Monthly Archives: September 2016

Aviation industry’s plan to ‘offset’ its emissions is crazy

If it were a country, aviation would be the seventh largest greenhouse gas emitter. Flying is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2012, emissions from flying increased by 76%.

But the aviation sector is not covered by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 1997, governments decided to exclude aviation and shipping emissions from the Kyoto Protocol. They handed over responsibility for reducing emissions from flying to the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

In the 19 years since the Kyoto Protocol, ICAO has been spectacularly ineffective at reducing emissions from aviation. Every year more and more people are flying. More than one million ‘super commuters’ in the USA take the plane to work.

A certain amount can be done to make aeroplanes more efficient. But these changes are slow. The industry isn’t going to scrap all its existing planes to replace them with more modern, more efficient models.

Biofuels are one option that the industry is looking at. But a vast area of land would be required for biofuel plantations to feed the aviation industry. That means either clearing forests, or taking over agricultural land that is currently used for producing food. And biofuels are not carbon neutral.

Enter carbon trading

At its 2013 General Assembly, ICAO adopted Resolution A38-18: “Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Climate change”. ICAO’s response to climate change? Carbon offsets. Resolution A38-18 includes the following statement:

“to promote sustainable growth of aviation, a comprehensive approach, consisting of work on technology and standards, and on operational and market-based measures to reduce emissions is necessary;”

ICAO assumes that the expansion of avation is inevitable, and that growth should be promoted.

ICAO’s proposal relies heavily on carbon offsetting. The proposal gives the impression of taking action on climate change but it will do nothing to reduce emissions. Action on climate change means reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels. Carbon offsetting does not reduce emissions.

In theory, carbon trading reduces emissions in one place and allows them to continue somewhere else. In practice, the clean development mechanism massively increased production of HFC coolant gases purely to profit from carbon trading and in the process making climate change worse.

The entire point of a market-based mechanism (or carbon trading, as it used to be known, before the term became too controversial) is that it gives the impression that something is being done, without the necessity to actually reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Aviation offsets: A lifeline for REDD?

ICAO’s next General Assembly will take place in Montreal from 27 September to 7 October 2016. During the meeting ICAO is supposed to reach a decision on what this carbon market will look like.

On 3 September 2016, the USA and China put out a joint statement supporting an agreement in Montreal: “Today, the United States and China are expressing their support for the ICAO Assembly reaching consensus on such a measure.”

But the discussions so far have not gone well. There’s a repeat of the debate from the UNFCCC negotiations between the rich countries and the Global South about whose responsibility it is to reduce emissions. That’s ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in UN jargon.

Even if ICAO does agree a carbon trading deal in Montreal, it will be voluntary for the first five years. Bill Hemmings of Brussels-based NGO Transport and Environment told Reuters: “Aviation, in particular, will need to make a fair contribution on the needed emissions reductions. A voluntary scheme will not achieve this.”

But this is a bit of a red herring. A voluntary carbon trading scheme would make a completely useless proposal to address climate change even more useless. With the prospect of introducing the completely useless version at some point in the future.

One of the discussions in Montreal will be whether to include REDD offsets in ICAO’s offsetting scheme.

As a way of addressing climate change, offsetting flying against the carbon stored in forests would be insane. Not only would such a scheme allow the aviation sector to continue expanding and to continue burning fossil fuels, it would rely on carbon being stored in forests. Yet as climate change worsens, the risk of these forests burning and returning the carbon to the atmosphere is increasing.

REDD proponents such as Kevin Conrad and Norway’s Per Pharo are in favour. But more than 80 NGOs (including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth International) have signed on to a statement opposing ICAO’s offsetting plans.

Offsetting: ‘Worse than doing nothing’

Climate change is getting worse. The last 12 months has been the hottest on record. Glaciers and sea ice are shrinking. In 2015, James Hansen and a team of climate scientists warned that sea level could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted.

Heatwaves are longer and more intense. Heatwaves last year in India and Pakistan killed thousands of people. In May 2016, India recorded its highest temperature ever. Forest fires, flooding and droughts are getting worse. Hurricans in the North Atlantic are getting more frequent and more intense. Permafrost is melting. As it melts it’s releasing methane. And anthrax. Permafrost covers 20% of the earth’s land surface.

In 2011, Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said:

“Offsetting is worse than doing nothing. It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global emissions growth.”

The last thing we need now is a massive new carbon trading mechanism that will allow hundreds of millions of tons of fossil fuel carbon to be emitted to the atmosphere. But that is precisely what ICAO is proposing.

 


 

Chris Lang runs REDD-Monitor, which aims to facilitate discussion about the concept of reducing deforestation and forest degradation as a way of addressing climate change.

This article was originally published on REDD Monitor.

 

Aviation industry’s plan to ‘offset’ its emissions is crazy

If it were a country, aviation would be the seventh largest greenhouse gas emitter. Flying is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2012, emissions from flying increased by 76%.

But the aviation sector is not covered by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 1997, governments decided to exclude aviation and shipping emissions from the Kyoto Protocol. They handed over responsibility for reducing emissions from flying to the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

In the 19 years since the Kyoto Protocol, ICAO has been spectacularly ineffective at reducing emissions from aviation. Every year more and more people are flying. More than one million ‘super commuters’ in the USA take the plane to work.

A certain amount can be done to make aeroplanes more efficient. But these changes are slow. The industry isn’t going to scrap all its existing planes to replace them with more modern, more efficient models.

Biofuels are one option that the industry is looking at. But a vast area of land would be required for biofuel plantations to feed the aviation industry. That means either clearing forests, or taking over agricultural land that is currently used for producing food. And biofuels are not carbon neutral.

Enter carbon trading

At its 2013 General Assembly, ICAO adopted Resolution A38-18: “Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Climate change”. ICAO’s response to climate change? Carbon offsets. Resolution A38-18 includes the following statement:

“to promote sustainable growth of aviation, a comprehensive approach, consisting of work on technology and standards, and on operational and market-based measures to reduce emissions is necessary;”

ICAO assumes that the expansion of avation is inevitable, and that growth should be promoted.

ICAO’s proposal relies heavily on carbon offsetting. The proposal gives the impression of taking action on climate change but it will do nothing to reduce emissions. Action on climate change means reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels. Carbon offsetting does not reduce emissions.

In theory, carbon trading reduces emissions in one place and allows them to continue somewhere else. In practice, the clean development mechanism massively increased production of HFC coolant gases purely to profit from carbon trading and in the process making climate change worse.

The entire point of a market-based mechanism (or carbon trading, as it used to be known, before the term became too controversial) is that it gives the impression that something is being done, without the necessity to actually reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Aviation offsets: A lifeline for REDD?

ICAO’s next General Assembly will take place in Montreal from 27 September to 7 October 2016. During the meeting ICAO is supposed to reach a decision on what this carbon market will look like.

On 3 September 2016, the USA and China put out a joint statement supporting an agreement in Montreal: “Today, the United States and China are expressing their support for the ICAO Assembly reaching consensus on such a measure.”

But the discussions so far have not gone well. There’s a repeat of the debate from the UNFCCC negotiations between the rich countries and the Global South about whose responsibility it is to reduce emissions. That’s ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in UN jargon.

Even if ICAO does agree a carbon trading deal in Montreal, it will be voluntary for the first five years. Bill Hemmings of Brussels-based NGO Transport and Environment told Reuters: “Aviation, in particular, will need to make a fair contribution on the needed emissions reductions. A voluntary scheme will not achieve this.”

But this is a bit of a red herring. A voluntary carbon trading scheme would make a completely useless proposal to address climate change even more useless. With the prospect of introducing the completely useless version at some point in the future.

One of the discussions in Montreal will be whether to include REDD offsets in ICAO’s offsetting scheme.

As a way of addressing climate change, offsetting flying against the carbon stored in forests would be insane. Not only would such a scheme allow the aviation sector to continue expanding and to continue burning fossil fuels, it would rely on carbon being stored in forests. Yet as climate change worsens, the risk of these forests burning and returning the carbon to the atmosphere is increasing.

REDD proponents such as Kevin Conrad and Norway’s Per Pharo are in favour. But more than 80 NGOs (including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth International) have signed on to a statement opposing ICAO’s offsetting plans.

Offsetting: ‘Worse than doing nothing’

Climate change is getting worse. The last 12 months has been the hottest on record. Glaciers and sea ice are shrinking. In 2015, James Hansen and a team of climate scientists warned that sea level could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted.

Heatwaves are longer and more intense. Heatwaves last year in India and Pakistan killed thousands of people. In May 2016, India recorded its highest temperature ever. Forest fires, flooding and droughts are getting worse. Hurricans in the North Atlantic are getting more frequent and more intense. Permafrost is melting. As it melts it’s releasing methane. And anthrax. Permafrost covers 20% of the earth’s land surface.

In 2011, Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said:

“Offsetting is worse than doing nothing. It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global emissions growth.”

The last thing we need now is a massive new carbon trading mechanism that will allow hundreds of millions of tons of fossil fuel carbon to be emitted to the atmosphere. But that is precisely what ICAO is proposing.

 


 

Chris Lang runs REDD-Monitor, which aims to facilitate discussion about the concept of reducing deforestation and forest degradation as a way of addressing climate change.

This article was originally published on REDD Monitor.

 

Aviation industry’s plan to ‘offset’ its emissions is crazy

If it were a country, aviation would be the seventh largest greenhouse gas emitter. Flying is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2012, emissions from flying increased by 76%.

But the aviation sector is not covered by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In 1997, governments decided to exclude aviation and shipping emissions from the Kyoto Protocol. They handed over responsibility for reducing emissions from flying to the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

In the 19 years since the Kyoto Protocol, ICAO has been spectacularly ineffective at reducing emissions from aviation. Every year more and more people are flying. More than one million ‘super commuters’ in the USA take the plane to work.

A certain amount can be done to make aeroplanes more efficient. But these changes are slow. The industry isn’t going to scrap all its existing planes to replace them with more modern, more efficient models.

Biofuels are one option that the industry is looking at. But a vast area of land would be required for biofuel plantations to feed the aviation industry. That means either clearing forests, or taking over agricultural land that is currently used for producing food. And biofuels are not carbon neutral.

Enter carbon trading

At its 2013 General Assembly, ICAO adopted Resolution A38-18: “Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Climate change”. ICAO’s response to climate change? Carbon offsets. Resolution A38-18 includes the following statement:

“to promote sustainable growth of aviation, a comprehensive approach, consisting of work on technology and standards, and on operational and market-based measures to reduce emissions is necessary;”

ICAO assumes that the expansion of avation is inevitable, and that growth should be promoted.

ICAO’s proposal relies heavily on carbon offsetting. The proposal gives the impression of taking action on climate change but it will do nothing to reduce emissions. Action on climate change means reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels. Carbon offsetting does not reduce emissions.

In theory, carbon trading reduces emissions in one place and allows them to continue somewhere else. In practice, the clean development mechanism massively increased production of HFC coolant gases purely to profit from carbon trading and in the process making climate change worse.

The entire point of a market-based mechanism (or carbon trading, as it used to be known, before the term became too controversial) is that it gives the impression that something is being done, without the necessity to actually reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Aviation offsets: A lifeline for REDD?

ICAO’s next General Assembly will take place in Montreal from 27 September to 7 October 2016. During the meeting ICAO is supposed to reach a decision on what this carbon market will look like.

On 3 September 2016, the USA and China put out a joint statement supporting an agreement in Montreal: “Today, the United States and China are expressing their support for the ICAO Assembly reaching consensus on such a measure.”

But the discussions so far have not gone well. There’s a repeat of the debate from the UNFCCC negotiations between the rich countries and the Global South about whose responsibility it is to reduce emissions. That’s ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in UN jargon.

Even if ICAO does agree a carbon trading deal in Montreal, it will be voluntary for the first five years. Bill Hemmings of Brussels-based NGO Transport and Environment told Reuters: “Aviation, in particular, will need to make a fair contribution on the needed emissions reductions. A voluntary scheme will not achieve this.”

But this is a bit of a red herring. A voluntary carbon trading scheme would make a completely useless proposal to address climate change even more useless. With the prospect of introducing the completely useless version at some point in the future.

One of the discussions in Montreal will be whether to include REDD offsets in ICAO’s offsetting scheme.

As a way of addressing climate change, offsetting flying against the carbon stored in forests would be insane. Not only would such a scheme allow the aviation sector to continue expanding and to continue burning fossil fuels, it would rely on carbon being stored in forests. Yet as climate change worsens, the risk of these forests burning and returning the carbon to the atmosphere is increasing.

REDD proponents such as Kevin Conrad and Norway’s Per Pharo are in favour. But more than 80 NGOs (including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth International) have signed on to a statement opposing ICAO’s offsetting plans.

Offsetting: ‘Worse than doing nothing’

Climate change is getting worse. The last 12 months has been the hottest on record. Glaciers and sea ice are shrinking. In 2015, James Hansen and a team of climate scientists warned that sea level could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted.

Heatwaves are longer and more intense. Heatwaves last year in India and Pakistan killed thousands of people. In May 2016, India recorded its highest temperature ever. Forest fires, flooding and droughts are getting worse. Hurricans in the North Atlantic are getting more frequent and more intense. Permafrost is melting. As it melts it’s releasing methane. And anthrax. Permafrost covers 20% of the earth’s land surface.

In 2011, Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said:

“Offsetting is worse than doing nothing. It is without scientific legitimacy, is dangerously misleading and almost certainly contributes to a net increase in the absolute rate of global emissions growth.”

The last thing we need now is a massive new carbon trading mechanism that will allow hundreds of millions of tons of fossil fuel carbon to be emitted to the atmosphere. But that is precisely what ICAO is proposing.

 


 

Chris Lang runs REDD-Monitor, which aims to facilitate discussion about the concept of reducing deforestation and forest degradation as a way of addressing climate change.

This article was originally published on REDD Monitor.

 

Yale University Launches Online Specialization Classes Open to the Public

 Journey of the Universe: A Story for Our Times

This autumn, Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, Senior Lecturers and Research Scholars at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies are offering four new six-week online courses. These will be featured as a specialization under the theme of Journey of the Universe: A Story for our Times. This will include two courses on Journey of the Universe and a course on the Worldview of Thomas Berry. Each of these courses can be taken independently followed by an Integrating Capstone course.

These are MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) available on Coursera to anyone, anywhere on the planet. They are the very first MOOC specialization for Yale and the first MOOCs for the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

The Course Descriptions

Journey of the Universe

 Journey of the Universe weaves together the discoveries of the evolutionary sciences with the humanities such as history, philosophy, art, and religion.  The courses draw on the Emmy-award winning film, Journey of the Universe, the book from Yale University Press, and a series of 20 interviews with scientists and environmentalists, titled Journey Conversations.

Journey explores cosmic evolution as a creative process based on connection, interdependence, and emergence.  It examines a range of dynamic interactions in the unfolding of galaxies, Earth, life, and human communities. It investigates ways in which we understand evolutionary processes and the implications for humans and our ecological future.

The Journey courses are based on a new integration that is emerging from the dialogue of the sciences and humanities.  Journey tells the story of evolution as an epic narrative, rather than as a series of facts separated by scientific disciplines. This changes our perception so that we begin to see ourselves as an integral part of this narrative. By situating ourselves within this story we can better appreciate the complexity and beauty of processes such as self-organizing dynamics, natural selection, emergence, symbiosis, and co-evolution. As we discover these intricate processes of evolution, we awaken to the beauty and complexity of our natural environment at this critical juncture in our planetary history.

Journey of the Universe: The Unfolding of Life draws on the Journey film and book written by Brian Thomas Swimme and Mary Evelyn Tucker. 

Journey Conversations: Weaving Knowledge and Action explores 20 engaging interviews with renowned scientists, historians, and environmentalists.

See:  www.journeyoftheuniverse.org


The Worldview of Thomas Berry:  The Flourishing of the Earth Community

Thomas Berry (1914-2009) was a historian of world religions and an early voice awakening moral sensibilities to the environmental crisis. He is known for articulating a “new story” of the universe that explores the implications of the evolutionary sciences and cultural traditions for creating a flourishing future. 

This course investigates Berry’s life and thought in relation to the Journey of the Universe project. It draws on his books, articles, and recorded lectures to examine such ideas as: the New Story, the Great Work, and the emerging Ecozoic era. The course explores Berry’s insights into cosmology as a context for locating the human in a dynamic unfolding universe and thus participating in the creative work of our times. In particular, we will examine Berry’s reflections on renewal and reform in the areas of ecology, economics, education, spirituality, and the arts.

See:  www.thomasberry.org

 

 Integrating Capstone: Living Cosmology

The ecological and social challenges we are facing as a human species are multiple, complex, and vexing. The difficulty in finding viable solutions can lead to a sense of disempowerment. In this capstone we offer a venue to respond by exploring ways in which human creativity may be more deeply aligned with the creativity of universe and Earth processes. This is what is intended by “living cosmology”.

The capstone course will give participants an opportunity to integrate their learning from the other courses with an individual or group project. Both original thought and practical applications are encouraged. Interdisciplinary thinking and fresh solutions will be fostered. Community mentors will assist the process.

Participants choose one of three concentrations: education, arts, or transformative change.

Education concentration – students will create projects or develop curriculum designed to reach diverse learners, in schools or colleges and beyond.

Arts concentration – participants may synthesize their learning through literature, poetry, painting, or music.

Transformative change concentration – learners will analyze or create models of efficacious ecological, social, political, economic, or spiritual change.

 

Specialization Certificate:

While participants do not earn Yale credit for MOOCs, learners are offered an opportunity to pay for a Specialization Certificate for completing and passing the courses with a qualifying score. Students who choose that option can share these certificates with prospective employers and others.

http://environment.yale.edu/news/article/fes-online-courses-on-cosmology-and-ecology-offered-as-yales-first-mooc-specialization/

 

NOTE: These courses will be launched on September 21, 2016. A sign up will be available from early September with a JOIN button on a landing page for these courses on the Coursera website.

https://www.coursera.org/specializations/journey-of-the-universe

Note: the new courses will be available throughout the academic year. With the audit option you can take the course for FREE.

 

 

Yale University Launches First Online Classes Open to the Public

 Journey of the Universe: A Story for Our Times

This autumn, Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, Senior Lecturers and Research Scholars at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies are offering four new six-week online courses. These will be featured as a specialization under the theme of Journey of the Universe: A Story for our Times. This will include two courses on Journey of the Universe and a course on the Worldview of Thomas Berry. Each of these courses can be taken independently followed by an Integrating Capstone course.

These are MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) available on Coursera to anyone, anywhere on the planet. They are the very first MOOC specialization for Yale and the first MOOCs for the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

The Course Descriptions

Journey of the Universe

 Journey of the Universe weaves together the discoveries of the evolutionary sciences with the humanities such as history, philosophy, art, and religion.  The courses draw on the Emmy-award winning film, Journey of the Universe, the book from Yale University Press, and a series of 20 interviews with scientists and environmentalists, titled Journey Conversations.

Journey explores cosmic evolution as a creative process based on connection, interdependence, and emergence.  It examines a range of dynamic interactions in the unfolding of galaxies, Earth, life, and human communities. It investigates ways in which we understand evolutionary processes and the implications for humans and our ecological future.

The Journey courses are based on a new integration that is emerging from the dialogue of the sciences and humanities.  Journey tells the story of evolution as an epic narrative, rather than as a series of facts separated by scientific disciplines. This changes our perception so that we begin to see ourselves as an integral part of this narrative. By situating ourselves within this story we can better appreciate the complexity and beauty of processes such as self-organizing dynamics, natural selection, emergence, symbiosis, and co-evolution. As we discover these intricate processes of evolution, we awaken to the beauty and complexity of our natural environment at this critical juncture in our planetary history.

Journey of the Universe: The Unfolding of Life draws on the Journey film and book written by Brian Thomas Swimme and Mary Evelyn Tucker. 

Journey Conversations: Weaving Knowledge and Action explores 20 engaging interviews with renowned scientists, historians, and environmentalists.

See:  www.journeyoftheuniverse.org


The Worldview of Thomas Berry:  The Flourishing of the Earth Community

Thomas Berry (1914-2009) was a historian of world religions and an early voice awakening moral sensibilities to the environmental crisis. He is known for articulating a “new story” of the universe that explores the implications of the evolutionary sciences and cultural traditions for creating a flourishing future. 

This course investigates Berry’s life and thought in relation to the Journey of the Universe project. It draws on his books, articles, and recorded lectures to examine such ideas as: the New Story, the Great Work, and the emerging Ecozoic era. The course explores Berry’s insights into cosmology as a context for locating the human in a dynamic unfolding universe and thus participating in the creative work of our times. In particular, we will examine Berry’s reflections on renewal and reform in the areas of ecology, economics, education, spirituality, and the arts.

See:  www.thomasberry.org

 

 Integrating Capstone: Living Cosmology

The ecological and social challenges we are facing as a human species are multiple, complex, and vexing. The difficulty in finding viable solutions can lead to a sense of disempowerment. In this capstone we offer a venue to respond by exploring ways in which human creativity may be more deeply aligned with the creativity of universe and Earth processes. This is what is intended by “living cosmology”.

The capstone course will give participants an opportunity to integrate their learning from the other courses with an individual or group project. Both original thought and practical applications are encouraged. Interdisciplinary thinking and fresh solutions will be fostered. Community mentors will assist the process.

Participants choose one of three concentrations: education, arts, or transformative change.

Education concentration – students will create projects or develop curriculum designed to reach diverse learners, in schools or colleges and beyond.

Arts concentration – participants may synthesize their learning through literature, poetry, painting, or music.

Transformative change concentration – learners will analyze or create models of efficacious ecological, social, political, economic, or spiritual change.

 

Specialization Certificate:

While participants do not earn Yale credit for MOOCs, learners are offered an opportunity to pay for a Specialization Certificate for completing and passing the courses with a qualifying score. Students who choose that option can share these certificates with prospective employers and others.

http://environment.yale.edu/news/article/fes-online-courses-on-cosmology-and-ecology-offered-as-yales-first-mooc-specialization/

 

NOTE: These courses will be launched on September 21, 2016. A sign up will be available from early September with a JOIN button on a landing page for these courses on the Coursera website. https://www.coursera.org/yale

Note: the new courses will be available throughout the academic year. With the audit option you can take the course for FREE.

 

 

Yale University Launches New Online Classes Open to the Public

 Journey of the Universe: A Story for Our Times

This autumn, Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, Senior Lecturers and Research Scholars at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies are offering four new six-week online courses. These will be featured as a specialization under the theme of Journey of the Universe: A Story for our Times. This will include two courses on Journey of the Universe and a course on the Worldview of Thomas Berry. Each of these courses can be taken independently followed by an Integrating Capstone course.

These are MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) available on Coursera to anyone, anywhere on the planet. They are the very first MOOC specialization for Yale and the first MOOCs for the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

The Course Descriptions

Journey of the Universe

 Journey of the Universe weaves together the discoveries of the evolutionary sciences with the humanities such as history, philosophy, art, and religion.  The courses draw on the Emmy-award winning film, Journey of the Universe, the book from Yale University Press, and a series of 20 interviews with scientists and environmentalists, titled Journey Conversations.

Journey explores cosmic evolution as a creative process based on connection, interdependence, and emergence.  It examines a range of dynamic interactions in the unfolding of galaxies, Earth, life, and human communities. It investigates ways in which we understand evolutionary processes and the implications for humans and our ecological future.

The Journey courses are based on a new integration that is emerging from the dialogue of the sciences and humanities.  Journey tells the story of evolution as an epic narrative, rather than as a series of facts separated by scientific disciplines. This changes our perception so that we begin to see ourselves as an integral part of this narrative. By situating ourselves within this story we can better appreciate the complexity and beauty of processes such as self-organizing dynamics, natural selection, emergence, symbiosis, and co-evolution. As we discover these intricate processes of evolution, we awaken to the beauty and complexity of our natural environment at this critical juncture in our planetary history.

Journey of the Universe: The Unfolding of Life draws on the Journey film and book written by Brian Thomas Swimme and Mary Evelyn Tucker. 

Journey Conversations: Weaving Knowledge and Action explores 20 engaging interviews with renowned scientists, historians, and environmentalists.

See:  www.journeyoftheuniverse.org


The Worldview of Thomas Berry:  The Flourishing of the Earth Community

Thomas Berry (1914-2009) was a historian of world religions and an early voice awakening moral sensibilities to the environmental crisis. He is known for articulating a “new story” of the universe that explores the implications of the evolutionary sciences and cultural traditions for creating a flourishing future. 

This course investigates Berry’s life and thought in relation to the Journey of the Universe project. It draws on his books, articles, and recorded lectures to examine such ideas as: the New Story, the Great Work, and the emerging Ecozoic era. The course explores Berry’s insights into cosmology as a context for locating the human in a dynamic unfolding universe and thus participating in the creative work of our times. In particular, we will examine Berry’s reflections on renewal and reform in the areas of ecology, economics, education, spirituality, and the arts.

See:  www.thomasberry.org

 

 Integrating Capstone: Living Cosmology

The ecological and social challenges we are facing as a human species are multiple, complex, and vexing. The difficulty in finding viable solutions can lead to a sense of disempowerment. In this capstone we offer a venue to respond by exploring ways in which human creativity may be more deeply aligned with the creativity of universe and Earth processes. This is what is intended by “living cosmology”.

The capstone course will give participants an opportunity to integrate their learning from the other courses with an individual or group project. Both original thought and practical applications are encouraged. Interdisciplinary thinking and fresh solutions will be fostered. Community mentors will assist the process.

Participants choose one of three concentrations: education, arts, or transformative change.

Education concentration – students will create projects or develop curriculum designed to reach diverse learners, in schools or colleges and beyond.

Arts concentration – participants may synthesize their learning through literature, poetry, painting, or music.

Transformative change concentration – learners will analyze or create models of efficacious ecological, social, political, economic, or spiritual change.

 

Specialization Certificate:

While participants do not earn Yale credit for MOOCs, learners are offered an opportunity to pay for a Specialization Certificate for completing and passing the courses with a qualifying score. Students who choose that option can share these certificates with prospective employers and others.

http://environment.yale.edu/news/article/fes-online-courses-on-cosmology-and-ecology-offered-as-yales-first-mooc-specialization/

 

NOTE: These courses will be launched on September 21, 2016. A sign up will be available from early September with a JOIN button on a landing page for these courses on the Coursera website. https://www.coursera.org/yale

Note: the new courses will be available throughout the academic year. With the audit option you can take the course for FREE .

 

 

Nannalution Gathers Pace: Australia’s Knitting Nannas Activists and the Anti-Fracking Movement

KNAG began as an offshoot of the Australian anti-fracking movement Lock the Gate Alliance in 2012. It now has over 40 active groups (or loops as they are known), and 10 to 15 dormant ‘oops across Australia. Nanna ages ranges from 60 to over 85, and it’s often the octogenarian who is first to show at any action or blockade. 

KNAG started out wanting to “twist the stereotype of older women” says co-founder, Clare Twomey. She tells the Ecologist, “We wanted something to do whilst sitting around. We thought what can we use as a cover to be sitting here in the middle of a field, and we thought why not bring our knitting with us to make it look like we’re doing something”. 

Knitting Nanna’s sit and knit at blockades, outside offices of energy companies and politicians, outside parliament, at fracking sites and use knitting as a form of protest. Black and yellow are their trademark colours, a nod to their Lock the Gate origins. Nanna’s knit anything, from berets, scarfs, handcuffs, giant bikini’s with which to adorn police cars, banners, hats, and badges. And they’re following a long tradition of knitting, yarn bombing, and craftivism that stretches back to the French Revolution when women would sit knitting near the guillotine in silent protest at their exclusion from the political process.  

The national gathering finished with a tour of the nearby Coal Seam Gas fields between Chinchilla and Tara.  Nannas sat with families’ still living amongst the gas wells, as the relatives spoke of their desperation to leave. Surrounded by the gas fields, many former residents have already sold up to the energy companies. The vacant land left behind becomes an extension of the nearby gas fields, and those left behind continue to live amongst the gas wells and night flares. Some families are currently waiting to hear about their applications for emergency housing with the local council. 

Australia’s Coal Seam Gas Industry

Australia’s energy industry has been fracking coal seam gas for 20 years. Coal Seam Ga is gas trapped within rock seams and extracted with high pressure water and BTEX chemical mix.  Australia’s richest veins straddle the states of Queensland and New South Wales. At the end of last year, 7,093 wells were in operation in Queensland and 238 in New South Wales. Exploration and extraction has occurred in the remote and rural areas of Victoria, the Northern Territories, and in the north of Western Australia. 

Chinchilla to Tara is an isolated rural community almost 200 miles (300 kilometres) from the state capital Brisbane. The three main towns Chinchilla, Tara and Dalby, are home to less than 20,000 people. Chinchilla recently hit the headlines when the nearby Condamine River was set alight in an anti-fracking action.

Standing on the roadside, there’s no escaping a low humming sound permeating the air.  Only the gurgles from water and gas separators breaks up the constant hum. Peeking through the bushland, you see glimpses of white pipelines, connectors, processing plants and the yellow flashing lights of the workers vehicles. In the National Park, for roughly every half a mile, an acre of forestry area has been cleared for a new fracking well.

The extracted gas is processed into Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Pipelines running in 55- mile sections (90k) in case of blow out, connect the numerous processing plants with the port of Gladstone 600 miles (1000k) away. The compressed gas is then shipped out through the Great Barrier Reef. Australia has seven operating LNG developments worth nearly $80 billion that are currently running or under construction.

A Change in the Political Wind?

Australia’s southern state of Victoria, this week formalised a moratorium banning all inshore fracking. Community concerns over water and health quality for those living near the gas fields superseded the economic argument. State Premier, Daniel Andrews says “The government’s decision is based on the best available evidence and acknowledges that the risks involved outweigh any potential benefits to Victoria.”

Activists and KNAG are now hoping the newly elected Northern Territory Premier and Labor Party MP, Michael Gunner will also ban fracking. Whilst in opposition, Gunner pledged to implement a moratorium on fracking in the Northern Territory. Northern Territory is home to iconic Uluru national park, and could be the venue for the next Knitting Nanna gathering with fellow activists the Growling Grannies Against Gas.

A New Model of Protest

Australia’s Knitting Nannas Against Gas have reached a crossroads. They have expanded into the UK and USA, refining and polishing their Nannalution and Nannafesto. Twomey says: “Getting the Nanna’s there [UK] happened through an existing network, we made the model available and they’ve taken it up with their their own twist to it”. The UK link came from a Nanna visiting activists at Barton Moss Blockade whilst on holiday. As Twomey says, “the Nanna presented our model to them, and they took it up and back to the UK. Later, we were able to approach the Lancashire Nanna’s“. The model is outwardly autonomous, with each loop a satellite around a core group organising national gatherings, workshops, and key people in the satellite groups that focus on local issues. 

The national gathering agreed to drop the AG in KNAG, to fully realise their own moto- ‘Saving the land, air and water for the kiddies’. There’s already a Knitting Nanna loop protesting against logging of native forest in Toolangi, Victoria.  

Capacity building has been achieved. Some members have left still believing in the cause, but not passionately enough about the Movement; whilst others suffer burn out – they are grandmothers after all.

Funded by producing KNAG merchandise and donations, they refuse to become an organisation or take tax break donations. There’s no political agenda or ambition, beyond annoying “all politicians equally” says Twomey. And she promises the Nanna activists will continue just as long as fracking permits are still being issued, and families continue to be trapped by the gas fields.

Knitting Nannas Against Gas

This Author

Maxine Newslands is the Ecologist’s Australia reporter

 

 

Jeremy Corbyn: my plan for Britain’s green industrial revolution

In 2015 the world came together to agree the landmark Paris Climate Agreement aimed at keeping global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

And just in time: we are facing a climate crisis. 2016 is set to be the hottest year on record and greenhouse gas emissions globally are still not falling. We are seeing the impacts of climate change much earlier than anyone predicted – around the world and at home.

That’s just one reason why the Labour Party must stand for a different Britain – one that plays a leading role internationally, and committed to cutting carbon emissions at home. We would once again make Britain world-leading in climate action.

In power, my government will:

  • challenge the Big 6 oligopoly by empowering communities and local authorites to generate their own green energy;
  • use our £250 billion National Investment Bank to lower the cost of capital for renewable energy projects;
  • implement a comprehensive industrial strategy to generate 1 million high-quality new jobs in Britain’s renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, driving a green industrial revolution;
  • support the development of world-class offshore renewable energy industries;
  • ensure strategic investment into industries with a long term future in all regions of Britain will more than compensate for any job losses in unsustainable sectors;
  • work closely with workers, communities and unions to manage the low carbon transformation in a way that is fair to those affected.


Renewables and conservation at the heart of our energy future

Our broken energy system is holding Britain back. Starved of investment by the Big 6 energy companies, our electricity system is expensive, inefficient and polluting and in urgent need of renewal to keep the lights on.

Yet we have enough wind, wave and sun potential not only to power our economy, but to export. Scotland recently met more than 100% of its electricity needs with renewable energy alone.

A nation of draughty homes has left seven million households seriously struggling to pay their energy bills and yet we have the skills, technology and people needing quality jobs to fix them. 29,000 people die early every year from air pollution primarily caused by burning dirty fossil fuels. We will deliver clean energy, affordable heating and electricity – energy for the 60 million, not the Big 6 energy companies.

This will mean promoting the growth of over 200 ‘local energy companies’ within the next parliament, giving towns, cities and localities the powers they need to drive a UK clean energy revolution.

At the same time we will support the development of 1,000 community energy co-operatives, with rights to sell energy directly to the localities they serve, with regional development bank assistance for grid connection costs.

Lowering the cost of capital for renewables

Since the main costs of most renewable technologies (wind, solar, wave and tidal) are initial capital costs, reductions in the cost of capital have a significant impact on the overall cost of the technology involved. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) estimates that well over 90% of the cost of solar PV is capital cost, while around 80% of wind long-run costs are due to capital.

The CCC’s baseline costings allow for a significantly higher cost of capital than is typical in evaluating investment projects, to reflect the uncertainties associated with policy, financing risk, and technological maturity. This implies a baseline forecast of a 10% discount rate – far above the more usual Treasury Green Book figure of 3.5% used to evaluate public expenditure.

However, with the new National Investment Bank operating as a stable vehicle for long-term, cheap loan financing, and with gilt rates themselves presently at an all time low, the financial risks associated with the long-run financing of relatively new technology long-run investment projects are significantly reduced. With public sector financing committed, the interest rate would be brought to a minimum.

Cheap borrowing by the National Investment Bank could be used to leverage in private finance from big and small business, from communities and individuals. It would be a much more cost effective way of ensuring we have the strategically planned infrastructure we need to keep the lights on and cut carbon – while avoiding passing on all of the costs onto consumers via energy bills in what is effectively a regressive tax at a time of exceptionally low borrowing costs.

Backed up by a clear, long-run policy commitment to finance renewables, the policy risk would also be reduced to a minimal level. And given the expectation from the Committee for Climate Change of significant cost reductions in both wind and solar PV, alongside other renewable technologies, we can assume that the policy mix allows the cost of capital to be significantly reduced back towards the standard Treasury costing model.

This places our own estimates for costs at the lower end of the CCC modelling, implying no significant additional costs to households from the transition to low-carbon electricity production.

Reducing costs for consumers

Indeed, where households are able to introduce the ‘flexitricity’ and demand management measures that National Grid now foresees as holding immense potential for UK households, and the more standard demand abatement of housing insulation, UK households could reasonably expect to save significantly on their current household energy expenditures.

The total installation costs are therefore towards the lower end of the CCC estimates, approaching £167bn in total for a major shift towards renewables in the UK. Researchers forecast a very high rate usage and effectiveness of these techniques, sufficient to help reduce household demand for energy use by around two-thirds by 2030. This is, in turn, sufficient to deliver 85% of the UK’s electricity from renewable sources with security of supply.

We would also introduce a Clean Power Mechanism to replace the Capacity Mechanism would bring a ‘carbon merit order’ into capacity auctions. It would first take demand-side (reduction and response), then low-carbon, then high carbon. This could be backed up by a publicly-owned strategic gas reserve, to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Smart Grid technologies also promise cost savings. One estimate is that they will reduce the cost of additional distribution reinforcement by between £2.5 billion and £12 billion by 2050.

At least 65% renewable by 2030, and over 300,000 jobs

Research for the Committee on Climate Change carried out in 2011 implies that a 65% renewable electricity target is technically feasible for the UK, as long as interventions are made by government to improve supply chains, and deliver investment.

Our industrial strategy aims to do exactly that, using procurement to actively bolster UK supply chains, and delivering the investment funds cheaply and as needed. We have therefore allowed for a 65% renewable electricity mix by 2030, with the ambition to go much further than this as new smart-grid technology diffuses and households switch to lower-carbon energy.

Our plans for a rapid expansion in renewable energy imply over 300,000 new jobs created in the sector, based on estimates on job creation from  from numerous independent sources. In each case, it is clear that rapid deployment will be achieved with maximum effectiveness where government is prepared to intervene to support local supply chains.

The renewable energy sector is much more labour intensive than the fossil fuel sector, according to a study by the authoritative UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). They calculated that on average, electricity from fossil fuels creates 100-200 gross jobs per terawatt-hour (TWh) generated.

In comparison, electricity from wind creates 50-500 gross jobs per TWh, and solar creates 400 – 1,100 gross jobs per TWh. Energy efficiency projects also create many more jobs than dirty energy, coming in at 300 – 1,000 jobs per TWh saved.

In addition, the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated in 2012 that a drive to offshore wind use could lead to a £22.5bn net export benefit, from both manufactured exports and exports of excess capacity. This is more than 70% of our current account deficit.

No more lagging behind

We will also launch a publicly funded National Home Insulation programme that would see at least 4 million homes insulated to energy efficiency standard B or C in the first term of a Labour Government – creating tens of thousands of jobs across every community, reducing the need for expensive new energy generation, and helping millions of people to save money on their bills.

Our programme will include building a million new homes – including half a million council houses – to ‘passive-haus’ or energy-plus standards. And to end the misery of cold rented accommodation we will set a minimum ‘B and C’ energy efficiency standard for all rented housing by the end of the first parliament.

Our National Home Insulation programme will cost the government between £1.8 and £2.8 billion a year. However, it will save UK households a total of £4.95 billion a year – while also returning £1.27 in tax revenue for every £1 invested by government.

It will increase the country’s GDP by £13.9 billion a year by 2030. Further, it will reduce gas imports by 25%, boosting energy security, according to analysis done by Energy Bill Revolution, a coalition of businesses and other stakeholders that commissioned the research.

Accelerating Britain’s green and prosperous future

Under this Conservative government, Britain risks missing its Paris climate targets, its EU renewable energy targets, and being left behind in the world’s fast-growing low-carbon market. This is a situation I am determined to reverse.

We will accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, renewable economy, and drive the expansion of the green industries and jobs of the future, using our National Investment Bank to invest in public and community-owned renewable energy. We will put modern low-carbon industries at the heart of our £500 billion investment strategy.

We will restore business confidence through coherent, consistent policy that champions the innovators and puts Britain, our cities, our devolved governments and communities at the forefront of this new industrial revolution. This is the Britain I want to build: a future that is cutting-edge, inclusive and sustainable. 

 


 

Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of the Labour Party.

Also on The Ecologist:Jeremy Corbyn: the green Britain I want to build‘.

This article is based on extracts from Environment & Energy, a Labour Party policy paper by Jeremy Corbyn. Please refer to the original full version for additional material and references.

 

Jeremy Corbyn: my plan for Britain’s green industrial revolution

In 2015 the world came together to agree the landmark Paris Climate Agreement aimed at keeping global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

And just in time: we are facing a climate crisis. 2016 is set to be the hottest year on record and greenhouse gas emissions globally are still not falling. We are seeing the impacts of climate change much earlier than anyone predicted – around the world and at home.

That’s just one reason why the Labour Party must stand for a different Britain – one that plays a leading role internationally, and committed to cutting carbon emissions at home. We would once again make Britain world-leading in climate action.

In power, my government will:

  • challenge the Big 6 oligopoly by empowering communities and local authorites to generate their own green energy;
  • use our £250 billion National Investment Bank to lower the cost of capital for renewable energy projects;
  • implement a comprehensive industrial strategy to generate 1 million high-quality new jobs in Britain’s renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, driving a green industrial revolution;
  • support the development of world-class offshore renewable energy industries;
  • ensure strategic investment into industries with a long term future in all regions of Britain will more than compensate for any job losses in unsustainable sectors;
  • work closely with workers, communities and unions to manage the low carbon transformation in a way that is fair to those affected.


Renewables and conservation at the heart of our energy future

Our broken energy system is holding Britain back. Starved of investment by the Big 6 energy companies, our electricity system is expensive, inefficient and polluting and in urgent need of renewal to keep the lights on.

Yet we have enough wind, wave and sun potential not only to power our economy, but to export. Scotland recently met more than 100% of its electricity needs with renewable energy alone.

A nation of draughty homes has left seven million households seriously struggling to pay their energy bills and yet we have the skills, technology and people needing quality jobs to fix them. 29,000 people die early every year from air pollution primarily caused by burning dirty fossil fuels. We will deliver clean energy, affordable heating and electricity – energy for the 60 million, not the Big 6 energy companies.

This will mean promoting the growth of over 200 ‘local energy companies’ within the next parliament, giving towns, cities and localities the powers they need to drive a UK clean energy revolution.

At the same time we will support the development of 1,000 community energy co-operatives, with rights to sell energy directly to the localities they serve, with regional development bank assistance for grid connection costs.

Lowering the cost of capital for renewables

Since the main costs of most renewable technologies (wind, solar, wave and tidal) are initial capital costs, reductions in the cost of capital have a significant impact on the overall cost of the technology involved. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) estimates that well over 90% of the cost of solar PV is capital cost, while around 80% of wind long-run costs are due to capital.

The CCC’s baseline costings allow for a significantly higher cost of capital than is typical in evaluating investment projects, to reflect the uncertainties associated with policy, financing risk, and technological maturity. This implies a baseline forecast of a 10% discount rate – far above the more usual Treasury Green Book figure of 3.5% used to evaluate public expenditure.

However, with the new National Investment Bank operating as a stable vehicle for long-term, cheap loan financing, and with gilt rates themselves presently at an all time low, the financial risks associated with the long-run financing of relatively new technology long-run investment projects are significantly reduced. With public sector financing committed, the interest rate would be brought to a minimum.

Cheap borrowing by the National Investment Bank could be used to leverage in private finance from big and small business, from communities and individuals. It would be a much more cost effective way of ensuring we have the strategically planned infrastructure we need to keep the lights on and cut carbon – while avoiding passing on all of the costs onto consumers via energy bills in what is effectively a regressive tax at a time of exceptionally low borrowing costs.

Backed up by a clear, long-run policy commitment to finance renewables, the policy risk would also be reduced to a minimal level. And given the expectation from the Committee for Climate Change of significant cost reductions in both wind and solar PV, alongside other renewable technologies, we can assume that the policy mix allows the cost of capital to be significantly reduced back towards the standard Treasury costing model.

This places our own estimates for costs at the lower end of the CCC modelling, implying no significant additional costs to households from the transition to low-carbon electricity production.

Reducing costs for consumers

Indeed, where households are able to introduce the ‘flexitricity’ and demand management measures that National Grid now foresees as holding immense potential for UK households, and the more standard demand abatement of housing insulation, UK households could reasonably expect to save significantly on their current household energy expenditures.

The total installation costs are therefore towards the lower end of the CCC estimates, approaching £167bn in total for a major shift towards renewables in the UK. Researchers forecast a very high rate usage and effectiveness of these techniques, sufficient to help reduce household demand for energy use by around two-thirds by 2030. This is, in turn, sufficient to deliver 85% of the UK’s electricity from renewable sources with security of supply.

We would also introduce a Clean Power Mechanism to replace the Capacity Mechanism would bring a ‘carbon merit order’ into capacity auctions. It would first take demand-side (reduction and response), then low-carbon, then high carbon. This could be backed up by a publicly-owned strategic gas reserve, to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Smart Grid technologies also promise cost savings. One estimate is that they will reduce the cost of additional distribution reinforcement by between £2.5 billion and £12 billion by 2050.

At least 65% renewable by 2030, and over 300,000 jobs

Research for the Committee on Climate Change carried out in 2011 implies that a 65% renewable electricity target is technically feasible for the UK, as long as interventions are made by government to improve supply chains, and deliver investment.

Our industrial strategy aims to do exactly that, using procurement to actively bolster UK supply chains, and delivering the investment funds cheaply and as needed. We have therefore allowed for a 65% renewable electricity mix by 2030, with the ambition to go much further than this as new smart-grid technology diffuses and households switch to lower-carbon energy.

Our plans for a rapid expansion in renewable energy imply over 300,000 new jobs created in the sector, based on estimates on job creation from  from numerous independent sources. In each case, it is clear that rapid deployment will be achieved with maximum effectiveness where government is prepared to intervene to support local supply chains.

The renewable energy sector is much more labour intensive than the fossil fuel sector, according to a study by the authoritative UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). They calculated that on average, electricity from fossil fuels creates 100-200 gross jobs per terawatt-hour (TWh) generated.

In comparison, electricity from wind creates 50-500 gross jobs per TWh, and solar creates 400 – 1,100 gross jobs per TWh. Energy efficiency projects also create many more jobs than dirty energy, coming in at 300 – 1,000 jobs per TWh saved.

In addition, the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated in 2012 that a drive to offshore wind use could lead to a £22.5bn net export benefit, from both manufactured exports and exports of excess capacity. This is more than 70% of our current account deficit.

No more lagging behind

We will also launch a publicly funded National Home Insulation programme that would see at least 4 million homes insulated to energy efficiency standard B or C in the first term of a Labour Government – creating tens of thousands of jobs across every community, reducing the need for expensive new energy generation, and helping millions of people to save money on their bills.

Our programme will include building a million new homes – including half a million council houses – to ‘passive-haus’ or energy-plus standards. And to end the misery of cold rented accommodation we will set a minimum ‘B and C’ energy efficiency standard for all rented housing by the end of the first parliament.

Our National Home Insulation programme will cost the government between £1.8 and £2.8 billion a year. However, it will save UK households a total of £4.95 billion a year – while also returning £1.27 in tax revenue for every £1 invested by government.

It will increase the country’s GDP by £13.9 billion a year by 2030. Further, it will reduce gas imports by 25%, boosting energy security, according to analysis done by Energy Bill Revolution, a coalition of businesses and other stakeholders that commissioned the research.

Accelerating Britain’s green and prosperous future

Under this Conservative government, Britain risks missing its Paris climate targets, its EU renewable energy targets, and being left behind in the world’s fast-growing low-carbon market. This is a situation I am determined to reverse.

We will accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, renewable economy, and drive the expansion of the green industries and jobs of the future, using our National Investment Bank to invest in public and community-owned renewable energy. We will put modern low-carbon industries at the heart of our £500 billion investment strategy.

We will restore business confidence through coherent, consistent policy that champions the innovators and puts Britain, our cities, our devolved governments and communities at the forefront of this new industrial revolution. This is the Britain I want to build: a future that is cutting-edge, inclusive and sustainable. 

 


 

Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of the Labour Party.

Also on The Ecologist:Jeremy Corbyn: the green Britain I want to build‘.

This article is based on extracts from Environment & Energy, a Labour Party policy paper by Jeremy Corbyn. Please refer to the original full version for additional material and references.

 

Jeremy Corbyn: my plan for Britain’s green industrial revolution

In 2015 the world came together to agree the landmark Paris Climate Agreement aimed at keeping global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

And just in time: we are facing a climate crisis. 2016 is set to be the hottest year on record and greenhouse gas emissions globally are still not falling. We are seeing the impacts of climate change much earlier than anyone predicted – around the world and at home.

That’s just one reason why the Labour Party must stand for a different Britain – one that plays a leading role internationally, and committed to cutting carbon emissions at home. We would once again make Britain world-leading in climate action.

In power, my government will:

  • challenge the Big 6 oligopoly by empowering communities and local authorites to generate their own green energy;
  • use our £250 billion National Investment Bank to lower the cost of capital for renewable energy projects;
  • implement a comprehensive industrial strategy to generate 1 million high-quality new jobs in Britain’s renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, driving a green industrial revolution;
  • support the development of world-class offshore renewable energy industries;
  • ensure strategic investment into industries with a long term future in all regions of Britain will more than compensate for any job losses in unsustainable sectors;
  • work closely with workers, communities and unions to manage the low carbon transformation in a way that is fair to those affected.


Renewables and conservation at the heart of our energy future

Our broken energy system is holding Britain back. Starved of investment by the Big 6 energy companies, our electricity system is expensive, inefficient and polluting and in urgent need of renewal to keep the lights on.

Yet we have enough wind, wave and sun potential not only to power our economy, but to export. Scotland recently met more than 100% of its electricity needs with renewable energy alone.

A nation of draughty homes has left seven million households seriously struggling to pay their energy bills and yet we have the skills, technology and people needing quality jobs to fix them. 29,000 people die early every year from air pollution primarily caused by burning dirty fossil fuels. We will deliver clean energy, affordable heating and electricity – energy for the 60 million, not the Big 6 energy companies.

This will mean promoting the growth of over 200 ‘local energy companies’ within the next parliament, giving towns, cities and localities the powers they need to drive a UK clean energy revolution.

At the same time we will support the development of 1,000 community energy co-operatives, with rights to sell energy directly to the localities they serve, with regional development bank assistance for grid connection costs.

Lowering the cost of capital for renewables

Since the main costs of most renewable technologies (wind, solar, wave and tidal) are initial capital costs, reductions in the cost of capital have a significant impact on the overall cost of the technology involved. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) estimates that well over 90% of the cost of solar PV is capital cost, while around 80% of wind long-run costs are due to capital.

The CCC’s baseline costings allow for a significantly higher cost of capital than is typical in evaluating investment projects, to reflect the uncertainties associated with policy, financing risk, and technological maturity. This implies a baseline forecast of a 10% discount rate – far above the more usual Treasury Green Book figure of 3.5% used to evaluate public expenditure.

However, with the new National Investment Bank operating as a stable vehicle for long-term, cheap loan financing, and with gilt rates themselves presently at an all time low, the financial risks associated with the long-run financing of relatively new technology long-run investment projects are significantly reduced. With public sector financing committed, the interest rate would be brought to a minimum.

Cheap borrowing by the National Investment Bank could be used to leverage in private finance from big and small business, from communities and individuals. It would be a much more cost effective way of ensuring we have the strategically planned infrastructure we need to keep the lights on and cut carbon – while avoiding passing on all of the costs onto consumers via energy bills in what is effectively a regressive tax at a time of exceptionally low borrowing costs.

Backed up by a clear, long-run policy commitment to finance renewables, the policy risk would also be reduced to a minimal level. And given the expectation from the Committee for Climate Change of significant cost reductions in both wind and solar PV, alongside other renewable technologies, we can assume that the policy mix allows the cost of capital to be significantly reduced back towards the standard Treasury costing model.

This places our own estimates for costs at the lower end of the CCC modelling, implying no significant additional costs to households from the transition to low-carbon electricity production.

Reducing costs for consumers

Indeed, where households are able to introduce the ‘flexitricity’ and demand management measures that National Grid now foresees as holding immense potential for UK households, and the more standard demand abatement of housing insulation, UK households could reasonably expect to save significantly on their current household energy expenditures.

The total installation costs are therefore towards the lower end of the CCC estimates, approaching £167bn in total for a major shift towards renewables in the UK. Researchers forecast a very high rate usage and effectiveness of these techniques, sufficient to help reduce household demand for energy use by around two-thirds by 2030. This is, in turn, sufficient to deliver 85% of the UK’s electricity from renewable sources with security of supply.

We would also introduce a Clean Power Mechanism to replace the Capacity Mechanism would bring a ‘carbon merit order’ into capacity auctions. It would first take demand-side (reduction and response), then low-carbon, then high carbon. This could be backed up by a publicly-owned strategic gas reserve, to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Smart Grid technologies also promise cost savings. One estimate is that they will reduce the cost of additional distribution reinforcement by between £2.5 billion and £12 billion by 2050.

At least 65% renewable by 2030, and over 300,000 jobs

Research for the Committee on Climate Change carried out in 2011 implies that a 65% renewable electricity target is technically feasible for the UK, as long as interventions are made by government to improve supply chains, and deliver investment.

Our industrial strategy aims to do exactly that, using procurement to actively bolster UK supply chains, and delivering the investment funds cheaply and as needed. We have therefore allowed for a 65% renewable electricity mix by 2030, with the ambition to go much further than this as new smart-grid technology diffuses and households switch to lower-carbon energy.

Our plans for a rapid expansion in renewable energy imply over 300,000 new jobs created in the sector, based on estimates on job creation from  from numerous independent sources. In each case, it is clear that rapid deployment will be achieved with maximum effectiveness where government is prepared to intervene to support local supply chains.

The renewable energy sector is much more labour intensive than the fossil fuel sector, according to a study by the authoritative UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC). They calculated that on average, electricity from fossil fuels creates 100-200 gross jobs per terawatt-hour (TWh) generated.

In comparison, electricity from wind creates 50-500 gross jobs per TWh, and solar creates 400 – 1,100 gross jobs per TWh. Energy efficiency projects also create many more jobs than dirty energy, coming in at 300 – 1,000 jobs per TWh saved.

In addition, the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimated in 2012 that a drive to offshore wind use could lead to a £22.5bn net export benefit, from both manufactured exports and exports of excess capacity. This is more than 70% of our current account deficit.

No more lagging behind

We will also launch a publicly funded National Home Insulation programme that would see at least 4 million homes insulated to energy efficiency standard B or C in the first term of a Labour Government – creating tens of thousands of jobs across every community, reducing the need for expensive new energy generation, and helping millions of people to save money on their bills.

Our programme will include building a million new homes – including half a million council houses – to ‘passive-haus’ or energy-plus standards. And to end the misery of cold rented accommodation we will set a minimum ‘B and C’ energy efficiency standard for all rented housing by the end of the first parliament.

Our National Home Insulation programme will cost the government between £1.8 and £2.8 billion a year. However, it will save UK households a total of £4.95 billion a year – while also returning £1.27 in tax revenue for every £1 invested by government.

It will increase the country’s GDP by £13.9 billion a year by 2030. Further, it will reduce gas imports by 25%, boosting energy security, according to analysis done by Energy Bill Revolution, a coalition of businesses and other stakeholders that commissioned the research.

Accelerating Britain’s green and prosperous future

Under this Conservative government, Britain risks missing its Paris climate targets, its EU renewable energy targets, and being left behind in the world’s fast-growing low-carbon market. This is a situation I am determined to reverse.

We will accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, renewable economy, and drive the expansion of the green industries and jobs of the future, using our National Investment Bank to invest in public and community-owned renewable energy. We will put modern low-carbon industries at the heart of our £500 billion investment strategy.

We will restore business confidence through coherent, consistent policy that champions the innovators and puts Britain, our cities, our devolved governments and communities at the forefront of this new industrial revolution. This is the Britain I want to build: a future that is cutting-edge, inclusive and sustainable. 

 


 

Jeremy Corbyn is Leader of the Labour Party.

Also on The Ecologist:Jeremy Corbyn: the green Britain I want to build‘.

This article is based on extracts from Environment & Energy, a Labour Party policy paper by Jeremy Corbyn. Please refer to the original full version for additional material and references.