opts for a totally new energy policy, a revolutionary switch to a clean future, the world has no chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.

But there’s some much better news too: with the right policies, it can both improve the lives of its own citizens and offer the entire planet hope of a livable climate.

That is the view of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which says that as it is the world’s third largest consumer of energy after China and the United States, the direction India takes is crucial to everyone’s future.

In a report, India Energy Outlook 2021, the Agency says the country’s energy use has doubled in the last 20 years, with 80% of the energy consumed still coming from coal, oil and wood.

“The stakes could not be higher, for India and for the world. All roads to successful global clean energy transitions go via India”

Despite this growth, India’s emissions per capita are still only half the world average. But this is set to change. Economic growth is expected to accelerate dramatically, and the rate of energy demand growth is already three times the global average.

Millions of Indian households are expected to buy new domestic appliances, air conditioning units and vehicles. Increasing urbanisation means four million people need new urban homes annually, requiring a city the size of Los Angeles to be built every year.

To meet this growth in electricity demand over the next twenty years, India will also need to add a power system the size of the whole European Union to what it already has, the IEA says.

The report describes the huge developments taking place in what is soon to overtake China as the world’s most populous country and explains how this growth can be achieved without destroying the planet in the process. The IEA has just entered what it calls “a strategic partnership” with India to help it towards a clean energy transition.

Huge opportunity

Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, admitted it was a daunting task: “The stakes could not be higher, for India and for the world. All roads to successful global clean energy transitions go via India.

“What our new report makes clear is the tremendous opportunity for India to successfully meet the aspirations of its citizens without following the high-carbon pathway that other economies have pursued in the past.”

The report agrees. Transformations in the energy sector – on a scale no country has achieved in history – require huge advances in innovation, strong partnerships and vast amounts of capital.

The extra funding for the clean energy technologies required to put India on a sustainable path over the next 20 years is US$1.4 trillion (£1tn), or 70% higher than in a scenario based on its current policy settings. But the benefits are huge, including savings of the same magnitude on oil import bills, the IEA calculates.

Solar’s bright future

At present the Indian government’s projected 50% rise in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 is enough to offset entirely the projected fall in emissions in Europe over the same period.

The Agency says these high emissions can be avoided. Although solar energy accounts for less than 4% of India’s electricity generation at the moment, and coal 70%, this will change: “Solar power is set for explosive growth, matching coal’s share in the Indian power generation mix within two decades.”

Even so, the government is not going far or fast enough. The scope for rooftop solar panels, solar thermal heating and pumps for irrigation and drinking water is very great.

Transport is another problem area. “An extra 25 million trucks will be travelling on India’s roads by 2040 as road freight activity triples, and a total of 300 million vehicles of all types are added to India’s fleet between now and then,” the report says.

Health will improve

India has many good policies to reduce the effect of this by electrifying rail routes and vehicles. But even so, without more policy improvements, its demand for oil is set to increase more than any other country’s.

Perhaps the most difficult area to control emissions is in the construction sector, with cement and steel production heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Ways to use electricity made with renewables for manufacturing rather than fossil fuels must be found.

There is also a need to replace and improve cooking stoves using gas and electricity instead of firewood and other traditional fuels, like animal dung.

The report makes the point that all the moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also help the country’s balance of payments and security by substituting home-produced renewables for fossil fuel imports. This cuts air pollution as well and improves people’s health, further improving economic output. − Climate News Network

Carbon-free future is in reach for the US by 2050

America could have a carbon-free future by 2050 with a big switch to wind and solar power, say US government scientists.

LONDON, 11 February, 2021 − The US − per head of population perhaps the world’s most prodigal emitter of greenhouse gases − can reverse that and have a carbon-free future within three decades, at a cost of no more than $1 per person per day.

That would mean renewable energy to power all 50 states: giant wind power farms, solar power stations, electric cars, heat pumps and a range of other technological solutions.

The argument has been made before: made repeatedly; and contested too. But this time the reasoning comes not from individual scientists in a handful of US universities, but from an American government research base: the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with help from the University of San Francisco.

To make the switch more politically feasible, the authors argue, existing power plant could be allowed to live out its economic life; nobody need be asked to scrap a brand new gasoline-driven car for an electric vehicle.

“All that infrastructure build equates to jobs, and potentially jobs in the US, as opposed to spending money overseas to buy oil from other countries”

Their study − in the journal AGU Advances − looked at a range of ways to get to net zero carbon emissions, at costs as low as 0.2% of gross domestic product (GDP, the economist’s favourite measure of national wealth), or as high as 1.2%, with about 90% of power generated by wind or solar energy.

“The decarbonisation of the US energy system is fundamentally an infrastructure transformation,” said Margaret Torn, of the Berkeley Lab, one of the authors.

“It means that by 2050 we need to build many gigawatts of wind and solar plants, new transmission lines, a fleet of electric cars and light trucks, millions of heat pumps to replace conventional furnaces and water heaters, and more energy-efficient buildings, while continuing to research and innovate new technologies.”

The economic costs would be almost exclusively capital costs necessitated by the new infrastructure. That is both bad and good.

Jobs aplenty

“All that infrastructure build equates to jobs, and potentially jobs in the US, as opposed to spending money overseas to buy oil from other countries.

“There’s no question that there will need to be a well thought-out economic transition strategy for fossil fuel-based industries and communities, but there’s also no question that there are a lot of jobs in building a low carbon economy.”

The study also suggests the US could even become a source of what the scientists call “net negative” emissions by mid-century, taking more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than is added.

This would mean systematic carbon capture, investment in biofuels, and a lot more electric power; which in turn would cost inland and interstate transmission lines. But, the authors argue, this would be affordable to society just on energy grounds alone. − Climate News Network

America could have a carbon-free future by 2050 with a big switch to wind and solar power, say US government scientists.

LONDON, 11 February, 2021 − The US − per head of population perhaps the world’s most prodigal emitter of greenhouse gases − can reverse that and have a carbon-free future within three decades, at a cost of no more than $1 per person per day.

That would mean renewable energy to power all 50 states: giant wind power farms, solar power stations, electric cars, heat pumps and a range of other technological solutions.

The argument has been made before: made repeatedly; and contested too. But this time the reasoning comes not from individual scientists in a handful of US universities, but from an American government research base: the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with help from the University of San Francisco.

To make the switch more politically feasible, the authors argue, existing power plant could be allowed to live out its economic life; nobody need be asked to scrap a brand new gasoline-driven car for an electric vehicle.

“All that infrastructure build equates to jobs, and potentially jobs in the US, as opposed to spending money overseas to buy oil from other countries”

Their study − in the journal AGU Advances − looked at a range of ways to get to net zero carbon emissions, at costs as low as 0.2% of gross domestic product (GDP, the economist’s favourite measure of national wealth), or as high as 1.2%, with about 90% of power generated by wind or solar energy.

“The decarbonisation of the US energy system is fundamentally an infrastructure transformation,” said Margaret Torn, of the Berkeley Lab, one of the authors.

“It means that by 2050 we need to build many gigawatts of wind and solar plants, new transmission lines, a fleet of electric cars and light trucks, millions of heat pumps to replace conventional furnaces and water heaters, and more energy-efficient buildings, while continuing to research and innovate new technologies.”

The economic costs would be almost exclusively capital costs necessitated by the new infrastructure. That is both bad and good.

Jobs aplenty

“All that infrastructure build equates to jobs, and potentially jobs in the US, as opposed to spending money overseas to buy oil from other countries.

“There’s no question that there will need to be a well thought-out economic transition strategy for fossil fuel-based industries and communities, but there’s also no question that there are a lot of jobs in building a low carbon economy.”

The study also suggests the US could even become a source of what the scientists call “net negative” emissions by mid-century, taking more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than is added.

This would mean systematic carbon capture, investment in biofuels, and a lot more electric power; which in turn would cost inland and interstate transmission lines. But, the authors argue, this would be affordable to society just on energy grounds alone. − Climate News Network

Small may prove beautiful for the nuclear industry

The nuclear industry in much of the world is struggling to survive. Reverting to small reactors may be its best hope.

LONDON, 10 February, 2021 − Despite a campaign lasting two decades, the nuclear industry’s dream of building hundreds of large reactors to lead the fight to save the planet from overheating has evaporated.

While renewable energy industries, solar and wind in particular, get ever cheaper and expand faster, nuclear projects are steadily bogged down further in delays, cost over-runs and debt.

Some large nuclear power stations are still under construction in Russia and China, but in Europe and North America they are badly delayed and few in number. Many projects that have been long planned but not yet started are being abandoned.

This is despite the fact that nuclear-friendly governments, particularly those with nuclear-powered ships, submarines and weapons of mass destruction, have not given up on the industry.

But now, instead of building ever-larger reactors, these governments are switching their attention and financial backing to small modular reactors (SMRs).

“There is no justification for building new reactors at Sizewell C or Bradwell B”

These off-the-shelf prototypes can be scaled up or down in size, to double as power plants for ice breakers and submarines, or for use as electricity and heat generators for remote settlements, military bases and, theoretically, urban areas – if the local populations do not protest too loudly.

Currently the UK, the US, Russia and China are pouring large government subsidies into developing SMRs, which are said to be for electricity production, but equally are useful for training key personnel to use reactors for military purposes. In this regard the support of a non-nuclear weapon state (Canada) for SMRs seems odd, but it has many remote off-grid communities that might benefit if the technology works as claimed.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency small modular reactors have a great future. Its latest report says there are 72 SMRs under development or construction in 18 countries, although large-scale deployment for the technology is still some years off.

For nuclear critics this lengthy timescale is always the problem. Solar and wind power can be deployed in a matter of months, whereas the nuclear timetables always stretch years ahead. Even then, critics wonder, will the promises made for SMRs live up to the hype? They say past experience has shown that timetables slip and costs escalate.

Time is problematic

For the moment this track record does not seem to have dampened politicians’ enthusiasm for the technology. The current promise is that once the prototypes are up and working, parts for future reactors will be made in factories and put together on-site, so reducing energy costs by mass production methods – a bit like assembly lines for cars.

Meanwhile the larger reactor-building projects are definitely in trouble. EDF, the French state-owned and debt-laden nuclear giant, the last of the big European nuclear construction companies, is currently attempting to restructure itself. The plan is to hive off its successful renewable and hydropower enterprises to separate them from its deeply troubled nuclear arm.

But, as Reuters news agency reports, these plans have run into difficulties with the European Union because of fears they may involve unfair state aid to the industry.

Even without this attempt to improve its finances by restructuring, though, EDF’s current nuclear building projects at Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point C in the west of England are behind schedule, and costs are escalating.

Mounting opposition

Flamanville is close to a decade late, and Hinkley Point’s timetable is slipping and its costs rising. Last month the Japanese giant Hitachi finally pulled the plug on its scheme to build twin reactors at Wylfa in North Wales.

Other plans by EDF and its Chinese partners to build two more French-designed giant twin reactors at Sizewell and then two Chinese reactors at Bradwell (both sites are in eastern England) are still officially going ahead. However, despite months of negotiation, neither the UK government nor the two companies have come up with a way of financing them, and opposition to both schemes is growing.

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) group, in a statement on the rising costs of Hinkley Point, said: “Given that renewable technologies are considerably cheaper than new nuclear, and the financial challenges of the pandemic are obvious to all, NFLA believe there needs to be an urgent rethink over the proposed ‘benefits’ of building large and highly expensive new nuclear power stations.

“In this, there is no justification for building new reactors at Sizewell C or Bradwell B.” For the nuclear industry at large, small is sounding increasingly the favoured option. − Climate News Network

The nuclear industry in much of the world is struggling to survive. Reverting to small reactors may be its best hope.

LONDON, 10 February, 2021 − Despite a campaign lasting two decades, the nuclear industry’s dream of building hundreds of large reactors to lead the fight to save the planet from overheating has evaporated.

While renewable energy industries, solar and wind in particular, get ever cheaper and expand faster, nuclear projects are steadily bogged down further in delays, cost over-runs and debt.

Some large nuclear power stations are still under construction in Russia and China, but in Europe and North America they are badly delayed and few in number. Many projects that have been long planned but not yet started are being abandoned.

This is despite the fact that nuclear-friendly governments, particularly those with nuclear-powered ships, submarines and weapons of mass destruction, have not given up on the industry.

But now, instead of building ever-larger reactors, these governments are switching their attention and financial backing to small modular reactors (SMRs).

“There is no justification for building new reactors at Sizewell C or Bradwell B”

These off-the-shelf prototypes can be scaled up or down in size, to double as power plants for ice breakers and submarines, or for use as electricity and heat generators for remote settlements, military bases and, theoretically, urban areas – if the local populations do not protest too loudly.

Currently the UK, the US, Russia and China are pouring large government subsidies into developing SMRs, which are said to be for electricity production, but equally are useful for training key personnel to use reactors for military purposes. In this regard the support of a non-nuclear weapon state (Canada) for SMRs seems odd, but it has many remote off-grid communities that might benefit if the technology works as claimed.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency small modular reactors have a great future. Its latest report says there are 72 SMRs under development or construction in 18 countries, although large-scale deployment for the technology is still some years off.

For nuclear critics this lengthy timescale is always the problem. Solar and wind power can be deployed in a matter of months, whereas the nuclear timetables always stretch years ahead. Even then, critics wonder, will the promises made for SMRs live up to the hype? They say past experience has shown that timetables slip and costs escalate.

Time is problematic

For the moment this track record does not seem to have dampened politicians’ enthusiasm for the technology. The current promise is that once the prototypes are up and working, parts for future reactors will be made in factories and put together on-site, so reducing energy costs by mass production methods – a bit like assembly lines for cars.

Meanwhile the larger reactor-building projects are definitely in trouble. EDF, the French state-owned and debt-laden nuclear giant, the last of the big European nuclear construction companies, is currently attempting to restructure itself. The plan is to hive off its successful renewable and hydropower enterprises to separate them from its deeply troubled nuclear arm.

But, as Reuters news agency reports, these plans have run into difficulties with the European Union because of fears they may involve unfair state aid to the industry.

Even without this attempt to improve its finances by restructuring, though, EDF’s current nuclear building projects at Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point C in the west of England are behind schedule, and costs are escalating.

Mounting opposition

Flamanville is close to a decade late, and Hinkley Point’s timetable is slipping and its costs rising. Last month the Japanese giant Hitachi finally pulled the plug on its scheme to build twin reactors at Wylfa in North Wales.

Other plans by EDF and its Chinese partners to build two more French-designed giant twin reactors at Sizewell and then two Chinese reactors at Bradwell (both sites are in eastern England) are still officially going ahead. However, despite months of negotiation, neither the UK government nor the two companies have come up with a way of financing them, and opposition to both schemes is growing.

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) group, in a statement on the rising costs of Hinkley Point, said: “Given that renewable technologies are considerably cheaper than new nuclear, and the financial challenges of the pandemic are obvious to all, NFLA believe there needs to be an urgent rethink over the proposed ‘benefits’ of building large and highly expensive new nuclear power stations.

“In this, there is no justification for building new reactors at Sizewell C or Bradwell B.” For the nuclear industry at large, small is sounding increasingly the favoured option. − Climate News Network

Recovering atmospheric carbon can make new fuel

Taking atmospheric carbon dioxide from the air to make fuel could tackle two threats: greenhouse gases and oil shortage.

LONDON, 4 February, 2021 − British scientists have worked out a way of recovering atmospheric carbon, meaning they can conjure aviation jet fuel from thin air, using an inexpensive catalyst to turn carbon dioxide into a range of hydrocarbons so far produced from crude oil.

More than 6,000 miles to the east, chemists have produced an aerogel, one kilogramme of which is capable of producing − again just from the ambient air − 17 litres of fresh water in a day.

Both these solutions to a growing demand for fuel and water are only at the demonstration stage. Commercial production is a long way off.

Both are yet more evidence of the enormous ingenuity and invention at work in the world’s laboratories and universities as they address the energy dilemma: how to power human society without generating the greenhouse gases that could also − through climate change driven by global heating − ultimately destroy it.

“[This is] a vision for the route to achieving net-zero carbon emissions from aviation; a fulcrum of a future global zero-carbon aviation sector”

For years researchers have addressed one power paradox: that the world is driven by fossil fuels which in combustion emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. But fossil fuels are already fashioned − over millions of years − from organic material composed ultimately of carbon dioxide.

That is: all hydrocarbons must have once just been the greenhouse gas. So there might just be a clever way to shorten the process, and turn atmospheric carbon directly into butane or ethylene or kerosene.

Researchers from Oxford University report in the journal Nature Communications that with help from an organic compound − they used citric acid − they have fashioned a catalyst from iron, manganese and potassium that could directly convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons very like jet fuel, with a bonus of ethylene and other products important to the petrochemical industry as well.

The researchers call their work “a significant advance” and a vision for “the route to achieving net-zero carbon emissions from aviation; a fulcrum of a future global zero-carbon aviation sector.”

Renewable water supply

The air we breathe is not just oxygen, nitrogen, argon and carbon dioxide: it also contains colossal amounts of water vapour, enough to fill 500 thousand billion Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Researchers at the National University of Singapore report in the journal Science Advances that they have fashioned an aerogel − think of a jelly made from air rather than water − that of itself collects water molecules from the air, condenses them into a liquid and releases the water: 95% of the vapour that goes in is released as water.

It needs no power source, the water meets World Health Organisation standards for drinking water, and in laboratory tests one aerogel sample went on for months.

Since vapour is constantly renewed by sun-driven evaporation, once again, the water supply becomes renewable. The next step is to find an industrial partner and a market where clean water is scarce. − Climate News Network

Taking atmospheric carbon dioxide from the air to make fuel could tackle two threats: greenhouse gases and oil shortage.

LONDON, 4 February, 2021 − British scientists have worked out a way of recovering atmospheric carbon, meaning they can conjure aviation jet fuel from thin air, using an inexpensive catalyst to turn carbon dioxide into a range of hydrocarbons so far produced from crude oil.

More than 6,000 miles to the east, chemists have produced an aerogel, one kilogramme of which is capable of producing − again just from the ambient air − 17 litres of fresh water in a day.

Both these solutions to a growing demand for fuel and water are only at the demonstration stage. Commercial production is a long way off.

Both are yet more evidence of the enormous ingenuity and invention at work in the world’s laboratories and universities as they address the energy dilemma: how to power human society without generating the greenhouse gases that could also − through climate change driven by global heating − ultimately destroy it.

“[This is] a vision for the route to achieving net-zero carbon emissions from aviation; a fulcrum of a future global zero-carbon aviation sector”

For years researchers have addressed one power paradox: that the world is driven by fossil fuels which in combustion emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. But fossil fuels are already fashioned − over millions of years − from organic material composed ultimately of carbon dioxide.

That is: all hydrocarbons must have once just been the greenhouse gas. So there might just be a clever way to shorten the process, and turn atmospheric carbon directly into butane or ethylene or kerosene.

Researchers from Oxford University report in the journal Nature Communications that with help from an organic compound − they used citric acid − they have fashioned a catalyst from iron, manganese and potassium that could directly convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons very like jet fuel, with a bonus of ethylene and other products important to the petrochemical industry as well.

The researchers call their work “a significant advance” and a vision for “the route to achieving net-zero carbon emissions from aviation; a fulcrum of a future global zero-carbon aviation sector.”

Renewable water supply

The air we breathe is not just oxygen, nitrogen, argon and carbon dioxide: it also contains colossal amounts of water vapour, enough to fill 500 thousand billion Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Researchers at the National University of Singapore report in the journal Science Advances that they have fashioned an aerogel − think of a jelly made from air rather than water − that of itself collects water molecules from the air, condenses them into a liquid and releases the water: 95% of the vapour that goes in is released as water.

It needs no power source, the water meets World Health Organisation standards for drinking water, and in laboratory tests one aerogel sample went on for months.

Since vapour is constantly renewed by sun-driven evaporation, once again, the water supply becomes renewable. The next step is to find an industrial partner and a market where clean water is scarce. − Climate News Network

Ireland’s peat is helping to fight climate chaos

A winning natural way to absorb greenhouse gases, Ireland’s peat is one route for the country to tackle the climate crisis.

My grandfather cut more turf in a day
Than any other man on Toner’s bog.
Once I carried him milk in a bottle
Corked sloppily with paper. He straightened up
To drink it, then fell to right away
Nicking and slicing neatly, heaving sods
Over his shoulder, going down and down
For the good turf. Digging.

− From ‘Digging’, by Seamus Heaney

COUNTY MAYO, IRELAND, 2 February, 2021 − Ireland’s peat is offering the country a novel way to back the global effort to save the planet from overheating dangerously. It is helping to lock up the carbon emissions which are feeding the steady rise in the Earth’s temperature.

For generations its farmers have cut turf from the bog lands for fuel, and now their laborious, back-breaking work, seen as an integral part of Irish rural life, immortalised in songs, paintings – and picture postcard images − is earning them plaudits for protecting the atmosphere.

Seamus Heaney, Ireland’s most famous modern-day poet and winner of the Nobel prize in literature in 1995, wrote of turf-cutting rituals and the wild beauty of bog lands. In many rural areas the turf fire is still the centrepiece of home life. As part of the battle against climate chaos, though, old habits stretching back for centuries are having to change.

Carrownagappul is a 325-hectare area of bog land near the village of Mountbellew, in County Galway in the west of Ireland. Locals say the turf – also called peat – cut from the bog land is the best in Ireland.

Altogether, 100 families have what are called turbary rights to Carrownagappul, part of an old and complex system allowing certain people to cut and carry away turf from the area.

“There is no better, quicker or cheaper way for Ireland to reduce its carbon footprint than restoring peat lands”

Areas of peat or turf – formed by an accumulation of decayed vegetation – act as a vital carbon sink, soaking up and storing vast amounts of climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Peat lands around the world have been drained and destroyed at a great rate over the years: as a result large amounts of greenhouse gases have been released into the atmosphere. Drought and rising temperatures have caused fires in many regions, drying out peat deposits. Nearly 20% of Ireland’s land is bog land, storing an estimated one billion tonnes of carbon.

Under a programme called The Living Bog – backed up with €5.4 million (£4.7m) of funds from the European Union – Ireland is now seeking to restore dozens of its bogs and make them able, once again, to store large amounts of carbon.

At Carrownagappul drains have been blocked to raise water levels and so re-wet the bog land: this encourages the growth of sphagnum moss, one of the main constituents of peat.

Ronan Casey is a spokesman for The Living Bog project. In an interview with the Irish Times Casey says it’s hard to overstate the importance of restoring Ireland’s peat lands as the country battles against climate chaos.

Paid to stop

“There is no better, quicker or cheaper way for Ireland to reduce its carbon footprint than restoring peat lands”, Casey tells the newspaper. “Peat lands are Ireland’s biggest carbon store; one-fifth of our soil is peat soil.

“Locking CO2 in is just as good as trying to plant trees somewhere else. They (peat bogs) store far more carbon dioxide than forests. A 15cm-thick peat layer contains more carbon per hectare than a tropical forest.”

Many of those who once cut turf at Carrownagappul have been given cash payments to stop their activities. The aim is to turn the area into a centre for tourism with an educational facility explaining the history and ecological importance of the bog.

A board walk is being built across the bog. Peat land is rich in flora and fauna. Casey refers to Ireland’s peat lands as the country’s coral reef.

As part of a scheme to encourage the local community to participate in the restoration work at Carrownagappul, a series of lectures and talks at schools is being arranged.

Not so green

At one stage the Irish government promoted the use of turf in order to achieve greater energy self-sufficiency. In the 1960s 40% of the country’s electricity was generated by turf-fired power plants. Most of these plants – chronically inefficient and heavily subsidised – are now being phased out: the government says all will be shut down by 2030 or sooner.

Work to restore peat lands is going on in several parts of the country. Bord na Mona, the semi-state company that once specialised in developing the country’s peat resources and running turf-powered power plants, has diversified into renewable energy projects and recycling; it is now spending €126 million restoring 80,000 hectares of bog.

But there has been resistance to bringing an end to the old turf-cutting ways, with people in some areas insisting on their ancient rights and saying that turf is still an important heating fuel, particularly in rural areas. The government is accused of being half-hearted about fighting climate change by allowing turf cutting to continue in some regions.

Despite its green and pastoral image, per head of population Ireland is one of the main emitters of climate-changing greenhouse gases in Europe, due in large part to activities in the agricultural sector.

The burping and flatulence of the country’s seven million-strong cattle herd results in the emission of large amounts of methane gas. Fertilisers add to the country’s emissions. − Climate News Network

A winning natural way to absorb greenhouse gases, Ireland’s peat is one route for the country to tackle the climate crisis.

My grandfather cut more turf in a day
Than any other man on Toner’s bog.
Once I carried him milk in a bottle
Corked sloppily with paper. He straightened up
To drink it, then fell to right away
Nicking and slicing neatly, heaving sods
Over his shoulder, going down and down
For the good turf. Digging.

− From ‘Digging’, by Seamus Heaney

COUNTY MAYO, IRELAND, 2 February, 2021 − Ireland’s peat is offering the country a novel way to back the global effort to save the planet from overheating dangerously. It is helping to lock up the carbon emissions which are feeding the steady rise in the Earth’s temperature.

For generations its farmers have cut turf from the bog lands for fuel, and now their laborious, back-breaking work, seen as an integral part of Irish rural life, immortalised in songs, paintings – and picture postcard images − is earning them plaudits for protecting the atmosphere.

Seamus Heaney, Ireland’s most famous modern-day poet and winner of the Nobel prize in literature in 1995, wrote of turf-cutting rituals and the wild beauty of bog lands. In many rural areas the turf fire is still the centrepiece of home life. As part of the battle against climate chaos, though, old habits stretching back for centuries are having to change.

Carrownagappul is a 325-hectare area of bog land near the village of Mountbellew, in County Galway in the west of Ireland. Locals say the turf – also called peat – cut from the bog land is the best in Ireland.

Altogether, 100 families have what are called turbary rights to Carrownagappul, part of an old and complex system allowing certain people to cut and carry away turf from the area.

“There is no better, quicker or cheaper way for Ireland to reduce its carbon footprint than restoring peat lands”

Areas of peat or turf – formed by an accumulation of decayed vegetation – act as a vital carbon sink, soaking up and storing vast amounts of climate-changing greenhouse gases.

Peat lands around the world have been drained and destroyed at a great rate over the years: as a result large amounts of greenhouse gases have been released into the atmosphere. Drought and rising temperatures have caused fires in many regions, drying out peat deposits. Nearly 20% of Ireland’s land is bog land, storing an estimated one billion tonnes of carbon.

Under a programme called The Living Bog – backed up with €5.4 million (£4.7m) of funds from the European Union – Ireland is now seeking to restore dozens of its bogs and make them able, once again, to store large amounts of carbon.

At Carrownagappul drains have been blocked to raise water levels and so re-wet the bog land: this encourages the growth of sphagnum moss, one of the main constituents of peat.

Ronan Casey is a spokesman for The Living Bog project. In an interview with the Irish Times Casey says it’s hard to overstate the importance of restoring Ireland’s peat lands as the country battles against climate chaos.

Paid to stop

“There is no better, quicker or cheaper way for Ireland to reduce its carbon footprint than restoring peat lands”, Casey tells the newspaper. “Peat lands are Ireland’s biggest carbon store; one-fifth of our soil is peat soil.

“Locking CO2 in is just as good as trying to plant trees somewhere else. They (peat bogs) store far more carbon dioxide than forests. A 15cm-thick peat layer contains more carbon per hectare than a tropical forest.”

Many of those who once cut turf at Carrownagappul have been given cash payments to stop their activities. The aim is to turn the area into a centre for tourism with an educational facility explaining the history and ecological importance of the bog.

A board walk is being built across the bog. Peat land is rich in flora and fauna. Casey refers to Ireland’s peat lands as the country’s coral reef.

As part of a scheme to encourage the local community to participate in the restoration work at Carrownagappul, a series of lectures and talks at schools is being arranged.

Not so green

At one stage the Irish government promoted the use of turf in order to achieve greater energy self-sufficiency. In the 1960s 40% of the country’s electricity was generated by turf-fired power plants. Most of these plants – chronically inefficient and heavily subsidised – are now being phased out: the government says all will be shut down by 2030 or sooner.

Work to restore peat lands is going on in several parts of the country. Bord na Mona, the semi-state company that once specialised in developing the country’s peat resources and running turf-powered power plants, has diversified into renewable energy projects and recycling; it is now spending €126 million restoring 80,000 hectares of bog.

But there has been resistance to bringing an end to the old turf-cutting ways, with people in some areas insisting on their ancient rights and saying that turf is still an important heating fuel, particularly in rural areas. The government is accused of being half-hearted about fighting climate change by allowing turf cutting to continue in some regions.

Despite its green and pastoral image, per head of population Ireland is one of the main emitters of climate-changing greenhouse gases in Europe, due in large part to activities in the agricultural sector.

The burping and flatulence of the country’s seven million-strong cattle herd results in the emission of large amounts of methane gas. Fertilisers add to the country’s emissions. − Climate News Network

Energy efficiency boosts jobs and cuts climate heat

Creating millions of jobs in energy efficiency schemes is the fastest way to restore prosperity and cut climate heating.

LONDON, 26 January, 2021 − Improving energy efficiency creates far more jobs than generating it, and at the same time provides a way out of the Covid crisis by bringing prosperity.

That’s the verdict of a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which says efficiency-related stimulus packages that have been announced already will create 1.8 million jobs in the next two years, with many more to come if governments spend their money wisely.

Two-thirds of the jobs would be in the building sector, most of them in retrofitting homes, factories and offices with insulation and other efficiency measures. One of the main benefits of the scheme, the IEA says, would be for young people with few academic qualifications, currently the worst hit by unemployment, who would be needed for most of the building jobs. The remaining jobs would be in transport (20%) and industry (16%).

Based on information received by the IEA by December, when the report was published, 80% of these new jobs would be created in Europe. At the time the US was the largest employer of workers in energy efficiency, despite the anti-climate policies of the Trump administration. With Joe Biden now occupying the presidency and rejoining the Paris Agreement, jobs in energy efficiency in the US are expected to snowball.

“Energy efficiency investments are one of the most attractive investments in the energy sector for governments seeking to protect existing or generate new jobs”

Altogether the scope for jobs in the sector across the world is enormous, with the developing world yet to take energy efficiency seriously. Before the pandemic hit, the IEA estimated that there were 2.4 million energy efficiency jobs in the US, up to 3 million in Europe, but fewer than 750,000 in China and a maximum of 62,000 in Brazil.

With China now taking climate change far more seriously and pledging to be carbon neutral by 2060, energy efficiency is likely to create a boom for building workers there.

Although many building jobs have been lost because of Covid-19, the IEA estimates that the labour-intensive nature of many energy efficiency upgrades means spending US$1million on improving efficiency will generate between six and 15 jobs on average, depending on the sector. Investments announced to date have created 3.4 million new job years (one job for one year) in the sector.

The report says: “As energy efficiency investments can also be mobilised quickly, they are one of the most attractive investments in the energy sector for governments seeking to protect existing jobs or generate new jobs during the recession.”

Best for new jobs

As part of their public relations drives when suggesting potentially unpopular new developments, most energy industries stress how many jobs will result. For example, building a nuclear power station in the UK, Sizewell C, is said by the would-be builders to promise the creation of  more than 5,000 jobs.

However, figures compiled by the UK Office for National Statistics show that energy efficiency trumps all other energy industries for job creation.

In the UK’s low-carbon and renewables energy sector, which includes all nuclear and renewable energy options, energy efficiency formed easily the largest component of jobs, with 114,000 full-time employees (51%) in 2018. There were 49,800 people employed in renewable activity, wind and solar for example, and only 12,400 in the whole nuclear energy sector, most of them in reprocessing spent fuel.

As the IEA notes, scaled-up world wide there are potentially millions of jobs in energy efficiency, and it is clearly the single quickest and cheapest way of reducing carbon emissions, since it both reduces existing demand for energy and makes new fossil fuel power stations unnecessary. − Climate News Network

Creating millions of jobs in energy efficiency schemes is the fastest way to restore prosperity and cut climate heating.

LONDON, 26 January, 2021 − Improving energy efficiency creates far more jobs than generating it, and at the same time provides a way out of the Covid crisis by bringing prosperity.

That’s the verdict of a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which says efficiency-related stimulus packages that have been announced already will create 1.8 million jobs in the next two years, with many more to come if governments spend their money wisely.

Two-thirds of the jobs would be in the building sector, most of them in retrofitting homes, factories and offices with insulation and other efficiency measures. One of the main benefits of the scheme, the IEA says, would be for young people with few academic qualifications, currently the worst hit by unemployment, who would be needed for most of the building jobs. The remaining jobs would be in transport (20%) and industry (16%).

Based on information received by the IEA by December, when the report was published, 80% of these new jobs would be created in Europe. At the time the US was the largest employer of workers in energy efficiency, despite the anti-climate policies of the Trump administration. With Joe Biden now occupying the presidency and rejoining the Paris Agreement, jobs in energy efficiency in the US are expected to snowball.

“Energy efficiency investments are one of the most attractive investments in the energy sector for governments seeking to protect existing or generate new jobs”

Altogether the scope for jobs in the sector across the world is enormous, with the developing world yet to take energy efficiency seriously. Before the pandemic hit, the IEA estimated that there were 2.4 million energy efficiency jobs in the US, up to 3 million in Europe, but fewer than 750,000 in China and a maximum of 62,000 in Brazil.

With China now taking climate change far more seriously and pledging to be carbon neutral by 2060, energy efficiency is likely to create a boom for building workers there.

Although many building jobs have been lost because of Covid-19, the IEA estimates that the labour-intensive nature of many energy efficiency upgrades means spending US$1million on improving efficiency will generate between six and 15 jobs on average, depending on the sector. Investments announced to date have created 3.4 million new job years (one job for one year) in the sector.

The report says: “As energy efficiency investments can also be mobilised quickly, they are one of the most attractive investments in the energy sector for governments seeking to protect existing jobs or generate new jobs during the recession.”

Best for new jobs

As part of their public relations drives when suggesting potentially unpopular new developments, most energy industries stress how many jobs will result. For example, building a nuclear power station in the UK, Sizewell C, is said by the would-be builders to promise the creation of  more than 5,000 jobs.

However, figures compiled by the UK Office for National Statistics show that energy efficiency trumps all other energy industries for job creation.

In the UK’s low-carbon and renewables energy sector, which includes all nuclear and renewable energy options, energy efficiency formed easily the largest component of jobs, with 114,000 full-time employees (51%) in 2018. There were 49,800 people employed in renewable activity, wind and solar for example, and only 12,400 in the whole nuclear energy sector, most of them in reprocessing spent fuel.

As the IEA notes, scaled-up world wide there are potentially millions of jobs in energy efficiency, and it is clearly the single quickest and cheapest way of reducing carbon emissions, since it both reduces existing demand for energy and makes new fossil fuel power stations unnecessary. − Climate News Network