So near, and yet...

So, after weeks of in-fighting, back-scratching and some final desperate pleas from all sides, the latest battle on climate change legislation has been won. Chris Huhne announced yesterday that the Fourth Carbon Budget, as published by the Committee on Climate Change, would be enshrined into law, covering the period of 2023-2027.

This is undoubtedly good news for the environmental cause, with the UK becoming the first developed country to set a carbon reduction target for 2030 of 60% on 1990 levels.  Ambitious, no doubt, but a strong message of leadership from the UK to Europe and the rest of the world, and potentially gives us a head start in securing vital investment and growth in the green economy.

There are, however, some worrying undertones to this Coalition pledge. 

Firstly, there should never have been an argument about this in the first place.  The Committee on Climate Change is an independent body adbising the government on their route to meeting carbon reduction targets, and previous administrations have implemented the previous three budgets without fuss.  The fact that the George Osbourne, Vince Cable and Phillip Hammond fought the budget, pitching battle against Chris Huhne, Oliver Letwin and William Hague, just highlights the divisions within the Coalition that show up their claims to be the 'greenest ever government'.  When the like of Letwin and Hague are the most progressive members of your cabinet, there's surely something wrong?

As the days and hours ticked towards the all-important announcement, caveats and compromises crept out of the woodwork.  A review of the budget has been pencilled in for 2014 in order to assess the targets compared to EU efforts, while some of the most energy-intensive industries, stuch as steel manufacturing, have been promised some form of as yet undefined assistance.  Although the 2014 review might be considered redundant, with election looming by that point, the compromises to be agreed for the most polluting industries, which also make up only a small percentage of the UK economy, is more worrying.

The government has also ignored the advice of the CCC to reduce carbon emissions through domestic action only, thereby opening the door on emissions trading that would allow the UK to miss these targets completely but off-set them insead by paying other countries to reduce their own emissions by more.

Finally, there has been no mention of reviewing the current carbon budgets, the first of which ends in 2012.  The CCC argued that emissions reductions as a result of the recession should be 'banked' and that policies for the second and third budgets (2012-2023) should be reviewed and tightened in order to make the most of the economically driven dip.  This apears to have been declined by the government, effectively ensuring a 'business as usual' approach until the next carbon budget is delivered in 2015.

The bare bones of this legislation is being rightly praised by environmental groups - even the notoriously difficult Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth groups are hailing it as a victory - the Coalition's environmental credentials remain in question.  Cameron's chief environmental adviser is still a former CE of BP, and the Climate Change Act is still sitting on a list of laws which are up for public vote - like a legislative X-Factor - on which should be reviewed or scrapped.

It is a good start, but there is still a long way to go, and it is now time for the Coalition to start to act on and implement the policies which will truly set the tone for its self-imposed 'greenest government ever' pledge.

Westminster's Changeable Weather

All being well, Tuesday 17^th May 2011 could turn out to be a major victory for the Tories in their bid to become the 'greenest government ever'. Or will it?

Writing a blog about Environmental issues is normally pretty straightforward, since science and politics are two particularly slow-moving beasts. Science is studious and thorough, whilst politics can simply seem lumbering and flat-footed. Frustrating for those involved, undoubtedly, but the study of environmental politics thus becomes, for the most part, one of careful consideration.

Of course, like everything, such beasts can suddenly spring into noisy life and take giant strides forwards, or backwards, depending on your viewpoint. This past week has been one of those moments, and perhaps summed up with my preparations for this blog.

For the most of today, in anticipation of tomorrow's expected announcements on whether the Coalition government will legislate the recommendations set out in the Committee on Climate Change's Fourth Carbon Budget 2023-2027, I have been carefully poring over the report itself and associated media articles to ensure that I could give as clear a picture as possible of what might happen tomorrow.

Following some careful planning, some dredging up of relevant statistics, and some consideration of how things might play out in the political arena, I was planning to summarise what we might expect from tomorrow's announcement.  Now, I have simply decided to give up and wait and see. This isn't the sounding of defeat, more a case of being completely baffled by the myriad noises coming out of Westminster this past week.

It all began last week when David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change, which published the report, warned David Cameron that his government's decision on the report was 'a key test' for his green credentials. At the same time, Jonathon Porritt published a report on behalf of Friends of the Earth stating that the government's hopes of meeting such words with actions were 'vanishingly remote'.

This, at least, seem to spur the government into action, with David Cameron reported to be stepping in personally to settle the row between energy secretary Chris Huhne and George Osborne and Vince Cable.  The Guardian were the first to report the scoop on Saturday evening, reporting that the Coalition had committed to a 'historic' climate deal that would 'put Britain at the forefront of the battle against Climate Change'.  I even made room on my Twitter for a note of thanks to the Coalition and the Tories in particular for having the sense to push this through.

I should have known that this would not be the end of the story...

My suspicions about the deal were first aroused this morning with an article in the Independent which allowed EEF, the 'manufacturers' organisation for UK manufacturing companies', to make a final, desperate bid to appeal to the government to reject the deal.  Shortly after note in the BBC's online coverage of the deal making mention of a 'get out clause' which was negotiated into the deal by the Treasury, the Department of Business and the Department of Transport, whereby the targets could be 'reviewed' should the rest of the EU fail to commit to similar cuts.  This was later clarified by the Spectator, which notes that the targets are 'dependent on the European Union agreeing to embark on an equally significant emissions cut by early 2014'.

The key point in all of this is that, despite some keen reportage by some of the key media players, the posturing from all sides of this particular political battleground has managed to create a fog of confusion about what will or will not happen.

So what are we looking out for tomorrow?

Well, for my mind, the main points that will be required tomorrow are as follows:

• Legislation of a target to reduce emissions by 60% relative to 1990 levels by 2030
• Adjustment of the second and third carbon budgets to deliver an 'economy-wide' reduction of 37% on 1990 levels by 2020.
• A commitment to deliver policies to meet these targets, as well as undertaking a 'fundamental reform' of the electricity market.
• The inclusion of International Aviation and Shipping into future agreements.

If we see these delivered, then this will truly be a victory for the environment and the fight against climate change.

If, however, we see this delivered with the caveat that 'if they don't do it, we won't', then the policy could find itself in serious danger of future collapse.

Its time for the Coalition to show us what their green credentials are really made of.  Unfortunately, I fear for the worst.  But judging by the changing political tides of the past few days, we just don't know...

Climate Change and Celebrity Culture - Disparate Lovers

Perhaps it is because I have reached a certain age; or perhaps it is because I still somehow view the world view naive, rose-tinted spectacles; or perhaps it is because I don't read Heat magazine on a regular basis...

Whatever the reason, I seem to find myself in a minority of people who are viewing the increasing controversy over so-called 'Super Injunctions' with an air of bad taste.

Following weeks of media speculation over which celebrity has got an injunction to cover up which misdemeanor, yesterday saw the Twitter-based @InjunctionSuper 'reveal' the 'facts' behind these injunctions, so far free from the scrutiny of the courts which imposed the injunctions in the first place. Of course, in my own eyes anyway, the age-old 'innocent until proven guilty' line comes into play, and I am forced to disregard the stories as mere speculation and sordid rumour-mongering.

But even if Celebrity A were to now come out and reveal that @InjunctionSuper has got it spot on and that they have indeed been getting their end away with Celebrity B, then I have to say that I really couldn't care less...

To my mind, and perhaps naively, I still believe the media should be used as a force for good, and truth (and that the same rules should apply to social media, although this is obviously harder to enforce). Instead we find ourselves in a situation where one Twitter user has taken it upon themselves to spark a media frenzy to discover who is doinking who.

Who cares? Seriously, is this the best we can come up with? Is it a slow news week already?

Well, no actually, and this brings me to the point of the post (you may have been wondering why an environmentally-themed blog is harping on about such issues).

The thing is, in the past few days, quite a number of important things have happened.  Obviously Nick Clegg's triple U-turn on the NHS reforms takes top-billing over even this story, but from an environmental perspective we have had two reports over the weekend, from two separate sources, slamming the Tory's environmental policies: Firstly, a report by Jonathon Porritt, on behalf of Friends of the Earth, shows how the UK Government's own environmental policies are stalling; the second gives us David Kennedy, chief exec of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) expressing concern about Cameron's green credentials.  There's an old saying about 'a good time to bury bad news'...

On top of this, we have the IPCC stating that 'Renewables can power the world', the CCC (again) concluding that Nuclear power is the best option for the short-term, while elsewhere the BBC has again upset the Electric Car lobby (and prominent EV blogger Robert Lewellyn) for its perceived anti-EV bias. 

These, and the many other stories of interest that have no doubt arisen today on a range of subjects, are the stories we should be discussing in detail and dissecting and analysing today.

But we're not, or rather the mainstream media aren't.  Instead all we're getting is Cosmo for the eyes, only without the substance.

I don't care, it isn't important, and its likely to have damaging effects on private relationships, regardless of whether or not the stories turn out to be true (not to mention the possibility of prosecution for contempt of court should the Twit in question be tracked down).  If these stories are what you consider as important to your daily life, then you probably stopped reading this some time ago.

I am, of course, merely displaying my own bias towards stories of scientific and political interest with such a rant, and will no doubt be asked to dismount my high horse at the nearest watering hole.

But these things matter, and so do the many other interesting stories that will get buried beneath the hype surrounding this case in today's media.  Tomorrow they will undoubtedly move on, and maybe - maybe - the things I care about will get some deserved mainstream air-time.  Let's talk about the important question of where our energy will come from in the future! Let's talk about why the media seem determined to undermine Electric Vehicles! Let's talk about the many ways in which this Coalition is failing the environmental agenda!

Maybe not, but at least these are things we can care about, and they matter in some way to our daily lives... whether the media, and the public, realise it or not.

Greenwash and the Rise of the Mad Men

There's a reason why marketing executives are highly paid.

Since the rise of the rampant consumerism which has spread throughout the world since the dawn of the industrial revolution - and particularly since the end of the Second World War - businesses flogging their wares have paid vast sums of money to slick men - and, later, women - in nice suits to think up ways of making their product stand out from the crowd.  Vivid colours, attractive women, and catchy slogans have all helped to make the likes of Coca-Cola, Nestle and McDonalds a staple of the diet of millions throughout the world.

These magicians help to maintain a company's image and to enusre that the customer keeps coming back for their product, whilst bad press is swiftly and smartly swept aside.  Take the tabacco industry as an example - for many years, cigarettes were sold on the back of making the consumer feel comfortable, safe and sexy. Look at the attractive woman, she's smoking... if I smoke, maybe she'll sleep with me?  Hell, cigarettes were even good for you! Magic. So you could have sex and get healthy, all at once.

Of course, then came 1964 and the bubble burst.  All of a sudden, apparently, cigarettes weren't good for you any more.  Some clever people who had actually read up on the science told the marketing suits this, and they had to change tack.  But instead of retreating in the face of such evidence, the executives instead pleased their clients by coming up with more subtle ways to advertise - and now they were doing it to children!

Still, the important thing was that the clever marketing people were still coming up with clever ways to sell not-so-clever products, and making a mint off it.

Meanwhile, back in the 21st Century, the same thing is happening, but this time the culprit is not the stench of cigarettes, but the stench of Greenwash.

Every day, new examples are cropping up: the home delivery service proudly proclaiming that its factory-to-warehouse-to-distributor-to-customer set-up is 'eco-friendly'; the plastic packaging shouting loudly that it is 'biodegradable'; and the smug morons adorning an EDF television advertisement, patronising us all with their tales of how they're saving the planet by turning off a lightbulb and turning their telly off.  Funnily enough, I'm turning my telly off, too.  Right now, whilst watching you smug gits.  How's that for a carbon saving, EDF?

The problem isn't necessarily what these advertisements are saying - of course we can all be a little smarter with our energy, if only for the cost savings, and the life-cycle of the products we buy is almost as important as the impact of the product itself.  The problem is the way in which these companies and their marketing executives are allowed to get away with advertising green credentials by emphasising such small details, whilst doing little to make the core of their business smarter and more sustainable.

This was highlighted recently in a report written by The Future Laboratory, reported in the Independent: 

The snapshot of British boardrooms, which surveyed executives at companies with turnovers between £50m and £500m, is a shot in the arm for the environmental movement, which has had a rocky year. It follows a report for the UN in June that showed 93 per cent of the world’s top chief executives see sustainability as important to their company’s future success.

All well and good on the face of it, but the words need to be backed up with actions, and there is currently very little evidence of this happening.  Over the last few weeks, not only have UK firms been criticised for failing to factor climate change into their business plans, it has also been revealed that less than half of eligible companies have signed up to the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, as it has been rebranded).

So behind all of the hype, behind all the advertising and marketing and PR budgets, businesses are continuing to operate on a business as usual basis.  

Tobacco is still bad for you, and years of scientific and medical evidence has ensured that its advertising is minimal.

So sustainability and green credentials are now the new buzzwords for marketing executives to hang their massive salaries on.  EDF still operate a carbon-intensive industry, plastic still doesn't biodegrade, and home deliveries still rely on vast distances being covered in short periods of time.  And it is still allowed for companies to advertise the complete opposite...

Sooner or later, such greenwash will start to wear thin on the general public.  Climate change already has its own PR problem, and such tactics will soon start to have the opposite effect, turning consumers away from the genuinely sustainable practices.

Organic, fairtrade, eco-friendly, green... such words are now becoming so widespread that their meaning is almost lost.  Time to reclaim them from the marketing executives...

Welcome to Climate Legacy

Last night I had a dream...

I was working, part-time, as a scientific advisor at Westminster, and had been called to a meeting with a senior minister to discuss climate change.  After about 5 minutes it became clear that this minister - charged publicly with delivering policies on the matter - had no idea what he was talking about.  He knew only headline information about the science, and struggled with the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.  In the end, I stormed out, causing much anger within his office, and eventually quit the position.

Myriad details and backgrounds which are irrelevant here mark the dream out as perhaps more interesting than the above suggests, but it certainly got me thinking; just how much do our politicians know about the science and the reality of climate change?

There are numerous websites and leaflets and magazines throughout the world which warn of impending Earthly doom, many of which completely miss the point, and many more which provide counter argument and dismiss the subject as either myth or conspiracy. It must be easy for the average politician to grab at these headlines and allow the details to fall from their grasp.

Given their job, some might see this as fair enough - most ministers will find themselves shuffled around departments over the years, so they need to adopt a 'jack of all trades' approach to their learning.  But when a minister appears on our tellies or in our papers to preach 'green living', do we trust what they're saying?  Do we know for sure that they even understand what they're saying?

Even worse is the potential for hypocrisy - something most politicians are no stranger to, admittedly - where the likes of David Cameron and Ed Miliband regularly enjoy telling the rest of us just how much they're doing to fight climate change, by bravely insulating their lofts and cycling a few miles each day.  But they're doing it to gain popularity and appear modern and relevant, right?  How much do they actually understand of the reasons why they're doing it?

When I was a teenager, I made the rather arbitrary decision that the concept of 'global warming' was a load of old scare-mongering nonsense.  Sunspot cycles were to blame, and sea level rise was a myth - when an ice cube melts in your drink, the overall level stays the same, everyone knows that!

Later, of course, I came to realise that this was just bad understanding of basic science.  Slowly but surely, the headlines started to sink in, the 'reality' became a little clearer, and I began discussing the subject with friends and acting knowledgeable because I'd read a New Scientist article or two.

But, once I'd decided to attend University to learn more, I came to realise that this is barely skimming the surface of climate science, and the actual reality is mind-bogglingly complex.  The interactions of the planet's various systems and cycles are so tangled and woven that it becomes almost impossible to understand the whole just by studying one aspect - its like pulling a thread out of a garment and using it to work out whether it was a jumper, a t-shirt or a pair of trousers.

Trying to preach green living using only headline knowledge is dangerous; trying to do so with a complete understanding of the science is near impossible since there's just too much to know. In both instances, there is a tendency to reduce the reality of modern life to the background.

In between the headlines and the complex whole, however, lies a middle-ground of understanding, where basic concepts are made clear, myths are dispelled, and the world becomes the stage on which the science is set.

This is where I believe politics should tread with regards to climate change and Earth sciences; diving down into the detail beneath the headlines.  I believe it is important for a politician to understand the basic scientific concepts of long-wave and infra-red radiation and their interactions with atmospheric gases, without going as far as studying the concept of radiative forcing.

This is also the idea behind Climate Legacy - to promote sustainable living, blending the science with the reality, using education instead of scorn to ensure that the legacy we leave behind is one we can be proud of.

Climate change is neither a threat to the existence of the planet - just to our way of living on it - nor a global conspiracy.  It occupies that middle ground.

Starting as a simple blog, Climate Legacy aims to blossom into so much more - a website, information, events, blending with photos and videos and links to further detail.

So how much do our politicians really understand about the science of climate change?  Climate Legacy aims to find out.

This is just the beginning...