I had just enjoyed a dinner at Monash University in the middle suburbs of Melboure and expected to take a late night bus, then train, back into the city. I was very pleased when one of the guests offered to drive me home.

‘Actually, you can drive yourself home,’ David said. ‘You see, I have an electric car, which is part of the government’s pilot programme. As part of the deal, I’ve promised to get as many people as I can to have a go driving it.’

What luck! This would be my first time in an electric car.

An electric car has its own quirks. I drove the Mitsubishi i-Miev, which doesn’t have a key. Instead, you use a button to start the engine. The gears are similar to an automatic car, with the addition of a ‘brake regeneration’ gear. I used it in the Burnley Tunnel to slow down. Instead of braking with the pedal, I put in the brake gear and the car slows itself down quickly and captures the energy for the electric battery.

On the CityLink tollway, I felt a large freight truck pushing up towards me at 100 kilometres per hour.

‘You’re in the left lane.’ David said. ‘Why is it so close?’

‘He probably wants a closer look at the electric car,’ I said.

I’ve been reading some analysis of COP16 and the best one (hard headed and fair) I found is here — http://www.climateactiontracker.org/briefing_paper_cancun.pdf

Take home messages below.

UN process has been saved

Everyone just seems thoroughly relieved that there have been a set of agreements (the Cancun Agreements) coming out of this summit. If this hadn’t happened, the the credibility of the UN process would have been destroyed for good. So even though the outcomes aren’t fantastic, there is still a framework for working through the issues.

The only country that didn’t sign up to the Cancun Agreements was Bolivia. In fact, they’re pretty upset that the Cancun Agreements still allow runaway change in climate.

The 12-16 billion tonne gap — 3.2°C warming

One of the great things about the agreement is that everyone agreed that we need to limit warming to 2 degrees C, and that the pledges added up to (optimistically) 3.2°C warming. That is, we need to find a way to cut greenhouse gases by another 12+ billion tonnes.

At least now we all agree on the scale of the problem.

The pledges are interesting

Countries have come up with their own pledges so it’s not surprising that they are all from different baselines (e.g. 1990 or 2005) or business as usual trajectories (i.e. what would have happened if we didn’t put reduction strategies in place) and in different units (CO₂e or CO₂e per GDP). This makes it quite difficult to add up all the pledges to see how it’s all going to go.

One big barrier removed…

At Copenhagen, China and the US were at loggerheads because China was resisting a reporting and verification (auditing) process. Both China and India have now gracefully conceded and the US is delighted.

It also a breakthrough that everyone agrees that all nations (developed and developing) will need to sign up to targets.

And another barrier still here — US Congress

So even if a miracle occurs and a new treaty is put up at South Africa, it not quite conceivable that the US Congress (Republican controlled) will let the US sign the treaty. Once again, we might have to go without the US.

More

There are bits and pieces of other interesting questions — Why are they letting countries use greenhouse gas allowances that should expire in 2012? Will countries like Russia be allowed to increase greenhouse gas emissions because the economic downturn means they are already under target? Will this agreement force the Australian government to implement their conditional 25% reduction target instead of the current unconditional 5% target?

To conclude, a summary of the main agreements.

From http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/19060

• For the first time an anchoring under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of the pledges made by developed and developing countries in the Copenhagen Accord. This is important because it provides an agreed pathway to achieve major emissions cuts. This is the first time that all major emitters have agreed to report to the world community their commitments and efforts to reduce carbon pollution in their own economies
• The establishment of a new Green Climate Fund to help developing countries deal with climate change
• A mechanism that will deliver economic opportunities for developing countries to reduce emissions that result from deforestation – one of the largest sources of global emissions
• New rules to ensure that all countries will be able to see what each other is doing to tackle climate change
• Agreement to provide strong and practical support for vulnerable developing countries to manage unavoidable climate impacts
• Establishment of a mechanism that will help promulgate clean energy technology around the world

I saw this interesting Starbucks behaviour change initiative via the Futerra blog: Karma Cup.

As I understand it, every Starbucks customer that arrives with a reusable cup marks off a cross on a black chalkboard. The 10th person to arrive with a reusable cup gets his or her coffee for free.

This initiative is the result of a competition started in April. Apparently, ‘Starbucks was sponsoring the contest as part of its aim to serve 100 percent of its hand-crafted beverages in reusable or recyclable cups by 2015.’

Here is a link to a summary poster of the scheme.

Sounds fun. The winning initiative was only announced yesterday so I hope someone reports seeing this in action soon!

A year ago, my team at work was 25 people. In a month, we will have fallen to 13 people. This halving has been due to redundancies,  life changes, round-the-world trips, and people moving on to other jobs.

We are all really busy right now. A number of times, potential clients have called us and said, ‘We want you to do this thing that you’re really good at and we’ve written the cheque for you. All you need to do is say yes.’

And, insanely, we’ve had to say no.

No one likes to turn away work. Because 120% of our time is tied up, we have asked for help from the wider environment and planning group in London. They’re all busy too.

So we call our colleagues in ‘the regions’.

‘Really sorry,’ they’ve said, ‘But we’re flat out too.’ (Actually, the correct corporate speak here is ‘We can’t resource it.’)

So we call our mates overseas. No joy there, either. So the client has to take the work elsewhere.

The recession is still on, though. Although we’re busy now, I’m told it could all still go belly up. This could be an up bit before a down bit.

It all makes ‘the leadership’ nervous, which is why we can’t hire those sharp and keen new grads,  or the bargain basement experienced sustainability consultants who really deserve to be snapped up.

We can’t scold the leadership for their paralysis. Although we’re doing the work, over the past year more and more clients aren’t paying. Some have gone bust, and our only option is to join the queue to see if we get our money back.

The last six months have shown a significant and sustained upturn in business. I wonder what will happen in the wake of the UK election?

In the mean time, the things I’m thinking about are:

• How can we make an airport in Italy more sustainable?
• What makes sports, tourism, culture and creative organisations more financially resilient to climate change?
• What is the carbon footprint of a family of hundreds of hotels around the world?
• How can we work with the UK construction industry to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2012?
• What are the social impacts of highways on communities that live near them?
• How do we set up a portfolio of environmental services for small-to-medium enterprises?
• What does sustainable event management mean for a multi-day festival in London?
• How do we present regular energy monitoring data to the tenants of prestige office buildings?
• Can our masterplan of a new industrial park demonstrate that it is more climate friendly than a standard development?

In London, I see autumn leaves on a scale you don’t get in Australia. In some places, I walk shin deep in red, orange and brown leaves.

London’s neighbourhoods are beautiful right now. However, I do feel sorry for the street sweepers. During the rest of the year, they’re clearing up litter, dog poop, pavement pizzas and cigarette butts. Now, on top of their usual duties, they fight an unwinnable battle with leaf litter.

The sweepers fill their rubbish carts with red, orange and brown, and the next day, the trees have re-layered the roads and footpaths.

The sweepers’ only respite is winter, when the branches of deciduous trees are exhausted and bare.

There is one other thing about the leaves that makes me worry.

You see, when leaves fall and naturally decay, the nutrients go back into the earth. At the same time, carbon dioxide is released. This doesn’t contribute to climate change because when leaves grow back in spring, the tree re-absorbs the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

What I worry about is that all those leaves collected by all those street sweepers will go to the rubbish tip. This must happen because the sweepers are still picking up litter. No one is going to separate the leaves from the litter.

In a rubbish tip, the rubbish is stacked in layers and capped every night so that the rats and pigeons don’t make a mess. This means that organic material like leaves have no oxygen. Instead of decaying (aerobically) and releasing carbon dioxide, the leaves will decay (anaerobically) and release methane.

Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Over the next two decades, this methane released will trap 72 times more heat than carbon dioxide. Even after a hundred years, methane is still 25 times more potent than the same amount of carbon dioxide.

I wonder if anyone else has been thinking about this.

Everyone in the UK knows about the extreme perverseness of the difference between the cost of train tickets and plane tickets. I have flown to Paris for £20. A train ticket to Cardiff has costed me (well, my company) £200.

It makes it so hard for people to make the environmentally sane choice.

This cute video shows the problem well. I like it — Train v plane: fair fight?

I got some exciting news in the snail mail today. The Institute of Civil Engineers has awarded me and my MPhil supervisor the James Watt medal for the best paper on the topic of energy published in their journals last year.

I am very happy. There’s nothing like a pat on the back (and a medal!) to motivate me to write more.

Our paper was based on three months of research I did at the tail end of my masters year at Cambridge. I interviewed eight organisations about what stopped them from building energy efficient houses in the UK. The technology exists and you’ll save money — doesn’t energy efficiency just make sense? After all, the Scandinavians got on with it all years ago.

I ended up writing about the social, organisational and structural barriers and drivers for energy efficiency. My friend, Anna, wrote about the economic barriers. This probably won’t surprise you — the problem is complicated. In fact, everything I have ever looked at with any kind of thoughtfulness is always more complicated (in fact, more complex) than it might appear.

We did not write anything ground breaking or previously unknown so I don’t know why the judging panel chose our paper. The merit was probably in the synthesis (putting it all together), rather than the thesis. Maybe I can ask one of the judges if any are at the awards ceremony in October.

Hooray!

Figure 2 Locating barriers and drivers in the house building system

Update

My flatmate Aoife is so nice! She came back from her weekend shop with celebratory champagne, chocolate and a card.

Champagne, chocolate and card

At work, I’ve been working on a project to look at sustainability issues for the Welsh Rugby Union. I’m not a rugby follower but there are plenty of people around me who are. They’re envious that I get paid to tour the Millennium Stadium and study rugby matches so popular that no one can get tickets.

So, a break from the holiday photography — here are some photos from the Millennium Stadium. The full set are in the gallery.

Walking onto the pitch.

Lots of resource issues in this picture. Firstly, the pitch has been imported from Holland. You can’t get high performance pitch from just anywhere.

Secondly, see those gantries on wheels? Those are high energy lights that are shining onto the pitch almost every day to help the grass grow. There is too little light reaching the pitch (and in Cardiff generally) to keep the grass lush. Before these lights were used, the grass would get very patchy.

Thirdly, the video screens — obviously, they use a lot of electricity but we were thinking of how they could be used for public service announcements, like ‘Do you know the four signs of a stroke?’ With 70,000 fans packed into the stadium for each game, it’s an opportunity to raise awareness.

Grounds maintenance crew preparing for the big Wales-Ireland Six Nations match.

Part of our work will look at the branding risks of particular sponsors, as well as how the Rugby Union can partner up with sponsors on outreach and business programmes.

It was a nice day.

Kegs and kegs of beer! Liquor licensing is an issue. I’m told that rugby fans are responsible drinkers compared to the more rowdy football goers. Football matchers are more tense than rugby matches. The fans of the teams need to be segregated because if they’re allowed to mix, there is the risk of punch ups.

Inside the team change rooms.

Inside one of the TV broadcasting suites. We’re looking at how the media travels to and from the match, as well as equity issues related to match scheduling. It appears that media demands for prime time scheduling sometimes conflicts with business hours (and how much local businesses can profit from more activity around Cardiff), as well as public transport timetables.

Joan, sustainability consultant.

Since the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper was released on Monday, I have been perplexed.

It had all been going so well. Kevin Rudd (my Facebook friend) fulfilled my little heart’s desires when he ratified the Kyoto Protocol. After seeing Penny Wong speak in London, I was so impressed that I adopted her as my hero.

But now this — the unconditional 5% by 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. Five per cent? Did I hear correctly?

On the face of it, it seems so pitiful, so unambitious. I didn’t understand! And until I understood Kevin and Penny’s rationale, I would withold condemnation.

Today, I read through the executive summary and selected chapters of the White Paper.

Now I understand.

Before anyone protests or supports this scheme and its target, please, please take the time to read at least the executive summary to understand the key details. (In fact, I beseech you to do this for any issue on which you wish to express an opinion.)

5% from what baseline?
My first question was what the baseline year for the 5% reduction was. The Kyoto Protocol and European Union policies (with which which I am most familiar) are based on 1990 emissions. So when the UK says it’s aiming for a 26% reduction by 2020, it’s compared to the 1990 baseline year.

Our 5% target is from a 2000 baseline year. After looking through our greenhouse inventory and the ABS, it turns out that this is not much different to the 1990 year (although the Australian Government have argued that 2000 is a more challenging baseline).

Year	Net greenhouse gas emissions (tCO2e)	Australian population	Net greenhouse gas emissions per capita (tCO2e/capita)
1990	552 648 000	17 million	33
2000	552 813 000	19 million	29

tCO₂e — tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Other greenhouse gases are converted into the same global warming impact as a tonne of carbon dioxide. For example, over 100 years, methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide so one tonne of methane is 25 tCO₂e.

Why our 5% is worth their 20%
The Government believes that a 5% cut by Australia represents the same effort as the European Union’s 20% cut because of this key point: Australia’s population will grow by 45% between 1990 and 2020, while the EU’s growth has flatlined during the same period. You can see how it is harder to stabilise (or reduce) emissions while your population grows. Each additional person will produce additional emissions through his or her direct consumption (electricity, heat, food, goods) and employment activitiy.

So the logic is that if Nations A and B set the same target, and Nation A’s population doubles, then Nation A has to work twice as hard as Nation B to achieve the same absolute reduction in emissions.

Table E1 of the White Paper executive summary compares Australia’s total and per capita reduction commitments with those of the EU, the UK and USA. I’ve reproduced it here.

Country	2020 targets	2020 per capita reduction	2050 targets
Australia	5-15% below 2000 levels (4-14 per cent below 1990 levels)	27-34% below 2000 levels (34-41% below 1990 levels)	60% below 2000 levels (60% below 1990 levels)
European Union	20-30% below 1990 levels	24-34% below 1990 levels	60-80% below 1990 levels
United Kingdom	26% below 1990 levels	33% below 1990 levels	80% below 1990 levels
Proposal
United States (proposal of President-elect Obama)	Return to 1990 levels	25% below 1990 levels	80% below 1990 levels

60% by 2050
The White Paper states that the Government is still committed to reducing emissions by 60% by 2050 (presumably from the 2000 baseline). This is in line with the EU and, until recently, the UK (who just this month set itself an 80% target by 2050). I am not sure how the Government expects to ramp up from 5% to 60% reduction over 30 years, and I will be looking at the strategy if/when it is released. However, I believe that getting the emissions trading scheme established is an important structural change to the economy. It could be the thin edge of a giant wedge of change.

20% renewables by 2020
I was worried that the 5% target would not be big enough to transform the energy market to support competitive renewables. Although emissions trading is the Government’s main climate change mitiation measure, I am relieved that there is a separate target for renewable energy — 20% of electricity supply by 2020. This isn’t as ambitious as it could be but at least the commercialisation of renewable energy is recognised as a strategy to be specifically managed.

Credit where credit’s due
I wish to give credit where credit is due. When it is implemented, Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will the broadest in the world. Below, I’ve compared it to the world’s first scheme, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

	Australia CPRS	EU ETS phase 1 (2005-2007)	EU ETS phase 2 (2008-2012)
Coverage of greenhouse gas emissions	75%	40%	46%
Participating sectors	Energy activities, transport, leakages/losses, industrial processes, waste and forestry*	Energy activities, ferrous metal and mineral industries, pulp, paper and board activities	As for phase 1, plus a number of new industries (e.g. aluminium and ammonia producers)
Greenhouse gases included	All six Kyoto Protocol gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons	Carbon dioxide	Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons

* Excludes agriculture and deforestation (17% and 10% of emissions in 2000, respectively)

It is useful to note that the aim for Phase 3 of the EU ETS (post-2012) is to cover all greenhouse gases and all sectors, including aviation, maritime transport and forestry.

In non-conclusion
My quick review of the White Paper has led me to conclude that the Government’s proposal is defensible in terms of international standards for action on climate change.

However, please note that I have made no comment on:

• the justness or effectiveness of relying on a (single) market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
• the adequacy of the targets set by the EU, UK and US (to which Australia claims parity); or
• the reliability, desirability or controllability of the population projections that have led the Government to its small absolute target.

But I am relieved that there is a logical basis for the 5% target, which I can now explain to those people who are equally perplexed as I was.

Bibliography
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001), ‘A century of population change in Australia’, Year Book Australia: 2001, catalogue number 1301.0, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002), ‘Population size and growth’, Year Book Australia: 2002, catalogue number 1301.0, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Carbon Trust (date not given), ‘The EU Emission Trading Scheme’, last update not given, Carbon Trust website, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Carrington D (2008), ‘Australia pledges to cut emissions by up to 15%’, The Guardian, 15 December 2008, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Department of Climate Change (2006), ‘Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts’, 2006 inventory year, online emissions database available here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Department of Climate Change (2008a), Carbon pollution reduction scheme: Australia’s low pollution future, White Paper, 15 December 2008, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Department of Climate Change (2008b), ‘Australia’s renewable energy target’, Department of Climate Change website, last updated 17 December 2008, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Dimas S (2005), ‘EU climate change policy’, speech at the Conference of National Parliaments of the EU and the European Parliament, 21 November 2005, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

European Commission (2008), ‘Questions and Answers on the Commission’s proposal to revise the EU Emissions Trading System’, press release, 23 January 2008, available online here, accessed on 18 December 2008

Recently at work, we put in a bid to do a life cycle assessment of a head of lettuce. This is a serious issue. Lettuce wastage rates are very high. We’ve all experienced having to throw out lettuce because we couldn’t use it all up in time, or because the fridge had frozen it. Now, multiply that wastage to retail and agricultural scale, adding in the risks of fluctuating consumer demand, cold snaps, and malfunctions in storage, transport and retail refrigeration.

During our research, we discovered that there is a ‘voice of the salad industry’ — the British Leafy Salad Association. Who would have thought? You would not be surprised, probably, that while working on this bid I would spontaneously start giggling at my desk.

As I constantly extolled to my team mates, all the wastage problems could be solved by installing ‘lettuce capture and storage’ systems alongside farms and major grocery stores.

Excess lettuce would be stored in the less perishable ‘rabbit’ form. Later, rabbit would be harvested and the useful lettuce nutrients would be returned to the global food cycle.