Your energy

         our future

Climate change is a real issue we can all help to resolve!

The exchange of 'man-made' carbon dioxide between man-made emissions, atmosphere, ocean and land, is about 7 GtC/year (billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, per year), which also shows much larger natural exchanges between atmosphere and ocean (about 90 GtC/yr) and atmosphere and land (about 60 GtC/yr). However, these natural exchanges have been in balance for many thousands of years, leading to the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 remaining steady at about 280 ppm.

Global

Warming

§                       Coastal flooding special report

§                       Graphic: how our coasts could be flooded

§                       Sea levels may rise by over a metre

1.              Climate Change: the world in 2055

2.              Natural phenomena captured from space

3.              World's Weirdest Animals

4.              Underwater Britain: the invasive species

5.              Natural phenomena of the world

The large swaths of ice around the north and south poles hold the key to significant sea levels rises and the fate of low-lying areas across the world. Once air and ocean temperatures are high enough (about 1.1 to 3.8C  above today's global average temperature) the Greenland Ice Sheet, one of two major ice sheets along with one in the Antarctic, will start to melt more quickly than snow accumulates. The Greenland Ice Sheet alone contains enough water to lead to a global sea level rise of 7m.

§                       More natural phenomena captured from space

§                       Met Office: will ice sheets melt with climate change?

Climate Change is a real problem - Global Warming - useful links

Climate Change

Global warming

Global Warming hot map of the World

The large swaths of ice around the north and south poles hold the key to significant sea levels rises and the fate of low-lying areas across the world. Once air and ocean temperatures are high enough (about 1.1 to 3.8C  above today's global average temperature) the Greenland Ice Sheet, one of two major ice sheets along with one in the Antarctic, will start to melt more quickly than snow accumulates. The Greenland Ice Sheet alone contains enough water to lead to a global sea level rise of 7m.

§                       More natural phenomena captured from space

§                       Met Office: will ice sheets melt with climate change?

                     Nature's most dangerous places

§                    Floating cities: an answer to rising sea levels?

Climate projections

Because we can't know the future for certain, our climate change scientists  use computer-based climate models to project plausible scenarios, or  projections, for coming centuries.

It is important to be aware that projections from climate models are always  subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different projections.

The projections are also based on emissions scenarios, such as the level of  CO2 emissions increasing or decreasing. Many different scenarios are used, based  on estimates of economic and social growth, and this is one of the major sources of uncertainty in climate prediction. But even if greenhouse gas emissions are substantially reduced, the long lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere means that we  cannot avoid further climate change due to CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Despite the uncertainties, all models show that the Earth will warm in the next century, with a consistent geographical pattern.

Some of the diagrams below are maps of differences between the current climate, conventionally defined as 1960-1990, and the climate of the end of the  21st century, taken to be 2070-2100. For most quantities, changes are shown both for the annual average and for each of the four seasons December-February  (Winter), March-May (Spring), June-August (Summer) and September-November (Autumn). The other diagrams are time-series, showing changes which occur as time passes.

What can climate scientists tell us about the future?

Dr Vicky Pope
Head of Climate Change Advice

Like any 'expert' trying to project into the future, scientists cannot give  precise predictions of what will happen in 100 years, or even in the next 10  years. However, we are able to give a range of possible outcomes of the world's  actions and to assign probabilities to these, and climate projections should be treated as an assessment of risk.

You wouldn't drive a car if you knew you had a 10% chance of causing an  accident. Yet we continue to increase emissions, despite the fact that even if  we could stabilise greenhouse gases at, or close to, today's levels there would still be only a 80% chance of keeping global temperature rises somewhere between 2 and 3 °C above pre-industrial levels. If we carry on increasing emissions at  present rates then global average temperature rise will be 2 °C by the middle of this century.

The difficulty is that the projections do not agree on how big the changes will be. Over the next few years, better models and the use of multiple model  techniques should help us to understand and reduce the uncertainties in our predictions.

Average European rainfall.

In northern Europe (including UK) average summer rainfall for 2070-2100 is likely to decrease by  between 5 and 20%. Average winter rainfall is very likely to increase. The  number and intensity of extreme rainfall events will increase in winter.

Summer floods in the UK
For the UK as a whole, 55,000 homes and 6,000 businesses were flooded and related insurance claims were approaching £3bn by the end of 2007. In line with Europe as a whole, UK summer rainfall is very likely to decrease on average. However, it is likely that summer showers will become heavier. This is because warmer air can hold more moisture.

Heatwaves

Global warming has already at least  doubled the risk of heatwaves like that in 2003, which caused 35,000 extra  deaths across Europe. By 2040 such summers are likely to be commonplace and by  the 2060s they may well be unusually cool.

Global impacts our models are already predicting

Drought

Incidence of drought has already increased. Severe drought has increased from 1 to 3% of the globe in the last 50 years. By 2050 it is likely to increase to 30% (if global temperatures rise by 2  °C above pre-industrial values).

Amazon rainforest

There is risk of significant loss of the Amazon rainforest when global temperature rises reach 3 °C and few  ecosystems will be able to adapt (IPCC).

Greenland ice sheet

The Greenland ice sheet will start to melt more quickly than snow accumulates once regional temperatures are  high enough. It is not yet known what this exact threshold is, but it could be a  global temperature rise of somewhere between 1.9 and 4.6 °C above pre-industrial values.

Tackling the science

Climate scientists tend to gravitate towards two approaches when it comes to describing their projections of climate change. All scientists are trained to  consider all the possible problems with their results and will always point out the caveats and areas that could be improved. This can give rise to a very confused view of what results mean and leads the public dismissing to some  results as too uncertain. Some scientists react against this by taking the most pessimistic view of what the future holds, to try to make it clear how serious  the problem is. These results tend to be dismissed as unrealistic. By quantifying the risks of climate change, the Met Office Hadley Centre hopes to  give a balanced view of the future and provide useful information that can be used to make important decisions about all our futures.

There is already a very large body of evidence that can be used to make  decisions about climate change. The strengths and weaknesses of this evidence have been tested and are understood.

Climate scientists use evidence from observations of the past climate, and from computer models of the climate, to produce projections of the future. Projections are made using climate models derived from the laws of physics. A  well-established set of equations result from the physical laws governing the climate and these are solved for a three-dimensional grid that spans the globe.  The observations are then used to make an independent check on whether the  models are good enough.

The accuracy of the results depends on a detailed understanding of the physical processes and the fineness of the grid that can be represented on the computer being used. Climate models currently have a grid spacing of 150 km, and  this is likely to improve to 90 km with the next generation of models. A finer  grid means more detail and more accuracy. The grid spacing and the science are  the two aspects that are being continually improved, and the reason why scientists will always place caveats on their projections.

Analysing the risks of climate change

In order to generate the full range of possible futures, scientists generate model projections that take account of uncertainties in the following:

• Emissions — dependent on various factors, including  actions to reduce greenhouse gases
• such as El Niño and the impact of particles (aerosols)  produced by volcanic eruptions
• Science — our ability to understand and model the  important processes that affect climate.

Adaptation

If we plan ahead, we should be able to adapt to some aspects of climate  change, provided that change is not too great or occurs too quickly.

If emissions continue to grow at present rates, the changes will be so large and so rapid that the adverse effects will quickly outweigh any local benefits and come to dominate in all regions of the world. Adaptation will also become increasingly difficult, and in some cases impossible.

We also need to consider that the UK does not exist in isolation, but is affected by what happens elsewhere. For example, world food prices and migration are already significant issues today and will be adversely affected by global  warming.

About  Dr Vicky Pope

• Responsible for delivering Met Office Hadley Centre science to our main  government customers
• Has a PhD in Meteorology (Stratospheric Dynamics)
• Has worked in climate change for 12 years
• In the 1980s and early 1990s worked on the ozone hole

Urgency of Climate Change

RELATED FEATURES

Councils might be reeling from the financial crisis but the environment should be their real main concern. There are  rainforests of strategies clogging up town hall shelves – councils need to dust  them down and turn their words into actions, writes Jon Barry

We all know that climate change is climbing to the top of the political agenda. Well, so they say. It's one of those things that (nearly) everybody says is important  but nobody's quite sure what is being done about it. The latest government target is an 80 per cent reduction of CO2 on 1990 levels by 2050. So, given that actions are more useful than targets, I would argue that councils need to step up to the plate, do their bit and start to make a difference.

From my  experience of council bureaucracy, the long road to action on climate change  works in four stages: 1 – decide you want to do something, 2 – develop a  strategy, 3 – work out how to implement it, 4 – do it.

My suspicion is  that most councils have fought their way past 2 and 3 and, like my own, are now wrestling with 4. Of course, there are many good exceptions to this. For  example, Kirklees Council is offering free loft and cavity wall insulation to every house in their area. Previously, their EC-funded SunCities project has meant that five per cent of the UK's solar electricity generation has been  installed in Kirklees. Other councils such as Wigan have saved lots of CO2 and  lots of money by installing voltage stabilisers in many of their council buildings. And of course, in 2004 Merton council instigated the  now-being-enviously-copied 'Merton Rule' where new buildings had to utilise onsite renewable energy to reduce CO2 emissions by 10 per cent.

One of the decisions councils have to make is to decide whether they are trying to  reduce the energy used in their own activities or whether for the district as a whole. Of course, the correct answer is that they should do both. A few moments'  thought shows that there are numerous ways that councils can make a difference: increase energy efficiency in council buildings, switch off computers and lights, use planning policy to make developers introduce green technologies into new developments and to make it easy for residents to make their own changes to existing buildings. If you're still with me, I'll carry on with my list: promote and provide allotments to reduce those food miles, improve recycling rates  (especially if you can provide local places to process it rather than shipping  it off to China), stick a few large windmills in council land and trouser the rent for your taxpayers (have a look at the magnificent one near Lowestoft harbour), build bike lanes instead of bypasses (steady, think I'd better stop  now). Actually, one last thing, procurement. I'm told that councils spend £75bn  on goods and services each year. If these were switched to low-carbon,  locally-made options, then that would be a big hole in government  targets.

I'd say that my council, Lancaster, is at stage 4 in the process outlined in my second paragraph – we know what we want to do, we just need to do it. We have eventually managed to get a voltage stabiliser introduced into one of our town halls and our next task is to reduce the energy bills (and the CO2)  by 30 per cent in our council-run sports centre and swimming pool. This centre uses up more energy than all of our other council buildings put together. We're  still getting to the bottom of the issues, but we're confident that a proper  cover on the swimming pool will save some heating costs but, more importantly,  will allow us to turn off the fans as there will be less condensation from evaporation. And we also need to change the culture of the centre so that the  lights are switched off when the pool isn't open and the pool's pumps aren't on  all night.

Actually, changing the culture of councils is probably the key. We need to make energy saving a top KPI (key performance indicator) and everyone needs to buy into it. People need to know where they need to get to and  how they have done so far. I am told that simply putting up energy-usage graphs in the staff tea room makes an immediate difference. But, if it's all so easy,  why isn't more progress being made? Well, if other councils are like mine,  perhaps one of the answers is resources (mixed in with a dollop of 'lack of  political will' and a tad of a 'can't do' attitude).

In Lancaster, action on climate change is one of our top corporate objectives. However, unlike other  top corporate objectives which have whole directorates allocated to them, climate change has one and a bit staff and the 'one' is on long-term sick leave. I'd really like us to employ an energy manager, who I'm convinced would pay for  their salary several times over – but it won't be easy to persuade my councillor colleagues to employ new staff in our current dire budget crisis. And you try  convincing the council's bean-counting department that half of the money saved from energy-saving initiatives should be ploughed back into next year's  initiatives! But, if we're serious, this is exactly what needs to happen.

In summary, climate change is more important than the credit crunch. Its consequences for humans and for nature will be immense even if we  reduced carbon emissions to zero now. Councils have a vital role in reducing  CO2. There are rainforests of strategies clogging up town hall shelves – now we need to dust them down and turn their words into actions. Before it's too  late.

Jon Barry chairs the climate change liaison committee on Lancaster City Council. He is also the cabinet member for waste and recycling. He is one of 12 Green Party councillors on Lancaster City Council.

Credit crunch & climate change - which is most important?

The credit crunch has hit at a time when the economy needs to become low carbon. While this is now more difficult, working to protect the environment could offer a way out of the downturn, argues Paul Bettison

The debate about how we kick-start the economy and equip the country for when it emerges from recession is going on up and down the country at the moment.

Councils are facing the most challenging set of  circumstances for a generation. Unemployment is forecast to continue to rise, and local authorities are facing a triple whammy of squeezed funding, declining  income and ever greater demand for essential services.

At the same time there remains an urgent need to press ahead with action to tackle climate change – the greatest long-term threat to our future prosperity and security. This makes economic and environmental sense. If we do not start to act, the economic  consequences will be far graver in the future – recession or not.

Creating a low carbon economy will develop new markets and new businesses. At a time when we are seeing redundancies on an almost daily basis,  the LGA estimates that thousands of new green jobs could be created – jobs that  would help save carbon, reduce fuel poverty and protect those parts of the  country at greatest risk from climate change.

Delegates from councils  across the country recently gathered in Manchester for the LGA's annual climate change conference, the central theme running through the event being our call for a 'green New Deal' to provide a pathway out of recession. It used to be said that councils were inactive and complacent about the threat posed by global  warming, but the sector demonstrated it has both the policies to deal with the effects of climate change and the innovation to seize the opportunities it offers.

People are concerned about job losses, home repossessions and  the tight lending policies of the financial sector. LGA analysis has shown that the recession will have a tougher impact on some economic areas compared to  others. Recession comes at a time that our economy needs to undergo a structural  transformation to become low carbon. The credit crunch will make it more  difficult to secure the investment necessary to make this transition, but it  does nevertheless offer a route out of the downturn.

We are facing a  historic economic challenge. Local government has many vitally important roles  to play in helping businesses and residents through the economic downturn.  Equipping the country to come through the recovery in a better position to combat climate change is also one of the most important challenges we face.  Councils are already doing a great deal to promote 'green growth' through the creative use of planning, purchasing decisions, partnerships with energy suppliers, public sector apprenticeships and – of course – leading by example.

But there is an inescapable need to do more – particularly in those  areas at greatest risk from recession and where unemployment is already at high levels. The LGA will be calling on the government this week to give councils the  powers they need to unlock the job creating potential of the low carbon economy.

Firstly, we need to tackle the problem of energy inefficiency in our housing stock. There are 10m homes in this country which lack basic  insulation, and this is not only contributing to carbon emissions but driving up  people's energy bills and trapping families in fuel poverty.

We want the  government to introduce a national loans fund to allow residents to invest in solid wall insulation (where they have an older home) and install other measures like solar power. Led by councils, householders would receive an interest-free loan of up to £10,000 that would be secured through a second charge on the  property. Up to 600,000 people could benefit from the scheme, collectively saving households in England and Wales £180 million each and every  year.

Reform is also needed of the carbon emission reduction target to make way for a council-led national home insulation programme. This drive to make millions of homes more energy efficient would provide a much needed boost  to semi-skilled employment.

We estimate there is the potential for 20,000  new jobs in home energy efficiency alone. At the opposite end of the spectrum,  there will also be new positions in managing the risks associated with climate  change, such as investment in new flood defences. Councils and community groups can help realise the benefit of renewable development by voluntarily identifying areas to the private sector that would be suitable for investment in certain types of renewable generation.

Our research and analysis shows that the job opportunities will differ from area to area. This is a result of the way different industrial sectors cluster, the varying opportunities for energy generation, the penetration of home energy efficiency measures, the nature of  the building stock and proposed development and the variation in the risk areas face from inevitable climate change. Additionally, if the government devolved  the employment and skills budgets – including Train to Gain – to councils this  would also give local partners the flexibility to support people to undertake  courses that meet the skills needs of the low carbon economy.

Collectively all of these measures that help reconcile the challenges of both a quick recovery from the recession with the imperative to structurally transform the economy to reduce the emissions that cause climate change – a green New Deal at a time when the country needs it most.

Paul Bettison  is chairman of the Local Government Association's Environment Board

That third runway– vital expansion or a flight of fantasy?

Monday,  January 12, 2009

It won't make things any worse, is the government's less than convincing promise for an expanding Heathrow. Ministers claim they will back the business case for a near 50 per cent increase in flights that can be  achieved without extra pollution or noise. Opponents say this requires a lot of wishful thinking, not to mention fixing the facts around the policy, and – at  best – sacrificing a cleaner, quieter future. Chris Ames looks at the issues  involved

In spite of a reported Cabinet split and falling demand for  air travel, Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has confirmed government support for a third Heathrow runway and a sixth terminal, opening around 2020. In the  meantime, mixed mode operation – using both existing runways simultaneously for take off and landing – will allow more flights from around 2012.

The idea that this can be done within "strict environmental conditions" is at the heart of the government's case for expansion, as set out initially in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. But the Department for Transport (DfT) seems less concerned about resultant road congestion.

In September, the government's watchdog, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), observed that "the public debate about aviation policy looks immature". It was pleading for the precautionary principle to apply – for decisions on expanding air travel to be taken only when the consequences are fully understood. At present, the SDC says,  even the evidence base for calculating the costs and benefits cannot be agreed.

With the third runway fast becoming one of the symbolic issues in  British politics, the debate has divided Labour and the Tories along surprising lines. At stake is not just the future of the UK's aviation policy but the government's relationship with business and environmental  credentials.

Labour in government cannot help giving the impression that  it talks to vested interests and then colludes with them to fix its consultation. It has been caught conspiring with airport owner BAA to present forecasts that environmental criteria would be met within the expansion. Goalposts are moved. Attempts to delay implementation of the EU air quality  directive have been linked to predictions that even a pre-expansion Heathrow  will breach it.

Conversely, it suits the Tories to be seen as "seriously green" and not in the pocket of big business. When Tory plans to scrap the new runway and build a high-speed rail link instead were slammed by British Airways,  among others, they fought back, accusing BA of spinning.

It is unlikely that the forthcoming decision will be the end of the debate. The DfT's September 2007 risk register, disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, recorded concerns that a judicial review could seriously delay the whole process. Opponents are already claiming that even the extended consultation process has been inadequate.

Planning consent for any significant expansion would be  considered by the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) rather than  Hillingdon Council, within whose backyard the airport lies. Keith Burrows, the  council's cabinet member for planning and transportation, complains that taking such decisions out of its hands is "likely to reduce local and strategic influence on major developments which are destined to have significant impacts on the quality of life for residents in Hillingdon".

The IPC will be  required to decide planning applications on the basis of national policy  statements (NPS) and the government is expected to publish an NPS on airports from 2009. The implications of this are intriguing. With millions of extra car journeys predicted, the DfT assessed as "high" the risk that solutions to local  road congestion could prove difficult to deliver or "politically unacceptable".  But its consultation document made clear that it only considered detailed solutions in the context of air quality, which is likely to require different approaches. Burrows says: "Even with the optimistic view of a shift to public  transport use, there remains a distinct gap in how the incredible pressure on the roads around Heathrow will be managed."

A DfT spokesman told Public  Servant: "If policy approval for a third runway is confirmed, it would be for the airport operator, as part of a comprehensive transport assessment, to work  with the Highways Agency and local authorities to identify any new or changed demand management measures."

So the possibility arises that BAA could submit a planning application for the runway without a plausible solution to road congestion. Faced with a strong steer from the government, will the IPC
feel able to reject the application on these grounds – or wave through an  application that will result in traffic chaos?

The case for expansion is  first that revenue from additional travel will benefit the UK economy and secondly that the success of British business depends on sustaining Heathrow's links with the rest of the world. Tied up with each of these is the question of  whether a new runway is needed to maintain Heathrow's position as a major "hub" airport, with the widest possible range of domestic and international  destinations.

The direct contribution of air travel to the UK economy is a matter of some dispute. Although annual income from passengers arriving by air is estimated to be in the region of £11bn, Friends of the Earth points out that  outward air travellers spend more than double this abroad. Calculations of the  economics of air travel in future are complicated by uncertainties over the  pricing of oil and carbon emissions.

The government argues that Heathrow's status as a hub is threatened if it does not expand, pointing out that Amsterdam Schiphol, with five run-ways, already serves more UK airports. It  quotes research showing that 70 per cent of foreign companies make their first  location in Britain within one hour of Heathrow.

Opponents of expansion point out that the range of long- and short-haul destinations served by Heathrow is limited by airlines' concentration on popular destinations like New York and on six domestic and European routes, which are – or could be – served by a high-speed rail link. The Campaign for Better Transport says improved railway  links and videoconferencing technology could reduce the need for business air travel while the London Assembly argues that London's financial sector has grown in spite of the airport's poor reputation and reduced reach.

But David  Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, says British business understands the need for a sustainable future, but adds: "UK plc will suffer if we do not allow Heathrow to expand. At a time when companies are  struggling in a tough economic climate, it would be foolish to place needless obstacles in the way of what is essential expansion."

Whatever the national benefits, much of the downside to a third runway will be felt locally,  not least by the village of Sipson, which would disappear entirely. Councils  from Hillingdon to Wandsworth are opposed while London mayor Boris Johnson's office told Public Servant that he remains "very much" against the runway, in  spite of public pressure from business leaders. Johnson has ordered a feasibility study into the possibility of a new airport in the Thames Estuary, which could replace Heathrow altogether.

As well as traffic congestion, noise and pollution are two key issues for local communities. The government says expansion of Heathrow depends on it not making these worse, but it is relying on claims that technological improvements will provide the scope for sustainable expansion.

The DfT says Heathrow will not be expanded if the  "footprint" over which noise nuisance is experienced increases beyond its size  in 2002. This is based on a level equivalent to at least 57 decibels, which was  the accepted point for the onset of community disturbance. But the government's own attitudes-to-noise study reported that there is no particular threshold and that disturbance can be felt at a level equivalent to 50dB, affecting many more  people.

The government is also relying on assumptions that cleaner trains  and road vehicles will help keep pollution down. Many see this as wishful thinking. Lord Chris Smith, chairman of the Environment Agency and a former  Labour minister, says: "It is absolutely certain that nitrogen dioxide levels will go way beyond what they ought to be for the sake of human  health."

The aviation industry is also pushing the idea that greener  planes will mitigate an increased contribution towards global warming, but the  government acknowledges that the industry will nevertheless have to buy carbon  credits for additional flights.

At this point the phrase "strict environmental conditions" rings somewhat hollow as the costs of the expanding  Heathrow become global as well as local. As Green Party leader and MEP Caroline  Lucas says: "Any government which, on the one hand pledges to make significant  reductions in greenhouse gases by 2020, while at the same time committing to the greatest expansion of aviation in a generation, is quite simply living in a  fantasy land."