I’d half written a blog post about a couple of the topics above and then realised I was verging on to stuck record syndrome and so as it’s Earth Day, I thought I’d write a post for this.  Now readers of this blog will know that I don’t get all the schtick that goes with Climate Week, Earth Hour etc and that I’m afraid that allocating a particular day to something so fundamental seems to permit indifference the rest of the year.  Anyway, I’ll make an exception as in a week of furious to-ing and fro-ing in the press, it’s useful to think of the reason why sustainable energy is so fundamental to life as we know it.

This is the NASA photo known as “Earth Rise” taken on the Apollo space missions and largely credited with galvanising the environmental movement in the 1970s.  If there is ever a reminder that we are reliant on planet Earth for our survival, then surely this is it.  Spinning in the blackness of space, the fertile earth gives life and sustenance to the some 7 billion of our now residing here.

In the heady debates that now surround our energy use – and I am conscious that this could apply to our food, transport, land use, consumption – it’s worth just reminding ourselves why this is an issue.  We have only one planet on which to live and therefore in what we do we must remain cognisant of what it is that sustains us.  We need to get back to fundamental principles and realise that our guiding principles in determining our energy production and consumption should be the protection of the planet and the wellbeing of those of us who live here.  You can favour wind over solar, biomass over hydro, energy efficiency over energy production – but the guiding principle for all must be that however we produce and use energy to meet our needs, we must do so without compromising the planet that sustains us and should do so for generations to come.

There are a number of factors to the decision apparently.  Both companies took a hit when Germany elected to close its nuclear plants after the Fukishima disaster last year.  Both have other opportunities in which they can invest – in fact, the statement by E.ON UK CEO Tony Cocker stated that they intend to “focus its investment in the UK on other strategic projects that will allow us to deliver earlier benefit for customers and our company, rather than the very long term and large investment new nuclear power calls for.”

At a time when capital is at a premium, nuclear is too much upfront cost and too much liability in the long run for companies that have other possibilities.

Nuclear was at the heart of the government’s energy plans for the future and this decision is a massive blow.    The decision was described today by Charles Hendry as “disappointing” – something of an understatement given government policy… 

Many people won’t be surprised that nuclear isn’t turning out to be the panacea to this country’s energy challenges, and I include myself in that number.   The question is now whether the government will carry on regardless even when the companies they need to build them can no longer justify the investment.

The reactionaries embedded within the Treasury had clearly gotten to George Osbourne again and the budget statement on Wednesday felt like a kick in the teeth for the green economy, quite the opposite of what one would have hoped for.

The Chancellor endorsed gas as the single biggest source of the UK’s energy for decades, he went on to hand £3 billion of tax breaks to developers willing to drill deep offshore in the North Sea.  No mention of the Gulf of Mexico or our emissions targets.  Rather the statement that fiscal sustainability is as important as environmental sustainability.  Well, not quite, hard to see the fiscal sustainability of deep drilling if it needs £3 billion of subsidies to extract a finite resource.  And one which damages the environment in the process.  Looked a lot more like fiscal gain over environmental sustainability.

This was of course from the government who slashed the feed-in tariff for solar at the end of last year amidst concerns it was adding too much to consumer bills.  A hell of a lot less than £3 billion though, and to develop our ability to harness an energy source that will keep providing for a couple of billion years yet. 

So who pays for the £3 billion in tax allowances?  Well taxpayers of course.  George Osbourne didn’t make it clear why taxpayers would pay for those breaks but why consumers shouldn’t pay for clean-tech subsidies.  Or why the renewables sector doesn’t get the same taxpayer-funded breaks as oil and gas.

“Fiscal sustainability” (or whatever that means) as a justification is nonsense when the cost of inaction on climate change has been shown to be greater than the cost of acting now (Stern report) – that’s the level of fiscal sustainability we should be thinking about. 

We all understand the importance of keeping the lights on, and no-one doubts that gas will be significant player for years to come.  But with rising energy prices, it’s clear gas reserves could be exploited commercially without this taxpayer subsidy.  A subsidy which might be better deployed getting the country ready for a secure energy future that lowers our carbon emissions at the same time.

But as a ray of sunshine at the end of the week, the Supreme Court did at least kick into touch DECC’s appeal on their feed-in tariff fiasco.  You’ll recall from previous posts that the judicial review case brought by Solar Century, Home Sun and Friends of the Earth was successful, branding the government’s cut of the feed-in tariff unlawful.  This decision was then held up on appeal and now again the Supreme Court have confirmed what every right-thinking person already knew – you can’t cut tariffs before the consultation on cutting those tariffs has ended.

For those who took the risk and installed between December and March, they will be rewarded with the higher tariff (43p vs 21p).  That will be a quantifiable number of installations and KW generation.  What will never be clear is how many installations were pulled because of that disastrous decision, how many investments missed, jobs lost and CO2 reduction opportunities missed.  What we can hope is that DECC next time won’t be quite so keen to take rapid and ill-thought out policy redirection that undermines confidence in the market and expect to have them upheld by the courts.

DECC’s statement following the Supreme Court decision talks about drawing a line under the matter.  “We will now focus all our efforts on ensuring the future stability and cost effectiveness of solar and other microgeneration technologies for the many, not the few.”  

Hopefully Treasury saw that statement too.

And in the same way, how we deal with climate change will not simply be a one-size-fits-all approach.  There are still ongoing attempts to reach international agreement on emissions targets, but 20 years on from Rio, do we really think we can rely on an agreement to save the day?  It feels insurmountable though as an individual to think that our individual actions can be sufficient to change the world.  And perhaps they won’t – because even if every person in the UK switched to a carbon neutral lifestyle, would it really counteract all the gas guzzlers in the US?  Probably not.

Climate Week is one of those weeks that I have mixed feelings about – it raises climate change as an issue – and that’s fair enough, but by dedicating a week to it, does it somehow imply that it’s not an issue the rest of the time?  Does it give people a pass for the other 51 weeks of the year?

For me, the way out of the unholy mess we could be in is not to dedicate a week to it, but rather to seize (and help others to seize) the opportunities a low carbon economy provides.  Investing in renewable energy technology doesn’t need to be something you do because you feel guilty but because it’s a worthwhile investment – generating returns now and acting as a hedge to future energy supply issues and political turmoil.  Building efficient housing stock isn’t something one does purely from a lifestyle choice but also because it makes sense for our longterm economic interests.  Lowering our water consumption in a year of drought in the UK is a no-brainer.  And lessening our food miles means more locally sourced produce, increasing local productivity and improving our local economies.  There is a logic that pervades every aspect of living sustainably.  If you can tap into that and demonstrate the economic and social benefits the fact that it’s overwhelmingly better for the environment is an added bonus.

If Climate Week can open people’s minds to the possibilities that are out there, then great.  But let’s not wait for a dedicated week to spread the message.  The transition to the low carbon economy is an opportunity to do things better and make sensible investments that generate social and economic returns in addition to the obvious environmental ones.

The High Court ruled before Christmas that the Government’s actions were unlawful and that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.  The Government was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (the highest court in the land) but Chris Huhne issued a statement saying they’d seek to appeal it anyway by going straight to the Supreme Court.  It’s doubtful that would be heard anytime soon.  The revised tariffs will now come into effect from March.

It’s such a massive shame that had the tariffs always been intended to come into effect from March, there wouldn’t have needed to have been (a) the massive confusion that there was and (b) a huge amount of time and effort wasted on legal fees.  The government’s plans to appeal directly to the Supreme Court seem to be just throwing another pile of cash on the fire.  It’s difficult to see how in an economic climate with limited reserves, the government can really believe that further legal action in the face of two categorical defeats will really be money well spent.

[Edit 7 February - the government's appeal is based on one part of the court's decision about the minister acting within his powers - so the challenge is now about constitutional issues.  Unfortunately this means that what tariff applies between December and March isn't going to be clear until the legal process is completed.]

The High Court Appeal decision leaves the solar lobby with the moral high ground.  Notwithstanding the current uncertainty about the rate between December and March, the bigger issue is perhaps that it’ll be difficult to know how many projects were pulled as a result of the whole debacle and just how many kWh we’ve missed out on as a result.  Best we can hope for is that the future changes are perhaps a little better considered.  And as the solar supporters have now roared, perhaps it’s one step towards being a louder voice in the UK energy debate.

Day 2 was my panel day.  Sustainable Cities: Transforming Communities.  Chaired by Peter Sharratt of Deloitte, and with Mayor Rex Parris of Lancaster, California, Alan Frost, Director of Masdar City and Rutu Dave of the World Bank.

My focus for London was to talk about the challenge of retrofitting old housing stock, offices and public buildings while at the same addressing the demand side and decentralising energy generation.  It was a great opportunity to talk about all the local community energy projects that have been developed over the past couple of years plus the wider strategic aims of London.  It was also a great opportunity to talk about the greenest Olympic Games ever.

Mayor Parris focused on the solar revolution that’s been going on in Lancaster CA, the sunniest place in the USA and the optimum conditions to generate solar power.  What an inspirational guy!  Definitely a man on a mission and an utterly inspirational story of never taking no for an answer, persevering and bringing the community with you.

Now I’d heard a lot about Masdar City, the ambitious UAE project to build a carbon neutral city in the desert.  What was fascinating to hear from Alan Frost was how Masdar City is taking concepts from the past (cities like Yemen) and marrying them with the latest technologies.  It’s a strange thing to think that there could be a carbon neutral city half an hour away from Abu Dhabi, the UAE’s capital city, where the 4×4 rules and the AC is always cranked up the max.  But if Masdar can be an exemplar that other cities look to for inspiration, then it will have been a success.  Currently in construction, it will be a living experiment of sustainability in the desert.

Finally, Rutu Dave of the World Bank looked at the overwhelming challenges for cities in the developing world and how the World Bank has developed projects and methodologies that can make “greening” cities financially viable.   Just one part of the jigsaw that needs to fit into place if sustainable cities are to be the future.

For other highlights from days 3 and 4…

Planet Solar the solar ship that travelled round the world in 2011 was there! Previously the subject of a post on this blog, it was great to see her there in all her glory.  Smaller than I expected but no less impressive.  Visionary, inspiring and just pretty damn cool.

And Formula 1?  No, not the Yas Marina Circuit (although that was ridiculously fun!) but the technology taken from formula 1 constructors such as Williams used in everyday solutions to reduce energy consumption.  So the KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) that Formula 1 cars used has been scaled up by Williams to be used on larger vehicles such as trains to reduce their energy use by wasting less energy.  Clever thinking.  My better half remarked that all those Sundays he has spent watching Formula 1 were clearly justified because they were at the same time busy saving the world.  Nice try.

And finally, a big congratulations to Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) for winning the Zayed Future Energy Prize.  CDP is an independent not-for-profit organisation that works to drive greenhouse gas emissions reduction and sustainable water use by businesses and cities.  It’s hard to reduce what you don’t know and the CDP provides the systems that allow measurement, disclosure and information.  Great to see it being recognised and hopefully part of changing our collective future.

Overall a fantastic experience.  And to anyone who doesn’t think that clean energy is “mainstream”, I’d suggest they book their tickets to Abu Dhabi for the WFES 2013 – you won’t be left in any doubt that it is a major industry with (thankfully) a bright future.

Ban Ki-Moon took the opportunity to launch a UN initiative, Sustainable Energy for All which aims to do three things by 2030:

• Ensure universal access to modern energy services
• Double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency
• Double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix

The initiative recognises the transformative power of energy – allowing people access to education, greater productivity and economic advancement.  He gave a very personal anecdote from his own youth, studying for exams by candlelight in post-war Korea and how the arrival of electricity had transformed his world completely.  Hard to imagine that he would have been standing in the arena today had that lightbulb not been switched on.  A pause for thought at how many other would-be statesmen and women might be missing out because of a lack of access to energy.

The UN views its role as one of coordination, strengthening partnerships and making a political impact.   But there is a major role for national governments to create the policy context in which these aims can be achieved and to use public monies to kick start initiatives.  And then of course there is the role for finance to enable a widespread application of projects and technological advancements.  Andrew Steer of the World Bank made a compelling case for the above.

And a particular mention I must give to Farooq Abdullah, Minister of New and Renewable Energy in India who highlighted that actions now might seem to have a short term loss, but in reality the long term gain will be felt by generations to come.

A fascinating day.  Partly because it was interesting to see the pomp and ceremony of such a high-profile event as this but more-so because the launch of Sustainable Energy for all was a timely reminder of why I and others want to be part of this process.

Climate talks in Durban on the international stage, High Court challenges to the government’s FIT review on the national stage, and Ham Hydro submitting its planning application on the local front.

And this year looks to be as busy as ever.

This week, the government will appeal against the High Courts order on FITs, next week it’s off to Abu Dhabi for the World Future Energy Summit and the London Community Energy website will launch shortly after that.

So a happy new year to all who read this blog, I hope you like the new site and looking forward to being a bit of a better blogger in 2012!

Even with increasing levels of environmental awareness, it seems there’s a bit of inertia when it comes to following up with responsible action.  Which is why the presentation by John Adlen from Staffordshire University at this weeks Govtoday Carbon Reduction Conference was so inspiring.  It showed some really interesting approaches for behaviour change.

He explained that a lot of our inabilities to act were down to the hassle factor. It is common knowledge that most people are set in their own ways and lifestyles. Which means it seems like a challenge to change people’s habits. If changing behaviour seems like a hassle, it will be difficult to change behaviours to deliver the low carbon agenda.

Considering a ‘fun’ approach could work better. An innovation by Volkswagen called thefuntheory.com believes that “something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better”.

They have embarked on a number of projects to prove this theory. They applied the fun theory to every environmentally friendly innovation they made. One project that aimed at encouraging a higher uptake of recycling of glass is a great example. As you can see here the inventors decided to make a glass recycling bank appear more fun for the public, to change attitudes and encourage a higher uptake of glass recycling. They ‘pimped’ a bottle bank into an arcade machine, bringing an element of fun into recycling. The success of the project speaks for itself. Volkswagen believe that people will act responsibly and greener if they have fun while doing it.

Could introducing fun aspects into the low carbon agenda be the missing piece of the low carbon agenda puzzle?

Lots of fun examples of behaviour change projects at thefuntheory.com

The last post featuring the ROC review was the first and then a short time later, the newly-tweaked RHI programme was announced, having now cleared State Aid hurdles with newly reduced rates for large scale biomass.  In general both the ROC review and the RHI announcements were met with positive feedback from those affected.  Of course, nothing’s perfect and there were some criticisms of levels and process, but overall it was all looking relatively rosy.

Then last week (pre-empted it has to be said by a couple of days of rumours and leaks) the government announced the new feed-in tariff level for solar and things stopped looking so rosy.  The solar tariff was slashed by almost 50% and the cut is to take effect from December – even before the consultation has finished.  Leaving aside that particular peculiarity (Friends of the Earth are challenging that), the response from the solar industry has been unequivocal.  Solar companies, installers and communities are aghast that investments made will be for nought and that the bottom will fall out of the solar market.  Already solar companies have frozen staff recruitment and are considering reductions.  The open letter to David Cameron by Jeremy Leggett sums up the issues the industry is facing.  How can projects in the pipeline, modelled on the basis of one tariff reach completion and be online in six weeks?

Unfortunately, the announcement also had an impact on amazing community projects like Brighton Energy Co-Op - a share issue has had to be shelved and projects are at risk.  Such a shame given the enormous amount of work that the team there had put in to getting projects done and community benefit realised.

There was a sense that the FITs were set at too generous a level – the dash for rooftops was sensational and had all the trademarks of people getting rich fast.  Add that to energy prices and the prospect of unpopular higher bills and the FITs were an easy target.  This has of course been ample fodder for the eco-hating press and the “squeezed middle classes” but a distinct lack of foresight as to what happens when energy prices creep higher still and we don’t have the renewable energy resources that might have insulated us from energy shocks.  Not to mention the growth of a new industry and the job creation that has resulted.  No mention of the social housing and community projects that are now jeopardised.   While a cut was to be expected, a cut as drastic as this has signalled an inevitable bust following the boom.

This is one to watch.  It has been amazing to see the campaign in response to this announcement gain momentum.  In the meantime, for further updates, check out @OurSolarFuture on twitter for latest updates and links to articles and commentary.  We’ll keep you posted here on developments and for anyone wishing to discuss possible impacts, please do get in touch.