COP15 The issues - The Lloyd's Register blog

4 Months after COP15 in Copenhagen and where are we now?

2010-04-15T03:56:00.000-07:00

In my closing blog at the end of COP 15 in Copenhagen I mentioned the issue of the future.

During the third week of March (22 to 26) we got our first indication of the post COP 15 negotiation landscape and how the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ fits. Why – because the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) met. We have also had the meeting of the UN High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing – which, challenging enough for the maritime and aviation industry, is looking at (among others)a ‘levy’ on bunker fuel to raise money for adaptation. We will hear more about the preliminary outcome of their deliberations closer to the UNFCCC meeting in June

There have been many comments in relation to the IMO MEPC meeting already, including the IMO's website and this Carbon Positive article.
As well as a summary of the outcome.

But what insight did IMO MEPOC and last weekend’s UNFCCC Bonn negotiations provide us about future UNFCCC negotiations?

From my perspective the outcome of the IMO MEPC, which deals with all environmental issues, not just greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, provided mixed emotions:
• Pleasure at the clear leadership that was demonstrated by IMO.
• Pleasure at the fact that IMO unequivocally demonstrated that they can deal with the issues of climate change in relation to international maritime GHG emissions.
• Sadness at how hardline at times the positions between the various Member States became.
• Sadness that we have yet to find a formula of words that is less emotively charged but still fair in relation to the concepts embedded in ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR)

Last weekend’s meeting in Bonn set out to: ‘The first sessions of the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA in 2010 will focus on the organization of work of both working groups this year, including the need for additional meeting time, with a view to reaching a successful conclusion of their work at COP 16 /CMP 6 in Cancun.’

The negotiators agreed to an additional two negotiations sessions of at least a week each between the meeting scheduled for June and the meeting in Cancun.

The reports from the Bonn meeting indicate that the ‘poker playing’ is continuing and that if anything the road post-Copenhagen is now even rockier.

Charting the road from here takes me back to a few critical challenges:
• USA domestic developments – where will they go now the health care bill has been signed? – This is a critical contribution to a positive development in Cancun in December
• Financing – another of those stumbling blocks. With the world slowly coming out of the recession we might see some serious movement here?
• To extend Kyoto or not? This is the other big argument that has yet to begin to be bridged
• ‘Copenhagen Accord’ commitments and its link with the UNFCCC – the meeting in Bonn this weekend did not real provide any further clues except to indicate that it may be a negotiating chip or not?

So back to the ‘watch this space’

Copenhagen Accord, what are bloggers saying today?

2009-12-21T02:47:00.000-08:00

Today's blog is the final daily update of the Lloyd's Register COP 15 series. We will be back after the holidays with an update from each of our key bloggers. They will each share their thoughts on the Copenhagen Accord and what it might mean for their respective areas of expertise.
Here are what some of the most influential climate change blogs have to say about the conference's outcome.

1) The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin in his blog today, said

World leaders will surely never again agree to meet on this issue in parallel with the UN negotiating process. It was too bloody and it will have muddied many of their reputations.

2) The BBC's correspondent's log shows what the key players reactions were as the deal was being done.
3) The climateprogress.org blog sees the Copenhagen Accord as boosting the chances that the US Senate will pass binding legislation regarding the reduction of US emissions.
4) The Washington Post's analysis of the Accord is interesting, as they see the outcome as a clear signal that the US and China will be dictating future global climate change policy.
5) The Climate Interactive research team are amongst the first to analyse the numbers in the Accord, and they are less than impressed, saying

simulations of the C-ROADS model show a large gap between the targets in the final Copenhagen agreement and the commitments offered by individual nations.

6) Oneworld.net's on location blogger has an excellent post on the final hours of negotiations and the painful decisions that world leaders had to make in those final moments:

Every leader had to decide what response, at this extraordinarily precarious moment in human history, would most likely result in success down the road.

Mohamed Nasheed knows the science, he knows the politics, and I'm confident he's acting in the best interest of stabilizing the global climate as much and as soon as humanly possible. If this "deal" is good enough for him, then it's good enough for me.

We will be back in January with a further update on what COP 15 and the Copenhagen Accord means for Lloyd's Register and our clients.

Happy Holidays!

Alex Briggs

Paradigm shift or not?

2009-12-20T15:58:00.000-08:00

When I set out on this ‘journey’ Iike many others I hoped that we, as the international community, could demonstrate that we could pull together and overcome out differences. Yes mainly – ‘my glass is half full’ and somewhere I trust in the innate goodness of us, the human race. We came to Copenhagen with the expectation that we would get an agreement and that we would bridge the three key issues:

Emissions reductions for developed countries;
Adaptation funding;
Commitments by the developing countries that are responsible for the fastest growth in GHG emissions – not targets but what we had already seen from China and others about reducing their CO₂ intensity.

From a marine perspective we were also expecting a pragmatic approach to bunker fuels that left the responsibility with IMO via the Conference of the Parties as well as left the IMO with the ‘right’ to develop the approach to regulating GHG emissions in the international bunker fuel area.

A number of us saw the outcome from Copenhagen as setting the stage for the paradigm shift that is barely visible as yet but which energy issues (see Sean’s blog on ‘peak everything’) as well as other emerging challenges with our climate is beginning to push. Paradigm shifts are normal, we have dealt with them many times before. For example the marine industry has in propulsion terms seen the shift from sail to steam to diesel in the last 250 years, just looking at Lloyd's Register rules. But Ian in his blog explained why we resist ‘paradigm shifts’ as humans. But they happen anyway, just think about the growth in mobile communications and systems arena over the last 20 years.

The memory from the last few days has been one of media hype, major political leaders on our television screens, arguments about which texts to use and little focus on the myriads of national negotiators working through the night the last few days to get something there for the final moment (note some political leaders also worked long hours in Bella Centre or in bilateral or multilateral talks). And from a number of us serious concerns that we may miss some vital pieces of the ‘Lego brick’ tower we are constructing because we are now rushing. Although without the pressure to get a ‘deal’ we may not even have started to construct our ‘Lego brick’ tower (I hope it is not going to be like the ‘tower of Babylon’).

So is the outcome setting the stage? and what did we get?

So where are we today, after we have all got some sleep, in terms of the aims outlined above. Well not where we wanted to be, no indication that we may get a paradigm shift and the ‘Lego brick’ tower seems like the ‘tower of Babylon’ to have collapsed at the end. So what we have had is:

No agreement and hence a political question ‘can we as the human race reach an international agreement across the whole world?’ Be fascinating to see what the ‘Copenhagen Outcome’ will result in and where the discussion goes in Bonn in June and Mexico in December 2010.
No incentives for us as human to recognise what is happening (note none of the leaders here [in total 119] disagreed with the climate change science)
No clear signal to business to continue to invest in:

clean operations and technologies;
market mechanism to help find the money we need for adaptation.

On the international bunker fuel discussions we got no decision. Although we need to remember that we have the existing Kyoto Protocol (Article 2.2) and we have uncertainty on what regional developments we may see as a potential product of the ‘Copenhagen Outcome’.

On a human level, it has been a fascinating journey. Covering, as I suspected two weeks ago ‘…the whole gamut of emotions and energy from exhaustion to exhilaration. As well as generating not a few headaches (real and virtual) and a large amount of words (spoken, written and images).’ Although I was not envisaging the 27 hours marathon discussion that occurred on Saturday, after we had been told we had a ‘deal’.

I started my blog on day 1 with noting that this meeting came just as all of us were preparing for the festive season (and for some it meant breaking their festive season early to join the throng at Bella Centre). So let me finish by wishing us all a relaxing break from climate negotiations and hope that 2010 will allow us all to finish what we started here in Bella Centre.

Buried Sunshine and the Energy Supply Chain

2009-12-19T00:04:00.000-08:00

In my last blog I pondered three questions:
1) “Instead of burying CO2 at various locations around the world, could we not convert CO2 into a fuel ?”
2) “Is all the public focus on CO2 emissions justified, given the threat of a warming Arctic?”

3) “Why is it that wind, solar, and biofuels are more expensive than coal, oil, and natural gas when the supply chain efficiency for the first three is much greater than the last three?”
The simple answer to (1) is, “Yes”. The carbon cycle operating within our biosphere is fundamental to life. Referred to as the ‘biogeochemical cycle of carbon’, CO2 does provide the fuel that powers our atmosphere. Currently the research effort expended in emulating and harnessing nature’s energy factory – i.e. photsynthesis – has been limited. However, during a very informative session today hosted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), it was clear that in order to meet the ‘450 Scenario’ described in the recent “World Energy Outlook 2009” report, the amount of energy generated via photosynthesis (biomass) is second only to onshore wind turbines up to the year 2030. As I listened to the statistics and watched the graphs scroll by, I wondered if we could use the concepts of biomimicry to re-connect with our world and establish a sustainable society.
So, is all the media focus on CO2 justified? What does get ‘lost in translation’ within the mainstream media is the seemingly transparent interchange of the terms “Greenhouse Gas (GHG)” and “Carbon” and “CO2” emissions. The terms refer to completely different aspects of the climate story. As described in the article on Arctic warming, one volume of methane released to the atmosphere has the same effect as 25 volumes of CO2! What does get lost within all the opinions is that the carbon emissions reduction targets are based on the concept of ‘carbon equivalence’. This term implies that all GHG-type components within a waste stream – e.g. flue gas – are translated into a ‘CO2 equivalent’ value for atmospheric effects. Thus, when we hear of CO2 emissions reduction targets, we need to ask, “Do you mean CO2 or CO2e (equivalent)?”
The concept of ‘CO2e’ goes back to my belief in fundamentals. By distilling a complex issue down to fundamental components, I find that the process of understanding the key issues much easier to absorb. Such is the case for my third question: why is it that wind, solar, and biomass energy sources are more expensive than coal, oil, and natural gas? I am guessing that your initial response has its roots in conventional supply/demand economics: if a resource is plentiful and easy to tap, then the price of that resource will be relatively cheap. Well, that is true only if the externalities of the economic equation are ignored. At a recent session of the World Wide Fund for Nature’s One Planet Leaders Executive Programme in Sustainability, the WWF asked that I deliver a teaching session on Energy Fundamentals and Sustainability. As a graduate of the OPL programme, I saw the invitation as an opportunity to explain to the diverse audience that, without proper accounting for Earth processes, conventional ‘fossil fuel’ energy sources will always have an advantage over wind, solar, and biomass energy sources. This is due primarily to our economic pricing models ignoring the significant work that the Earth’s geological system does in order to create the coal, oil, and natural gas we use today.
Then let’s go back to fundamentals: as I described above, photosynthesis is a significant energy source (driven by sun energy, which is free). However, the efficiency of the photosynthesis process is quite low – approximately 2.5% maximum. So, when a plant or marine phytoplankton dies, the energy created by photosynthesis is absorbed into the ground, where the Earth geological processes very slowly convert the energy/mass mixture into coal, oil, and natural gas. This process takes approximately 5,000 to 10,000,000 years and has an efficiency of 0.0009%. Now, the ‘Buried Sunshine’ can be extracted from the Earth’s crust and burned in a thermal power plant to give us electricity. This process has a typical efficiency of approximately 35%. Overall, then, the efficiency of the process that produces coal, oil and natural gas is approximately 0.00001%. Compared to a Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) plant efficiency (up to 40% overall – sunlight to electricity delivery), an investment in such a low efficiency process as coal, oil and natural gas production is not very attractive. To illustrate even more clearly, let’s conduct a thought experiment: if every kWh of energy from the sun costs us £1, then what would be the electricity price from our CSP and natural gas-fired power plants in order to breakeven? £7/kWh and £10,000,000/kWh, respectively. Based on this relatively simple analysis, the Earth gives us £9,999,993 worth of ‘free’ services for every kWh of natural gas energy we extract from the Earth’s crust. I guess $150/barrel oil doesn’t seem so expensive…
It is clear to me, then, that the concept of Contingent Valuation must be better understood and included in our evaluations of energy supply chains before we can honestly talk about ‘Energy Sustainability’.

NGO's Shipping and an organisation turning 250 years old

2009-12-18T00:42:00.000-08:00

Dr Anne-Marie Warris' blog today is also an audio blog as she called us from outside of the Bella Centre last night to update us on the latest COP 15 happenings. Here is the audio file to listen to or download and below is the transcript of her phone in.
Just before this was uploaded, Anne-Marie called back to say,

The mood has definitely changed over the course of today, with optimism on both funding and the possibility of a deal being done creeping back into people's thoughts. The early rumours that I referred to about Obama possibly not coming appear to have been untrue.

NGO's Shipping and an organisation turning 250 years old

Dr Anne-Marie Warris

Good morning from a snowy Copenhagen, an unsurprising look here in Copenhagen. This is Dr Anne-Marie Warris on Friday, 18 December, what is meant to be the last day of this long climate change negotiation, although most of us don’t believe that will be the case.

Today I would like to cover five specific points. So what’s it like in Copenhagen and at the Bella Centre? Well, the mood has definitely turned sombre. The news overnight that China is no longer clear that it will be an agreement and much more likely to be a political news and that Barack Obama may not turn up. By the time you listen to this we will probably know whether he did or didn’t. So we are very much worrying about what it might look like and although we are all hoping for the best, we are all getting ready for perhaps a slightly more depressed mood than I indicated in my first blog well over two months ago.

As my second point I would like to come back to the issue of shipping and maritime emissions. Since Friday last week we’ve had an unending row of rumours about what may or may not be happening. We had the TV news earlier this week that Connie Hedegaard then the President of the COP 15 had indicated that she’d expected a levy on ship to come out of the high level segment. But when you talk in the corridors with people this looks increasingly unlikely and it’s much more likely that the text that’s currently being negotiated will hand the responsibility back to the IMO will deal with the CBDR, Common But Differentiated Responsibility and capabilities as well as IMO’s equal treatment for all ships will hold. But it will depend on the point I made in point number one, will we get a deal or not.

If we don’t get a deal in Copenhagen the question I suppose on everybody’s mind is “what will that mean for maritime industry?” It’s worth remembering a couple of serious facts here before we get carried away about what this does or doesn’t mean. The first point, the IMO MEPC will continue according to the plan it agreed at MEPC59 in July this year. The Kyoto protocol still applies, it hasn’t gone away, and we are likely to see an increasing number of regional schemes. We already know that the EU is likely to take action if nothing comes out of Copenhagen. Sometimes I suspect they’ve already got a scheme in a bottom drawer and we know that the United States as part of the Waxman-Markey and also the beginning of the newly emerging bill at the Senate, the one that’s replacing the Kerry-Boxer has got maritime emissions both on domestic and international bunker fuels as well as marine engine efficiency on the list. And we are also likely to see an increased pressure from stakeholders in terms of supply chain issues and in terms of what people are expecting from shipping.

So, the climate change issues for shipping will not go away and in fact it will come back when we get another deal because we will be back in another city to negotiate again. As my point C, I’d actually want to look at other issues, issues beyond the shipping industry because in reality this is not just about the shipping industry it’s about business in general. I must admit I’ve been very concerned whilst being here both about Yvo de Boer’s comment at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development day on Friday last week about wanting more engagement from business and wanting to see more from business. And also the fact that you listen to a number of side events and talks in the corridors, a number of NGO’s are really blaming business NGO’s for the problem we are in as if we as the human race would prefer to blame somebody else for the issues we are in. It did so remind me about W Ian Hamilton’s blog earlier this week about we deal with the conflicts and also how we deal with trying to pass responsibility on.

So, we need business engagement but we are all trying to stay positive here. It was interesting talking to the business NGO’s at one of the meetings yesterday morning to see where we are and what’s happening. We are all really trying to be committed, we are all really trying to be committed, and we are all really trying to do things. It was also very visible at the reception on Wednesday night at Maersk where we were talking about what shipping might do in this industry. So we are all trying to stay positive despite the news you read in press and we are all hoping for something that will come out of here. But we are not as hopeful as we were two weeks ago.

So my fifth and final point is about Lloyd’s Register. What are we doing about this and what is our mission and vision? Well first of all, we have to remember we are nearly 250 years old and our mission is to protect us, the human race, life and environment at sea and on land. We will continue to work with that as our new environmental policy makes absolutely clear in terms of influencing and developing relationships with stakeholders and regulators. We will continue to monitor and support our clients and interested parties that are relevant to our clients to try and understand what the climate change issues may mean for the supply chain and for ourselves.

Talking with Tanaka and the Rebound Effect - an audio blog post

2009-12-17T01:13:00.000-08:00

Today's blog was "phoned in" by Sean Cuthbert, one of the Lloyd's Register Group's leading climate change experts. Here is the audio file to listen to Sean's recap of the IEA meeting and his discussions with Executive Director Tanaka, as well as Head of the IEA Energy Efficiency Unit, Dr Jollands and Mr Kerr, the Senior Energy Analyst with their Energy Technology Policy Division at the IEA.
Here is the transcript of Sean's phone blog.

IEA Briefing and the Rebound Effect
Sean Cuthbert

Good morning I’m Sean Cuthbert from Lloyd’s Register Energy. And this morning I attended the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) morning session with regards to renewable energy, the energy outlook to 2050 and essentially a summary of their technology outlook reports as well.

The morning started off with the brief address by Executive Director Tanaka who talked about the road energy outlook for 2009, that was released a couple of months ago. He highlighted that post Copenhagen there will need to be a revised outlook and he expects the IEA to publish that in the Spring of 2010. What he stressed and actually, what is just started kicking off right now is that the CO2 emissions must be de-coupled from GDP growth if we are to achieve any of the emissions reductions that have been talked about in Copenhagen over the past couple of weeks.
Just taking off right now is the talk by the Energy Minister of Sweden, which is addressing that specific question of de-coupling CO2 emissions from GDP growth as the Swedish government has taken big strides in that direction and she is giving an overview of the successes and the things to look out for in taking that journey.
Just in summary there were six sessions this morning. A couple of them are very applicable to what I have talked about in both my interviews and my blogs on previous occasions. I will start first with the energy sector implications post Copenhagen and what we are looking at in terms of requirements 2020 and also 2050. Essentially the IEA is predicting 77% additional growth from fossil fuels up to 2050 and coal will have most of that growth. Obviously that’s very much a concern for CO2 emissions as I talked about in episode four with the large amount of CO2 emissions from coal plants. To mitigate this, the IEA is promoting a cap and trade system very similar to what has already been done for the EU ETS and also what is being done in the US. And within that cap and trade system they’re looking at a 2020 carbon price, a stable carbon price of about fifty dollars per ton. That is aggressive and it is also optimistic, certainly within the discussions here in Copenhagen that would seem to be optimistic. However Business As Usual, or BAU as it’s called here, is really not an option. This exceeds the IPCCC estimate in terms of Business As Usual giving a six degree rise in temperature by 2050, obviously the adaptation costs for that will be excessive.
One of the other sessions that was of particular interest was the Energy Efficiency session which talked about the twenty five energy efficiency recommendations over seven sectors that the IEA have provided to its government members. These are essentially policy actions and what the presentation was about was evaluating those policy actions to assess the implementation and whether that implementation has been successful in terms of achieving the energy efficiency goals.
I asked the presenter at the end with regards to the projections for CO2 savings, or CO2 emission savings or CO2 mitigation as it’s called, whether those projections actually accounted for the rebound effect, whether that rebound effect is direct, indirect or macro economics. This is the rebound effect that I described in episode four. The presenter replied that saying in a very definitive way that yes they did account for the rebound effect although of course there are many uncertainties with the rebound effect as there is with any projection. However, their accounting of that rebound effect is based on a meta-analysis done by the UK Centre for Energy Research and they essentially came to the conclusion that the rebound effect in various sectors will vary either from 0% or nothing all the way up to greater than 100%. So, that means that by introducing energy efficiency you actually increase your energy use by over a hundred percent, which is obviously something that we don’t want to do, very interesting results there.
Post the morning sessions, I did have a chance to talk with the Executive Director Tanaka with regards to the IEA’s role and stakeholder engagement and technology adoption. I used the example of carbon capture and storage where of course the technology adoption and stakeholder engagement or as we could term it is as a public acceptance of CO2 storage and Executive Director Tanaka was very forthcoming with the IEA’s role in that yes they are definitely looking at stakeholder engagement, they want to help their member companies with that, they want to help their member companies help the public to understand the safety and risks associated with CCS using the same example.
I then had a chance to talk with Mr Tom Kerr who is a Senior Energy Analyst with their Energy Technology Policy Division at the IEA and Mr Kerr is the leader their Energy Technology Roadmaps that they produce. Interesting about the conversation with Mr Kerr is that IEA has realised that sociable behaviour plays a significant role in technology adoption and the implementation of CO2 mitigation policies. As Mr Kerr put it, “IEA has historically been a group of economists and technology people.” Now they have realised that they need to broaden that and look at more the societal behaviours that are associated with technology adoption and also moving to a clean energy world. Mr Kerr has invited Lloyd’s Register to be part of that review process where they are publishing a book in probably about September 2010 that will have a rather significant chapter on societal behaviours and technology options and Mr Kerr has invited us with our expertise in corporate cultures, corporate safety culture, understanding human behaviours and organisational behaviours to be part of that review process.
I also had a chance to talk with Dr Nigel Jollands. He is the Head of the Energy Efficiency Unit within the IEA and I had a chance to talk with Dr Jollands in further depth with regards to energy efficiency and the rebound effect as it turns out Mr Jollands is very well versed of course in the rebound effect and is something that he has been asked on other occasions previously. He has asked me to contact him with regards to understanding the rebound effect in greater detail and how the IEA accounts for that in their projections.

Skeptics, Standards, and Peak “Everything”

2009-12-16T02:18:00.000-08:00

“… No debate can be considered ‘healthy’ without an equal voice given to both sides. “ Such was my thought as I read about the recent meeting of global warming skeptics. However, the article quickly dispelled the notion that the climate change skeptics would put forward a convincing argument for their denial of a warming planet. The article portrayed an almost comical scene where the small number of delegates debated the various aspects of their theories and data without giving a cohesive view that would balance the ‘warming planet’ COP15 consensus.
Within the COP15 conference there is little sign that the contrarian view holds much sway: the long-term economic impacts of continuing with the current thinking on energy supply chain and demand security is simply too high, even by pessimistic estimates.
With the skeptic’s arguments in mind, I attended the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) workshop entitled “Climate Change and Energy to 2020.” Clearly the Oil & Gas industry has a stake in the climate change debate given that their core business is the production and marketing of ‘fossil’ fuels. It was with surprise, then, that I found myself in a large room with about 20 people, where there was seating for at least 200. Presentations from Total, Chevron, Statoil, Petrobras, and Nexen highlighted the efforts these companies are undertaking with regards to GHG emissions reporting and identifying the main risks to the energy supply chain over the next decades. The presenters provided an overview of the size of the investment challenge – $20 trillion in order to meet the energy and CO2 reduction targets for the ‘450 ppm’ scenario – and the reduction in energy system R&D investments by OECD countries over the past 20 years. The presenters were clearly knowledgeable and passionate about the need to focus on energy efficiency, CCS, and flaring/venting reductions in order to help achieve carbon emissions targets. Although small, the audience was engaged and asked a number of questions about CCS and its implementation window: all presenters were in agreement that for CCS to work there would need to be carbon price certainty, where that carbon price ranges from $50/tonne up to $500/tonne depending on the CO2 mitigation scenario. I asked about the challenges of reporting GHG emissions within a multi-company Joint Venture (JV) and also about how the rebound effect is (or is not) accounted for within their energy efficiency projections. Regarding the first question, the panel referred to the IPIECA guidelines. On energy efficiency, the panel answered that the rebound effect is not applicable within an industrial setting, although the panel described their activities to help petroleum product users increase their efficiency.
But all this discussion on energy efficiency got me thinking about how it is we define ‘energy efficiency’. From a technical perspective, the term has a thermodynamic context – i.e. the First Law of Thermodynamics. However, various definitions abound, which can lead to confusion. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has recognised that the success of energy conservation projects will depend on the standardisation of the definition of ‘energy efficiency’. At one of the ISO side event sessions, the ISO reported on the progress towards a global standard on energy efficiency terminology and application. Complementary to the work on energy efficiency terminology will be the forthcoming standard on energy management – ISO 50001 – that will bring consistency to energy system performance measurement and reporting.
Upon reading about the ISO work, I reflected on the concept of “Peak Everything." Of course, the term ‘Peak Oil’ has been in the media since the ‘70s and as recently as this week’s article in the Economist. But why should our terminology be limited to only talking about oil? Walking within the display areas of the COP15 conference centre, I am reminded that our world is finite and that, along with climate change, we are rapidly approaching a convergence of ‘Peak Everything’ concerns. Questions that come to my mind, then, concern CCS, the Arctic, and the energy supply chain. Namely, “Instead of burying CO2 at various locations around the world, could we not convert CO2 into a fuel?” and, “Is all the public focus on CO2 emissions justified, given the threat of a warming Arctic?” and, finally, “Why is it that wind, solar, and biofuels are more expensive than coal, oil, and natural gas when the supply chain efficiency for the first three is much greater than the last three?”
The answers to these three questions and an update on the ‘CCS in CDM’ debate will be the subject of my next blog.
I am still watching and hoping for success at Copenhagen, especially after the walkout by the G77 parties. The mood at the conference yesterday was subdued, but positive. And with the arrival of world leaders – such as US Energy Secretary Chu – the pressure to achieve a positive outcome is evident.

A Climate for Change

2009-12-15T01:27:00.000-08:00

Whatever agreements emerge from Copenhagen they will rely on people to enact them, both directly and indirectly. But it seems that people aren’t ready to embrace the need for change. According to The Times only 41% of people in Britain think that climate change is largely man-made, and even more worryingly, only a quarter of those surveyed think it’s a serious problem.
The newspaper suggests that it has been a failure on the part of politicians to persuade the public. Last week Bjorn Lomborg wrote in The Spectator that even the environmentally friendly Australians rate the problem as less serious and pressing than they have previously thought. Indeed their new opposition leader Tony Abbott has been very out-spoken in opposition to climate change. Surprisingly, in the notably sceptical United States, despite the urgings of many high profile deniers such as Sarah Palin, as many as a third of Americans think that humans have made a contribution to climate change. This is fewer than in the UK; but not by much, and it’s not enough. So why do a majority refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that climate change is happening? And why do so many people prefer to believe that humans are blameless?
Simplistically, by rejecting the notion of man-made climate change, an individual may feel absolved of responsibility. If I see climate change as a myth, or even if I accept it but regard it as a natural change, I can argue that there is nothing to be done. People in the West seem to regard their use of energy as an entitlement to continue with business as usual, rather than accepting a responsibility to conserve. The consumptive practices of people in our society lies at the root of carbon emissions. Businesses will always act to meet market demands, and politicians seldom actually influence opinion, merely represent what they hope will be the majority views of their constituents. If we want to see real change in emissions levels the responsibility, like charity, begins at home. Professor David Uzzell speaking at a special event on climate change hosted by the British Psychological Society said that: “Neither technological fixes nor financial instruments alone will suffice. Even when these can play a role, their effectiveness is usually mediated by the way the public understands, interprets, engages with or responds to such actions.”

So you might think that my contention is that emissions are bad. People cause emissions through their insatiable squandering of energy. Therefore people are bad. But that’s not what I’m saying exactly. The logic holds to some extent but the final statement should be: Therefore people should learn to change. But how? Surely people read the papers; surely they watch the news; hasn’t the message been delivered clearly enough already? Maybe clarity isn’t the only criterion. Psychology has a great deal to offer in terms of understanding how and why people think and behave the way they do. It has taught us that behaviour is motivated and influenced by our core beliefs and attitudes. In fact the success of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy rests on the very principles that express how our attitudes and perceptions give rise to thoughts and emotional responses. Thoughts cause emotions and emotions cause thoughts. What this tells us is that behaviour will not change unless we truly accept the rationale for change at the level of our core beliefs and in a way that allows our emotional reactions to be consistent with these beliefs. And this is not always easy.

Core beliefs aren’t simply rational, evidence-based concepts. They are emotional attitude states that are usually reinforced by a selective reading of the ‘facts’ as we see them. And this is normal behaviour, not a dysfunctional misinterpretation of reality. The healthy mind needs core beliefs; they anchor our personality and guide our behaviour. When there is a deviation between core beliefs and behaviour we can experience stress and anxiety. If unchecked this can lead to depression and other forms of mental ill health. In fact there are inbuilt defence mechanisms to nudge us back and to keep behaviour and beliefs aligned. Cognitive dissonance arises when we have conflicts between thoughts and behaviour. This is a feeling of unease about the inconsistency, and it can be experienced as anxiety, anger, guilt, or even shame. Such negative emotions are unpleasant and so there is an automatic motivation to reduce them. Take a simple, everyday example. I may buy something that I believe to be a bargain only to be confronted by evidence that I’ve paid too much. Now as a rational person I don’t want to think I’ve been misled or swindled. So I will seek to diminish the feelings of foolishness or annoyance by creating a rationale for my decision: the shop has better after-sales service, or the sales person was attractive, etc. That way I can acknowledge the ‘mistake’ but justify it in terms that allows my self esteem to remain intact.

By accepting the reality of man-made climate change we might argue that a rational person will logically feel compelled to do something to lessen the problem. But do what? Recycle? Bicycle to work? Turn off the lights or the central heating? Make your young children walk to school? On the face of it all of these options and others are possible and easy to do. But they may have consequences for our everyday life that involve increased effort or inconvenience. So we may perceive doing these things as a bother. We may even feel duped: why should I do this when next door has his house plastered in energy consuming Christmas lights? As David Uzzell says, “...we can’t expect people to change their behaviour without changing the conditions that influence behaviour.”

We are all governed by our sense of identity and our desire for a certain lifestyle. If we expect people collectively to change to a more sustainable form of living we need to help them by making the arguments connect with their motivations and sense of self. The conditions for behavioural influence are strongly affected by the emotional salience of arguments. Some of the resistance to climate change arguments arises from the fact that much of the information people receive comes from a media perceived to be alarmist and politicians who are distrusted. In addition, people perceive the risks to be distant in time and in place. Change will take decades or the hurricanes are far away. But it’s also affected by our belief in the impact of action; what I do can’t matter. And an element of selfishness; I’m not doing it unless he does it too. Most people see governments and others as more responsible for dealing with the consequences of climate change.

More significantly, perhaps the reason that there is so much denial of man-made climate change is because the arguments for it have less emotional salience than the arguments against. The arguments for are typically presented in the probabilistic and qualified language of science. This may be technically correct but lacks emotional impact and may not be accessible to all. By contrast the arguments of denial are charged with emotion. They also seize on any equivocation in the scientific message (such as the recent email leaks) to demonstrate the ‘weakness’ of the scientific case. So it’s easy to see why the case for denial appears to be winning. And this is also emotionally attractive. If there is no climate change or if human behaviour isn’t involved, then I can maintain my lifestyle of choice free of any guilt. To help people to accept the personal responsibility to conserve means connecting with the personally emotive aspects of the arguments. With the help of the work being done now by psychologists I hope that the message for positive action to mitigate climate change can be given greater emotional force and plausibility. For the policies emerging from Copenhagen to succeed it will be necessary to create a more receptive climate for change in behaviour.

Post script: If you would like to know more about the evidence for climate change please look at the excellent book by Elizabeth Kolbert, Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Climate change – Is time running out?, published by Bloomsbury in 2006. You can also find an accessible introduction to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in the recent book by Stephen Briers, Brilliant Cognitive Behavioural Therapy: How to use CBT to improve your mind and your life, published by Prentice Hall in 2009.

Lost the plot or?

2009-12-14T13:34:00.000-08:00

Start of week 2 and reports indicate the waiting times at Bella centre have been getting longer. Late afternoon indications are that they have closed registration and will reduce NGO’s to 7000 individual max tomorrow, so the queues should be interesting…as of Thursday only about 100 NGO individuals will get in. Add to that the rumour that they are anticipating the high level segment will last until Sunday! So we continue to see pressure (both G77 and Annex I countries walked out of different meetings today but they have all reconvened behind closed doors) and focus but also an increasing sense of frustrating and confusion.

So I took the opportunity to keep warm (rather then shivering in the queue at Bella Centre) by attending a set of discussions focusing on developments in USA, the CDM challenges and post 2012 framework. Very much these issues depend on the outcome from Copenhagen. But with or without a Copenhagen deal we will see change, development and a lot of opportunities, as well as fragmentation in developments and actions. We as individuals need some certainty to be able to plan and take action. Let’s hope we get certainty by Sunday.

A weekend to remember in Copenhagen

2009-12-13T13:46:00.000-08:00

Well the good news first it was sunny on Saturday and Sunday (Bella Centre closed but Minsters still meeting) which helped on Saturday when I got into the queue for the special additional passes we need to get into the COP as of Tuesday 15 December.

Halfway stage it may be but it does not feel like it at all.

In terms of energy a lot has been spent and looking at many of the negotiators or others when they rush around you can tell how little sleep they are getting and how ‘frazzled’ they are beginning to feel. In terms of progress we have a long way yet to go and many contentious issues yet to resolve. The external pressure is growing with large demonstrations Saturday and today Sunday with main speakers such as Desmond Tutu among others. So:

· Stakeholder pressure is high

· Negotiators working feverishly

· NGO and others still prowling the halls of Bella Centre to promote and put pressure on all there.

BUT

· We are still very precariously balanced on what the deal will be. Yes we will get a deal but what sort of deal?

· Are we ‘the people’ actually behind this or?

The Business day was held Friday with Yvo De Boer reportedly challenging the business community to step up , saying, "If 30pc cuts are on the table, don’t say 20pc say 50pc.” as well as reminding them they have yet to find a coherent voice to influence the negotiations.

But we did leave Saturday with the first sight of a text for us, as NGO's, of both the AWG LCA and also the AWG KP text so a tangible outcome so far.

Bunker fuel negotiations started Friday 11 December and are still ongoing. We believe we may now only have two options on the table but we shall see.

Next week we expect less people in Bella Centre due to restriction on NGO's but more security and…

Shipping, Sustainability and COP 15

2009-12-12T08:00:00.000-08:00

Question - is this about the sustainability (read survival) of the shipping industry? - Or about how to implement sustainability in shipping? The latter...whatever that means....
Thursday and Friday's events reminded me yet again that the shipping industry (whichever part we mean, have to wait for my illustration later in this blog) face a paradigm shift and a shift in understanding.

Paradigm shifts - the marine industry has faced these many times before, so while 'scary', they are not about the end of the industry. Just looking at Lloyd's Register rules confirms that we have seen at least three previous paradigm shifts as far as propulsion is concerned. We have seen other paradigm shifts - I am not convinced we remember just what the industry looked like 30 to 50 years ago. Did we have some of the complex layers we have now? And the answer is no. It was simple - an owner who was also the operator and the technical manager. And today - well wait for that diagram. Be interesting to see if we end up with more fragmentation and diversity or consolidation of roles - not companies.
Talking to the shipping industry at Copenhagen Business School 'Blue MBA' highlighted the subtle shift already occurring. If you look at the whole industry rather than to one element of the industry, innovation was also apparent in terms of 'thinking out of the box'. Much as some Americans are doing in terms of planning and pushing the use of canals and other means to increase short sea shipping.
The issue of climate change is one of those pressures that is affecting change. But by no means the only one. And while the Copenhagen negotiations focus on climate change, there are many other environmental opportunities and challenges facing the shipping industry. Most of which raise the sustainability challenge of balancing 'people, planet and profit'. I used a triangle concept to try to illustrate the balancing on Thursday
However the focus of this blog is on Copenhagen. So what have I seen since last on the marine side. Friday provided a good overview of:
- what the various options at IMO are in relation to Market Based Measures
- what the industry is doing in terms of fuel quality and quantity (a subject the land based community will be only too familiar with)
- what industry is thinking about in terms of other methods of propulsion in the renewable energy arena (wind, wave and solar)
- what operational measures are out there - think slow steaming and virtual arrival
The presentation raised in my mind the question of 'what else may be out there?' so I am looking forward to spending some of my Saturday at the 'Bright Green' event and seeing what shipping is doing.
There are many other sustainable issues ongoing such as the search for new or revised propulsion processes and other operational measures.

'First week impressions -
When I wrote the blog setting out for Copenhagen 6 days ago, what to expect was very hazy. So has it improved and are we any clearer? Not sure!!! The fog is still there and the poker game ongoing and the cards I can see do not allow me to guess the outcome. What is that book on 'outliers' and the other one on predicting the future?

A little less or more Hopenhagen!

2009-12-11T06:22:00.000-08:00

When I reported yesterday that the Chinese,

and US delegations were publicly criticising each others proposals, Xie Zhenhua, the head of

China

's delegation and deputy chairman of the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) had not given his Reuters interview. It seems that my comments yesterday were somewhat understated.

China

has reconfirmed that they would only deem acceptable those commitments of developed countries of no less than 40% reductions on 1990 levels by 2020. When we compare this to the 17% reduction offered by the

on 2005 levels by 2020, it’s fair to say that there are many miles between the two countries.

It is not only

China

that is holding the

to ransom. The EU has always stated that they would increase their commitment from 20% to 30%, if other developed countries adopted ‘comparable’ targets. Is 17% ‘comparable’? That remains to be seen.

Where progress has been made is with regard to the CDM and proposed reform. For Pre 2012, a draft text has already been produced which provides some key actions for the EB, but unfortunately with no clear deadlines. The text proposes: to remove the power to review projects from the board and give it to another body, (possibly the secretariat); an appeals system; a protection for project developers should their auditors become suspended; and the inclusion of avoided deforestation. For post 2012 many countries have voiced their desires to see Carbon Capture and Storage within the CDM, positive discussions have been held on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) and REDD plus, as defined by the Bali Action Plan as ‘Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries’.

Yet again the day progressed through some lows and some highs.

Three Blogs for Day 3

2009-12-10T05:05:00.000-08:00

On day three of the COP 15, Madlen King, LRQA's Global Climate Change Manager, joined Sean Cuthbert and Dr Anne-Marie Warris at the conference. So today there are three blogs, one from each of our on-site experts:

Hopenhagen

Madlen King

On arrival in Copenhagen it’s very clear that the locals remain hopeful. It appears that for the duration of COP 15, Copenhagen has been renamed ‘Hopenhagen’, and rightly so.
Whilst I think we all knew that an agreement with binding targets wasn’t going to happen here, from developments so far, glimmers of hope are appearing (in relation to some subjects at least).
So how are the outputs possibly going to affect the LR group and our clients?
With regard to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), despite the results of the 51st Executive Board meeting last week rejecting 10 further Chinese wind projects for registration, efforts continue to push for reform to ensure that projects can be registered more smoothly and efficiently. The much awaited report on the independent analysis of CDM administration, conducted by McKinsey, has finally been presented, and when I read the Point Carbon article on this subject, it is clear that opinion has been voiced regarding the secretariat taking on responsibilities that were meant for the DOE’s and the report clearly recommends that decisions on project paperwork should be handed back to the DOE’s. This is good news for the continued success of the CDM.
In addition to this development, 2 working groups have been set up by the UN to look at CDM reform both pre and post 2012 – further good news!
From the international perspective however, the glimmers are a little less bright, with clear disagreements between the developed and developing countries. This Guardian article and picture of a member of the Haitian article with ‘head in hands’ says it all. A draft text was unfortunately leaked this week which proposes to hand the control of finance for climate change to the World Bank and would make available money for developing countries to act on climate change dependant on their actions. This is a very clear departure from the principles of Kyoto. In addition, the Chinese, UK and US delegations are publicly criticising each others proposals and today the developing countries were attempting to limit certain discussions to include only the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (i.e. not the US).
All that being said; I remain positive. It’s early days yet and there’s time left for tempers to ease.

COP 15 and the Future of the Human Race
Sean Cuthbert

At the end of Day 2 I was witness to a small(ish) but loud protest in the main hall of COP15 conference. Although I couldn’t understand what the protest was about, one aspect of this protest was clear – news cameras clearly outnumbered the protestors. At the start of Day 3 it was clear that what caused the spontaneous protest was reaction to a supposedly leaked document . As the initial reactions gave way to calmer voices, it became clear that the ‘leak’ was in fact non-existent. The speed with which this ‘scandal’ simply died away speaks to the seriousness and purpose of the majority of attendees at COP15. As I walk amongst the thousands of delegates, negotiators, media personnel, and fellow observers the mood is sombre and purposeful. This conference is not about tree-hugging, hemp clothing, and dreadlocks – it is about the future of the human race.

On Day 1 I had the fortune to meet with Mr. Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development for the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org/). Since our meeting I have been intrigued about how nuclear energy can play a role in mitigating climate change, so I asked Paul for an interview to talk about the NEI’s role and the challenges facing the nuclear energy industry. Paul graciously accepted and we met for over an hour this morning, where we talked about a wide range of topics from the “Four Challenges” to the fuel cycle and climate change. With the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) recent decision to include Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act, the US has effectively labelled GHGs as harmful to human health; thus sending a very strong message to those industries with high GHG emissions. Please visit www.businessassurance.com/copenhagen for the podcast of the full interview on the 16th December.
Is climate change real? I have talked to this question in my previous blogs, but what about all the news stories about the hacked emails and distorted temperature data? Has ‘Climategate’ derailed the COP15 climate talks? Absolutely not. Cooler heads are prevailing. The serious work is still being done and measured responses to Climategate are entering the mainstream media.

MRVAribility
Dr Anne-Marie Warris

'MRVAribility - is this about the weather in Copenhagen, the negotiation sentiment or a technical term
In fact it is about the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) in relation to voluntary or regulated carbon market as well as a concept used in the negotiations in relation to low carbon strategies and NAMA's. Today I attended a set of sessions that cover the two issues. It was interesting to note how far the MRV in relation to the carbon market discussion has come since early CDM and EU ETS days (read 2004). IETA is putting together an analysis of MRV in relation to regulated and voluntary markets. The aim is to better understand linking issues in the MRV area. They are looking at some schemes, but not all of them. Be interesting to see what comes out of the debate. But the sessions generated some new and interesting questions and links.
On the MRV in relation to NAMAs the session looked at what NAMAs are and the challenges to deal with in the negotiations. Included in the discussions was the use of a management system standard to capture MRV for some NAMAs. Be interesting to see how that works out.
Oh and weather dry and cool and negotiation sentiments still calm and focused based on a look round the corridors.

Day Two - CDM Discussions

2009-12-09T04:14:00.000-08:00

Please read Andrew's pre-CDM DOE meeting post here

Today, the 10th DOE/AIE Forum took place in Copenhagen and, as expected, there was much debate and discussion on a number of key issues affecting the DOE community.

Siddharth Yadav (SGS), Chair of the DOE Forum, reminded those gathered of the issues which the Forum had discussed with the EB over the last year, including validation and verification timelines, post registration changes to project design, retroactive application of guidance, materiality, Programme of Activities liability, the definition of a ‘technical area’, and the implications of recent rules relating to conflict of interest.

The first key issue to be discussed was that of conflict of interest and a recent EB decision (EB50) which sought to preclude any part of an organisation of which an accredited DOE is a part from undertaking any work with project participants. It was agreed that this approach presented a serious challenge to those DOEs which, although separate legal entities, may be part of a much larger group which itself has divisions delivering a diverse range of services.
It was agreed that the Forum would look for clarification on this issue.
The second key issue related to timelines. It is understood that the Executive Board is concerned about the number of project validations which have been going on for several years and wishes to address this issue, both now and in the future. A proposed figure of 180 days for the duration of a validation has been talked about.
The Forum members recognised that there are many validations which have been ongoing for an unreasonable amount of time and that efforts should be made to address this, perhaps through the cancellation of contracts or through the issuing of negative (or alternatively qualified) opinions.
The Forum also debated the reasonableness of the 180 day target for validations and there was general agreement that such a timescale allowed little, if any, margin for dealing with unforeseen problems, either on the part of the DOE or on the part of the project participant.
The Forum agreed that it would go back to the EB with proposals for timescales both for future validations, but also for addressing those validations which are ongoing and have been ongoing for some time.
The final major topic of debate was the definition of a ‘technical area’, as per the CDM Accreditation Standard. The lack of a clear definition of what a technical area is has been recognised as a possible area for inconsistency when it comes to the expectations of the accreditation teams, and it was proposed that the Forum attempt to define what is meant by a technical area in order to promote consistency, both across the DOEs and across the accreditation teams.
The Forum agreed to look at this issue in more detail, but it is evident that a consensus in this area may be difficult as each DOE already has their own concept of what is meant by a technical area, and has developed a system to ensure they achieve competence on that basis.
A number of other issues, not least the identity of the next Chair of the DOE Forum were also discussed.
As is often the case, the meeting over-ran its allotted time and still did not cover all the issues which attendees wished to discuss!

Day 2 at the COP 15 -IMO two-way communications and Power Stations

2009-12-08T15:15:00.000-08:00

The two halves of today's blog are based around an IMO side event on one side and a chance meeting with the Head of Environment and Sustainable Development Policy for the European Electric industry's main lobby group.

IMO, the International Maritime Organisation, shared a side event with ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Both organisations are proactively trying to prove that they are solely capable of managing their sector's climate change issues.
The IMO has taken a lot of criticism around the amount of emissions generated worldwide by the shipping industry (as of course has ICAO regarding aviation). Therefore, there was a lot of interest in the 20 minute IMO time slot. Their approach was a brilliant one. They apologised for the lack of time, then the Head of IMO Environment Miguel Palomares gave a short intro speech. That was followed by a short, engaging presentation from Karin Sjolin-Frudd . Following that, the IMO opened the floor to questions, using most of their allotted time to engage the audience. And some of the questions were not easy. But they answered them all straight on, and made sure that each of the 7 panellists had a chance to answer a question that was in their area of expertise. The impression they left was that they were on top of the situation. Yes, it won't be easy, but when the UNFCCC delivers a global deal, the IMO, as a united team,will be ready to ensure that it is implemented across the marine sector. The power of two-way communications.

The other half of today's blog is about the energy equation - stationary energy sources such as electric power plants - will have significant challenges if the industry is to meet its obligations for CO2 reductions by 2050. During my discussion with John Scowcroft, from eurelectric, what became clear is that the level of investment necessary is significant - $2 trillion just in carbon reduction technologies alone. However, the scale should not be intimidating: the investment equates to $50 billion per year up to 2050, which is a tenth of the cost recently estimated by the International Energy Assocations (IEA) due solely to adaptation to climate change. In this context, the investment in power plants signals a good deal.

The IMO part of this post was written by Alex Briggs, following the IMO side event, with Sean Cuthbert writing the eurelectric part following his discussion with John Scowcroft.

Today's blogs are:

A unique citizen journalist approach to reporting on climate change

Google earth's climate change video page

Carbon Watch video blogs

Materiality and the Clean Development Mechanism

2009-12-08T02:24:00.000-08:00

Today is the 10th meeting of the DOE/AIE Forum here in Copenhagen. The DOE/AIE Forum (Designated Operational Entities/Accredited Independent Entities) was originally established by the Executive Board as a means of enhancing the channels of communication between the Board and the DOE's and to provide guidance on decisions.

Over recent times, the DOE Forum has looked to progress a number of key issues with regard to validation and verification, including the issue of ‘materiality’. At present, unlike other schemes such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the CDM does not define a level of materiality and, as a result, there is no defined requirements as to how far a DOE has to go in finding data, or how deeply to analyse that data.
The DOE Forum Chairman has made presentations to the Executive Board (EB) on this subject at recent EB meetings, and it is hoped that progress on incorporating this concept into CDM will happen soon.

At this particular meeting, it is planned for discussions to focus on concerns about Clause 57 of the Accreditation Standard and the lack of clarity with regard to ‘what is a technical area within a sectoral scope?’

The lack of clarity in this area has resulted in DOEs developing different systems to determine the competence of team members from a technical perspective, and it is felt that clearer guidelines will result in greater consistency across DOEs in this area.

The meeting will also look at the issue of target timescales for the completion of CDM validations and verifications (180 days and 90 days respectively). This is an area where DOEs have struggled, often due to the time taken to close out corrective actions and clarifications by project participants.

It is also possible that there will be discussion on the current plans to implement a more structured system for monitoring the performance of DOEs, based on a scoring system.

I will be back later in this series with an update on the CDM and DOE's.

Day One at COP 15 - first impressions and our blogs of the day

2009-12-07T17:00:00.000-08:00

An outdoor three hour wait in line to register in near freezing temperatures was not what I expected my first impressions of COP 15 in Copenhagen to be!

OK, lets get past that. I am here with two of the Lloyd's Register Group's leading climate change experts, Sean Cuthbert and Dr Anne-Marie Warris. Sean is here representing our energy business stream, and as fate would have it, we stood in line with Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development for the Nuclear Energy Institute out of Washington D.C. Sean commented on their conversation:

My first thought was, "why is nuclear energy actively participating in a climate change conference?" My second question was, "what are the challenges facing the increased participation of nuclear energy in our overall energy mix?" Over the duration of our two hour conversation, Paul and I had an engaging, two-way conversation about nuclear technology, the challenges of PR and the recycling of nuclear fuel within the nuclear energy supply chain.

Anne-Marie is a veteran of COP conferences, with the COP 6 conference in Holland being her first. Anne-Marie's first thoughts on COP 15 in Copenhagen included:

It is interesting how the interest in these negotations has increased and with it the participation of new NGO's and other relevant stakeholders. We saw substantial media interest, including a lot of TV film crews, filming during our extended wait in line. I understand that the number of press equals or surpasses the number of negotiators. A long way away from the early COP's when media were few and far between.

The image to the right is from the COP 15 "Fossil of the Day" competition.

For every day of the COP 15 conference (or at least almost every day), we will be posting links to several other blogs around climate change the COP 15 conference.

Hope you find some of them interesting.

The East Anglia climate science debate

Will Copenhagen be enough?

How I wish the flat earthers were right

And here's one from a fellow COP 15 blogger who wrote this blog as she was heading out to Copenhagen.

Tomorrow's blog will focus on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) meeting regarding Designated Operational Entities (DOE's).

COP 15 Day One - The Great Divide - America and Climate Change

2009-12-07T02:07:00.000-08:00

As we approach COP15, the United States remains a polarized and split society on climate change. The factions are still strongly divided in their views on whether climate change is real, and if they accept that it is, many do not agree that the cause could possibly be anthropogenic. The impacts are so far away, both in time and space – even though they are getting closer by the day!
We have made progress in the House, but the Senate has many members that are still plagued with insecurities about making decisions related to climate change mitigation, when the changes will undoubtedly affect our society. We are also split when we debate the economic impacts of carbon reduction policies. Despite the years of study and analysis, and a fairly compelling Stern report from UK, many Americans are still paranoid that meddling with our “cheap” fossil fuel energy systems will wreak havoc on our ability to compete. We make all kinds of excuses to defend the merits of petroleum and coal.
At a more individual level, we are afraid of how price increases will limit spending power. Fear is an inherent characteristic of this resistance to change, and it was whipped into a political frenzy by our recent Administration. A recent ‘Climategate’ article in our local Santa Barbara News Press has once again initiated a blogging frenzy that exemplifies this paranoia. Even here in this very progressive community, we have a chasm of disagreement over how we should or should not step forward on climate change and energy at our local level. There’s talk of conspiracy on both sides, and the debate is so polarized that there is an element of truth both ways.
Red states resist change, blue states and their progressive communities are taking the lead. There is action in the United States, but it is fractured and inconsistent. It is this unintended consequence of failed federal leadership that is having an adverse affect on the competitiveness of our businesses that are trying their best to take action in the absence of a well defined, consistent playing field here in the US.
We are a consumer society, and we demand goods and services of all kinds to fulfill our voluptuous western lifestyle. We deplore the exploitation of our own immediate environment (NIMBY), but we turn a blind eye to the perils of globalization – a powerful change that swept the world in the nineties allowing the US to import products – especially from the Pacific rim countries at low cost and with no nasty impacts on our local environment.
We are blind to this disguised form of “leakage” where the carbon emissions needed to create those products are inadvertently borne by the developing countries that are so willing to produce these goods to fire up their economies in a way that should get them on track to emulate our own opulence.
It grieves me to hear our legislators pontificate that the US is willing to reduce emissions, only if “emission reduction targets are fair”. But what is fair when we now have half the world manufacturing the goods and services we enjoy, and absorbing a large share of “our” emissions into the bargain? Without supply chain accounting, supported by robust, transparent verification systems, the political arguments for fairness are shallow. “Fairness” also needs a measure of the “converge and contract” school of thinking if we are to even dream of an agreement that will survive and thrive.
The grand scale of carbon leakage, created by this vast wave of globalization, is exacerbated by the use of dirty coal as the source of energy in many of these developing countries. There are vast numbers of coal plants being built in the developing countries as we speak, but how many of them are being built to provide essential services for the Chinese, and how many are to satisfy the western world’s hunger for consumables?
Ironically, the very solutions we need to address the climate problem are the ones that will relieve us of our fears and help us climb out of the massive hole we are digging ourselves into, with our slavish commitment to our empire and the fossil energy systems which made it possible. We are precariously close to a collapse of this fragile empire, and we need a determined leadership to change direction in this country.
Obama “gets” all this, and his campaign was full of promise, but even he is struggling to turn the tide here and having to back-pedal just to keep climate as a top agenda priority. Thankfully, he has a few insightful journalists like Tom Friedman and Fareed Zakaria who also get this, and they are evangelistic in their efforts to raise awareness among the people at large.

Last thoughts on my way to Copenhagen

2009-12-06T01:29:00.000-08:00

So, it is all here - passport, ticket, money and energy – ouch where did that go? In getting ready to leave for Copenhagen like many others, I am struck by the commitment, drive and sheer positive energy that will be on display throughout the 2 weeks. This in the run up to the festive season where many of the key delegates would rather get ready for a relaxing time with their families. I wonder if someone out there has calculated how much energy as individuals we will be expending in the two weeks….Anyone got an idea?

I am always amazed at the sheer stamina and good humour these events have; and that despite the difficulty of the negotiations. This year will have added dimensions. Firstly, the number of press accreditations is close to or even larger than the number of official negotiators. That says something about the newsworthiness of the event as well as its interest to a broader audience than the negotiators. Perhaps we as the public do care despite the surveys. Media column inches are sometimes a better indication of where the public attention is than surveys. But this year we also seem to have a large number of blogs, twitter and other means of communicating and sharing the latest news or probably more precisely ‘gossip’. So I suspect there will be information overload and speculation.
Anyway back to the main issue – what will it be like? If previous COP's are anything to go by Copenhagen will span the whole gamut of emotions and energy from exhaustion to exhilaration. As well as generate not a few headaches (real and virtual) and a large amount of words (spoken, written and images).
Thoughts - we have some lovely ones on the Copenhagen site for COP15.
Pictures, look at the Royal Academy of Art - and to remind me about the world and its beauty .
On the journey there in addition to ‘speculating’ about the outcome one of the questions in many peoples minds will be "what will the facilities be like?" Critical issues like access to internet as well as food to fuel all that energy I mentioned above. But not least pleasure and anticipation ahead of catching up with colleagues. At least I will not find myself throwing away a lot of freebies, as the Danish Government has decided to spend the money on scholarships, that is progress!
But what do I believe we need as an outcome? We need:

· very clear understanding of what governments are expecting.

· very clear understanding of how we are going to meet the environmental imperatives

· very clear understanding of where the funds are going to be used.

As for the marine sector, the topic I will be mainly following, we need:

· a deal that adheres to IMO principles of ‘equal treatment for all ships’

· a deal that allows IMO to design, regulate and administer (through flag and port states) climate change commitments

· within IMO later in 2010 we need absolute clarity of what the different schemes mean

Throughout and for the shipping sector we need to be increasingly clear in the language we use because if we are not clear nobody else is going to be.

Verification and Polar Bears - a tour of COP15 news and Blogs

2009-12-05T02:39:00.000-08:00

Today's post will take a look at some of the most interesting and insightful blogs and news items that are out there on the weekend leading up to the COP 15 global climate change conference.

1) The World Resources Institute's blog today, On Global Warming: Trust But Verify compares the Copenhagen negotiations between China and US to the SALT talks between Russia and the US in the 1980's. The principle of trust through verification goes beyond nations and into corporate claims and actions and consumer trust. If we are serious about reducing GHG emissions, then it will take a unified effort between governments, organisations and consumers.
If there is joint trust through verified methodologies and data, then the "why should we when they aren't" argument begins to lose its appeal.

2) Senator Christine Milne's post on the official UN COP 15 website yesterday compared the quick and decisive action that world leaders took when we were faced with an economic crisis (one that we all agree was man-made) with the lack of concerted action that world leaders have exhibited in the run up to Copenhagen next week. Christine is the Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens Party and her post was part of the guest blogger series on the official COP 15 site. Her viewpoint highlights our global ability to act on issues that we think have serious consequences versus politicians ability to say just enough without saying much at all when they are unsure of the mood of their nation.
3) You didn't want to be accused of being a witch in Salem, a heretic during the Inquisition or a Communist during McCarthyism. If it worked for them, Gordon Brown put it to work for his COP 15 aims, commenting on the recent East Anglia University scandal, With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics.
4) If you have been reading Dr Anne-Marie Warris' blogs here, you will know that funding is at the top of the Copenhagen agenda. Yesterday's Guardian article took the funding debate to a place which adds urgency to the issue. In a veiled threat to developed countries, Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, Bangladesh's finance minister, called on Britain and other wealthy countries to accept millions of displaced people. It might be safe, and unfortunate, but this may end up being the real reason that the developed world agrees to a wide-scale funding agreement with the developing world.
5)Artist Mark Coreth will be placing a Polar Bear ice sculpture in the middle of Copenhagen as the COP 15 begins. Coreth says the sculpture should melt within ten days, highlighting the effects of climate change on the environment. Gordon Brown's "flat-earthers" will be hoping for a serious cold spell.

Here are some video links of interest,
1) The Official COP15 YouTube! channel stakes the claim that you will be able to ask world leaders your climate change questions, LIVE! http://www.youtube.com/user/cop15?blend=5&ob=4
2) Google Earth and Al Gore have joined up for an introductory tour to the effects of climate change on the environment. This is the first in a series.

The Marine sector and COP 15 - what are the issues?

2009-12-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

So what are the discussions on marine?
I am frequently asked about what are the issues in relation to ship emissions and why are they on the table. This blog is not the place for a detailed discussion but here are some hints on the background and data.

It is worth remembering that shipping is on the agenda but is fairly low down on the list of topics that will have to be agreed in Copenhagen. Following the debate is important for me as the negotiations on adaptation finance may veer off in one direction and the sector debate in another so shipping may find itself required to pay a tax to the adaptation fund as well as being in a sectoral agreement (so required to also hit specific emission reduction targets).

Whenever I talk about the possible outcome I am reminded of the book ‘The Black Swan’ and Taleb’s key point that as we move into more sophisticated systems our capacity to predict the future is reduced. In this case we are playing poker (but we can't see the cards) and do not know what "outliers" or new developments may appear either before or during Copenhagen.

Who will be responsible for marine emission regulations after Copenhagen?
IMO will still be responsible – yes for both of the options I believe are most likely will leave responsibility with IMO.

Background
IMO 2nd GHG study finds that international shipping CO2 emissions in 2007 were 870 million tonnes CO2. so about 3% of total world emissions and somewhat lager than the total emissions of Germany. But shipping also contributes substantially to GDP, see Chamber of Shipping study. They also transport most of the goods that I buy in my local high street.

So what may Copenhagen mean for marine industry?
Marine bunker fuels are covered in two non papers that are part of the AWG LCA negotiation.

Paper 49 is the one on sectoral issues. After Barcelona we had an increase in options for marine bunker fuels (all of 7 plus the one in the finance scope). Best guesses are for option 1 or 3 –
Option 1 is addressed at Conference of parties (to UNFCCC) asking them to work through IMO
Option 3 – reiterates support for common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) but also states that any measures at IMO should not be seen as restricting trade.

Negotiation text on contribution of adaptation fund - we now have as part of paper 54 a submission from Nigeria and Liberia that proposes a tax on bunker fuels. But there are many unknowns as yet and no indication of the size of the tax.

Some interesting developments
LR are part of a major EPSRC research consortium in ‘The low carbon shipping the system approach’ with 5 major universities in UK as well a significant industrial support. This has just started so watch this space. Other interesting developments in Copenhagen include the Danish development – ‘Green Ship of the Future’ , and learn more at the Bright Green conference to be held in 12 and 13 December. (link to logo which we as member display) . My colleague, Nicholas Brown recently posted on another relevenat development in Marine, Lab on a Ship.

Other issues that influence matters
Taking just a few examples (or this blog will be far to long) in USA the EPA has sent the ship emission rule to the White House. While this is for SOx and NOx, the EPA is proposed in the Boxer Kerry bill to develop a rule for energy efficiency of marine engines so a case of watch this space. In the EU as part of the negotiation position for Copenhagen EU agreed to promote a 20% reduction in international ship emissions by 2020 based on a 2005 baseline I am still not clear what the actual baseline data will be? As the IMO GHG study does not have 2005 data and there are difference between the IEA data (which is lower) and IMO data.

So where do I find out more?

IMO website for GHG study summaries
International Chamber website with information and papers
What is happening in the run up to Copenhagen
British shipping website

Climate Change - It's not easy to be optimistic

2009-12-03T01:34:00.000-08:00

Watching the news and trying to predict an unpredictable outcome I am stuck by a dichotomy and a challenge. And yes they are linked.

The dichotomy first – science, IPCC and Lord Stern among many are clear climate change is real and is a challenge; on the other side of the coin we have the general public – which do not believe climate change is real or of serious concern. How will the dichotomy between those two play out in our politicians minds and aims as they sit down to negotiate in Copenhagen. Which way will the ‘tug of war’ go?

I am concerned that we the public are confused by the science and its argument and the dream of increasing affluence and freedom.
Do we see climate change as restricting our freedom? Do we all know that our planet has weathered climate changes before? And do we really understand that what is at stake this time around is less about our planet’s survival and more about our survival with all the "modern comforts" of live that we now have? I am old enough to remember dinner parties where it was acceptable to light up a cigarette at the dinner table while eating. Social attitudes have changed, well before we got legislation, and it has for a long time not been acceptable to smoke in other peoples homes. For me there is an analogy here. We will only see the public buying into climate change when social attitudes have changed. We need policies and other actions that change perceptions – interesting to have talked to Sean in the Copenhagen energy podcast on the ‘rebound effect’ which is highlighting the importance of understanding the full consequences of any policy.

I am also worried about the battle to gain headlines on climate change related issues. Take the examples of yesterday's smart meter headlines. The news that energy suppliers will have to install them across the UK by 2020 was one of the headline print and TV stories yesterday. The angle taken by most media was the cost of the units, not the results of early tests that show a significant positive change in energy usage behaviour by consumers who already use a smart meter.

So why am I concerned about the public views? Because one of the cornerstones of any deal is funding and we the taxpayers will in one way or another be contributing to the adaptation fund. That may be as consumers - tax on bunker fuels -or as taxpayers. In reflecting on this I come back to Lord Stern’s report of 2006 and its finding that “one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be.” So I would, as a taxpayer, rather we took action sooner rather than later.

We shall see how the funding argument plays out but it is a critical part of any deal that is reached in Copenhagen.

Clean across the globe

2009-12-02T03:22:00.000-08:00

With COP 15 only a few days away, it was interesting to be in the host city shortly before the big event. With climate change posters in the airport, large advertising hoardings in the city centre and locals wondering how their seasonal shopping is going to be affected - there can be no doubt what's coming to Copenhagen before Christmas this year.

We were in Copenhagen holding a press briefing with technology innovator NanoNord A/S and Danish shipowners J.Lauritzen to talk about Lab-on-a-Ship™ (LOAS), an innovation in fuel management and measurement for the shipping industry. We brought two of the leading marine technical journalists, Craig Eason of Lloyd's List and Duncan Payne of Marine Propulsion and Machinery, to hear about the LOAS system - which has been on board two of Lauritzen's bulk carriers for the last year.
They were joined by the Danish media including marine journalists from Soefart and The Shipping Gazette at Lauritzen's impressive waterfront offices in central Copenhagen.

Lloyd's List reported immediately after the briefing that the system offers huge potential to ensure vessels are compliant, according to Lauritzen Bulkers senior vice president Ejner Bonderup. “There are so many issues we as owners want to be in control of, and bunker quality has been a big issue where we have been in the dark,” he said. “Now we can be more upfront with the suppliers when they come to fuel our ships he said.”

Lauritzen are positive that Lab-On-A-Ship™ will enable them to optimise their ships’ operations thus reducing both their environmental impact and operating costs. LOAS's benefits go beyond measuring fuel quality - the next steps will be recording emissions and providing full transparency over engine performance allowing better management onboard and regulatory compliance. The Lab-On-A-Ship™ project is providing proven benefits and is proof that the shipping industry is able to benefit from technology - and is willing and able to use it. There is some way to go but we are heading in the right direction.
This week we are pretty excited at LR about yesterday's agreement with Chinese ship designer's Bestway, one of many environmental initiatives we have underway, to develop a new fuel-efficient bulk carrier. Without bulk carriers, world trade stops and we hope to address key issues such as ballast water management in the design work we will be undertaking.
We will soon see what the implications of COP 15 will be for shipping, but certainly last Friday in Copenhagen, and yesterday, firm insight and an indication of commitment was provided as to how shipping will manage the technical challenges - whatever is decided by the delegates in the next few weeks.

The three partners, J.Lauritzen, LR and NanoNord will be present in Copenhagen at the Bright Green Expo, 12-13 December under the banner of Danish organisation Green Ship's, 'Green Ship of the Future' project.

CCS and the Crystal Ball

2009-12-01T05:06:00.000-08:00

As with Dr. Warris, the one question that is asked most frequently as the world watches the developments leading up to the COP 15 negotiations is, “What do I think will happen in Copenhagen?”

Both the mainstream media and alternative media outlets provide a plethora of different views and prognostications on the outcome of the latest round of climate change negotiations. But the main question for me is not “What will be the outcome?” but “Is our global climate changing?”.

I am a strong believer in fundamentals. Many sceptics push the view that our biosphere has natural warming and cooling cycles, and that currently we are entering a warming trend.
Indeed, as I skim through the many graphs and tables of Professor Pilmer’s book , I can see that our biosphere could be entering a natural warming trend, although the ‘natural cycles’ described are anything but regular in time period. Interestingly, I recently read a paper concerning the last time the Earth’s climate contained as much CO2 as today – 15 million years ago. As we know from palaeontology, the world was much warmer then, the sea levels much higher, and the flora and fauna much different.
What I find very interesting is that within the climate change debate, we miss one important point: Humans have irrevocably changed the Earth’s biosphere as a result of unrestrained energy production from ‘buried sunshine’ sources – coal, oil, and natural gas. The emissions from these energy sources by far outweigh those from ‘natural’ sources such as volcanoes.

So let’s go back to fundamentals: the energy sources we use everyday emit more ‘climate forcing’ gases than volcanoes and other natural catastrophes. Prehistory will tell us that cataclysmic geologic events resulted in significant climate shifts due to massive releases of climate forcing gases – e.g. CO2 – over a short duration, with subsequent changes to the evolution of flora and fauna. By extension, then, one could (possibly) conclude that our demand for ever more energy services coupled with the (short term) ease of supply of those services will affect global climate – especially given that massive quantities of climate forcing gases have been released in a very short time period (approx. 200 years).
So what does all this mean? Without a doubt, I believe that we will need to change how we both supply and use energy. As evidenced by the level of participation at the upcoming COP15 climate conference, our global society is focused on finding ways to adapt to a changing climate. From the ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to ‘cradle-to-cradle’ applications like algae-based biodiesel and large-scale solar power,our global society is driving energy technology innovations on a scale not seen before.

So what do I think will happen in Copenhagen? Well, what I would like to happen is that CCS is finally included in CDM, which will give the necessary incentives to kickstart a number of CCS projects worldwide. What I would also like to happen is an unequivocal recognition from political leaders that: a) climate change is occurring; and that b) a strong set of policies, regulations, and incentives must be put in place to ensure that we can successfully adapt to our changing climate. Will the negotiations in Copenhagen be the ‘nail in the coffin’ for the coal, oil, and natural gas energy companies? No. As our demand for energy services continues to increase, the ‘legacy’ energy sources will continue to supply our energy needs in the short term. However, as already noted most recently by the IEA, continuing to ignore the climate change debate will have severe economic impacts.

What do I think will happen in Copenhagen? I am still shining my crystal ball.

One week left to go and lots to do

2009-11-30T03:08:00.000-08:00

As I prepare for the two weeks of watching and participating in the COP 15 negotiations, one question keeps coming my way: What do I think will happen in Copenhagen?

Watching the daily reports from the around the world – as until we all get to COP 15 that remains our best source of information – it feels like watching a poker game without being able to see the cards. Well that is not quite true, I do have some sense of where the issues might be headed and where the most pressure is being applied. Take the China story last week, with a pledge to cut their 2005 baseline emissions by up to 45% by 2020.
The USA and others have also made firm commitments (you can track individual commitments here). Finally, there was good news from the Commonwealth summit on funding for developing nations over the weekend. So we have movement on two of the major parts – commitments and funding.

As things stand right now, I am optimistic, but then ‘my glass is half full not half empty’. But I am also aware as this is like a poker game we will not really see the shape of things until very late in the day. When I get to Denmark I will be following events as they unfold, both through the meetings that I will be attending and also through the UNFCCC Facebook, Twitter and official websites. I like to check ‘corridor gossip’ out.

The Barcelona negotiations in November seemed to hint at marine being covered but perhaps not as far as I was initially expecting. This leaves Conference of parties (to UNFCCC) to work through IMO for marine and ICAO for aviation to manage GHG issues.

The marine industry has been quite busy preparing for COP 15 with Intertanko’s new Chairman Graham Westgarth saying, “The tanker industry will be able to reach a target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 if the European Commission introduces this target.” My colleague Nick Brown will be posting on this blog later in the week on the new Lab-on-a-Ship™ (LOAS), an innovation in fuel management for the shipping industry.

As you might have guessed, I will be following the marine sector negotiations very closely. I will let you know what I find out over the next three weeks. I have a feeling that “expect the unexpected” might be the word of the day. I will also keep an eye on other major developments that might affect us all.