The Ecologist




 
Joss Garman
More articles about
Related Articles

Miliband's leadership on climate is tested

Joss Garman

19th June 2009

The climate secretary has been lauded for his coal-fired proposals, but beyond the smokescreen it’s business as usual says Joss Garman

In true New Labour fashion, Ed Miliband argued that there is a third way. As you’ll have spotted, there are massive, Heathrow-sized holes in it

You have to hand it to him. The climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has had a good few weeks. It began when he stood up in Parliament and told the House, ‘the era of unabated coal is over’. Already fondly thought-of by those on the left, Miliband Junior is increasingly the star of the moment, and seen as having the potential to be ‘the one’ to lead Labour out of its political crisis, particularly as one of the few heavyweight MPs not to have got his fingers caught in the till with the
expenses debacle.

With his review of energy policy, he is widely credited with having craftily defused the row over proposed new coal stations such as Kingsnorth in Kent. Admired by Westminster-village-types as a political fixer in the first place, the chattering classes are now muttering that maybe he can defuse Labour’s woes in much the same way.

As usual with this sort of conversation, the establishment has completely missed the point. Irrespective of how progressive Miliband is in relation to the rest of his party or the rest of Parliament, the climate doesn’t care. Atmospheric make-up doesn’t allow for political compromise, and what he recently announced on coal simply won’t keep us within safe scientific limits on carbon.

It’s true that under excruciating pressure from climate campaigners on the one hand, and giant energy corporations E.ON and RWE nPower and their regressive allies in the civil service on the other, it looks on the face of it as though Miliband just pulled off a political masterstroke. In true New Labour fashion, he argued that there is a third way, a technological solution that can throw a lifeline to the coal industry and reduce the coal industry’s climate pollution. His argument is that since carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology might one day work at full scale, offering the opportunity to capture emissions and bury them under the sea, this technology should be demonstrated on a small scale at all new coal stations in Britain. He tries to reassure us with ‘a clear commitment to low-carbon coal once it is proven: there will an independent judgement about when the technology is proven, and once it is, power stations will have to fit it not just on a part of the plant but to cover 100 per cent of their output’.

As you’ll have spotted, there are massive, Heathrowsized holes in this argument. Crucially, there’s still no castiron guarantee that high emissions will be ruled out from day one. On the contrary Miliband says that between now and the 2020s, for every one ton of carbon pollution to be captured and stored, he’d allow three tons to carry on causing climate breakdown. What will happen in 2020 will depend upon whether it is deemed ‘economically viable’ and, most importantly, whether it works at such a scale. He’s prepared to gamble the climate on the basis of a ‘solution’ that has never been proven at commercial scale before.

So Miliband’s new policy certainly doesn’t mark ‘the end’ of the era of unabated coal. Indeed, when you remember the scientifi c context, it’s distinctly unimpressive.

Remember when Lord Turner’s Committee on Climate Change advised the Prime Minister last December on how the UK could make the legally binding cuts outlined in the Climate Act? He said no coal station – old or new – should be operating without full CCS by the early 2020s. Lord Turner acknowledged that
even if everything he recommended were implemented, things all went according to plan and we stayed within our national carbon budget – and if all other developed countries did the same – it would still only give us a 50-50 chance of staying below 2°C warming, thus avoiding the most dangerous impacts of climate breakdown. No wonder, then, that the godfather of climate science, Professor James Hansen, goes further than Turner and advocates that no coal should be allowed without full CCS from day one.

Now look again at what Ed Miliband is proposing. Your average conventional coal station – like the one proposed for Kingsnorth – would need to capture only about a quarter of its emissions, and he makes no mention of existing coal stations such as Drax at all.

When you consider that just last summer then-business secretary John Hutton came within days of approving the Kingsnorth plans, we know the campaign is working. Huge collusion between energy department offi cials and E.ON has been exposed. Activists who shut down the plant were famously acquitted using a climate defence. The Women’s Institute and Oxfam sailed to Kent with Greenpeace on the Rainbow Warrior, and together reframed the argument. Now, in the run-up to the UN talks in Copenhagen in December, what happens with Kingsnorth will be the test of Miliband’s climate leadership – underlined by Hansen’s warning that ‘every ton of carbon counts’.

Having cornered him into acknowledging that business-as-usual isn’t an option, now we need to win.

Joss Garman is an environmental campaigner and journalist

 

Previous Articles...

Users Comments

Re: Miliband's leadership on climate is tested
Posted By EC005241 1 June 22, 2009 02:47:57 PM

I believe the idea of CCS for fossil fuelled power stations should be dismissed and we should move to a "war footing" to switch to renewables. Below are my thoughts about CCS. One argument which is used time and again is that we need a mix of fuels and the list is along the lines of nuclear, coal, gas, renewables, etc. If renewables were treated in the same way as fossil fuels in this argument, the list would become nuclear (I do not support nuclear), coal, gas, tidal, wind, solar, etc. Omitting coal from the first list appears to leave a very large hole, unlike the second list. In the context of coal (and other fossil fuel) power stations, carbon dioxide is a waste product not dissimilar to the waste from nuclear power stations: it is very harmful and we do not now how to deal with it in a safe way so we want to store it long term (geological periods of time). CCS will not capture all the carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide captured is open to debate but certainly no more than 90% (quoted to me by ScottishPower). According to a New Scientist article, existing methods typically capture only about 85%. In reality the figures will be even more unfavourable because the CCS process itself consumes anything from 10 to 40% of the energy produced by a fossil fuel power station. Such figures do not make coal and CCS low carbon just lower carbon. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726491.500-can-coal-live-up-to-its-clean-promise.html?full=true). A detailed assessment by Peter Viebahn of the German Aerospace Centre in Stuttgart in 2007, estimated that at best CCS will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired power stations by little more than two-thirds. (http://www.accsept.org/outputs/peter_viebahn_bonn.pdf). In 2008, the UN Climate Panel saw CCS as accounting for between 15 and 55% of the reduction of greenhouse gases by 2100. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508142552.htm). The current concentration of CO2 is just under 390ppm (http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/) and the safe upper limit is considered to be 350ppm (http://www.350.org/understanding-350#8) so to build new coal power stations and adopt a technology which takes us in the wrong direction (albeit more slowly) is not sensible. It is interesting to note that when CCS is used with a biomass plant (e.g. short-rotation coppice and Miscanthus, a perennial grass that can be grown in an arable rotation to improve soil structure) the effect is CO2 negative. From a couple of press releases I have read quite recently, it seems we may well need to be zero-carbon by 2030 - about the time the first commercial CCS plants may come on stream (http://web.mit.edu/coal/). I believe Shell does not foresee CCS being in widespread use until 2050. The scale of any worthwhile CCS project would have to be huge as coal produces around three times its own weight of CO2. This would all have to be pressurised, liquefied and moved to a site where it can be stored at depths of a kilometre or more. Any storage facility would have to be safe for geological periods of time. Could we trust companies who exist to make profits to choose the best sites? Even if the best sites are chosen, there are still very serious/lethal potential outcomes. The Lake Nyos event in 1986 gives an indication of the impact of CO2 out gassing. Around 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 was released suddenly and the cloud rose at over 60mph causing about 1,700 people within 12 miles of the lake and 3,500 livestock to suffocate. Scientists concluded from evidence that a 300 foot fountain of water and foam formed at the surface of the lake and the sudden amount of water rising caused a wave of at least 80 feet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos#Gas_saturation). The various oil and gas fields could hold up to a trillion tonnes of CO2 (about 50 years' worth of emissions at the rate at which it is likely to be produced in 2030). (Please refer to the New Scientist web page mentioned above.) Geologists also see slow seepage as at least as important a concern as a catastrophic release. To prevent climate change, CO2 has to be stored safely for millennia. A leakage rate of just 0.01% a year - a suggested industry standard - would see almost two-thirds of the gas gone within 10,000 years. There is also the legal question of who has long-term responsibility for stored CO2. In terms of cost, the US government believes CCS will increase the price of coal fired power stations by 75%. ScottishPower representatives told me recently that the cost of CCS for the possible gas plant in Hoo (near Kingsnorth) would be at least equal to the cost of the power station. It may be obvious to state but money invested in CCS will come from funds which should go to renewables. We have to switch to renewables at some point so it might as well be now. Some people may consider there is justification for CCS in terms of retro-fitting but many of the above arguments would still apply. Far better, I believe, to make the decision to go zero-carbon and take real action. According to CAT's alternative energy strategy, "ZeroCarbonBritain", zero-carbon can be achieved in 20 years and, if we started now, this would mean zero-carbon by 2030. (http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/).
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 

Members





Follow the Ecologist