We have read this report and found it disappointing. The main criticism would be that it attempts to cover too much ground and in doing so will leave readers confused. In particular the chapter on ‘Climate Extremes and Impacts’, which is really the crux of the matter, the examination ranges over every possible weather-related event, from coastal erosion, hurricanes/typhoons, to heat-waves, droughts and flooding. This inevitably leads to a great number of conclusions, probability levels and hedging around. Most people reading this section will end up very confused.

At this point we would like to draw people’s attention to a more concise, but much less publicised paper, available here

http://www.littlelink.org//ft

This is James Hansen’s latest paper on extreme weather events (published a few days earlier than the IPCC report). His paper focuses upon the statistical record and presents very clear and compelling conclusions. Anyone reading Hansen’s paper will be left in little doubt that global warming and extreme weather events are now very probably related, according to statistical evidence. It would have been better for the IPCC to present something more resembling the Hansen paper, i.e. more focused, more evidence based.

The report can be viewed Waste Utilisation in the UK. Its conclusions are that the UK disposes of around 59m tonnes of household, commercial and agricultural waste each year, after recycling or composting some 40m tonnes (total therefore being 99m tonnes). This compares with our earlier estimate of 110m tonnes.

It should be stressed that Jenya’s figure of 59m tonnes is the officially recorded amount of waste. Actual amounts produced are certainly higher than this simply because not all waste finds its way either into recycling or into landfill. The ‘true’ figure may be 30% or even 40% higher than this.

Anyway, the 59m tonnes not currently being recycled or composted has an enormous energy value. Jenya calculates this at 563k terajoules (using average energy conversion rates across a wide spectrum of proven technologies). This would be enough to generate up to 14% of our current electricity consumption or 100% of existing ethanol-for-petrol substitution targets. In terms of value, the energy latent in the waste would be worth up to £7.2 billion per annum.

We believe that it is important to highlight these numbers as they represent a significant energy resource that is controlled by the UK Government (mostly via local councils). At the present moment, this resource is viewed as a problem – and an expensive one at that. Perceptions can and probably will change as the technologies become widely available which can process this waste into either electricity or bio-fuels. All that is lacking for this to happen is sufficient capital allocation; many of the technologies we have looked at over the past year or so are already capable of turning waste into energy on a commercially competitive basis.

Our own project (Project Greenland), which aims to take green (or garden) waste and turn it into solid fuel for domestic use, is a good example. We hope to launch this project commercially within the coming year, taking green waste, drying it and briquetting it to create a solid fuel to compete with firewood, sawdust briquettes and coal. While we are very excited about the renewable credentials of this product (few things are more renewable than grass, especially in the UK), the most significant thing about it is the cost of production. Ex bagging and branding, the cost of producing green waste briquettes is around £25 per tonne. Compare this with the current price of unprocessed sawdust (c.a. £20 per tonne and rising fast) and you will see why.

Recent years have seen the prices of solid fuel rise more or less in tandem with those of gas and oil, and this trend is very likely to continue in the future (for the reason that all solid fuels have large energy input in their production profile and also because they are produced from non-renewable or long term renewable sources, so have scarcity pressure in their pricing). Our green waste briquettes are different – energy costs represent just 10% of the market price of the product, and they are made from super renewable feedstock.

This means that we can keep prices low and, potentially, for a long time into the future. Already, we plan to market the briquettes at a substantial discount to firewood (cheapest of the available solid fuels). This discount will grow as time goes by, making green waste briquettes one of the most obvious answers to fuel poverty, which we feel will be even more of an issue in ten years’ time than it is today.

This brings us back to Jenya’s paper. If the Government adopts a laissez faire approach to waste, permitting the gasification / bio-fuels industries to take increasing portions of this waste and turn it into the highest value added products (electricity, bio-fuel for vehicles), then an opportunity will be missed. Heating homes with electricity or petrol is very inefficient. Furthermore, increasing numbers of households are likely to find the cost excessive. This will lead to a requirement for government to subsidize poorer households’ winter heating in an ever increasing spiral. Such subsidies are inefficient and expensive (not to mention very difficult to administer).

We will therefore be making the argument to government over the coming years that waste is a strategic national resource and should be valued as such. If all of the available 60m tonnes is simply handed over to the market, it will be processed and sold at the highest possible price (most likely as bio-fuel). This would in many respects be a ‘good thing’, but would like many good things provide no benefit to the worst off. Setting aside a portion of this national resource in order to ensure low cost heating for the poorest households seems sensible to us. Four million English households are classified today as being ‘fuel poor’. All of them could be provided with very cheap heating, either individually through briquettes or communally through pellets, using green waste. If we assume that each household needs an allocation of two tonnes of solid fuel to provide sufficient winter heating, then the eight million tonnes could be sourced entirely from the existing ‘stock’ of green waste, which we estimate to be in the region of 12m tonnes across the country.

The week was set around teaching an understanding of the market-based environmental regulation and the difficulties of setting up a company within it. The program included daily updates on evolving situations, case studies and a visit to a methane capture facility. Challenging and inclusive talks were given by Christopher Webb of Price Waterhouse Coopers and by Mike Wheelhouse of SCCF. Throughout the week we were expertly taught by Gareth Phillips and organised (not an easy task!) by Renita du Toit and Natasza Moskwa. It was an excellent experience and I would like to sincerely thank SCCF for the opportunity. Hopefully the program will continue in the future!

By David Mcbay, Student of Merchiston Castle School in Edinburgh

Students will spend two years studying at the highly respected TERI University in Delhi.

We would be very keen to have applications from students within a catchment area that includes Africa, the sub-continent and Central Asia. Anyone reading this thread that is interested, or has contacts within relevant universities, please contact us as we would like to advertise the scholarships more widely.

Concerning the scale of the opportunity for fuel substitution (UK only), we would like to present the following figures, which are admittedly fairly rough estimates in several cases (though we would be happy to share our workings with anyone interested):

• Agricultural waste 30 million tonnes per annum (more if push came to shove and it was actively sought out)
• Green or garden waste 14 million tonnes per annum (more if push came to shove etc)
• Municipal or household waste (organic only) 40m tonnes per annum

If we consider that certain waste to bio-fuel technologies, such as that being pursued by Ineos Bio (www.ineosbio.com) , are able to convert waste plastics also, then we could add another 30m tonnes to our total. Total applicable waste is probably somewhere in the region of 110 million tonnes. This would convert into 3.5 billion litres of fuel, based upon current conversion rates applicable to the waste to bio-fuel technology. In 2009 (latest available figures from the DTEE) the total consumption of diesel and petrol by all road vehicles in the UK was around 30 billion litres.

Every ten percent of available waste converted into fuel would therefore represent slightly more than a percentage point of petrol/diesel substitution.   Where fuel price reduction and emission reduction meet:  we should see momentum.

By virtue of years of R&D on its proprietary bacteria, TMO has come up with a highly efficient process whose main characteristics are:

• Ability to use multiple feed-stocks
• Consumes complex sugar chains without a problem
• Requires much lower inputs of expensive enzymes.

Whilst putting in a great deal of effort in the laboratory, the company has not neglected the engineering. The TMO system has been through much iteration in order to reduce capex costs as far as possible. This two-pronged development work means that the bio-fuel process, in its second generation configuration, bears little comparison with what was being attempted just five or six years ago. Industry experts have told us that TMO is probably 3-4 years ahead of its competition – a British success story.

TMO’s focus is entirely upon turning organic waste into valuable liquid fuels, primarily ethanol, with feed-stocks ranging from agricultural cast offs to municipal solid waste. It will therefore have next to zero impact on food production, and so food prices, wherever it is deployed.

We are exploring opportunities to partner with them in a project in the Middle East region.

With thanks to Guillermo Serrano from Nomura Code Securities for making the introduction.

All photographs courtesy of Bryony Livingstone

Our chairman, Lord Stone of Blackheath, launched an initiative last year to help Palestinian farmers access the UK fresh food market. This initiative, ‘Moon Valley’, has already achieved notable success. West Bank farmers’ produce (initially fresh herbs, but to be expanded to peppers, tomatoes and more) is now available at Sainsburys, M&S and the Co-op.

Lord Stone asked us to spend some time with the Moon Valley farmers to investigate opportunities for helping them with resource management (particularly water and power) and sustainability. We made this trip towards the end of August, and the following is a very condensed summary of our findings.

Palestinian communities in the West Bank have low living standards and poor life opportunities. Their main source of earnings is farming, helped by a favourable climate and very fertile soil. Serious problems however are faced in the shape of limited access to water, restricted ability to export their goods and a high cost of energy.

The Jordan Valley region is unusual in that it combines fairly well developed ‘economic’ infrastructure (roads, communications, access to grid electricity) with severe levels of poverty and poor ‘social’ infrastructure (notably schools, clinics). A major issue is the cost of electricity, which at roughly 33 US cents per kilowatt hour, is twice the European norm and three times the American.

The cost of energy – be it grid electricity or petrol (which is also expensive, roughly £1 per litre) – affects all aspects of the farmers’ lives. It raises overall cost of living; it lowers their competitiveness versus the Israeli settler farmers (who reportedly receive large discounts on utility costs); and it affects schooling and healthcare. Classrooms are baking hot ovens most of the year round, resulting in high drop-out rates, which cannot be good for long term peace prospects.

Can we help? Many NGOs are active in supplying small scale wind and solar solutions to the communities in the West Bank (we met with some of them). This is good and suitable technology for healthcare and schools, and we will look for ways to support these efforts.

The big opportunity we spotted, however, was in the area of biomass waste. This is something we are very interested in, and we are of course conducting pilot projects in this field in the UK, Africa and India (more on these later).

Farmers in the West Bank are burning off thousands of tonnes of agricultural waste which – as per the Indian model – is potentially a valuable source of power. During our visit we examined large quantities of maize, palm, tomato and vine waste, any and all of which could be directly pelletised and burned in 100 kw gasifiers to produce low cost electricity.

Photograph of tomato stalk waste taken on our trip to the Valley

The main issue affecting any potential siting of a biomass power plant in the region is Government authorisation and planning permission. Lord Stone has already started work on this, and feedback so far has been very positive on the Israeli side.

Our next step will be to collect samples of the principal kinds of waste and have them chemically analysed at Ben Gurion University. We aim to do this by the middle of October. None of the biomass waste available is ‘unusual’ – most types have already been converted into solid fuel elsewhere in the world. We therefore expect, with the assistance of SSR India, to begin preparing a project plan that will aim at delivering low cost electricity to farming co-operatives and many households.

Examination of other kinds of waste with Fahdi, local farmer

At the moment we envisage a pilot project of around 500 kilowatts, which is fairly small. As a proof of concept, however, it would be enormously significant for the people in this region.

• Visiting Gomti bio-fuels (www.gomtibiotech.in) which has a joint venture project with our sponsor firm SSR; we want to investigate whether the Gomti technology can be used to produce bio-diesel in the Jordan Valley;
• Have a good look at HitechAgro’s (www.hitechagro.org) biomass drying equipment in action; we consider using their drying equipment in the UK on project Greenland;
• Getting an update on our Delhi-based project Grassroots, which by September should be turning municipal waste into solid fuel briquettes.

Our Chairman, Lord Stone of Blackheath, led a debate 14^th January in the House of Lords, drawing attention to the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference and what needs to happen next.  This debate was a success, attracting 32 speakers and engendering lively debate. Full coverage can be found here:  House of Lords – Debate on the Copenhagen Conference

Copenhagen’s iconic mermaid – Is there a low carbon future ahead of us? (Photo by Tim Holland)

What was achieved?

Within the main part of the conference, the formal negotiations between national delegations, progress was certainly made. This is illustrated by the content of the Copenhagen Accord – a document ‘noted’ at the final hour by a group representing 49 developed and developing countries, together accounting for over 80% of global emissions.

For the first time, the Accord recognises ‘the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius’. According to IPCC AR4[1], this is the level beyond which dangerous climate change is expected to occur. In addition, both developed AND developing countries have committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, thereby mitigating climate change. By the end of this month, developed nations will submit their quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets (for 2020), while developing nations will submit their nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs). This commitment including both the US and China is unprecedented.

Another major breakthrough was the agreement by developed nations to deliver a substantial financial package to developing countries to support them in mitigating and adapting to climate change. 30 billion US dollars of fast start finance has been pledged for the period 2010-2012, while 100 billion dollars per year is pledged by 2020. This latter figure matches the recommendation of Lord Stern.

The deadlock over monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) was also broken. While previously there was resistance by developing countries (notably China) to allow an international team to review their mitigation actions, the Accord now states that actions will be communicated through National Communications, ‘with provisions for international consultations and analysis’. While China would like to protect its national sovereignty, the US insists on a totally transparent process. Without this clause the US may not have agreed the Accord.

Progress was also made at grassroots level. While political negotiations hung in the balance, I observed positive activity all around me, most notably in the side events. Side events are an informal but highly popular part of the conference where national governments, intergovernmental and observer organisations present on and debate their climate change findings and initiatives. The reason for my optimism is that these events provide a great opportunity for delegates, civil society and academics to exchange ideas and learn from one another, as well as providing an avenue for influencing the formal negotiations (Schroeder & Lovell, forthcoming)[2].

As an example, in an event I attended on community based emission offset projects (run by WECF), project developers and local government officials from around the world had the opportunity to talk to and question each other and relevant UN experts about specific problems they were encountering and what they need from the evolving institutional framework. i.e. capacity building in action.

Aside from the odd case of frostbite, even accredited conference participants left queuing outside the centre were being productive – seizing the opportunity to network and identify potential partners!

So what was not achieved?

Back at the top political level, while heads of state managed to secure the Copenhagen Accord, it is clear that this document has some major omissions. This is the disappointing side of the story.

Importantly, we still do not have a legally binding document (or a clear timetable for one) that will include developed and developing country climate change mitigation commitments. Also, while developed country emission reduction targets for 2020 are being included in the Accord, any reference to 2050 commitments and the use of 1990 as a unified base level year have been cut. For the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), even the agreement on a 2°C threshold is a blow – they needed 1.5°C to avoid ‘vanish(ing)’.

Additionally, on a purely anecdotal note, COP15 does not appear to have persuaded any more citizens of the world to support the continuing movement to secure an ambitious and equitable climate deal. People outside the field I spoke to over Christmas about this issue seemed more confused than ever (both about the science and our policy solutions), and were quickly losing faith in anyone’s ability to do anything about this problem.

OK – so where do we go from here?

Immediately it is necessary to pressure governments to sign up to the most ambitious mitigation targets/actions possible. In many cases, countries and regions have provided a range of emission targets they are willing to commit to, e.g. 20-30% cut by 2020 in the case of the EU. We need the higher figures. We also need to link these targets to our goal of remaining below 2°C. According to Lord Stern, by adding up the most ambitious emission reduction intentions so far, and of course delivering them, we will be around 2 billion tonnes higher than the overall 2020 goal (approx 44 billion tonnes). That’s pretty good. Agreement on 2050 targets, a specific date for when emissions should peak and more detailed text on mechanisms such as REDD+ are also required.

Most commentators are demanding that all this be converted into an international legally binding agreement. While I tend to agree, we must not forget the other option of making agreements between a smaller number of the most polluting countries. Given the problems encountered in the UN negotiations process so far, this may be a worst case scenario backup solution.

While we at SCCF are not directly involved in lobbying the government to make these changes (many others are performing this role well – including our Chairman who is hosting the Post-Copenhagen debate in the House of Lords this week), we have certainly been re-motivated to keep going with our core work. The development of emission reduction projects is more important now than ever before – particularly when we can leverage our initial action to increase the total level of reductions achieved. Also, as the institutional framework for emission reduction projects evolves, we would like to show that projects can work, and be profitable, in unpopular and less accessible environments. Our education programme also continues to be important as we are reminded that this is a long-term challenge that we face.

Finally, after being reminded of enduring public scepticism and apathy about climate change, I now see a growing role for us as communicators of both the science and policy. If we are ultimately to turn the corner on the climate change challenge, we will need people to keep voting for ambitious solutions.

Olivia Palin, SCCF

[2] Schroeder, H. & Lovell, H. (forthcoming) The Role of Side Events in the UNFCCC Climate Negotiations