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 SCC 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 SCC; 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

There is clearly a disconnect, between the scientists and the public on the global warming theory; the science is difficult, it is multi-threaded, it does not lend itself to a black and white picture. Think about the CFC /Ozone Layer issue – nice, easy and one dimensional. You carry on emitting these chemicals, then the Ozone thins and eventually we all die of skin cancer. Satellite pictures even showed the ‘hole’ forming over Antarctica.

Global warming and associated climate change is a very different proposition. There are still a lot of ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybe thens’ and the time scales are relatively long ones. The average person will not read IPCC reports, still less the scientific papers that stand behind them. Public opinion is being formed on these matters by the press and other media. As the underlying science is not easy to grasp, this leaves the field open to the popularisers and the demagogues.

In this respect, and just ahead of the Copenhagen meeting, the public opinion pendulum seems to be swinging towards those who claim the global warming theory is at worst a giant tax scam, or at best colossal stupidity on the part of Western governments. The publication of the UEA emails has lent a lot of momentum to this swing. (Link to article)

How should those working towards mitigation of the threat of global warming and climate change respond to this?

First of all, what we should not do is hit the emotive button. The situation cries out for rationality with an undertone of ethics/morality, and not vice versa or –even worse – morality with an undertone of emotion (or vice versa). The ‘situation’ is complex, and there is this disconnect between the scientists and the public, but it can be rationalized[1]. The danger of an emotive approach lies precisely in the disconnect: show a reasoned argument, and if doubts are raised then it is usually possible to return to the reasoning to resolve them; show a polar bear and its cubs ‘stranded’ on a small bit of ice, you may win your desired emotive response, but when doubts are raised there is likely going to be a backlash. People fret when a rational position they have taken, on limited understanding of the scientific details, is under threat from doubt; they are generally furious when they feel they have been conned.

What we seem to be seeing from some of the proponents of ‘action needs to be taken to prevent further global warming’, is an increasingly emotive or moral tone. From Al Gore’s latest message ‘this is a moral and therefore religious imperative’ / ‘things are so serious we have to put the science to one side’, to James Hansen’s ‘Kyoto Accord has not worked’ / ‘time has come to scrap the consensus approach and impose carbon taxes immediately’. We don’t think that these messages are very helpful (NB these were not quotes, I paraphrased very crudely). If the message is not getting across, then the answer is not to raise the volume or become ever more shrill. This is what young kids tend to do. Leading figures need to keep their calm and plough on; answer doubt with reasoned argument.

(2) since the late 19^th Century a large and increasingly sophisticated effort has been made to measure this temperature as accurately as possible;

(3) all sets of data concur, in showing that temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years;

(4) despite the dedication of vast amounts of scientific analysis and research, no logical explanation has been found for this steady rise in temperature, which is wholly ‘out of trend’ with what went before;

(5) the upward trend in temperature is consistent with measurements that show a large increase in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, directly attributable to increasing hydrocarbon fuel consumption, changing land use and growing urbanization;

(6) putting (1) and (5) together, a large majority of scientists place a high degree of probability on the proposition that our increasing consumption of hydrocarbon fuel, changing land use and growing urbanization are – taken together – causing the planet to warm;

(7) if these trends continue, then it is likely that the warming of the planet will trigger irreversible ‘feedback loops’ (melting of ice sheets, release of large methane deposits buried in tundra etc) which will simultaneously accelerate the warming process (increase in rate of greenhouse gas emitted) and severely impact our way of life (notably via rising sea levels and more erratic climate);

(8) the emergence of new economic powerhouses, such as India and China, is resulting in runaway consumption of hydrocarbon sources, changing land use and urbanisation, on a scale never seen before;

(9) this rapid consumption of hydrocarbons is bringing forward the day when annual demand for oil & gas outstrips maximum possible supply, causing steep price increases, shortage of resources and panic;

(10) within a couple of generations, we will certainly need to face up to (9), and the required response is perfectly compatible with what is needed to reduce the climate risks inherent in (7);

(11) we therefore have a clear choice: do nothing, continue to live like our parents did (plus a fat margin….) and leave the potential disaster (i.e. 7) and the for sure disaster (i.e. 9) for our children or grandchildren; or take steps to ‘get off’ our hydrocarbon addiction. This will be painful, as all addicts know, but we probably need to do it.

Another big contrast is the way that business leaders, politicians and academics over there are prepared to work together to tackle problems without first making sure they get on the payroll or have the consulting contract signed.

You might think this is all a bit of fluff, but the other week in Delhi we spent the best part of three days around a table with several company owners, senior academics and industrial managers whose sole purpose for being there was to help us work out how to put low cost sustainable electricity supply into rural Africa, using local bio-waste (grass, leaves, twigs, coconut shells – basically rubbish that is not being used for something else).

Note carefully – this was no ‘think tank’, no collection of £750k per annum luminaries giving speeches, no Now-or-Never, Traffic-Stopping-Climate Change Summit. This was a group of people, most of them with engineering backgrounds, teasing out a solution to an engineering problem. The proposition – ‘this is working quite well in India, and they should maybe do similar things in Africa’ – was not a patronising one, at all. My take on the proposition was – ‘this is working quite well in India, and maybe we should be doing similar things in the UK’.

Okay, there were no politicians in our group, but you get the point. Okay, maybe they see an opportunity down the road to sell some of their equipment. The fact is they pitched in. They showed up. They shared their expertise with no retainers being paid, no promise of future orders, no post-meeting press release designed to raise their green credentials.

Indians seem to really like getting together and tackling a problem. It is an attitude we like. Our latest project relies heavily on this. In partnership with SCC India, TERI University, the Delhi Technical University and Amrit Non-Conventional Energy Systems, we plan to put a biomass briquetting machine ‘on the road’, collecting a small portion of the estimated 40,000 tonnes of grass, leaves and tree clippings that are taken from public sites in Delhi and dumped every year in landfill, or burned.

These machines are cheap and easy to maintain. They fit neatly on the back of trucks that are already touring the city collecting the waste. The briquettes burn well and will be delivered to prisons and schools in the city, replacing charcoal, gas or diesel currently being consumed in stoves to heat meals. Prisoners will get a bit more food (their food allowance of 16 Rupees a day includes 4 for heating; the estimated 2 saved by using the briquettes will go towards buying more food – note to readers, 2 rupees is just under 3p); the schools will have a small reduction in the bill for heating school meals; the public institutions should benefit as they don’t need to send the waste so far (current regulations forbid dumping or burning within Delhi Municipal borders); the waste collection company benefits somewhat from the sale of briquettes; the community benefits from a reduction in pollution and an increase in the amount of renewable energy sources available.

Where’s the flaw in this scheme? By all means write to us and let us know if you can spot one. The only one I can see, from a ‘London’ perspective, is that THERE IS NOT MUCH PROFIT IN IT. Everyone benefits, but nobody gets rich.

Another flaw: it is a pitifully token effort, a flea bite on the climate change ‘elephant’.

But, give us time. Judge this project when we have taken our write-up to the Municipality so as to persuade them and / or the local business community to invest in 50 of these machines and utilise all 40,000 tonnes of the stuff; judge this project when we have taken the Delhi Municipality case example to other large cities in India, to persuade them to do the same; judge this project when a million tonnes or more of bio-waste is being collected and turned into renewable fuel; judge this project when we have begun something similar in Africa.

And this is the point of my first blog entry – we could learn something from this, here in Europe. Because there is little profit (cash) in something, we cannot be bothered to do it; because something seems small in scale, we think it is trivial and we ridicule it. My sense is that we are wrong and those over there in Delhi are right.