Trump and the EPA

2000px-environmental_protection_agency_logo-svg

 

Donald Trump is now President, an unpalatable fact but unfortunately a reality we must learn to live with. Over the next few posts we will analyse what his presidency might mean for the environment, and the changes that have already come to pass in the few months since he has come to power. Among environmentalists Trump is known as a climate change denier and a person with scant regard for the ecosystem services provided by a healthy environment so it will certainly be interesting to look into. It won’t all be doom and gloom as we will also address ways we can all be hopeful and fight the changes he has enacted.

First up, the EPA:

What is the EPA?

For those living outside the US, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is an agency of the US government created with the aim of protecting human health and the environment. It writes and enforces regulations according to laws passed by Congress, and conducts environmental assessments, research and education.

Who is now in charge?

Scott Pruitt, a climate change doubter, who in the past has actually sued the EPA several times when he was Attorney General for Oklahoma, an oil-producing state.  Since coming to power Trump has already ordered the EPA to remove all references to climate change from the site, so it’s clear he has appointed a like-minded person in Pruitt. Despite Pruitt being confirmed by the US Senate, there has been resistance from former EPA staff, concerned that he has no interest in upholding environmental laws. Prior to Pruitt’s confirmation, senator Cory Booker had stated: “If you look at this individual, Scott Pruitt, if you look at his track record, you will see that his actual work has undermined the mission of the agency that he is now nominated to lead“, so the Republicans were aware of these concerns. 

The appointment of Scott Pruitt will also be closely followed by those in South Florida. Miami Beach is experiencing increased flooding in its streets at spring tides due to sea level rise and this will only get worse if no action is take to curb carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. California will also be keeping a close eye considering their struggle with drought and water shortages.

220px-scott_pruitt_by_gage_skidmore

Scott Pruitt

Can the EPA just ignore climate change?

Well, it’s not that the EPA is ignoring climate change. I am sure the EPA is full of scientists who just want to get on with their work, but are being forced into silence by the Trump administration. As former EPA scientists stated: “Reasoned action and acknowledgment of scientific truth are fundamental to democracy, public health, and economic growth. Scientific evidence does not change when the administration changes.” However, the results of EPA studies must now all undergo political review before the information can be passed to the press. Politics should never interfere with the distribution of scientific findings and fact. The public face of the EPA can deny climate change as much as they want, but that doesn’t stop it from existing. It DOES exist and we need to do something about it. Even FOX news network, a normal ally and favourite of Donald Trump roasted Scott Pruitt in an interview over his beliefs.

Budget Cuts

Republican congressman, Matt Gaetz has recently released text of a proposed bill to abolish the EPA. Luckily, nothing seems to have come of that, but Trump has since released his budget proposals and it’s not good news for the EPA. The proposal would see the EPA have its funding cut by almost a third and roughly one in five EPA employees would lose their jobs. Funding reductions would mean the cancellation of all climate change research and even a reduction in the air and water quality work they do. In addition, the Clean Power Plan, along with 50 plus other initiatives would be scrapped.

Clean Power Plan

The Clean Power Plan was one of the best things, at least in my mind, to come out of the Obama administration: a plan to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. As one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, the USA needs a plan like this to get on track with tackling climate change.  However, all Trump wants to do is increase jobs by bringing coal plants back on line and increase the use of oil and gas.  In a recent speech he continually talked about “clean coal”, a contradiction if ever I heard one. Even industry leaders in the fossil fuel sector believe that coal has had its day. There is a grain of hope as the proposal does still have to pass Congress, but that is controlled by Republicans so I am not sure how much resistance it will receive.

Clean Water

Trump is currently asking the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers to review the Waters of the US rule, which expanded the authority of regulators over waterways and wetlands. The rule is disputed by landowners and developers who think it has been too overreaching in its powers, but I think it is very sensible. It helps prevent people polluting drinking water and draining wetlands, effectively saving the environment in cases where development or farming methods are too intensive or not suitable to the land. In the UK we have a similar thing called the Environment Agency which has helped clean up our waterways immensely in conjunction with the relevant local water authorities and councils. It issues fines where rules have been flouted but I don’t see why the US think that is an overreaching power. If a regulation has been broken, there should be some penalty in place to discourage further flouting of the law. I think it’s clear from this that the Trump administration are more concerned about putting people in work than having clean air and water.

Conclusion

Overall, it’s clear that big changes are afoot for the EPA and the USA as a whole. It will take a while to see what the impact of the Trump administration is going to be, but initial signs indicate less protection for environmental resources, and a move away from curbing climate change to increased use of fossil fuels. Among all this doubt though there is certainly resistance. Most recently the Natonal Resources Defence Council and Pesticide Action Network have filed a case against the EPA over its move to ignore the results of a scientific study stating the pesticide chlorpyrifos has links to brain damage. I wish them the best of luck in taking on the EPA and am sure this will be the first of many challenges against the EPA if they continue on in this way.

 

 

 

 

 

Hilary Clinton and Ecological Survival

clintoncleanenergy630

Hilary Clinton at the 2014 National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas. Photo: John Locher/AP

Although clearer and more progressive on climate policy and environmental issues than Donald Trump, presidential candidate Hilary Clinton is by no means a friend of the environmental movement. Her role in politics will now be a lesser one after the victory of Trump’s presidential campaign.

This was a politician who made clear that she supported fracking and fossil fuel pipelines in order to “fuel our economy”, supporting renewable energy alongside oil and gas extraction in a confused “all of the above” approach (Norton, 2016). As Secretary of State it was Clinton’s staff who cooperated with TransCanada on the Keystone XL pipeline and she had accepted the false dogma of using natural gas as a “bridge fuel”towards a renewable economy (Cousins, 2016 – see also McJeon et al., 2014 and Hausfather, 2016).

The International Energy Agency has predicted that the majority of the world’s energy will still come from fossil fuels in the next few decades (Tweed, 2016), and a politician who had received “more than $6.9 million from the fossil fuel industry” would have likely ensured that this pattern continued in the USA (Coleman, 2016). Clinton had, in fact, raised more money from the oil industry than her presidential rival (Harder & Mullins, 2016).

Her support for continued fossil fuel extraction occurred with a backdrop of climate chaos. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have recently surpassed the symbolic 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold (Kahn, 2016) with the fear that “today’s greenhouse gas levels may already commit Earth to an eventual total warming of 5 degrees Celsius” over the next millennia (Snyder, 2016). The devastation of Hurricane Matthew, according to CNN, “looks a lot like the future of climate change” (Sutter, 2016). Heedless of this devastation, like the rest of the US political system, Clinton continued to promote the orthodoxy that capitalism is compatible with a stable climate.

Ultimately Clinton shares the same hypocritical approach to climate change that her democrat predecessor Obama had – “tackling [climate change] aggressively on the consumption side but continuing to boost fossil fuel supplies” (Adler, 2015). This involved maintaining a “studied silence” when it came to the controversy of Standing Rock and the Dakota Access Pipeline (McKibben, 2016; Ortega, 2016).

The issue however, is now moot. Donald Trump has already begun planning his climate policy, which largely revolves abolishing the Clean Power Plan (Worland, 2016), wanting to “cancel” the Paris Agreement (Mufson & Dennis, 2016), and abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Plumer, 2016). This, despite the fact that climate change has been recognised as a “major national security risk” by the Climate Security Consensus Project (Papenfuss, 2016).

Indeed, to the rest of the world, “the U.S. citizens’ choice to elect Donald Trump seems like a death sentence” (Chemnick, 2016). We must now support the efforts of Blockadia (Martin & Fruhwirth, 2013) and stand in solidarity with indigenous nations and migrants in the fight against climate chaos (Out of the Woods, 2015; Bosworth, 2016). Climate change is not just a sociogenic process – it is violence:

“That’s a tired phrase, the destruction of the Earth, but translate it into the face of a starving child and a barren field – and then multiply that a few million times. Or just picture the tiny bivalves: scallops, oysters, Arctic sea snails that can’t form shells in acidifying oceans right now. Or another superstorm tearing apart another city. Climate change is global-scale violence, against places and species as well as against human beings. Once we call it by name, we can start having a real conversation about our priorities and values. Because the revolt against brutality begins with a revolt against the language that hides that brutality.” (Solnit, 2014)

With that in mind, we must contend with the fact that this is not just something “on a list of things to worry about” – in order to prevent climate chaos in the new right-wing political landscape “we have to remake the world, and we have to talk about it” (Battistoni, 2012).

References

Adler, B. (2015). 8 things you need to know about Hillary Clinton and climate change http://grist.org/climate-energy/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-climate-change/. Accessed 8th November 2016

Battistoni, A. (2012). The Flood Next Time https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-flood-next-time/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Bosworth, K. (2016). Voices Against the Pipeline — “Five Lessons from Pipeline Struggles” http://nobakken.com/2016/09/05/voices-against-the-pipeline-five-lessons-from-pipeline-struggles-by-kai-bosworth/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Chemnick, J. (2016). No Plan B at Climate Talks, Given Trump Win https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-plan-b-at-climate-talks-given-trump-win/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Coleman, J. (2016). Hillary Clinton’s Connections to the Oil and Gas Industry http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/. Accessed 8th November 2016

Cousins, F. (2016). Hillary Clinton Is Raking In Fossil Fuel Money At An Alarming Rate http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/07/hillary-clinton-raking-fossil-fuel-money-alarming-rate. Accessed 8th November 2016

Harder, A., Mullins, B. (2016). Hillary Clinton Raises More Than Donald Trump From Oil Industry http://www.wsj.com/articles/so-far-hillary-clinton-raises-more-than-donald-trump-from-oil-industry-1473190849. Accessed 8th November 2016.

Hausfather, Z. (2016). Is Natural Gas a Bridge Fuel? http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/08/is-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel/. Accessed 8th November 2016

Kahn, B. (2016). The world passes 400ppm carbon dioxide threshold. Permanently https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/28/the-world-passes-400ppm-carbon-dioxide-threshold-permanently. Accessed 8th November 2016

Martin, M. J., Fruhwirth, J. (2013). Welcome to Blockadia! http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/welcome-to-blockadia-enbridge-transcanada-tar-sands. Accessed 9th November 2016

McJeon, H., Edmonds, J., Bauer, N. Clarke, L., Fisher, B., Flannery, B. P., Hilaire, J., Krey, V., Marangoni, G., Mi, R., Riahi, K., Rogner, H., Tavoni, M. (2014). Limited impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas. Nature 514, 482-485

McKibben, B. (2016). The Climate Movement Has to Elect Hillary Clinton—and Then Give Her Hell https://www.thenation.com/article/the-climate-movement-has-to-elect-hillary-clinton-and-then-give-her-hell/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Mufson, S., Dennis. B. (2016). Trump victory reverses U.S. energy and environmental priorities https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/09/trump-victory-reverses-u-s-energy-and-environmental-priorities/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Norton, B. (2016). Leaked email: Hillary Clinton told “radical environmentalists” to “get a life,” defended fracking and pipelines http://www.salon.com/2016/10/18/leaked-email-hillary-clinton-told-radical-environmentalists-to-get-a-life-defended-fracking-and-pipelines/. Accessed 8th November 2016

Ortega, O. (2016). Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/24/clintons-troubling-silence-on-the-dakota-access-pipeline/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Out of the Woods (2015). 6 Ways to Fight Climate Chaos http://novaramedia.com/2015/05/30/6-ways-to-fight-climate-chaos/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Papenfuss, M. (2016). Climate change poses major national security risk to US, warn military experts http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/climate-change-poses-major-national-security-risk-us-warn-military-experts-1581419. Accessed 9th November 2016

Plumer, B. (2016). There’s no way around it: Donald Trump is going to be a disaster for the planet http://www.vox.com/2016/11/9/13571318/donald-trump-disaster-climate. Accessed 9th November 2016

Snyder, C. W. (2016). Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years. Nature 538, 226-228.

Solnit, R. (2014). Call climate change what it is: violence https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/07/climate-change-violence-occupy-earth. Accessed 9th November 2016

Sutter, J. D. (2016). Hurricane Matthew looks a lot like the future of climate change http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/07/opinions/sutter-hurricane-matthew-climate-change/index.html Accessed 8th November 2016

Tweed, K. (2016). Leaked Clinton Emails Mention Climate Change More Than Obamacare http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Leaked-Clinton-Emails-Mention-Climate-Change-More-Than-Obamacare. Accessed 8th November 2016

Worland, J. (2016). Donald Trump’s Victory Could Mean Disaster for the Planet http://time.com/4564224/donald-trump-climate-change/. Accessed 9th November 2016

Donald Trump and the Environment

57b38b731700002b00d1f389

Source: Huffington Post

 

So, it’s election day in the US and the world is waiting to see who will be their next president: Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton. In this article focus on Donald Trump  and what he has (or hasn’t) said regarding the environment if he ends up in office. Sources for all the information are listed at the end.

Denial of Climate Change

Firstly, Trump doesn’t outline any environmental policy on the issues section of his campaign site. To my mind this indicates he doesn’t think the environment is a worthwhile issue and there is information to back up this theory; he denies climate change. It is well known that back in 2012 he tweeted “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” He hasn’t deleted this tweet, so presumably he still believes this. In fact, if he were to be elected he would be the only leader of a country to deny climate change. Trump has also stated that he would remove the US from the Paris agreement which, as outlined on the European Commission’s website, is “the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal”. This deal is ever more important than the Kyoto agreement and would be a devastating blow for the planet if the US left.

Abolishment of the EPA

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) would be abolished under a Trump presidency. To put this into perspective this is the equivalent of the UK doing away with the Environment Agency. Trump believes the EPA has created too much red tape over the years limiting the ability of companies to operate. I admit that no environmental agency is perfect, but the red tape is usually there for good reason: to protect the environment from humans and their activities. The strange thing is, whilst he wishes to destroy the EPA, he wants to improve water and air quality, aims that are surely at odds with one another. At an oil conference in Bismarck, North Dakota he states:  “My priorities are simple: clean air and clean water.” He hasn’t deemed to outline how he aims to do that without the EPA, and I don’t think I need to point out the irony of him making this statement at an oil industry conference. He has also been accused of using the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan, for self promotion and not out of real concern for the residents. 

Energy Policy

Trump supported the Keystone XL pipeline before it was rejected by Obama due to climate change concerns, and it has now emerged he owns stocks in two fossil fuel companies involved in the Dakota Access pipeline. One of his energy advisers is an oil billionaire and CEO of the largest US fracking company, Harold Hamm. It should therefore come as no surprise that he wishes to increase oil and gas production and he recently stated “We’re going to save the coal industry”.  This all sounds rather worrying in an age where we should be moving to renewables, but there have been warning signs that he isn’t a fan of renewable energy. For example, has been waging a battle for some years now against the proposed building of an offshore windfarm near his Aberdeenshire golf course. 

Trump has also stated he would relax the Clean Power Plan, which includes stricter fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in the US. How would he prioritise making the air cleaner whilst at the same time allowing vehicles to be more polluting?

Other Environmental Issues

Trump has proposed a wall is built along the entire Mexican/US border. Whilst the aim of this idea is clearly to prevent illegal immigration I don’t think anyone has considered the environmental impact this would have. Animals don’t keep to borders. Birds can fly over a wall, but what are others to do? Tunnels could be put in the wall for them to move through however that is no substitute for the freedom of populations to roam. Any species that is already low in numbers could be split in two, reducing the gene pool further and making extinction more likely. I imagine cougars and desert bighorn sheep wouldn’t be able to have tunnels built, as they would be large enough for humans to fit through, and therefore render the wall pointless.

Conclusion

Whether it be the denial of climate change, proposed abolition of the EPA or his energy policy it is clear that Donald Trump has scant regard for the environment. It can be hard to cover everything in one post, but I hope this at least makes you aware of the basics. I for one don’t think he is fit to be in charge of a country, but it is up to each of you to make up your minds. If you are an American citizen I hope you have gone out and voted, and remember, only if you vote do you have the right to criticise the outcome.

P.S. There was meant to be an article on Hilary Clinton to portray a balanced view on both of the Democratic and Republican candidates. Unfortunately, we have run out of time, but hope to bring you that one at a later date regardless of the outcome of the election.

Sources

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/issues/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/09/27/trump-didnt-delete-his-tweet-calling-global-warming-a-chinese-hoax/

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-vs-clinton-environmental-issues/

http://www.ecowatch.com/voter-guide-climate-change-2012756804.html

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/14/donald-trump-flint-visit-water-plant-tour

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11788374/donald-trump-energy-speech

http://www.ecowatch.com/donald-trump-dakota-access-pipeline-2040029544.html

https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-resumes-fight-against-windfarm-near-his-golf-course

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37200583

Part 2: Hinkley Point C – Alternatives to Nuclear Ideology

paneles solares

Image: Jose Juan Castellano

As we saw in the last post plans for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C, Somerset have been beset by troubles. This next post aims to detail further problems with a nuclear strategy for the UK, and highlight the alternatives to achieve a genuine low-carbon energy sector.

The Problems

Hinkley Point C (henceforth just Hinkley) is simply another example of the current UK government engaging with projects not for economic or environmental concerns, but for ideological reasons. For example, “taxpayers could end up paying more than £30bn through a range of subsidies” in order to support the new power station because it is not profitable by itself (Business Leader, 2016). Advisors in DECC (when it existed) also had links to EDF, which could explain the preferential treatment given to nuclear energy (Clarke, 2016) despite the fact that the current set price for electricity generated from the power station offered by the UK government is double average wholesale electricity prices (Elmes, 2016), representing another loss for the average UK citizen. As if that wasn’t enough,

“The predicted cost of Hinkley Point C has steadily risen from £14bn to £24.5bn and has steadily risen from earlier estimates of £16bn. The complexity of the project is enormous, due to what is believed to be by many to be an over-engineered design. There are also reported issues regarding the manufacture of the reactor pressure vessel for the EPR [European Pressurised Reactor] associated with anomalies in the composition of the steel.” (Freer, 2015)

These defects – enormously dangerous in a nuclear power station – are down to the French nuclear firm Areva, responsible for leading the construction of Hinkley, misreporting or failing to report key information in their quality control documents. As a result Hinkley – and other nuclear power plants around the world – may be using components that would be unable to “withstand sudden breakdown in certain conditions” (Boren, 2016).

On the bright side, we won’t have to worry about these manufacturing errors causing problems in the immediate future. Due to ongoing delays “Hinkley C is unlikely to produce electricity much before 2030” (Carrington, 2016a). By the time it is online it is likely to face ongoing problems due to extreme weather events caused by climate change (if global warming hasn’t been mitigated appropriately by then). Nuclear power stations are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather as these events

“could disrupt the functioning of critical equipment and processes that are indispensable to safe operation including reactor vessels, cooling equipment, control instruments and back-up generators.” (World Energy Council, 2014)

So at the moment we are looking forward to a nuclear power station billions over budget, not scaled to be completed until 2025 (Farrell, 2016), and subsequently vulnerable to storm damage and rising sea levels.

On top of this the justification that Hinkley will provide the UK with “baseload”power that is “vital to the UK” (EDF, 2016) is a myth. The importance of the new power station “has been repeatedly overplayed” (Gosden, 2016) and “the idea of large power stations [nuclear or not] for baseload is outdated” (Beckman, 2015). Practical experience, such as the German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein running on 100% renewable energy, and a host of studies and computer simulations of electricity markets and supply-demand systems prove that monolithic power stations providing baseload power are not required (Diesendorf, 2016). Other studies have shown that closing down nuclear power stations and transitioning to renewable energy provides a host of environmental and economic benefits without jeopardising energy security (Phys.org, 2012; Gawel & Strunz, 2014).

Additionally, any employment supported by the construction of Hinkley will be temporary and filled by overseas workers, and less than a thousand jobs will be “created” for day-to-day operations (Fairlie, 2016). Jobs in the renewable energy sector far outweigh nuclear jobs. It is no surprise then that public support for Hinkley is very low (Chrisafis, 2016; Pagnamenta, 2016). There are even internal disputes within the board of EDF, with worker representatives filing “a challenge to overturn the company’s controversial decision to build the nuclear reactors” due to essential information about the power station not being shared with all board members (Chrisafis, 2016).

So we have seen that nuclear energy would be problematic for UK, and if Hinkley Point C were allowed to develop it would be a tacit endorsement for further nuclear development regardless of its practicality. So what are the alternatives?

The Solutions

The current situation seems dire. At the moment “the percentage of energy Britain now has to import has returned to the levels last seen in the early 1970s, before North Sea oil came on stream” (Elliott, 2016). This is a fear that the nuclear industry has exploited in order to appear as a solution. But as Elliott continues, “the cost of renewables are coming down all the time”. To develop a practical, secure energy supply requires the UK “to move away from large Hinkley-type projects” (Business Leader, 2016). This is not only an environmentally safer option but more economically secure – the thinktank Intergenerational Foundation found that “Britain would pay up to £40bn less for renewable alternatives that would generate the equivalent power to Hinkley over the plant’s planned lifetime” (Vaughan, 2016a). For the UK to pursue nuclear energy when “the world is finally producing renewable energy at an industrial scale” and with global installations of renewable energy projects surpassing “100,000 megawatts of capacity” in 2014 seems ludicrous (Steiner, 2015). As The Economist (2016) reports,

“Since Hinkley became a serious proposal less than a decade ago, the cost of nuclear power has increased, that of renewables has fallen and the price of battery storage—which could one day disrupt the entire power system—has plummeted. What is more, EDF’s nuclear technology has failed to get off the ground in the two projects in Finland and France that have sought to use it.”

So what are our options? Let us assess the evidence.

Wind

The world’s largest offshore windfarm was recently approved by the UK government, set to be constructed 100km off the Yorkshire coast (Anthony, 2016). It will provide power to almost two million homes when completed. As more of these windfarms are constructed (there are currently thirty offshore windfarms in UK territory) the energy generated will steadily become more reliable – as den Rooijen (2016) explains, “if the wind doesn’t blow in one [area], the wind blows in another, and the net effect is that the combined power output is less variable”. He continues

“At present, we have 2,200 wind turbines in operation and under construction, taking up less than 1% of our total seabed. National Grid estimates that nearly half of all power could be generated from our seabed by 2030 through offshore wind, combined with tidal power lagoons and strong electrical connections to our neighbouring countries.”

With 5GW (gigawatts) of offshore wind energy and 9GW of onshore wind currently online with new projects constantly in the pipeline (e.g. Hornsea Projects 1, 2, and 3) the 3.2GW that Hinkley will provide seems insignificant by comparison (Macalister, 2016a).

At the moment offshore windfarms are already being built at cheaper prices than Hinkley, and will meet 10% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2020 (Sauven, 2016; Macalister, 2016b) while Hinkley will only produce 7% when it is finally built in 2025 (ignoring delays common with the reactor design – see Stacey & Burgis, 2016). Looking to land, the UK government’s own calculations predict that “onshore wind power and large-scale solar [will] cost less per megawatt hour than new nuclear by 2025” (Vaughan, 2016b). Renewables will also be cheaper to build – the Intergenerational Foundation found that onshore wind power would be £31.2 billion cheaper than Hinkley whilst producing the same amount of energy over a thirty-five year period (Simms, 2016).

In reality the UK has exploited less than 1% of its offshore wind energy potential – a total of 675GW is economically feasible, which is more than six times the UK’s current electricity demand (Cavazzi & Dutton, 2016). The potential for wind energy alone dwarfs UK nuclear power.

Solar

Solar power is similar to wind power – it is cheap, efficient, and a far better alternative to nuclear projects like Hinkley. By 2025, large-scale solar is expected to cost between £50 and £75 per megawatt hour, according to the UK government’s energy department, whereas nuclear power is expected to cost “around £85-125/MWh, in line with the guaranteed price of £92.50/MWh that the government has offered Hinkley’s developer, EDF” (Vaughan, 2016b). The Intergenerational Foundation’s report consolidates the cheapness of solar compared to nuclear, citing evidence that solar power in the UK would be £40 billion cheaper compared to Hinkley over the thirty-five year contract period (Simms, 2016).

Solar power is now 50% cheaper than it was in 2011, and “more than 800,000 homes now have rooftop solar” (Sauven, 2016) proving its effectiveness. Solar power recently beat coal power in the UK for the first time some months ago, generating “1,273 gigawatt hours of power” in May, beating the 778 gigawatt hours generated by coal (Evans, 2016), showcasing its ability to outclass fossil fuels in power generation.

Looking past simple economic comparisons, solar power arrays can also enhance biodiversity as they take up only a small percentage of the land and often allow insect species “to thrive” compared to arable land (Solarcentury, 2014). A more recent study found that “solar farms can lead to an increase in the diversity and abundance of broad leaved plants, grasses, butterflies, bumblebees and birds” (Montag et al., 2016). Solar power on agricultural land is also a possibility – a 2013 study published in Agricultural and Forest Meteorology found that crops under a “half-density” array of solar panels “were just as productive as the ones in the unshaded control plots; in a few cases, they were even more productive”and that “shading irrigated vegetable crops with PVPs [photovoltaic panels] allowed a saving of 14 percent to 29 percent of evapotranspired water, depending on the level of shade created and the crop grown” (Marrou et al., 2013). Solar power is thus an effective energy delivery strategy without having to sacrifice grassland or arable land, compared to the large footprint required of nuclear power stations like Hinkley.

Other Possibilities

Solar and wind power are not the only alternatives to Hinkley available to us – there is a miscellany of other technologies available. Wave energy devices, for example, placed in the “most economic areas” around the UK’s coast could generate up to 10GW, which equates to “11% of the UK’s current power generation” (Carbon Trust, 2012).

Instead of producing additional power, increased energy efficiency measures in the UK would make projects like Hinkley obsolete. Improving efficiency could, according to various authors, reduce electricity demand by the equivalent of four to six Hinkley power stations (DECC, 2012; Blackman, 2016) and save billions of pounds a year. As Damian Carrington (2016b) writes,

“Energy efficiency could deliver six Hinkley’s worth of electricity by 2030, interconnector cables to Norway, Denmark and France could add another two or three Hinkleys to the grid by 2025 and four Hinkleys’ worth of electricity could be saved by 2030 by increasing the ability to store electricity and making the grid smarter, with the latter alone saving bill payers £8bn a year.”

These trends in efficiency, smart grids, and better energy storage won’t go away – “the National Grid predicts that in some scenarios by 2020, small-scale and distributed generation will represent a third of total capacity in the UK” (Sauven, 2016).  This is simply proof that the age of megaprojects like Hinkley is over – the UK needs to focus on connecting “consumption as well as supply and think more decentralised than central” (Elmes, 2016).

Is it Possible?

These technics are far from implausible – many of them rely on technology that exists today and trends that are already occurring. If Hinkley Point C is cancelled (and it should be) additional renewable energy projects can “plug significant gaps in capacity very quickly – much more quickly than long lead time and significantly delayed new nuclear” (Caldecott, 2016). The recent analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit using “ultra-conservative” estimates and considering “only mature technologies” succinctly surmised that “Hinkley is not essential” (ECIU, 2016), contrary to the assertions of the EDF chief executive (de Rivaz, 2016).

As Gawel and Strunz (2014) wrote in their case study of Germany’s nuclear phase-out, it is less about technology and more about providing a “a long-term transition perspective and a stable political consensus” that will encourage the development of renewable energy and not so-called “low-carbon” energy sources like nuclear or gas. This social and political shift will readily yield “measurable economic and environmental benefits” (Phys.org, 2012).

Many studies and analyses looking at the possibility of a long-term, global shift to renewable energy have found that it is plausible and easily achievable. EDF’s claim that we shouldn’t “hope that a new technology will meet all our needs” is unfounded and false – we don’t need “new” technologies because existing ones are more than enough (de Rivaz, 2016). Such claims muddy the waters when it comes to discussing a sustainable future and betray the wants of large energy corporations like EDF who are threatened by the coming wave of renewable and decentralised energy technologies. In fact, pursuing the idea of nuclear power as part of the UK’s energy strategy would be harmful to genuine renewable energy uptake – a study by the University of Sussex found that countries like the UK who are “nuclear-committed” and plan to replace old nuclear power plants with newer models are slower to adopt renewable energy and reduce the carbon intensity of energy generation (Lawrence et al., 2016; Cuff, 2016). The study identified that

“progress in both carbon emissions reduction and in adoption of renewables appears to be inversely related to the strength of continuing nuclear commitments.”

Thus any and all assertions that nuclear power should be a component of the UK’s energy strategy are detrimental in the long-term.

Jacobson and Delucchi (2010) in a peer-reviewed study found that instituting a global infrastructure based on wind, water, and solar energy could not only meet the world’s energy needs but reduce “world power demand by 30%”. In a growing trend, they emphasise that “barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic”. Schwartzman and Schwartzman’s (2011) similar study, published via the Institute for Policy Research & Development, found that a global transition to (only) wind and solar power could

“occur in two or three decades and requires very little fossil fuel (on the order of one half of a year’s present global consumption) and no revolutionary technological innovations.”

As far back as 2004 one peer-reviewed study identified that “humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century” (Pacala and Socolow, 2004).

Importantly though, we cannot wait for these energy trends to unfold by themselves. Many political and economic actors will work and lobby to ensure that energy systems in the UK remain centralised and based on scarce supplies of fossil fuels, the better to control energy distribution in a country gripped by the worst inequality in decades (Williams-Grut, 2015; Reuben, 2015). But as Podobnik (2010) warned

“The historical record shows very clearly that deep, enduring changes in energy industries require the mobilization of mass social movements. We cannot simply wait for visionary politicians to forge the way.”

A mass social movement in the UK calling for fair, equitable, renewable energy generation (e.g. plasmatelly, 2014) is thus required to not only break the trend of monolithic, centralised energy projects being built, but also to protect and defend the environment from the biocrisis (Institute for Experimental Freedom, 2009). Projects like Hinkley Point C must be opposed whenever they emerge. Any form of society that hopes to survive in the coming decades can and must be powered by renewable energy.

References

Anthony, S. (2016). World’s largest offshore windfarm in Yorkshire approved by UK government. http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/08/world-largest-windfarm-hornsea-two-uk/ Accessed 22/08/16

Beckman, K. (2015). Steve Holliday, CEO National Grid: “The idea of large power stations for baseload is outdated”. http://www.energypost.eu/interview-steve-holliday-ceo-national-grid-idea-large-power-stations-baseload-power-outdated/ Accessed 21/08/16

Blackman, J. (2016). The role for energy storage as an alternative to Hinkley Point C. http://www.energy-storage.news/analysis/the-role-for-energy-storage-as-an-alternative-to-hinkley-point-c Accessed 27/08/16

Boren, Z. D. (2016). Hinkley builder admits defective parts may be found in nuclear plants around the world. https://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/06/18/flamanville-defective-parts-around-the-world/ Accessed 21/08/16

Business Leader (2016). Security is not the only reason to cancel Hinkley. There are many others. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/14/hinkley-point-security-not-only-reason-to-cancel-many-others Accessed 20/08/16

Caldecott, B. (2016). Keeping the lights on: security of supply after coal. http://www.brightblue.org.uk/images/lightson.pdf Accessed 27/08/16

Carbon Trust (2012). Revealed: the UK’s wave power hot spots. https://www.carbontrust.com/about-us/press/2012/10/revealed-the-uks-wave-power-hot-spots/ Accessed 27/08/16.

Carrington, D. (2016a). Five ways to power the UK that are far better than Hinkley Point. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2016/mar/18/five-ways-to-power-the-uk-that-are-far-better-than-hinkley-point Accessed 21/08/16

Carrington, D. (2016b). Hinkley’s nuclear plant fails all tests – bar the politics. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2016/jul/28/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant-fails-all-tests-bar-the-politics Accessed 27/08/16.

Cavazzi, S., Dutton, A. G. (2016). An Offshore Wind Energy Geographic Information System (OWE-GIS) for assessment of the UK’s offshore wind energy potential. Renewable Energy 87 (1), 212-228.

Chrisafis, A. (2016). EDF representatives file legal challenge in France over Hinkley Point. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/31/edf-representatives-file-legal-challenge-in-france-over-hinkley-point Accessed 01/09/16

Clarke, J. S. (2016). Hinkley C: government’s ‘revolving door’ to EDF execs. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2988011/hinkley_c_governments_revolving_door_to_edf_execs.html Accessed 21/08/16

Cuff, M. (2016). Study: Countries that support nuclear energy lag on climate targets. http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2468561/study-countries-that-support-nuclear-energy-lag-on-climate-targets Accessed 28/08/16

DECC [Department of Energy and Climate Change] (2012). Capturing the full electricity efficiency potential of the UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/capturing-the-full-electricity-efficiency-potential-of-the-uk–2 Accessed 27/08/16.

Diesendorf, M. (2016). Dispelling the nuclear ‘baseload’ myth: nothing renewables can’t do better! http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987376/dispelling_the_nuclear_baseload_myth_nothing_renewables_cant_do_better.html Accessed 21/08/16

ECIU [Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit] (2016). Hinkley: What If? Can the UK solve its energy trilemma without Hinkley Point C? http://eciu.net/reports/2016/hinkley-what-if-can-the-uk-solve-its-energy-trilemma-without-hinkley-point-c Accessed 28/08/16

EDF (2016). Why Hinkley Point C is vital to the UK. https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c/why_we_need_HPC Accessed 21/08/16

Elliott, L. (2016). UK green energy sector needs nurturing over nuclear. https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2016/aug/15/uk-green-energy-sector-needs-nurturing-hinkley-point-nuclear Accessed 22/08/16

Elmes, D. (2016). As Hinkley Point C put on ice: the UK needs to get over energy megaprojects. https://theconversation.com/as-hinkley-point-c-put-on-ice-the-uk-needs-to-get-over-energy-megaprojects-63166 Accessed 21/08/16

Evans, S. (2016). Analysis: Solar beats coal over a whole month in UK for first time. http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-solar-beats-coal-over-a-whole-month-in-uk-for-first-time Accessed 27/08/16

Fairlie, I. (2016). If it’s jobs they want, Labour and the unions must back renewables, not Hinkley C! http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988060/if_its_jobs_they_want_labour_and_the_unions_must_back_renewables_not_hinkley_c.html Accessed 01/09/16

Farrell, S. (2016). Hinkley Point C: what you need to know about the nuclear power project. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/07/hinkley-point-c-what-you-need-to-know-nuclear-power-station Accessed 21/08/16

Freer, M. (2015). Simpler, smaller, cheaper? Alternatives to Britain’s new nuclear power plant. https://theconversation.com/simpler-smaller-cheaper-alternatives-to-britains-new-nuclear-power-plant-48071 Accessed 21/08/16

Gawel, E., Strunz, S. (2014). Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power is fundamentally sensible from an economic perspective. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/10/27/germanys-decision-to-phase-out-nuclear-power-is-fundamentally-sensible-from-an-economic-perspective/ Accessed 22/08/16

Gosden, E. (2016). Hinkley Point not necessary to keep the lights on, says SSE chief. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/16/hinkley-point-not-necessary-to-keep-the-lights-on-says-sse-chief/ Accessed 21/08/16

Institute for Experimental Freedom (2009). Introduction to the Apocalypse. https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/12/02/apocalypse_read.pdf Accessed 28/08/16

Jacobson, M. Z. & Delucchi, M. A. (2010). Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power. Energy Policy 39 (3), 1154–1169.

Lawrence, A., Sovacool, B., Stirling, A. (2016). Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe’s ‘Energy union’: coherence or continued divergence? Climate Policy 16 (5).

Macalister, T. (2016a). Hinkley Point C is not only new energy option, says windfarm developer. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/04/windfarms-hinckley-point-plant-henrik-paulsen-dong Accessed 23/08/16

Macalister, T. (2016b). Crown estate wades into Hinkley Point nuclear debate. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/14/crown-estate-hinkley-point-nuclear-debate Accessed 22/08/16

Marrou, H., Guilioni, L., Dufour, L., Dupraz, C., Wery, J. (2013). Microclimate under agrivoltaic systems: Is crop growth rate affected in the partial shade of solar panels? Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 177, 117-132.

Montag, H., Parker, G., Clarkson, T. (2016). The Effects of Solar Farms on Local Biodiversity: A Comparative Study. http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/The-effects-of-solar-farms-on-local-biodiversity-study.pdf Accessed 25/08/16

Pacala, S., Socolow, R. (2004). Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. Science 305, 968-972.

Pagnamenta, R. (2016). Hinkley nuclear support falls as majority oppose China role. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hinkley-nuclear-support-falls-as-majority-oppose-china-role-23lgfff3g Accessed 01/09/16

Phys.org (2012). Bulletin: German nuclear exit delivers economic, environmental benefits. http://phys.org/news/2012-11-bulletin-german-nuclear-exit-economic.html Accessed 22/08/16

plasmatelly (2014). Communising energy: power to the people! https://libcom.org/blog/communising-energy-power-people-18022014 Accessed 28/08/16

Podobnik, B. (2010). Building the Clean Energy Movement: Future Possibilities in Historical Perspective. In: Abramsky, K.. ed. Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-petrol World. AK Press, Oakland, 72-80.

Reuben, A. (2015). Gap between rich and poor ‘keeps growing’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32824770 Accessed 28/08/16

de Rivaz, V. (2016). ‘New nuclear’ has to be part of our low-carbon energy future. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/27/new-nuclear-has-to-be-part-of-our-low-carbon-energy-future/ Accessed 28/08/16

den Rooijen, H. (2016). Hinkley C’s future is in doubt. Let’s turn our sights to offshore wind. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/14/hinkley-cs-future-is-in-doubt-lets-turn-our-sights-to-offshore-wind Accessed 22/08/16

Sauven, J. (2016). For a secure energy future, there are far better investments than Hinkley. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/08/for-a-secure-energy-future-there-are-far-better-investments-than-hinkley Accessed 23/08/16

Schwartzman, P. D. & Schwartzman, D. W. (2011). A Solar Transition is Possible. Institute for Policy Research & Development, London.

Simms, A. (2016). Toxic Time Capsule: Why nuclear energy is an intergenerational issue. http://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Toxic-Time-Capsule_Final_28-Mar.pdf Accessed 23/08/16.

Solarcentury (2014). Further evidence supports opportunity for creating bio-diverse solar farms. http://www.solarcentury.com/uk/media-centre/evidence-supports-opportunity-creating-bio-diverse-solar-farms/ Accessed 25/08/16

Stacey, K., Burgis, T. (2016). EDF’s French nuclear plant faces years of further delay. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/73d62552-ec65-11e5-bb79-2303682345c8.html Accessed 22/08/16

Steiner, A. (2015). ‘The world is finally producing renewable energy at an industrial scale’. https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/apr/20/renewable-energy-global-trends-solar-power Accessed 22/08/16

The Economist (2016). When the facts change… http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21703396-hinkley-point-would-tie-britain-energy-system-already-out-date-when-facts Accessed 01/09/16

Vaughan, A. (2016a). Scrapping Hinkley for renewable alternatives would save ‘tens of billions’. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/05/scrapping-hinkley-for-renewable-alternatives-will-save-tens-of-billions Accessed 22/08/16

Vaughan, A. (2016b). Solar and wind ‘cheaper than new nuclear’ by the time Hinkley is built. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/solar-and-wind-cheaper-than-new-nuclear-by-the-time-hinkley-is-built Accessed 23/08/16

Williams-Grut, O. (2015). Here’s just how wealthy the top 1% in Britain are. http://uk.businessinsider.com/ons-chart-on-wealth-inequality-in-britain-2015-12 Accessed 28/08/16

World Energy Council (2014). Climate Change: Implications for the Energy Sector. http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Climate-Change-Implications-for-the-Energy-Sector-Summary-from-IPCC-AR5-2014-Full-report.pdf Accessed 21/08/16

Part 1: Hinkley Point C – What is all the fuss about?

4893

Image: Adrian Sherratt

You may have seen in the news recently much debate about the new nuclear reactor planned for Hinkley Point in Somerset. EDF had been wondering whether to finance it, Theresa May is delaying the decision, but what is really going on? This post aims to clear up the situation.

UK Government

The government gave the go ahead for new nuclear power stations back in 2006, stating they would make a “significant contribution” to energy generation, considering we are phasing out coal fired power stations. Before Hinkley C the last new nuclear station was Sizewell B which opened in 1995.

The new power plant at Hinkley C will purportedly provide just 7% of our electricity. For some silly reason we have also agreed to pay double the current market price for it over 35 years. To even a passing reader this seems rather expensive to fulfill not much of our energy needs. In comparison, gas power stations are £27.50 per MWh less expensive at generating energy. The executive director of Greenpeace, John Sauven, says it is “terrible value for money”.

Amber Rudd, the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, emphasised “we have to secure baseload electricity”. However, more and more research is suggesting the idea of needing power stations to maintain baseload is a fallacy. Practical experience shows that renewable energy can easily cope alone. As an example, the states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein in Germany already use 100% renewable energy. This is a net figure because they trade with each other and between other states to achieve this, but does show with a bit of effort it is possible.

As for construction, at least that will provide 25,000 jobs, although it remains to be seen how many of them come from the local area. Once construction has finished 900 people will be employed to operate the station itself. What will it cost taxpayers? The government has insisted consumers will only have to pay about £10 per year for Hinkley C’s construction, but has provided no figures or evidence to back this up.

photo

EDF

EDF, the French power giant, has been tasked with building the power station. They have yet to complete building any reactors like those which will be used at Hinkley. The construction of their nuclear power plant at Flamanville in France has had many problems and is now years behind schedule and way over budget. I wonder if this is what we have to look forward to in the construction of Hinkley C? It certainly hints that the £10 per year cost to UK taxpayers is like rise and not just by a bit.

As EDF is 85% owned by the French government, any decision on this scale also effects them. They have been under strain to approve this project, even leading to EDF’s finance director, Thomas Piquemal, resigning reportedly amid fears the investment could damage EDF. In July the French Financial Markets Authority raided EDF’s offices, investigating claims they had misrepresented the cost of Hinkley. Some staff believe the project could sink the company, with the company warned its credit rating may be downgraded if it goes ahead. The French government have even offered to help bailout EDF to cover construction costs. Things are certainly not looking good for EDF as a company in its own right, and many are already calling Hinkley C a ‘white elephant’.

Assuming the plant gets built, what would happen should a future UK government decide to close it prior to 2060? Documents seen by The Guardian show that UK taxpayers could be left with a £22b bill if that were to happen. This gives EDF zero risk, but there could be numerous reasons why the UK may not want to continue for instance costs, loss of public confidence and a change in energy infrastructure (IS THIS THE RIGHT WORD?). Do we really want to be tied into such a contract?

Chinese Investment in Hinkley

Now EDF have finally made the decision to proceed with construction the Conservative PM Theresa May has decided to delay the start. May, as former home secretary, had apparently voiced concern about the attitude to Chinese investment in Hinkley, according to Vince Cable. The Chinese General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNCP) are providing a third of the £18b cost. It has recently been alleged that the CGNCP had conspired to produce nuclear material without the USA’s permission and were involved in nuclear espionage. Hardly an ideal start to a relationship that will have to last the duration of construction. Wisely, May and her ministers now want to read through the contract and make a final decision this autumn. However at this rate it is projected Hinkley C might not be up and working until 2030 due to delay after delay! Barry Gardiner, the shadow energy secretary, has called the handling of the situation “absolute chaos” and I am inclined to agree.

I understand the need to look at the fine print, but China has now said the delay is putting strain on UK – China relations and warn we are at a “crucial historical juncture”. It isn’t good to rely on any country too much, but the Chinese ambassador Liu Xiaoming, says China have already “invested more in the UK than in Germany, France and Italy combined over the past five years”. China is such a super power and their decisions effect us on a day to day basis. Annoying them post-Brexit would not be a smart move and the UK would be wise to consider the current position they have put themselves in.

Conclusion

Hinkley C has been dogged by investment and costs issues from the start and its construction has barely started which is hardly a good omen. Why haven’t the UK decided to look into renewable energy instead of nuclear? Is the government determined to deny climate change is happening and avoid the fact renewables are the way forward? Or have they decided to proceed because it would be far to complicated to stop what is in motion already? These are questions which will be addressed in our next post.

Links that provided information for this post:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/30/theresa-may-delayed-hinkley-point-chinese-beijing-vince-cable

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36921785

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/28/hinkley-point-c-to-go-ahead-after-edf-board-approves-project

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36903904

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37016120

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36897180

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/nuclear-espionage-charge-for-china-firm-with-one-third-stake-in-hinkley-point

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/08/china-warns-uk-relations-historical-juncture-hinkley-point-liu-xiaoming

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2016/jul/28/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant-fails-all-tests-bar-the-politics?CMP=share_btn_tw

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/18/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-deal-22bn-poison-pill-taxpayer

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/17/french-government-edf-united-front-hinkley-point-money-nuclear-plant-union

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/nuclear-espionage-charge-for-china-firm-with-one-third-stake-in-hinkley-point

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987376/dispelling_the_nuclear_baseload_myth_nothing_renewables_cant_do_better.html

 

Review: Hugh’s War on Waste

3827

Image: Gus Palmer/Keo Films/BBC

Hugh’s War on Waste returned for a third episode on Thursday evening. The first two episodes had aired a while ago and looked at food waste, especially the ridiculous cosmetic standards supermarkets impose on farmers for vegetables. This episode was partly a follow-up, but mainly tackled other issues such as coffee cups and packaging.

If you haven’t seen the episode yet you can watch it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07m8qwz/hughs-war-on-waste-episode-3-the-battle-continues

First question on my mind was ‘Have supermarkets changed?’ Hugh found there had been some improvements, including Morrisons, M & S, Aldi, Lidl and Co-Op all introducing more wonky veg or relaxing standards. Now it is our responsibility as consumers to purchase these less than perfect looking vegetables to make their sale go mainstream. It’s criminal in this day and age to be throwing away perfectly good food.

gettyimages-549463349

Image: Getty

Coffee Cups

Next up on Hugh’s agenda was coffee cups, mainly those produced by Costa, Caffe Nero and Starbucks.

FACT: We throw away 2.5 billion cardboard cups a year.

I am going to admit I had no idea that coffee cups weren’t recyclable, although that’s more to do with the fact I don’t really drink coffee. The programme showed me I was far from alone in thinking this. Why can’t coffee cups be recycled? Don’t they say they can be on them? Well yes and no. They CAN be recycled, although currently in the UK there is only one facility that can do this, so hardly any will be making their way there to be recycled! They are also coated with polyethylene. In the recycling process this stops the cardboard from being reduced to small enough pieces to be usable. Hence, most coffee cups can’t actually be recycled.

The technology does exist to produce more mainstream recyclable coffee cups. Hugh visited an inventor who had created a coffee cup with a simple plastic lining. When sent for recycling the cup would easily dissolve in water and the liner could be caught.

Hugh drove round on a red London bus covered in coffee cups, spreading the message. It’s frustrating that it took this sort of action for them to reply to his emails asking for an interview. Starbucks said they would increase the discount for those using their own cups, but this has since stopped. Clearly just them trying to avoid a PR disaster. They even said they had a goal to make cups 100% recyclable by 2015 on their website. Ha! It is apparent that all coffee shops have become masters of greenwashing on their websites. They hope that sounding eco-friendly will convince customers they are trying. Thanks to Hugh we know they really aren’t!

103268048-hughs-war-on-waste-culture-large_transeo_i_u9apj8ruoebjoaht0k9u7hhrjvuo-zlengruma

Image: BBC

Packaging

FACT: The UK generates 10 million tonnes of packaging waste a year

Just one word: Amazon. The amount of customers that Amazon has in the UK must be phenomenal, so no wonder Hugh set his sights on tackling them. They have a machine that is supposedly meant to work out the optimum packaging that they should use. Either there is something very wrong with that machine or they don’t have a wide enough range of box sizes. Hugh even showed the products could fit in other box sizes they had. They flew in their US head of global sustainability, but I personally think it was all for show. She reeled out the usual ‘all our boxes can be recycled and they are mostly made of recycled materials’. As an environmental scientist I felt these sort of statements completely missed the point. We all learn ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’. In fact the UK government has a 5 step waste hierarchy. Clearly Amazon think they are doing well on the recycling part, but they should focusing on reduce. Less resources used in the first place can only benefit everyone.

Amazon said they are trialling a new ‘Box on demand’ machine, that cuts the box according to the products in the order, but we can only wait to see if anything comes of it.

All in all, a fantastic programme. Thank you Hugh and the BBC. Not really sure what we would do without celebrities such as Hugh to bring these issues to the attention of the public. Now it is over to us, to keep the pressure on businesses to reduce waste and show we are willing to put our money where our mouth is.

Relevant links:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/packaging-producer-responsibilities

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-waste-and-recycling/2010-to-2015-government-policy-waste-and-recycling

http://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/node/2472

New posts coming soon

It has been a while since we last posted a series of posts as a team so we thought it was high time to get our act together.

In the coming months we shall be posting on a range of subjects all key to understanding how the environment will fair in the UK post-Brexit. We shall be spotlighting MPs, many newly appointed to the Cabinet by our new PM Theresa May, and definitely touching upon the abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Their background prior to being assigned their new roles will be analysed as this if often a good indicator of what they will be like in office. We hope to cover topics including farming, fisheries, forestry, climate change and energy to name a few. In addition to these series of posts there may be reviews of TV programmes that focus on the environment. Personally, I am hoping to watch the latest installment of Hugh’s War on Waste (this evening at on BBC One at 9pm for those interested). Stay tuned!

Climate Imperial: Geoengineering and Capitalist Hegemony (Part Eleven)

imagebig-imageformat-lightbox

Conclusion  

“Learning to honor the wild…means never imagining that we can flee into a mythical wilderness to escape history and the obligation to take responsibility for our own actions that history inescapably entails.” — William Cronon, 1995

We have seen, then, the horrors that await us in a capitalist future. We seem stuck between two hellish paths. One is of climate crisis, of “climate-induced scarcity” and “militarised policing of the class lines” (Out of the Woods, 2014a), and of “increasingly authoritarian forms of state power” to discipline unrest triggered by resource shortages (Steven, 2012). As Davis (2008) warns, “we’re talking here of the prospect of creating green and gated oases of permanent affluence on an otherwise stricken planet”.

The other is of a world disciplined not only by capital but by technocracy, characterised by the concealing of scientific research from the public (Mirowski et al., 2013), of control of weather systems for reasons of national security, and of a wealthy techno-elite patenting geoengineering technologies and profiting off climate inaction (Yusoff, 2013: 2803). In this scenario, “we would have a roof, not a sky – a milky, geoengineered ceiling gazing down on a dying, acidified sea” (Klein, 2014: 260). The idea of human ingenuity solving the problem of climate change with a technical fix without any need for structural change is seductive, especially for those in power (Andersen, 2015).

But this is a false dichotomy. A third way, characterised by anti-capitalism, rational economic management, and a holistic approach to humanity’s place in the earth system, is possible and realisable.

Resistance to state and capitalist failures at addressing the climate crisis is growing (Out of the Woods, 2015). As Battistoni (2012) tells us, “we have to remake the world, and we have to talk about it”, and more importantly act on it. There is hope that the “extraordinary” natural disasters we may face with climate change will lead to the resurgence of “extraordinary communities” (Karlin, 2013), whilst at the same time we combat reactionary, xenophobic attitudes that divert attention to the symptoms of the climate crisis and not the cause (McGrath, 2014; Out of the Woods, 2014b).

The technics we need to mitigate and adapt to a warming world already exist. From agricultural adaptations (McVeigh, 2014; White, 2014) to methods of energy generation (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2010; Saenz, 2012; Grover, 2014) to “appropriate” forms of geoengineering (Lehmann, 2007; Becker et al., 2013; Biggers, 2015). Indeed, “humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century” (Pacala and Socolow, 2004) and the “knowledge and physical instruments for promoting a harmonization of humanity with nature…are largely at hand or could easily be devised” (Bookchin, 2005: 83).

But this future is not for certain. In order to maintain the habitability of the earth system (for humans, at least) we will require a fundamental restructuring of politics, economics, and society’s attitude to the nature/human false dichotomy. As Carl Sagan warned,

“We’ve never done such a thing before, certainly not on a global scale. It may be too difficult for us. Dangerous technologies may be too widespread. Corruption may be too pervasive. Too many leaders may be focused on the short term rather than the long.” (1997)

We need to make sure that our descendants do not “one day say that ours was a time of affluence, subsidized by their suffering” (Andersen, 2015). Our choice to embark towards an anti-capitalist and “ecological society” must be predicated upon our ability “to learn from the material lessons of the past and to appreciate the real prospects of the future” (Bookchin, 2003). The concept of “solar communism”, an embodiment of Marx’s dictum “from each according to her ability, to each according to her needs” for both humans and the natural world, is one example of a model society we should strive for (Schwartzman, 2015).

If we succeed then perhaps, as William Cronon concluded twenty years ago, “we can get on with the unending task of struggling to live rightly in the world—not just in the garden, not just in the wilderness, but in the home that encompasses them both” (Cronon, 1995).

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Part Five | Part Six | Part Seven | Part Eight | Part Nine | Part Ten


References

Climate Imperial: Geoengineering and Capitalist Hegemony (Part Ten)

sublime011

Non-Wilderness   

It is important to realise the concept of a natural, untouched “wilderness” is a false one, and one we must eject from our thinking when it comes to issues such as climate change, climate stabilisation, and geoengineering. Indeed, the neat divide between “natural” and “artificial” is a false one – as Donna Haraway (1991) puts it, in modern society “the certainty of what counts as nature — a source of insight and promise of innocence — is undermined, probably fatally” (152-3). To quote Murray Bookchin’s work at length:

“There is no part of the world that has not been profoundly affected by human activity–neither the remote fastnesses of Antarctica nor the canyons of the ocean’s depths. Even wilderness areas require protection from human intervention; much that is designated as wilderness today has already been profoundly affected by human activity. Indeed, wilderness can be said to exist primarily as a result of a human decision to preserve it. Nearly all the nonhuman life-forms that exist today are, like it or not, to some degree in human custody, and whether they are preserved in their wild lifeways depends largely on human attitudes and behavior.” (1995)

The “primeval” world that some desire, Bookchin continues, no longer exists and so “the possibility of returning to it is simply excluded” (2005: 58). Returning to the theme of alienation William Cronon (1995) adds to this, stating that

“Only people whose relation to the land was already alienated could hold up wilderness as a model for human life in nature, for the romantic ideology of wilderness leaves precisely nowhere for human beings actually to make their living from the land.”

In less abstract terms, Li (2009) points out that “in reality, it is impossible for human economic activities to have zero impact on the environment” (1041).

In this sense geoengineering technologies should not be rejected based on their supposed artificiality or naturalness, but based on their appropriateness and limitations. CDR, for example, should be seen as a prudent alternative to SRM not because it involves “respecting nature” (Preston, 2013: 24) but because it mimics processes of carbon dioxide drawdown that have been proven to work. As the GHGs humanity emits will “last many thousands of years in the atmosphere before losing even half its warming potential” (Kintisch, 2010: 231) we must come to terms with the fact that “if we do not intervene in the world today for purposes of ecological restoration” then the earth system will be in grave danger (Bookchin, 2005: 58).

This does not entail uncritical use of geoengineering technologies however. As detailed some geoengineering approaches may simply replicate or worsen the already deadly effects of future climate change (Cooper, 2010: 184; Klein, 2014: 261; Dwortzan, 2015). But as a degree of climate chaos is expected with locked-in atmospheric warming we are faced with the “daunting challenge” of taking action and acting as “caretaker of both people and ecosystems” (Preston, 2012: 197). As David Orrell (2007) informs us, “we have passed a kind of tipping point in our relationship with the world” and, like it or not, “our actions now influence its workings at every level” (12).

Public Science

Science is increasingly seen not as a public good but as something that belongs in the private domain. Science, Mirowski et al (2013) fear, is being made “to conform to the market imperative, as can be seen from attacks on high school science teachers and the re-engineering of the university for the knowledge economy”. Even in the lofty world of peer-reviewed journals it was found that “the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true” (Ioannidis, 2005: 699). As institutions are privatised or reduced to “joint-ventures” the common person’s control of science and the public accountability of scientific research will diminish (Brown, 2000; Vaughan, 2014). This comes naturally as under capitalism there is

“a disincentive to communicate information. The market encourages secrecy, which is inimical to openness in science. It presupposes a view of property in which the owner has rights to exclude others. In the sphere of science, such rights of exclusion place limits on the communication of information and theories which are incompatible with the growth of knowledge … science tends to grow when communication is open… [In addition a] necessary condition for the acceptability of a theory or experimental result is that it pass the public, critical scrutiny of competent scientific judges. A private theory or result is one that is shielded from the criteria of scientific acceptability.” (O’Neill, 1998: 153)

Even further, Levins and Lewontin (1985) comment on evidence that “modern science is a product of capitalism” (197) and that “the commoditization of science, then, is not a unique transformation but a natural part of capitalist development” (199). Such appropriation of scientific findings in the context of geoengineering is dangerous, limiting public accountability and fuelling technocratic practices. More forcefully Albert Camus (1956) accuses science of betraying “its origins…in allowing itself to be put to the service of State terrorism and the desire for power” (295). As Francisco Ferrer argued, “science, which is produced by observers and workers of all countries and ages, ought not be restricted to class” (Harper, 1987: 100).

What we need then is “socially responsible science” to play a larger role in any and all geoengineering research. As geoengineering research is carried out “in the name of society” and as a result needs to express society’s “needs, interests, and priorities” scientists need to accept their responsibilities and duties to the common good and not to private or state interests (Bird, 2014: 170). Scientists are part of society, not separate or above it.

In this regard the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science (BSSRS) is a welcome template. Established in 1969 the BSSRS “aimed to open up the politics of science to both scientific and public scrutiny”, noting the importance of environmental issues and women’s rights and having a “strong commitment to the class component of environmental problems” (Bell, 2013). Science was a force for good but “as it was currently constructed was part of the problem” and needed to be changed. The BSSRS passed what was to be known as the “Durham Resolution”, whereby they pledged, among other things, “not to conceal from the public any information about the general nature of my research and about the dangerous uses to which it might be put” and “to explain to the public the general nature and possible uses of research conducted by private or State bodies over which there is little or no public control” (Solidarity, 1971). Such attitudes, if adopted by contemporary scientists in the fields of geoengineering research, would ensure research into modifying the planet’s climate was acceptably controlled, understandable, and communicated adequately to wider society. As Levins and Lewontin (1985) remind us, “the irrationalities of a scientifically sophisticated world come not from failures of intelligence but from the persistence of capitalism” (208).

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Part Five | Part Six | Part Seven | Part Eight | Part Nine 

Part Eleven coming soon


References

  • Bell, A. (2013). Beneath the white coat: the radical science movement. http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/18/beneath-white-coat-radical-science-movement Accessed 10 December 2015.
  • Bird, S. J. (2014). Socially Responsible Science Is More than “Good Science”. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 15 (2), 169–172.
  • Bookchin, M. (1995). A Philosophical Naturalism. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/philosonatural.html Accessed 11 December 2015.
  • Bookchin, M. (2005). The Ecology of Freedom. AK Press, Oakland.
  • Brown, J. R. (2000). Privatizing the University–the New Tragedy of the Commons. Science 290 (5497), 1701-1702.
  • Camus, A. (1956). The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. Trans. by Anthony Bower. Vintage Books, New York.
  • Cooper, M. (2010). Turbulent worlds: financial markets and environmental crisis. Theory, Culture and Society 27 (2–3) 167–190.
  • Cronon, W. (1995). The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. In: Cronon, W. ed. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. W. W. Norton & Co, New York, 69-90.
  • Dwortzan, M. (2015). NEWS RELEASE: Fertilize the Ocean, Cool the Planet? http://globalchange.mit.edu/news-events/news/news_id/480#.Vmq8wtKLS9I Accessed 11 December 2015.
  • Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women. Routledge, New York.
  • Harper, C. (1987). Anarchy: A Graphic Guide. Camden Press, London.
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine 2 (8), e124.
  • Kintisch, E. (2010). Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope – Or Worst Nightmare – for Averting Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.
  • Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Simon & Schuster, New York.
  • Levins, R., Lewontin, R. (1985). The Dialectical Biologist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  • Li, M. (2009). Capitalism, Climate Change and the Transition to Sustainability: Alternative Scenarios for the US, China and the World. Development and Change 40 (6), 1039–1061.
  • Mirowski, P., Walker, J., Abboud, A. (2013). Beyond denial. https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-210/feature-philip-mirowski-jeremy-walker-antoinette-abboud/ Accessed 10 December 2015.
  • O’Neill, J. (1998). The Market: Ethics, Knowledge and Politics. Routledge, London.
  • Orrell, D. (2007). The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. Thunder’s Mouth Press, New York.
  • Preston, C. J. (2012). Beyond the End of Nature: SRM and Two Tales of Artificity for the Anthropocene. Ethics, Policy & Environment 15 (2), 188-201.
  • Preston, C. J. (2013). Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4 (1), 23-37.
  • Solidarity, 1971. Socially-responsible scientists or soldier-technicians? https://libcom.org/library/socially-responsible-scientists-or-soldier-technicians-1971 Accessed 10 December 2015.
  • Vaughan, A. (2014). Warning over ‘privatisation’ of environmental science research body. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/28/food-and-environment-research-agency-privatisation Accessed 10 December 2015.

Climate Imperial: Geoengineering and Capitalist Hegemony (Part Nine)

climate-change-system-change-e1449240723539

What Is To Be Done? 

“Humanity’s global geochemical dominance and the dangers that loom as a result are etched in the sky. It will be that way for a very long time.” — Eli Kintisch, 2010

Resistance 

For the sake of humanity and the climate we have seen we have to struggle against both climate nationalism, consisting of unilateral actions and economic growth regardless of its consequences, and the threat of a rising technocracy that would dominate and de-politicise the global society through scientific expertise and techno-fetishism. But as Dr Thorpe and Dr Welsh (2008) remind us, “this is an era where the potential for interventions consistent with anarchist principles is perhaps greater than ever before”. As the impacts of climate change become locked-in regardless of what we do in the present, we have to remember that global warming is, as well as a question of science and policy, a question of “democracy”:

“about who benefits, who loses, who should decide, and who does. Surviving and maybe even turning back the tide of this pervasive ongoing disaster will require more ability to improvise together, stronger societies, more confidence in each other.” (Solnit, 2010: 296)

Indeed geoengineering, not as an issue of stabilising climate but of stabilising capitalist modes of production, “is not the political answer we need; therefore it is also not the technical answer we need” (Millar and Mitchell, 2015). We must be aiming to stabilise and restore the Earth’s climate system for the benefit of all, not for profit. Climate change is a “symptom” of the normal functioning of capitalism – “Capitalism is the origin of the biocrisis, the last and final crisis of capitalism”, and if allowed to continue the climate system will be the latest victim to be “sacrificed to the ravenous appetite of capital” (Institute for Experimental Freedom, 2009: 12). It is not unrealistic to imagine that “the future of humanity depends on the global class struggle” (Li, 2009: 1057).

At the COP21 Climate Change conference references to “negative emissions” technology (aka CDR) “have been dropped from a draft climate agreement” (Upton, 2015). Whether this will alter current research into geoengineering remains to be seen.

Regardless, the most appropriate way to prevent the climate crisis is to reduce GHG emissions (Ming et al., 2014). Buck (2012) reports that within the scientific community there is “near consensus” that geoengineering should not be considered a substitute for reducing GHG emissions and is in no way a “silver bullet”, stressing that “geoengineering research must take place in a context of climate change management that includes mitigation and adaptation measures” (258). A reliance on geoengineering whilst maintaining current fossil fuel consumption rates is in fact extremely dangerous as “our ability to stabilize the climate at <2 °C declines as cumulative emissions increase” (Smith et al., 2015: 7-8). If we fail and reach a period of climate crisis, then we face the possibility that

“Maybe a hundred years down the line, nobody will look back at climate change as the most important issue of the early 21st century, because the damage will have been done, and the idea that it might have been prevented will seem absurd. Maybe the idea that Mali and Burkina Faso were once inhabited countries rather than empty deserts will seem queer, and the immiseration of huge numbers of stateless refugees thronging against the borders of the rich northern countries will be taken for granted. The absence of the polar ice cap and the submersion of Venice will have been normalised; nobody will think of these as live issues, no one will spend their time reproaching their forefathers, there’ll be no moral dimension at all. We will have wrecked the planet, but our great-grandchildren won’t care much, because they’ll have been born into a planet already wrecked.” (The Economist, 2011).

“Appropriate” Geoengineering

Technology is not, as some primitivists assume (Sheppard, 2003), an evil unto itself, but simply reflects and embodies relations of power and social structures. There is room for sensible application of most technologies if it is appropriately scaled and judged in terms of environmental and social effects. Like Murray Bookchin’s Social Ecology, “technologies are to be assessed according to their role in enhancing human freedom and integrating human society with natural processes” (Out of the Woods, 2014). To quote the philosopher Albert Camus at length:

“it is useless to want to reverse the advance of technology. The age of the spinning-wheel is over and the dream of a civilization of artisans is vain. The machine is bad only in the way that it is now employed. Its benefits must be accepted even if its ravages are rejected.” (1956: 295)

This technological progress must be guided, however. We cannot afford to neglect the consequences – environmental, political, economic, social – of breakthroughs and applications of untested technology. As the popular astronomer Carl Sagan encouragingly said, it is “well within our power to guide technology, to direct it to the benefit of everyone on Earth” (1997: 163). He also hoped the biocrisis would encourage the view that “the well-being of the human species takes precedence over national and corporate interests” and produce the end result of “a binding up of the nations and the generations, and even the end of our long childhood” (Ibid). Hopefully we will not disappoint him.

As mentioned throughout this article, the more “natural” geoengineering technologies of CDR lend themselves well to an “appropriate” form of managing the Earth’s climate (e.g. Becker et al., 2013). Although geoengineering technologies large in scale and complexity lend themselves to technocratic management and “alienation from the land” (1), CDR techniques, especially local and inclusive forms, would “bring about a decrease in alienation for many of us” (Buck, 2012: 260). Buck continues:

“The impulse to engineer, to make or re-make nature, need not be ‘interventionist’, with all the negative connotations the term carries; it could be the positive intervention of people who are designing their habitats, with an eye for beauty. There are other cultural patterns that factor into our nature-making besides the desires for control or profit.” (Ibid.)

Such “positive intervention” is a welcome response to the idea of “designer climates” controlled for the purposes of the wealthy where “the whole idea of restoring a ‘natural’ climate had been abandoned entirely” (Preston, 2013: 33). Additionally, compared to SRM technologies which often require technocratic control and centuries-long programme maintenance, “simple” CDR such as forest preservation/restoration represent an “immediate opportunity” for “efficient” geoengineering with corresponding “greenhouse gas benefits” (Jackson and Salzman, 2010: 73).

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Part Five | Part Six | Part Seven | Part Eight

Part Ten coming soon


(1) For short introductions to the Marxist concept of “alienation” see Cox (1998) and Warburton (2015).

References

  • Becker, K., Wulfmeyer, V., Berger, T., Gebel, J., Münch, W. (2013). Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation. Earth System Dynamics 4, 237-251.
  • Buck, H. J. (2012). Geoengineering: re-making climate for profit or humanitarian intervention? Development and Change 43 (1), 253-70.
  • Camus, A. (1956). The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. Trans. by Anthony Bower. Vintage Books, New York.
  • Cox, J. (1998). An Introduction to Marx’s Theory of Alienation. http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj79/cox.htm Accessed 10 December 2015.
  • Institute for Experimental Freedom (2009). Introduction to the Apocalypse. https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/12/02/apocalypse_read.pdf Accessed 26 November 2015.
  • Jackson, R. B., Salzman, J. (2010). Pursuing Geoengineering for Atmospheric Restoration. Issues in Science and Technology 26 (4), 67-76.
  • Kintisch, E. (2010). Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope – Or Worst Nightmare – for Averting Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.
  • Li, M. (2009). Capitalism, Climate Change and the Transition to Sustainability: Alternative Scenarios for the US, China and the World. Development and Change 40 (6), 1039–1061.
  • Millar, S. W. S., Mitchell, D. (2015). The Tight Dialectic: The Anthropocene and the Capitalist Production of Nature. Antipode [Early View].
  • Ming, T., de Richter, R., Liu, W., Caillol, S. (2014). Fighting global warming by climate engineering: Is the Earth radiation management and the solar radiation management any option for fighting climate change? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31, 792–834.
  • Out of the Woods (2014). Murray Bookchin’s libertarian technics. https://libcom.org/blog/murray-bookchins-libertarian-technics-11032014 Accessed 10 December 2015.
  • Preston, C. J. (2013). Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4 (1), 23-37.
  • Sagan, C. (1997). Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium. Random House, Inc., New York.
  • Sheppard, B. O. (2003). What is the primitivist ideal? https://libcom.org/library/anarchism-vs-primitivism/3-what-is-the-primitivist-ideal Accessed 10 December 2015.
  • Smith, P., Davis, S. J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Gabrielle, B., Kato, E., Jackson, R. B., Cowie, A., Kriegler, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Rogelj, J., Ciais, P., Milne, J., Canadell, J. G., McCollum, D., Peters, G., Andrew, R., Krey, V., Gyami, S., Friedlingstein, P., Gasser, T., Grübler, A., Heidug, W. K., Jonas, M., Jones, C. D., Kraxner, F., Littleton, E., Lowe, J., Moreira, J. R., Nakicenovic, N., Obersteiner, M., Patwardhan, A., Rogner, M., Rubin, E., Sharifi, A., Torvanger, A., Yamagata, Y., Edmonds, J., Yongsung, C. (2015). Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change.
  • Solnit, R. (2010). A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster. Penguin Books, New York.
  • The Economist (2011). Durban and everything that matters. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/12/climate-change Accessed 13 January 2015.
  • Thorpe, C., Welsh, I. (2008). Beyond Primitivism: Toward a 21st Century Anarchist Theory & Praxis for Science. Anarchist Studies 16 (1), 48-75.
  • Upton, J. (2015). Geoengineering a ‘Risky’ Bet, Scientists Warn Negotiators. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/geoengineering-a-risky-bet-scientists-warn-19760 Accessed 9 December 2015.
  • Warburton, N. (2015). Karl Marx on Alienation. [Online]. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02h7dlv Accessed 10 December 2015.