Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO₂ emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO₂ emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Germany is well on its way towards having a predominantly green electricity supply.

The transition from nuclear and fossil-fuel electricity to using renewables is happening faster than anyone had anticipated. This is a success, but there is a downside: it is hugely expensive.

The energy transition is an explicit policy goal in Germany, having been made a priority project by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It has four strands: reducing CO₂ emissions, improving energy efficiency, promoting renewable energy and the gradual phase-out of nuclear power.

Nuclear phase-out is actually an old story that started in 2000 when the Schroeder administration first announced a 20-year timetable.

It was a bit of a ‘yes-no’ rollercoaster until the Fukushima incident, after which the decision in favour was final. This is widely supported by the German public, meaning that nuclear power is politically not an option at the moment.

Installed renewable capacity now equals demand

Yet without a doubt, the most significant development within the energy transition project has been the growth of Germany’s renewable energy sources (RES). Chart 1 (right) shows how it has developed in the past few years and where the government expects it to be by 2050.

The horizontal black line depicts the approximate maximum demand at any time, which is about 85GW (this will not change much in the future).

This shows that installed renewable capacity is now already more or less equal to maximum demand. On a very sunny and windy day, renewables are now capable of meeting the demands of the entire country.

But as we all know, the weather is notoriously unreliable and variable. So a secure system needs more renewable capacity and also more reserve capacity from conventional power plants (mainly fuelled by natural gas) to make sure it can always meet demand.

As Chart 1 (above right) indicates, installed renewable capacity in 2050 is expected to be 180GW, which is roughly twice maximum demand. By that time, the target is that 80% of electricity supply will be from renewables (basically this is how much renewable power you need to meet this level of supply on a regular basis).

Great benefits – but also high costs

In common with other countries moving in the same direction, the government has various motives for this big shift. Renewables are carbon-free and rely on no fossil fuels, so they are an essential component of meeting European emissions targets.

The government hopes for positive spin-off effects on exports, innovation and new jobs. And once the investment cost of the transition has been incurred, we would hope that electricity supply is actually quite cheap. After all, sun and wind are free. Germany sees the energy transition as an investment in the future: we pay for the next generation.

The move to renewables has been a success. It has happened at high speed since the late 1990s. The debate is no longer whether it will succeed, but rather what do we do with ‘too much’ renewable power. But behind this positive story, the dark side is the huge expense.

Early in 2013, the then minister of environment Peter Altmaier mentioned the staggering amount of €1 trillion as the potential cost of the overall transition.

This relied on a quick-and-dirty back-of-the-envelope calculation, which raises many questions and was never confirmed, but it does give a feel for the order of magnitude. The end-users – and thus the voters in Germany – are starting to feel the pain.

Since the installation costs mean that renewables currently cost more per unit of power than conventional power, they are subsidised by a surcharge on the electricity price. In other words, electricity end-users directly pay for it.

As you can see from Chart 2 (above right), the surcharge for small end-users has soared since 2009 to cope with the rapid growth of installed capacity (the step-change that year reflected a sudden big rise in solar power, which is particularly expensive).

The total subsidy is currently about €20bn / year, which amounts to €218 / year per household on top of the normal electricity bill. Whether this is still affordable is a key question in the country right now.

Corporate punishment

The energy transition has meanwhile changed the face of the electricity market, with severe consequences for traditional firms like E.ON and RWE. They are suffering badly at the moment and are having to rethink their business models completely.

In short, they face three challenges. The nuclear phase-out means they have to make very significant write-downs on their nuclear plants, at a loss to the shareholders. They are still fighting the government for compensation payments.

Second, renewable power is suppressing electricity wholesale prices – essentially because they are cheaper to run per unit of power, which under the rules for calculating the wholesale price tends to bring them down across the board.

This means that the revenues for conventional power plants are low and no longer cover the investment costs.

Third, conventional power from gas and coal is being pushed out of the market. This means that a lot of conventional power plants are largely standing idle and not making any money.

Since the future business model for such plants is looking bleak, the power companies are sitting on investments which are not going to be profitable. Of course, RWE and E.ON are adjusting their long-term strategies.

Consumer surcharge for 2015 reduced

While this has been going on, the rising costs for residential end-users have become a political problem.

In 2014 the government responded with a reform package, which slows down the energy transition in an attempt to control the costs. Basically the annual growth of new renewables has been capped to a pre-determined level.

This seems to be working. The surcharge for 2015 has been calculated at 6.17 €c / kWh, which is a small decline compared to 2014. Politically, this may well have been a wise policy, as public support for the energy transition was dwindling. It means that green energy development will happen more slowly.

So far the government appears to be standing by the same targets, perhaps because the explosion in development over the past few years had put it on an even faster track.

Whatever happens from here, one thing remains key: without public support, the energy transition will not work.

Gert Brunekreeft is Adjunct Professor for Energy Economics at Jacobs University Bremen. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Glasgow recently became the first European university to join the rapidly-expanding fossil free divestment movement.

Following hot on the heels of the Australian National University, Glasgow promised to move £18m of investment over the next ten years.

The international, grass-roots, student-led fossil-free movement now has the support of religious, medical and charitable bodies across the world (181 and counting).

These organisations have divested because they can no longer endorse the activities of the fossil fuel sector.

The movement is inspired by the success of the anti-apartheid divestment campaign, where financial and moral pressure on companies doing business with South Africa contributed to the fall of the apartheid regime.

How can we leave this carbon in the ground?

The campaign is beginning to rattle fossil fuel companies. A fight-back has begun. Pro-coal Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has called divestment “stupid“. Academics, too, have criticised the campaigners as hypocritical.

Such criticisms are wrongheaded. Anyone who cares about climate change should support the divestment campaign.

Viewed at a global level, existing solutions aren’t working. The ability of market-based instruments to reduce carbon emissions is more a matter of faith than empirical evidence. Carbon reductions from renewables, while growing fast, are offset by increases elsewhere.

Greater efficiency stimulates growth and consumption, not parsimony. Existing measures are like ‘squeezing a balloon‘: reductions in one place lead to increases elsewhere.

The Fifth IPCC assessment warned that we have five times more fossil fuel reserves than we can safely extract if we are to stand a decent chance of staying under 2°C warming. This puts the question starkly: how can we leave this carbon in the ground?

Hit where it hurts

The divestment movement confronts the core logic – licence, extract, profit – of fossil fuel companies. One key tactic to make it harder for them to extract carbon is to erode their political legitimacy.

Fossil fuel companies use their economic clout to sow doubt about climate science. They lobby for generous subsidies and flout indigenous rights.

They commission toys and sponsor art at the Tate, the British Museum, the Royal Shakespeare Company and other cultural institutions to normalise the presence of big oil in our everyday lives.

By divesting, organisations such as the World Council of Churches send a strong message: we find your activities immoral.

The moral case for divestment is based on the clear environmental damage and the undemocratic power of these corporate behemoths. By stigmatising fossil fuel companies, the divestment movement aims to reduce their political room for manoeuvre.

When mainstream figures such as the governor of the Bank of England says fossil fuel reserves can’t be burnt, or the Rockefellers start divesting from fossil fuels for financial reasons, people take notice.

2.8  trillion tonnes of ‘unburnable’ fossil fuel reserves

The financial case for divestment is based on the carbon bubble. The financial health of fossil fuel companies relies on 2,795 gigatonnes of ‘unburnable’ carbon – reserves that have to stay in the ground if we are to have a decent chance of staying under 2C warming.

This creates enormous financial risk, as a change in policy (or indeed in climate) could leave these reserves and their associated infrastructure stranded. Long-term financial sustainability is at odds with carbon investment.

So far, £30 billion has been divested – small beer compared to the £441 billion spent on exploration by the top 200 companies in 2012.

For deeper success, divestment will need to break out beyond churches and charities to affect wider market norms. If this happens, debt will likely become less accessible and capital-intensive projects at the margins less feasible. This can only be a good thing for the climate.

Eventually, campaigners hope fossil fuels will face a regulatory and legislative environment that forces the whole company – not just the green-tinged outliers – to move beyond petroleum, or to make way for those who will.

Too much hot air?

All this fossil fuel bashing will be too much for some. “We all use fossil fuels, you included!” says the critic when she leaps to the defence of big oil.

This is true, as far as it goes, but naïve. Energy use is not a matter of individual choice – whether we like it or not we are locked into world systems whose very life-blood is oil.

We can’t choose a decentralised grid, renewable supply, or decent cycling infrastructure, thanks to historic legacies and the continued power of big oil. We need divestment to work because fossil fuel companies distort politics and stand in the way of a sustainable future.

“We should engage fossil fuel companies, not demonise them”, runs another counter-argument.

Investor engagement can work, but only if clear goals and timelines are set. Research that helps companies extract more efficiently just gets carbon out of the ground faster; working with companies on renewables, carbon capture and storage, or low-carbon technology can work, but does nothing to transform the core business of big carbon.

And when the laws of coercive competition squeeze, big carbon will always retreat to its core business.

We are well past the point where the good delivered by fossil fuel companies outweighs the environmental, social, and economic negatives. We need any and all tactics to achieve a post-carbon world.

Divestment puts fossil fuel companies in the spotlight, names them responsible for climate change, and confronts their power. Divestment should be supported by everyone who cares about climate change.

Franklin Ginn is Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Edinburgh. He receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Last evening I when I returned for the Day 3 night shift at Occupy London, I was confronted with violent mayhem.

Forty peaceful sitting protestors were surrounded by a three deep circular kettle of 150 police, with screams renting the air.

There were 3 man snatch-squads forcibly removing the non-violent protestors from within the kettle, one by one.

I saw one young man having his face forced into the muck, as riot police-officers hands grappled his throat, as they handcuffed him.

What was their crime? To sit peacefully in Parliament Square discussing the capture of Britain’s democracy by the rich and its disastrous consequences for social and environmental justice, on a plastic tarpaulin.

Night-long harassment

Eventually when they were all removed, they confiscated the tarpaulins and frog-marched off in an extraordinary warrior-like formation two-by-two.

It was 8pm by then and we simply convened our democratic assembly and continued with the peaceful protest. The event led to jocular demands for the launch of The Tarpaulin Revolution!

We were constantly harassed all night long with the farcical declaration by Boris Johnson’s main representative at the scene declaring that “cardboard was sleeping equipment” and therefore illegal to lie on in the square.

This followed their ruling the previous evening that plastic bags used to shelter our legs from the rain were also “sleeping equipment” and so illegal in Parliament Square.

The harrassment went on almost all night long but we managed to negotiate each attack peacefully without any further threatened arrests.

Russell, cheers for all the pizza!

Russell Brand arrived near midnight kindly laden with pizzas and drinks, and I had an interesting conversation with him about revolutionary versus evolutionary politics.

Thankfully it was a mild and dry night and having survived the full scale assault and persistent harassment, Occupy Democracy London greeted the beautiful dawn unfurling our reclaimed “Real Democracy Now!” banner opposite Westminster’s Parliament once more.

And finally some of the mainstream press arrived including Reuters and the Evening Standard. We relayed to them how badly Boris’s Johnson’s vicious and farcical attempts to squash Occupy London compared to the fairer treatment of the Occupy Central protesters in Hong Kong.

Jenny Jones, the Green Peer, arrived with flasks of tea and immediately promised to demands answers from both Boris Johnson and the Metropolitan Police, for an urgent explanation for the reported aggressive attempts to harass the peaceful protesters.

Despite the police clampdown, numbers doubled

We were delighted that despite all the above, numbers prepared to spend the sleepless Day 3 night had doubled from the previous Day 2, with people outraged at what they were seeing on Indymedia.

So please people, come today and help build momentum for this peaceful protest for real democracy in Parliament Square, that the Occupy London heroes have fought so hard and peacefully for.

Let us show Boris Johnson that his brutal travesty of ‘policing’ will not close down this week-long series of positive talks and lectures on Britain’s broken democracy.

See also: ‘Less freedom in Westminster’s Parliament Square than in Hong Kong!!‘

Information on the Occupy Democracy week-long protest, 17th-26th October.

Evening Standard article: standard.co.uk/news/london/occupy-london-protesters-start-week-long-demonstration-9803689.html

Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA has been one of the Occupy London participants this week. A former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, he can be reached via his website 3acorns.

Copies of his book ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘ are available from theprostitutestate.co.uk.

E-book version available from www.Lulu.com.

Yesterday I was invited to speak about ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought’ – at the Occupy Democracy Rally in Parliament Square.

The plan was to give the talk (which went well – despite being nervous) and meet up with a friend later for dinner.

Instead I ended up being threatened with arrest not once, not twice but six times and ended up sleeping rough in the open all night in Parliament Square with the amazing people seeking to establish the week-long democracy Occupy Democracy forum!

STOP PRESS – Day 2: ‘London’s ‘Tarpaulin Revolution’ lives another day‘.

The first near arrest was for holding on to a placard stating that “Occupy Democracy is a drug and alcohol free zone”.

Three policemen nearly broke my fingers to take it off me, whilst refusing to tell me on what grounds a peaceful protester could not have such a placard.

The second near arrest was when about 60 of us were sitting around in a circle on the grass discussing democracy and occupy. About 40 riot police surrounded about 20 of us and kettled us in. They then threatened us with arrest for refusing as peaceful citizens to give our names.

The third near arrest happened when I helped rescue one of the peaceful democracy debaters from a snatch squad.

The fourth near arrest happened when I saw the private security guard boss who disgracefully now police Parliament Square (AOS) , indicate uglily three peaceful democracy debaters whom he wanted arrested and helped grab them out of the way.

The fifth near arrest was when I argued that the police were guilty of unnecessary harassment and making a farce of the Metropolitan Police, in seeking to wake up one of the democracy debaters who was asleep, as they claimed the plastic bag he was using to keep himself dry was “an object assisting him to sleep” and that this was illegal in Parliament Square!

The sixth and final near-arrest was this morning when the police sergeant and four policement dragged me away from Occupy Democracy for the heinous crime of holding a placard with their values:

“Peaceful non-violence
No discrimination of any sort
No drugs or alcohol on-site”

They eventually tore it off me, after I exercised peacecful direct action in seeking to hold on to it, whilst asking on what grounds it was illegal to have such a sign and the sergent tore it to shreds.

Hundreds of police – but whatever for?

There were literally hundreds and hundreds of police surrounding the democracy debate.

Then another police cordon around the squares footpaths – within which the press were banned.

Then the entire boundary of the square was surrounded by police vans.

A police helicopter hovered over-head. Hundreds more police were in vans spread all around the vecinity.

This massive over-policing and attempts to shut the democratic forum down was truly shocking and outrageous.

However, despite repeated provocation the democrats remained peaceful, and with huge help from the legal team, Occupy faced down all of the attacks and is now proceeding peacefully with talks and workshops all week, including today.

Please go and support these brave protesters today or during the week if you can.

I am now going to crash … grateful for not being in jail and grateful for helping claim this space for open demoractic debate for nine days, outside the Whore of Parliaments.

STOP PRESS – Day 2: ‘London’s ‘Tarpaulin Revolution’ lives another day‘.

Information on the week-long protest, 17th-26th October.

Evening Standard article: standard.co.uk/news/london/occupy-london-protesters-start-week-long-demonstration-9803689.html

Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA is a former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats. He can be reached via his website 3acorns.

Copies of his book ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘ are available from theprostitutestate.co.uk.

E-book version available from www.Lulu.com.

When NASA researchers first saw data indicating a massive cloud of methane floating over the American Southwest, they found it so incredible that they dismissed it as an instrument error.

But as they continued analyzing data from the European Space Agency’s Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography instrument from 2002 to 2012, the ‘atmospheric hot spot’ kept appearing.

The team at NASA was finally able to take a closer look, and have now concluded that there is in fact a 2,500-square-mile cloud of methane – roughly the size of Delaware – floating over the Four Corners region, where the borders of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah all intersect.

This discovery follows the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new estimates of methane’s ‘global warming potential’ (GWP): 34 over 100 years, and 86 over 20 years. That number reflects how much more powerful methane is than CO₂.

The methane cloud’s origin? Fossil fuel production

A report published by the NASA researchers in the journal Geophysical Research Letters concludes that “the source is likely from established gas, coal, and coalbed methane mining and processing.”

Indeed, the hot spot happens to be above New Mexico’s San Juan Basin, the most productive coalbed methane basin in North America.

Methane has been the focus of an increasing amount of attention, especially in regards to methane leaks from fracking for oil and natural gas.

Pockets of natural gas, which is 95-98% methane, are often found along with oil and simply burned off in a very visible process called ‘flaring’.

But scientists are starting to realize that far more methane is being released by the fracking boom than previously thought. And it appears that much of it is venting directly to the atmosphere, rather than being flared.

Fracking and horizontal drilling in the frame

Earlier this year, Cornell environmental engineering professor Anthony Ingraffea released the results of a study of 41,000 oil and gas wells that were drilled in Pennsylvania between 2000 and 2012.

He found that newer wells using fracking and horizontal drilling methods were far more likely to be responsible for fugitive emissions of methane.

According to the NASA researchers, the region of the American Southwest over which the 2,500-square-mile methane cloud is floating emitted 590,000 metric tons of methane every year between 2002 and 2012.

That’s almost 3.5 times the widely used estimates in the European Union’s Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research – and none of it was from fracking.

That should prompt a hard look at the entire fossil fuel sector, not just fracking, according to University of Michigan Professor Eric Kort, the lead researcher on the study:

“While fracking has become a focal point in conversations about methane emissions, it certainly appears from this and other studies that in the US, fossil fuel extraction activities across the board likely emit higher than inventory estimates.”

Mike G writes for DeSmogBlog, where this article was originally published.

Former environment minister Owen Paterson has called for the UK to scrap its climate change targets.

In a speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, he cited “considerable uncertainty” over the impact of carbon emissions on global warming – a line that was displayed prominently in coverage by the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

Paterson is far from alone: climate change debate has been suffused with appeals to ‘uncertainty’ to delay policy action. Who hasn’t heard politicians or media personalities use uncertainty associated with some aspects of climate change to claim that the science is ‘not settled‘?

Over in the US, this sort of thinking pops up quite often in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal. Its most recent article, by Professor Judith Curry, concludes that the ostensibly slowed rate of recent warming gives us “more time to find ways to decarbonise the economy affordably.”

What we do know – inspite of ‘uncertainty’

At first glance, avoiding interference with the global economy may seem advisable when there is uncertainty about the future rate of warming or the severity of its consequences.

But delaying action because the facts are presumed to be unreliable reflects a misunderstanding of the science of uncertainty.

Simply because a crucial parameter such as the climate system’s sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions is expressed as a range – for example, that under some emissions scenarios we will experience 2.6°C to 4.8ºC of global warming or 0.3 to 1.7 m of sea level rise by 2100 – does not mean that the underlying science is poorly understood. We are very confident that temperatures and sea levels will rise by a considerable amount.

Perhaps more importantly, just because some aspects of climate change are difficult to predict (will your county experience more intense floods in a warmer world, or will the floods occur down the road?) does not negate our wider understanding of the climate.

We can’t yet predict the floods of the future but we do know that precipitation will be more intense because more water will be stored in the atmosphere on a warmer planet.

This idea of uncertainty might be embedded deeply within science but is no one’s friend and it should be minimised to the greatest extent possible. It is an impetus to mitigative action rather than a reason for complacency.

Uncertainty means more risk – not less

There are three key aspects of scientific uncertainty surrounding climate change projections that exacerbate rather than ameliorate the risks to our future.

First, uncertainty has an asymmetrical effect on many climatic quantities. For example, a quantity known as Earth system sensitivity, which tells us how much the planet warms for each doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, has been estimated to be between 1.5°C to 4.5ºC.

However, it is highly unlikely, given the well-established understanding of how carbon dioxide absorbs long-wave radiation, that this value can be below 1ºC. There is a possibility, however, that sensitivity could be higher than 4.5ºC.

For fundamental mathematical reasons, the uncertainty favours greater, rather than smaller, climate impacts than a simple range suggests.

Uncertainty also makes adaptation harder

Second, the uncertainty in our projections makes adaptation to climate change more expensive and challenging. Suppose we need to build flood defences for a coastal English town.

If we could forecast a 1m sea level rise by 2100 without any uncertainty, the town could confidently build flood barriers 1m higher than they are today. However, although sea levels are most likely to rise by about 1m, we’re really looking at a range between 0.3m and 1.7m.

Therefore, flood defences must be at least 1.7m higher than today – 70cm higher than they could be in the absence of uncertainty. And as uncertainty increases, so does the required height of flood defences for non-negotiable mathematical reasons.

And the problem doesn’t end there, as there is further uncertainty in forecasts of rainfall occurrence, intensity and storm surges. This could ultimately mandate a 2 to 3m-high flood defence to stay on the safe side, even if the most likely prediction is for only a 1m sea-level rise.

Even then, as most uncertainty ranges are for 95% confidence, there is a 5% chance that those walls would still be too low. Maybe a town is willing to accept a 5% chance of a breach, but a nuclear power station cannot to take such risks.

Systemic uncertainties may be hiding the gravest of risks

Finally, some global warming consequences are associated with deep, so-called systemic uncertainty. For example, the combined impact on coral reefs of warmer oceans, more acidic waters and coastal run-off that becomes more silt-choked from more intense rainfalls is very difficult to predict.

But we do know, from decades of study of complex systems, that those deep uncertainties may camouflage particularly grave risks. This is particularly concerning given that more than 2.6 billion people depend on the oceans as their primary source of protein.

Similarly, warming of Arctic permafrost could promote the growth of CO₂-sequestering plants, the release of warming-accelerating methane, or both.

Warm worlds with very high levels of carbon dioxide did exist in the very distant past and these earlier worlds provide some insight into the response of the Earth system; however, we are accelerating into this new world at a rate that is unprecedented in Earth history, creating additional layers of complexity and uncertainty.

Uncertainty is not the same as ignorance

Increasingly, arguments against climate mitigation are phrased as “I accept that humans are increasing CO₂ levels and that this will cause some warming but climate is so complicated we cannot understand what the impacts of that warming will be.”

This argument is incorrect – uncertainty does not imply ignorance. Indeed, whatever we don’t know mandates caution. No parent would argue:

“I accept that if my child kicks lions, this will irritate them, but a range of factors will dictate how the lions respond; therefore I will not stop my child from kicking lions.”

The deeper the uncertainty, the more greenhouse gas emissions should be perceived as a wild and poorly understood gamble.

By extension, the only unequivocal tool for minimising climate change uncertainty is to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions.

Richard Pancost is Professor of Biogeochemistry, Director of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol. He receives funding from the NERC, the EU and the Leverhulme Trust.

Stephan Lewandowsky is Chair of Cognitive Psychology at the University of Bristol. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the World University Network, and the Royal Society.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Last evening I when I returned for the Day 3 night shift at Occupy London, I was confronted with violent mayhem.

Forty peaceful sitting protestors were surrounded by a three deep circular kettle of 150 police, with screams renting the air.

There were 3 man snatch-squads forcibly removing the non-violent protestors from within the kettle, one by one.

I saw one young man having his face forced into the muck, as riot police-officers hands grappled his throat, as they handcuffed him.

What was their crime? To sit peacefully in Parliament Square discussing the capture of Britain’s democracy by the rich and its disastrous consequences for social and environmental justice, on a plastic tarpaulin.

Night-long harassment

Eventually when they were all removed, they confiscated the tarpaulins and frog-marched off in an extraordinary warrior-like formation two-by-two.

It was 8pm by then and we simply convened our democratic assembly and continued with the peaceful protest. The event led to jocular demands for the launch of The Tarpaulin Revolution!

We were constantly harassed all night long with the farcical declaration by Boris Johnson’s main representative at the scene declaring that “cardboard was sleeping equipment” and therefore illegal to lie on in the square.

This followed their ruling the previous evening that plastic bags used to shelter our legs from the rain were also “sleeping equipment” and so illegal in Parliament Square.

The harrassment went on almost all night long but we managed to negotiate each attack peacefully without any further threatened arrests.

Russell, cheers for all the pizza!

Russell Brand arrived near midnight kindly laden with pizzas and drinks, and I had an interesting conversation with him about revolutionary versus evolutionary politics.

Thankfully it was a mild and dry night and having survived the full scale assault and persistent harassment, Occupy Democracy London greeted the beautiful dawn unfurling our reclaimed “Real Democracy Now!” banner opposite Westminster’s Parliament once more.

And finally some of the mainstream press arrived including Reuters and the Evening Standard. We relayed to them how badly Boris’s Johnson’s vicious and farcical attempts to squash Occupy London compared to the fairer treatment of the Occupy Central protesters in Hong Kong.

Jenny Jones, the Green Peer, arrived with flasks of tea and immediately promised to demands answers from both Boris Johnson and the Metropolitan Police, for an urgent explanation for the reported aggressive attempts to harass the peaceful protesters.

Despite the police clampdown, numbers doubled

We were delighted that despite all the above, numbers prepared to spend the sleepless Day 3 night had doubled from the previous Day 2, with people outraged at what they were seeing on Indymedia.

So please people, come today and help build momentum for this peaceful protest for real democracy in Parliament Square, that the Occupy London heroes have fought so hard and peacefully for.

Let us show Boris Johnson that his brutal travesty of ‘policing’ will not close down this week-long series of positive talks and lectures on Britain’s broken democracy.

See also: ‘Less freedom in Westminster’s Parliament Square than in Hong Kong!!‘

Information on the Occupy Democracy week-long protest, 17th-26th October.

Evening Standard article: standard.co.uk/news/london/occupy-london-protesters-start-week-long-demonstration-9803689.html

Donnachadh McCarthy FRSA has been one of the Occupy London participants this week. A former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, he can be reached via his website 3acorns.

Copies of his book ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘ are available from theprostitutestate.co.uk.

E-book version available from www.Lulu.com.