Chinese walker

Olivia Boyd: Six months ago, you launched a report urging the British government to speed up its carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme. How much progress has there been since then?

Geoff French: I`m not convinced that things have moved on much. Our government has said it wants to fund four trial projects to be phased in from 2014. But, to the best of my knowledge, only two candidates have come forward, both in Scotland. One is in Fife and one is in Hunterston. [German utility] E.ON also has a proposed plant at Kingsnorth in Kent, but has said it will delay an investment for up to two to three years, based on the global recession.

Given what the country has pledged to achieve by 2020 and 2050 in terms of emissions cuts, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) has been trying to encourage ministers to move forward with a bit more urgency on this. We want government to support industry, we want the results to be produced as quickly as possible and we want carbon-pricing regulations that support the behaviour we need, irrespective of the fact that it will undoubtedly make energy more expensive – that`s just something we have to accept.

OB: Assuming all of that did happen, what would be a reasonable timescale in which to expect commercial-scale CCS to be implemented widely? People talk about new technologies taking 30 years to get established. Need it take that long?

GF: I would like to think it doesn`t have to take that long. But, realistically, it will be 20 years before it is widespread. If we are only now talking about implementing pilot schemes, it will probably be the late 2010s or 2020 before we get those up and running. And, after that, we need to scale up – to go from proving it works to implementing it on a mass scale.

That needs to happen as quickly as possible and we shouldn`t wait around to get a perfect solution. If we come up with a half reasonable idea, we should be implementing it and then improving it later. When Henry Ford made the first mass-produced car, which did all of 10 miles to the gallon, people didn`t sit around and say “Good idea Henry but come back in 50 years time when you`ve got the fuel consumption up to 40 miles a gallon.” The concept of grasping what you can and continually making improvements is a good one.

China is very good at that. It has really demonstrated an ability to take ideas and plans from concept to implementation much more quickly than we have in the west. The Olympics is one example. The implementation of a high-speed rail network is another. Whatever you can think of, the Chinese have done it at a scale and speed, which, frankly, the United Kingdom can only imagine. So I would have thought, for China in particular, there is an opportunity here.

OB: Other regions including North America and the Middle East seem to be pushing ahead with CCS more quickly than Britain. What`s the reason for that?

GF: It seems to me that some of the other countries have different drivers. Canada has implemented a bit of CCS but it had a vested interest because it was using the carbon dioxide it was pumping back into the ground to enhance oil and gas production. In the Middle East, there is some CCS but it is actually being used to reduce the carbon-dioxide content in the natural gas that`s coming out of the ground – they have to get rid of the carbon dioxide before they can sell it. So there`s a vested interest. This is an important point because, unless you can arrive at a situation where you`ve got the economic drivers encouraging the behaviour you want, you are trying to push water uphill.

Regulation can help with that. The European Union has said that, from 2013, permanently stored carbon dioxide will be considered “not emitted” under its revised Emissions Trading Scheme. That sounds like a fairly simple thing. But actually, if you`re going to start carbon trading, it`s a huge step forward – suddenly you`ve got a big incentive. Take waste management as an example. Recycling and waste-to-energy plants in Europe are much more common than in the United States, by a degree of magnitude. And when you get down to it, it`s actually the regulations that have been put in place – landfill tax or other regulations – which have affected behaviour.

OB: The UK recognised the potential of CCS very early and was the first country to launch a competition to build a full-scale system. But that programme is now running years behind schedule. What has gone wrong and what lessons are there for other countries?

GF: I think there is a slight mismatch between the stated intentions, which are very good, and doing the things that will actually encourage people to come forward with these schemes. That partly comes down to carbon pricing. People can see that CCS is a good thing and that it is required in the long-term. But they would rather do it if there was an economic benefit and the economic benefit depends on there being a carbon price with a sensible floor level. We don`t want a carbon price that fluctuates wildly and we certainly don`t want a carbon price that can float back to zero, because then there`s no economic driver.

That thought tends to send people into wild panics about distorting the free market but there is no way around it. You can`t have a situation where you invest in something now because you think the carbon price is going to be at one level and then the price plummets because of some technical issue. If you`re faced with that uncertainty and you`re a commercial business, why invest? It seems to me that, if Europe can come together to tell Greece what to do to stabilise the eurozone, it shouldn`t be beyond their wits to come together to sort out a carbon price.

OB: What else would you like to see from government at this point?

GF: We need a more realistic roadmap for CCS development in this country. We can`t keep having targets that don`t get met. Of course you have to set stretching targets but, if they go too far, they become counter-productive. People just say “that`s impossible” and you lose all the drive.

If necessary, I would also like to see more financial help to try to get some of these pilot projects started as quickly as possible. That`s politically difficult at the moment but, if you believe that climate change is a universal problem that needs to be addressed, then it`s a pretty good place to choose to put your money.

OB: I`ve heard the argument put forward in the United Kingdom that CCS is an expensive distraction and government should instead be focusing public funds on nuclear new-build, a programme that is currently being left to the private sector. Do you think that argument is at all justified?

GF: There`s more justification for that argument in the United Kingdom than there is in, say, India or China, where 70% of the power comes from coal. Here, it is around 30% of our electricity. But that is still a significant chunk. I think our energy policy should be diversified. I`m not a great fan of nuclear because of what it leaves behind but I don`t see any other option if we are to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I`m very much in favour of renewables but even when you take into account all of the installations that can sensibly be put in, it`s not enough – you need something else. And nuclear is the only thing I can see that can fill that gap.

However, we will still be using fossil fuels for some time and so we have got to do CCS as well. I don`t think we can afford to ignore one important aspect. It is better if our energy supply is diversified and not too reliant on one sector.

OB: How much room is there for international collaboration on CCS?

GF: Enormous room. It has almost become a clich%26eacute; but we are all affected by each other`s pollution so the response needs to be international. The issues are global and the opportunities are global.

Input from China will be vital, I think. In global climate talks and elsewhere, China is beginning, quite rightly, to exert its muscle, to make its voice heard. With that position comes responsibility. China has demonstrated a fantastic ability to convert ideas and concepts into reality. It has done it primarily for the economic wellbeing of its people and its succeeding incredibly well. But I would argue that it`s time to extend that into environmental wellbeing. We need the biggest contributors of carbon dioxide, the biggest nations and the biggest users of fossil fuels to stand up and really be counted on this one.

Olivia Boyd is assistant editor at chinadialogue.

Geoff French is vice president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vice president of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers and chairman of Scott Wilson.

Homepage image from Scott Wilson Group

On 11 June 1770, six weeks or so after becoming the first European to make landfall on the east coast of Australia, Lieutenant James Cook unexpectedly ran aground. His ship, the Endeavour, had struck a reef now known as the Endeavour Reef, within a manifestly far bigger reef system, nearly 40 kilometres from shore. Only the urgent jettisoning of 50 tonnes of stores and equipment (including all but four of the ship`s guns), a delicate operation known as fothering (in which an old sail was drawn under the hull, effectively plugging the hole), Cook`s expert seamanship and a great deal of hard pumping saved the vessel and her crew.

It would be another 30-odd years before the great English explorer and cartographer Matthew Flinders, having circumnavigated the entirety of Terra Australis Incognita, the Unknown Southern Land, gave the vast reef system its name. But despite his astonishing success in charting a safe passage through its treacherous waters, mainly by the expedient of sending small boats ahead to sound the depths, Flinders himself was later stranded on it while heading home for England in 1803.

For nearly 250 years, the Great Barrier Reef has been a hazard to shipping. It is the world’s largest reef system, made up of more than 2,900 coral reefs and 900 islands scattered over 344,400 square kilometres off the coast of Queensland in north-east Australia. Covering an area bigger than the United Kingdom, it is also a priceless and unimaginably fragile world heritage site, home to 30 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises; six species of sea turtles; 125 species of shark, stingray and skate; 5,000 species of mollusc; nine species of seahorse; 215 species of birds; 17 species of sea snake; 2,195 known plant species and more than 1,500 species of fish.

And it is still a hazard to shipping. In recent years, its pristine waters, in theory protected by the statutes of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, have become known as the “coal highway”, a busy thoroughfare for foreign-owned bulk carriers bound for Asia. Laden with coal and fuel oil from Australia, thousands of ships — such as the Chinese-owned Shen Neng 1, which ran aground off the country`s eastern seaboard on April 3 — continue to jeopardise the largest marine conservation site in the world. As salvage teams worked to prevent disaster, environmentalists were not slow to accuse the government of turning a blind eye to the problem.

“This is the $60-billion-a-year, largely foreign-owned coal industry that is making a coal highway out of the Great Barrier Reef,” said Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens party. “There needs to be a radical overview of this huge coal-export industry, whether these ships need to use the reef at all, and what the alternatives are,” he said. Local fishermen have dubbed it the “reef rat run”, saying ships routinely take short cuts to save time and money on their voyage to China.

It was this so-called short cut, near the Douglas Shoal, off Rockhampton, that is believed to have caused the Shen Neng 1 accident. According to reports, the 230-metre-long ship, carrying 975 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and 65,000 tonnes of coal, was travelling at full speed when it hit a sandbank in a protected part of the Great Barrier Reef. Its fuel tank ruptured, causing a three-kilometre-long oil slick.

[After the vessel was refloated on April 12, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority`s senior scientist, David Wachenfeld, said the ship had gouged a channel about three kilometres long in the reef.]

The Queensland premier, Anna Bligh, has said the ship`s owner, Shenzhen Energy – which allegedly has been involved in three major international incidents in four years – could face a fine of up to one million Australian dollars (nearly US$930,000) for straying from a shipping lane that is currently used by some 6,000 cargo vessels each year.

The stricken ship was travelling to China from Gladstone, a port playing a growing role in the booming export trade of Australia`s natural resources to Asia. The incident follows a similar accident in March last year when 60 kilometres of Queensland`s south-east coast were declared a disaster area after 42 tonnes of oil spilled into the ocean from the MV Pacific Adventurer during a cyclone.

Conservationists say the fact that there is no legal requirement to have marine pilots on board ships in the area, to guide them safely through the 2,500-kilometre reef system, puts it in grave danger. “The current lack of safeguards around shipping in the Great Barrier Reef is akin to playing Russian roulette with one of the world`s most treasured natural icons,” says Gilly Llewellyn, the conservation director of WWF Australia, who called for ships to be piloted. She also wants improved monitoring systems so authorities know where large vessels are situated on the reef at all times.

The Australasian Marine Pilots Institute (AMPI), the organising body for Australia`s marine pilots, says the grounding of the Shen Neng 1 should focus attention on the lack of protection Australia`s maritime regulations afford the reef. An Australian maritime law expert, Peter Glover, says public opinion and government legislative reaction to marine pollution by commercial shipping in the Great Barrier Reef have got noticeably tougher since 1996, when the Panamanian-flagged vessel Peacock, en route from Singapore to New Zealand via the inner route of the Great Barrier Reef, ran aground on Piper Reef. The ship was carrying approximately 605 tonnes of bunker heavy fuel oil, and its owners were not even prosecuted.

Following the grounding of the 22,000-tonne Malaysian-flagged container vessel Bunga Teratai Satu on Sudbury Reef in 2001, legislative changes were introduced to allow both state and Commonwealth authorities to prosecute those who pollute in the waters surrounding the reef.

Those changes were put to the test almost immediately in the wake of another potentially catastrophic grounding the following year, of the Greek-flagged bulk carrier Doric Chariot. But Peter Glover believes it still “remains to be seen %26hellip; how effective legislative changes are in addressing the prosecution of individuals responsible for causing damage” in the reef.

Inspecting the scene from the air, Australia`s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, expressed concern that the Shen Neng 1, balancing precariously in the crystal-clear waters, had strayed so far from official shipping lanes. “From where I see it, it is outrageous that any vessel could find itself 12 kilometres off-course, it seems, in the Great Barrier Reef,” Rudd told reporters in tropical Queensland, where the reef park is a major tourist draw. He pledged an overhaul of measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef from any future environmental disasters. “There is no greater natural asset for Australia than the Great Barrier Reef,” he said.

But maritime traffic through the Great Barrier Reef is projected only to increase, with contracts reportedly signed for the export of US$60 billion worth of liquefied natural gas from coal seams as shrinking resources spur energy companies to turn to unconventional gas reserves to feed Asian demand. Work is under way to expand the port of Gladstone in Queensland to lift capacity by up to 25 million tonnes a year, driven by surging demand from Japan, South Korea, India and China.

Local fishermen fear any increase in traffic will put Australia`s most precious environmental asset at further risk. “We see ships through there every day,” Graham Scott, who has been fishing and chartering boats on the reef for 40 years, told the Sydney Morning Herald. “We see many, many boats within 15 miles [24 kilometres] of that spot [where the Shen Neng 1 grounded]. One or two boats a day, every time we`re out. We`ve assumed in the past that they`re not coal boats, because what would a coal boat be doing there?”

www.guardian.co.uk/

Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

In early February, the results of a national pollution survey released by the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) showed that the country`s pollution problems were much worse than previously estimated. The international media appeared to accept the ministry`s explanation for the discrepancy in its figures – agricultural sources of pollution had not previously been included. But such reports overlooked a more crucial factor: over the last two years the MEP has made no real headway in tackling pollution. It has merely made some feints and declared a paper victory.

On November 2 last year, Chinese news agency Xinhua reported that the minister for environmental protection, Zhou Shengxian, had claimed that China had “stopped water pollution worsening” and seen slight improvements in all areas over the previous year, during a speech at the 13th World Lake Conference, held in the central Chinese city of Wuhan.

This conclusion does not match the facts. On November 11, the People`s Daily reported that, in spite of a six year investment programme, which saw 91 billion yuan (US$13.3 billion) spent on efforts to improve China`s three most polluted rivers and lakes, water quality remains poor. As the development of the Yangtze Delta has charged ahead, for example, the standard of water in Lake Taihu, eastern China, has fallen by three grades – from grade two in the 1980s to grade five or worse now. The many textile-dying, chemical- and food-processing plants around the lake have caused a major accumulation of pollutants. Lake Chao, in eastern China, and Lake Dian, in the south-west, have both shrunk and become more polluted as a result of aquaculture, reclamation of land for agriculture and the building of factories.

The MEP is also aware that, over the past year, there have been 12 incidents of heavy metal and metalloid pollution in Fengxiang in central China, Wugang in south China and Dongchuan, a district of the south-western city of Kunming. These cases left 4,035 people with excessive levels of lead in their blood and 182 with excessive levels of cadmium and gave rise to 32 “mass incidents”, or public protests.

The MEP`s national pollution survey itself undermines the department`s official statements. And even without that data, the Chinese public can see, smell and taste that water quality is still falling and that the environment as a whole is worsening. So why does the ministry insist that water quality is improving? Vice-minister of environmental protection, Zhang Lijun, explains that levels of sulphur dioxide and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) – a measure that helps determine the amount of organic pollutants in surface water – both fell in 2008 and 2009. This is the basis for the MEP`s claim.

But there are many different indicators of water quality. Measuring just two of these is clearly inadequate and can lead to the wrong conclusions being drawn – as the MEP has shown. It is as if the ministry is a doctor who has declared a patient suffering from a brain tumour healthy on grounds of normal blood pressure.

As the highest of China`s environmental protection agencies, the MEP must be aware that it is impossible to get a full picture of water quality by measuring just two factors. Nor can it be ignorant of the reality of China`s deteriorating rivers and lakes – given the national pollution survey has been underway for two years, the ministry must be familiar with the actual situation. But three months before the survey results were released, it was still saying that China had “stopped water pollution worsening”.

Why would the MEP do this? A quick look at its record over the past two years provides an answer: it was in dire need of an achievement.

Two years ago, the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) was upgraded to ministry status and its powers expanded. But the department`s actions since then have been disappointing. As a mere agency, SEPA may have been weak, but it still managed to cause a stir. It launched crackdown after crackdown – known as “environmental storms” – against companies that broke regulations, including the largest of hydropower firms. It enforced regional planning restrictions, refusing to approve projects for law-breaking local governments until changes were made. It called a halt to illegal works at Beijing`s Old Summer Palace and held an unprecedented public hearing, which became a model for public participation and democratic decision-making.

New legal documents, the “Temporary Measures for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessments” and “Regulations on Publication of Environmental Information”, were drafted to ensure the public`s right to environmental information and participation. Research on environmental planning law was conducted and the concept of Green GDP explored as a way of tackling China`s worship of unbridled growth – which lies at the heart of China`s environmental deterioration.

All of these were significant victories, achieved by a weak government agency fighting real battles against powerful interest groups and building systems for better long-term governance. In 2007, I wrote that SEPA was little more than an unarmed weakling, yet it had already fought long and hard for the environment. Its bravery was recognised – but its weakness was also clear. It was not an independent ministry under the State Council, China`s highest organ of government, and it struggled to participate in policymaking and to coordinate with other departments. It lacked executive powers and capacity. So I and many others said: “If we expect this organisation to deal with the huge issues it faces, we must change the systems and legislation that surround it, and grant them increased power.”

Two years ago, the agency finally became a ministry and won greater powers. It was no longer a dwarf, but a full-grown man. But, disappointingly, it has achieved little of note since then. New regulations on public participation in environmental impact assessments and the publication of environmental information have been implemented, but this work started before ministry status was awarded and work was only needed on the final stages. And new laws governing environmental evaluations have so far failed to resolve any issues of public concern over major construction projects.

Moreover, the “environmental storms” have stopped blowing, with the exception of last year`s decision to halt two illegal hydropower projects on the Jinsha River, south-west China. Even then, the MEP only rushed to put a stop to them after State Council leaders started to take a look at the issue of illegal projects in the area. Prior to that, the ministry had quietly approved a different dam. True, sulphur dioxide and COD levels have fallen somewhat. But how much was this the result of reduced industrial production during the economic crisis? Moreover, “green GDP” was left by the wayside, after repeated cries of “not ready yet”.

After all this, the MEP needed a success to show to its superiors and the nation. So “worsening water pollution” was – on paper – stopped. To be fair, the national pollution survey is a big step forward. It has provided relatively accurate data and proved that the ministry`s own “achievements” are not all they may seem.

A few days ago an American reporter asked me whether or not China was really committed to environmentally friendly development. Like her, many foreigners are confused. The idea of building an “ecological civilisation” was included in the report of the 17th Party Congress and China`s leaders are calling for the development of a low-carbon economy and emissions-reduction measures to combat climate change. These are all solemn undertakings. But environmental damage continues to worsen, and not only do the environmental authorities do nothing – they claim false victories.

This does not look like environmentally friendly development. I could not answer the reporter`s question, just like I cannot explain the ministry`s failings over the last two years. If I had to reply, I could only say that I believe that China`s leaders have made the decision to go down a green path, but local government and environmental authorities have not yet taken this seriously.

Liu Jianqiang is editor in chinadialogue`s Beijing office.

Homepage photo of Taihu Lake by Greenpeace

If a nation is to develop, particularly in this increasingly globalised world, it needs energy – energy to power its factories, supply its construction industries, light its buildings, heat and air-condition its homes and workplaces, run its transportation systems, and produce its food and clothing.

China, with its booming economy and increasing national wealth, is (like its neighbour India) not immune to the environmental consequences of its development, however. The doubling of its gross domestic product (GDP) since 1995 (from about US $500 billion in 1995 to $1.1 trillion in 2005) has produced a concomitant increase in carbon emissions, from roughly 800 million metric tons in 1995 to more than 1.2 billion metric tons in 2005. China has a great deal of growing to do yet, however, and 150 million Chinese people are still living in poverty – and using very little energy.

Many people are put off openly adopting a strategy regarding climate change, giving reasons such as “There`s no evidence for it”, or “I haven`t felt a change in climate”, or “It`s just a small scale problem”. A report recently issued by the US National Academy of Sciences shows how far out of step such people are. It finds that climate change is now a leading topic of discussion among the world`s scientists. From universities to environmental NGOs, anyone who has the least connection with this problem is seriously worried.

Former Vice President Al Gore recently travelled across the United States giving a series of speeches in which he called the public`s attention to the extremely urgent danger of climate change, and the damage that it has, in fact, already caused. His presentation was prepared for him, very meticulously, by a think-tank, for which Gore serves as a leader with strong confidence in science and technology. Closely focussing on and promoting the notion of the “digital planet”, he consistently extolled science and technology as forces that lead global trends. Yet the current spread of global warming, and responses to it, were firmly on his agenda.

When scientists target deforestation, increases in carbon-dioxide emissions and flows of methane into the atmosphere, they are perhaps neglecting a further factor in global warming, namely heat pollution. Our extensive use of crude oil and coal not only releases large amounts of poisonous and harmful gases into the atmosphere, but also something invisible: heat.

Heat is emitted from factory chimneys, from the refining of calcium carbide and from car exhausts; by these means, heat is clearly being added to the air around us. This increases the heat-island effect in cities, and — due to population growth, rural-to-urban migration and urban conglomeration — certain of the world`s urban regions are now becoming ever-larger heat islands. Thus a quantitative change becomes a fundamental change. The world is quietly transforming because combustion is not only releasing dangerous gases but also transferring heat into the atmosphere. The snowy summits of the Alps are under threat, whether by the large number of visitors scaling the mountains or by the heat issuing from cities.

Controversy over energy reforms

Let me frame my thoughts in the form of a question: does California have a responsibility to the world to reduce greenhouse gases? Or, to put it another way, am I my brother`s keeper?

We would all agree that if we saw a child about to be struck by a bus, we would quickly remove the child from harm. But we allow diesel exhaust from that same bus – which raises infant mortality rates in California 40% and threatens the health of a child while it is still in its mother`s womb.

We would all agree that eating mercury in fish is not healthy for children or adults, yet our regulatory system in the United States permits coal fired power plants — and chlorine manufacturing plants, as the latest reports show — to pump tons of mercury into the air each day.

We would all agree that climate change will cause sea levels to rise and that we must replace fossil fuels with clean renewable energy. So why are the residents of Cape Cod [Massachusetts] opposing windmills offshore, claiming that it will harm their views? Don`t they understand that sea-level rise will wash away the homes with the multi-million-dollar views that these people are trying to protect?

These are but a few of the inconsistencies that state and national policy makers face in the United States when addressing complex environmental issues like global warming. But in California, many say, “We`ve done our part — must we also be our brother`s keeper?”

It`s true, that in the early 1970s, California faced a one-two punch of doubled oil prices and soaring electricity demand, with new coal and nuclear power plants projected every eight miles along the coast from San Diego to San Francisco. The plants never got built because of energy-efficiency breakthroughs in buildings and appliances. The state`s economy kept growing even though Californians on average consume 40% less energy than other U.S. citizens. In fact, in the past three decades, per capita national energy consumption rose 50% and in California it has remained level. Being so energy efficient means we also generate less volume of greenhouse gases than other states and nations.

So do we need to do more? We`ve made progress on things like energy efficiency and reducing air pollution, so how much more is there to do? Consider that 99% of our airis oxygen and nitrogen, which can be metabolized in the body, 1% is inert argon gas, which is not modified, but simply inhaled and exhaled. Because of the finite supply of argon, we share it with every other living thing on earth. Harvard researchers calculate that by age 20, we have inhaled argon atoms that were exhaled by dinosaurs, Confucius, Gandhi, Shakespeare and a Jewish carpenter from Bethlehem.

So what do we do with this arguably sacred resource? One-hundred percent of the airwe breathe is contaminated by man-made pollutants. We foul it with toxic stews bearing ominous acronyms like PAHs, PM2.5, BTEX compounds, and GHGs — which kill up to 100,000 people in the United States each year and cause more than six million asthma attacks, many in our most vulnerable populations: our elders and our children. And all of us suffer the impacts of climate change — directly related to air pollution: disease, lost snowpack, coastal and levee erosion.

The earth is unwell. While the planet`s vital signs are mixed, its temperature is clearly rising and its overall prognosis is worrying scientists who closely monitor its condition. Many believe that, as result of the climate change the earth is undergoing, urgent and unprecedented action must be taken if future generations are to inherit a secure and healthy place in which to live.

Global economic indicators are pointing upward, according to the Worldwatch Institute, which studies the complex interactions among people, nature and economies. In fact, the gross world product (GWP) — the total global value of finished goods and services — reached a record $59.6 trillion in 2005, nearly double the 1985 figure. However, says Worldwatch, despite upward trends in production, commerce and consumption, these indicators “are set against a backdrop of ecological decline in a world powered overwhelmingly by fossil fuels.”

In 2005, as GWP hit a record high level, so too did the average annual atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO%26sup2;) and the average global temperature. CO%26sup2; concentration rose 0.6% over the 2004 peak — the largest yearly increase ever recorded – and the average temperature reached 14.6 degrees centigrade (58.2 fahrenheit) – making 2005 the warmest year ever recorded on the earth`s surface.

A debate has raged for about three years now on whether a cascade of 13 dams should be built on the Nu River, sections of which are located in a UNESCO World Heritage site. Proponents have argued that it would be a waste of the river not to harness its turbulent water for hydroelectricity — and some have even claimed that 70% of local people like the idea, as they hold out hope that the dams might help lift them out of poverty.

Opponents, however, insist that the Nu River — one of only two major rivers in China that remain undammed — should be left undisturbed. They argue that building the dams would pose a serious threat not only to the environment in an area of spectacular beauty, but also to the region`s unusually rich cultural diversity. A multitude of minority nationalities have long lived in harmony with each other, and with the river and the mountains, in the Nu valley.

In late August 2005, an open letter to the government signed by scores of Chinese organisations and individuals called on the authorities to release environmental-impact documents and hold public hearings on the Nu River plans. Many months later, the petitioners and the public still await a reply.

Meanwhile, an army of engineers has descended on the valley, leading survey teams that are exploring the proposed dam sites. The teams are drilling on the riverbanks, drilling into the mountain cliffs and drilling down into the riverbed. Rock debris is strewn along the banks of the river, roads are suddenly blocked by mud-rock flows, and the river itself has turned from green to yellow. It is as if a grand campaign has been launched aimed at striking it rich and turning the Nu River water into oil and all the activity now occurring in the valley is just the beginning.

Site of the proposed Maji dam

Nuclear power: is it a force for good or for evil? Put bluntly, that is the essence of the argument that has preoccupied much of the world for the last 60 years.

To its backers, generating electricity by splitting atoms of uranium is a cheap, clean, safe and secure solution to humanity’s energy needs. To its detractors, however, nuclear power is a costly, dirty, dangerous and destabilising distraction.

Like all crucial and complex issues, there are inevitably truths – and half-truths – on both sides of the argument. As the world stands on the brink of a major expansion of nuclear power, it has rarely been more important to understand the opportunities and the threats posed by one of the planet’s most controversial technologies.

Nuclear power was ushered onto the world stage in August 1945, when the United States (US) dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of people. After that, there could be no doubting that nuclear fission was capable of releasing huge amounts of energy. The only question was whether it could be tamed.

It didn’t take scientists long to figure out a way of using atoms for peace, instead of war. They controlled fission so that it produced a sustained chain reaction capable of generating enough heat to raise steam and turn turbines. In October 1956, the United Kingdom (UK) opened what was billed as the world’s first civil nuclear power station at Calder Hall in north west England. As well as producing electricity, the station also produced plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Since then, nuclear power has expanded across the globe. According to the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there are now 442 nuclear power plants in operation in 30 countries. Five countries have more than 20 plants, including the US (103), France (59), Japan (55), Russia (31) and the UK (23).

The country with the highest proportion of nuclear electricity is France with 78.5%, followed by Lithuania (69.6%), Slovakia (56.1%) and Belgium (55.6%). According to the IAEA, China has ten nuclear plants in operation and another four under construction in Guangdong and Zhejiang, providing two per cent of the country’s electricity.

About three quarters of the world’s nuclear plants were built before the accident which ripped apart reactor number four at Chernobyl in Ukraine on 26 April 1986, showering Europe with radioactivity. Since then, reactor building in many western countries has stagnated, though plants have gone ahead in Japan, Korea, India and China.

Now, however, some countries are intent on reviving nuclear power, with the US, Canada, Russia, France and the UK all contemplating new stations.India, China, Turkey and even Iran are looking to work on or to expand their presently small programmes. China, for example, has recently announced its intention to build 40 new nuclear plants and a leading official from the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense has even declared that “Nuclear power will become the pillar of energy supply in coastal areas of east China.” Other countries, though, like Germany, Sweden, Spain and Italy are trying to reduce their dependence on nuclear electricity. The Swedish government has even said that its goal is to phase out nuclear power – which currently provides about half of the country’s electricity – and at the same time to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex, UK (currently being decommissioned)

%26copy; Rob Welham

Perhaps the key factor in putting nuclear power back on the agenda in the West is the looming threat of global warming, partly caused by pollution from burning coal and oil. Nuclear companies have promoted reactors as a “green” source of energy because they do not emit carbon dioxide, one of the pollutants blamed for disrupting the climate.

Environmentalists, however, point out that the energy used to mine uranium fuel for reactors will generate carbon emissions. Furthermore, they say that such emissions will increase because lower grades of uranium ore will need to be exploited to fuel a global nuclear expansion, though such claims are hard to quantify.

The nuclear industry has also argued that modern reactor designs are much safer than Chernobyl, with more inbuilt fail-safe systems aimed at minimising the risk of radioactive leaks. Even in the worst circumstances, the industry says, casualties would be low.

This is disputed by the anti-nuclear groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who accuse the industry of a concerted attempt to downplay the risks and consequences of accidents. Any additional radioactivity released into the environment can trigger cancers, they say.

These arguments came to a head in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident in 2006. A report by the IAEA, which promotes nuclear power, suggested that the radiation released by the accident would cause 4,000 cancer deaths. But this claim was undermined by other scientific reports which estimated that the death toll would be at least four times higher.

Even without the risk of nuclear accidents, environmentalists argue that nuclear power has show-stopping drawbacks. Reactors inevitably produce radioactive waste which remains potentially lethal for hundreds of thousands of years, posing a uniquely difficult disposal problem.

With the exception of some radioactive military debris in the US, no nuclear waste has yet been disposed of successfully. One of the key problems is that many people do not want to live next to a nuclear waste dump, although it is also impossible to ensure that there won’t be leaks over the longer term. Several countries are, nevertheless, investigating potential sites where waste could be buried deep underground. Sweden probably leads the world in research and development of such facilities, but these are unlikely to come on line for at least another twenty years and are difficult to build; one of the reasons why the government there has decided to phase out nuclear power in future.

The industry, on the other hand, points out that even if leaks occur thousands of years hence, their consequences wouldn’t be disastrous since much of the radioactivity would have decayed away. The volumes of the most dangerous high-level wastes are also relatively small.

The waste problem also has an important bearing on the cost of nuclear power – another hotly disputed topic. Critics point out that decommissioning nuclear reactors and associated plants, and disposing of the waste, is a messy and expensive business because so many of the materials become radioactive.

So far, they argue, the true cost of the clean-up hasn’t been included in the price of producing nuclear electricity because governments and taxpayers have been saddled with the bills, which can be massive. In the UK, the cost of decommissioning the first generation of nuclear plants has been officially estimated at over %26pound;50 billion (approx US$100bn), and has led to the bail out of nuclear companies seeking to avoid bankruptcy.

Nuclear advocates, however, say that the industry has learnt from past mistakes, and will include the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal in the price of future plants. With new designs, they say, nuclear power will earn enough income to cover all its costs, and more.

Not only that, the advocates argue, nuclear power is essential in any serious global effort to combat climate change. “The security of our world requires a massive transformation to clean energy,” says the World Nuclear Association, which represents the industry. “Renewables like solar, wind and biomass can help. But only nuclear power offers clean, environmentally friendly energy on a massive scale.”

This is countered by environmental groups, who argue that increased energy efficiency combined with the development of solar, wind, wave, tidal and biomass energy sources would be a far more effective and reliable way of cutting climate-wrecking emissions. They also back emerging clean coal technologies which promise to capture and store carbon instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.

Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK government’s Sustainable Development Commission, warns that nuclear power can’t provide a quick fix for climate change. “There’s little point in denying that nuclear power has benefits, but in our view these are outweighed by serious disadvantages,” he says.

The biggest disadvantage, some say, is the continuing link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Although the civil industry has tried to disentangle itself from the military technology from which it was born, strong ties still persist in many countries.

Uranium is often enriched, increasing the proportion of the uranium-235 isotope by a few per cent, to improve its efficiency as a reactor fuel. Unfortunately the same technology can also be used to enrich uranium to 90% and over, making it usable in the kind of bomb that devastated Hiroshima.

Similarly, spent fuel from reactors is reprocessed to extract plutonium for use as reactor fuel, though it can also be used to make a bomb like that dropped on Nagasaki. Apart from a few grams in the Gabon desert, plutonium didn’t exist until it was created by burning uranium in a nuclear reactor.

The IAEA, backed by some governments, argues that it should be possible to separate the civil and military nuclear fuel cycles. It has proposed the establishment of a series of international centres for enrichment and reprocessing that would provide nuclear fuel services to developing countries, without giving them access to technologies that could easily be adapted for military use.

To critics, however, such a system would enshrine the fundamental apartheid at the heart of the world’s failing attempts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Those countries that already have civil and military nuclear technology get to keep them, while everyone else has to buy in their services. Whether that is a sustainable, workable or just way of conducting international affairs, history will judge.

The Author: Rob Edwards is the environment editor of the Sunday Herald and a correspondent for New Scientist. His blog is here.

Homepage photo by Adam Lederer

Homepage photo caption: Looking down the stairs to the entrance of the Chernobyl Museum. Each sign represents a town that no longer exists due to the disaster.

It`s hard to overstate the importance of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. It`s a symbol of national pride, and a motor for change. And one of its high profile ambitions — to deliver a “green Olympics” — is being translated into a whole raft of projects to clean up China`s notoriously polluted capital in time for the Games.

Inescapably, renewable energy is a key feature of this drive – with the city providing direct investment or interest-free loans to key projects. Tian Maijiu, deputy director of the standing committee of the Beijing municipal people`s congress, ran through some of the 2008 targets for renewables at a recent seminar:

- 90% of the city`s street lamps running off solar;

- solar heating for 90% of water used for bathing;

- wind power generating 20% of the electricity for Olympic venues, many of which will also feature large solar photovoltaic panels;

- ground source heat pumps providing central heating and air conditioning for an area of 400,000 square metres.

It`s not wholly new ground for Beijing. A pilot project already up and running in Xuanwu Park is using solar PV panels to provide power for electric lighting, plus solar heating and refrigeration. And among the more innovative ideas is a recent proposal to build a “solar street”, where not only the lights, but whole buildings, will run entirely on energy from the sun.

The city`s prestigious Tsinghua University is heavily involved in both research on practical clean energy technologies, and advice on its use to the top economic planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). According to Jiang Ning, director of the Tsinghua-BP Clean Energy Research and Education Centre (launched three years ago by the British prime minister, Tony Blair): “Our goal is to save up to 20% of current energy use by 2008. As the Olympics are approaching, we`re also looking at making the urban energy system more sustainable as a whole.”

But energy savings and renewables on this scale can only be a small part of the solution. The lion`s share of the Tsinghua-BP Centre`s work is focused on coal. Which is as it should be – for coal is so dominant in the overall Chinese energy picture that there can be no serious overall sustainability policy without tackling how it is used. Coal provides some 70% of China`s energy needs, and every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in the country.

The Worldwatch Institute`s State of the World 2006 report puts this staggering growth in a global context. “The biggest energy questions facing China and India”, it says, “are how much higher their coal use will go, and what other energy sources they will use to power their futures. The answers will have a big impact on the quality of life in [these countries], but since they will almost certainly be the world`s two biggest markets for new energy technologies, their decisions will help set the 21st century energy course for the world as a whole.”

Within China, at least, there`s a growing awareness that coal`s environmental costs are unsustainable – and that, as a minimum, three things need to be achieved:

- a step change in energy efficiency, as a key goal of investment in modernisation

- a radical clean-up of the way coal is burned, drastically cutting sulphur dioxide pollution and sequestering carbon emissions

- a determined pursuit of alternatives, to cut the overall share of coal in the energy mix to something more like 40% by 2030.

Targets for improving energy efficiency feature strongly in the latest five-year plan, and that`s not surprising, since the need for action on this front could hardly be more acute. For every dollar of GDP, China currently expends three times the world average of energy, and 10 times the Japanese level. Hence the NDRC`s goal of saving the equivalent of 240 million tonnes of coal during the next five years, cutting overall energy intensity by 20%.

Cleaning up coal use is equally crucial. The NDRC vice-minister Zhang Guobao told the China Power 2005 conference in Beijing that the country`s coal-fired plants emitted more than 13 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide in 2004, and were headed for 16 million tonnes in 2005. A key constituent in urban smog and acid rain, SO2 remains one of the greatest pollution challenges for China.

The Tsinghua-BP centre`s polygeneration programme is out to change this. It uses “gasification” techniques to convert coal to gas, which is then used in gas turbines within the same plant to generate electricity. Sulphur is removed as an integral part of gasification. The process also produces valuable liquid fuels – methanol, which can be used for vehicle fuel, and dimethyl ether for cooking and heating in the home. Jiang Nin says the centre`s tests in the city of Zaozhuang — which faces the typical problem of fuelling rapid expansion while still reliant on high-sulphur coal – show that polygeneration could fulfil more than a quarter of its electricity needs by 2020, while drastically cutting sulphur emissions.

But it is coal`s high carbon-dioxide emissions, rather than its sulphur pollution, which are the focus of a new EU-China project: the “near Zero Emissions Coal” (nZEC) scheme. The United Kingdom is leading the first phase, a three-year feasibility study — with %26pound;3.5 million funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) — to assess different ways of capturing the carbon emitted during generation, and then storing it underground in China. It`s part of a wider initiative, aimed at delivering a practical demonstration of coal-fired generation with complete carbon capture and storage, in both China and Europe, by 2020. For a coal-rich country like China, such a development could be priceless.

Meanwhile, with its hothouse economy showing few signs of cooling, China reckons it needs all the energy sources it can get. In the long view, this encompasses hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion, two areas where Chinese scientists — at Tsinghua and elsewhere — are keenly engaged in research and in international collaboration. More immediately, and less sustainably, it is projecting a continuing rise in oil use (implying increasingly sharp competition for oil purchases on the world market), and planning much greater exploitation of its natural gas reserves.

Then there is its highly controversial programme of massive dams for hydroelectricity. Construction of the biggest of these to date, the Three Gorges, was completed in May. It should have a capacity of 22 gigawatts (GW) when it is fully operational in 2009. The dam has drawn a storm of criticism from environmentalists and human-rights activists. Millions will be displaced, historic sites destroyed, and, it is alleged, lasting damage caused to the whole Yangtze ecosystem, all by a technology whose long-term efficacy is questionable, they say.

For its part, the Chinese government insists the plant will bring huge benefits in the form of low-carbon energy, regional development and flood control. Overall hydro capacity is set to rise from 108 GW in 2004 to 246 GW by 2020 — contributing about a quarter of total Chinese electricity.

Construction on the Three Gorges dam %26copy; Lovell

Equally controversial is the government`s plan for a massive five-fold expansion in nuclear power capacity from the current 6.2 GW to 32GW by 2020, using the latest (substantially “home-grown”) pebble-bed reactor technology. This allows for smaller units, which, in theory, can be brought on line more rapidly. China`s nuclear ambitions have caused concern on both environmental and security grounds – and its expansion will place increasing pressure on world supplies of uranium, already a potential trigger for conflict. But faced with a looming energy deficit and growing concerns over climate change, the government argues that nuclear has a vital role to play.

But the real excitement comes over China`s new-found enthusiasm for renewables. Indeed, they feature more prominently in the country`s energy plans than nuclear: China`s new renewable energy law sets a goal of generating 15% of its electricity from renewables by 2020.

Eric Martinot, a senior research fellow with the Worldwatch Institute and senior visiting scholar at Tsinghua University, believes that China`s huge spending in renewables shows it is taking the target seriously. Excluding large hydropower, it invested %26pound;3.3 billion in renewable energy last year. That, says Martinot, makes it one of the biggest investors in renewables in the world.

“I`m very optimistic here,” he says. “In China, introducing renewables is a good industrial development strategy.” And it`s not climate change that`s driving it – it`s local air pollution. “Ordinary people just don`t accept this kind of pollution.”

The renewables law is central to progress here. Li Junfeng, secretary general of the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA), describes it as “the basis of all our work”. He stresses that different regions lend themselves to different types of renewables. Wind power, for example, is especially suitable for the remote, economically underdeveloped north and west. So CREIA launched major wind farms in Inner Mongolia and Jilin – while promoting solar and biomass in provinces such as Hebei and Jiangsu.

China still has some 70 million households without any electricity at all, which opens up opportunities for small-scale solar in particular. The northwestern city of Xi`an, for example, is the base for a new company in which BP Solar and China Xinjiang SunOasis will pool their capabilities to supply 25 MW of sustainable power to remote rural areas.

Salesman in Xinjiang pointing out features of a solar-powered jukebox, photo by Peter Morgan

But it is wind power which holds out the best hope of generation on a really substantial scale. Capacity increased by two-thirds in 2005 alone (to 1.27 GW), and is now set to soar: to 4GW by 2010, 10GW by 2020. And this could just be the start. A new wind power assessment centre calculates that onshore turbines could provide as much as 250 GW of electricity (over 10 times that from the Three Gorges dam). And even that is dwarfed by the potential from the winds that blow across China`s coastal waters. The centre estimates that offshore wind farms could produce around 750 GW. It`s fairly speculative stuff – but if met, it means wind could meet virtually all China`s electricity needs. This is wind power on a scale unimagined anywhere else in the world.

In the short term, Jiangsu province in the Yangtze delta has been singled out as having particularly good wind resources, and is aiming to build one fifth of China`s total installed capacity of wind power by 2010 – including a wind farm at Rudong which aspires to be the largest in Asia. According to its engineer, Zhao Shengxiao, its 430 turbines will each produce 2MW.

Chinese law currently demands that wind power projects must contain parts that are at least 70% locally made. So major western manufacturers are rushing to expand local capacity. GE in particular has big plans here, and recently opened its first turbine assembly plant in the country in Shenyang, in the northeastern province of Liaoning. Spanish turbine maker Acciona has set up a plant at Nantong, in the eastern province of Jiangsu, which will turn out 900 turbines a year, while Denmark`s Vestas Wind Systems, which had 15% market share in China last year, is planning a new generator factory in the eastern coastal city of Tianjin. The dominance of western companies is a contentious point, says Martinot, but while Chinese companies have a good record in small-scale hydro and solar, they are lagging behind on wind.

Investment in renewable generation only happens, of course, if the incentives are there – and the Chinese government took a vital step in February this year by setting minimum “green electricity” quotas for power companies. Zhang Guobao told a press briefing in Beijing that any such companies with an installed capacity of over 5GW will have to ensure that 5% of their output is powered by renewables (specifically not including large hydro) by 2010. This figure will rise to 10% by 2020. The 15 or so companies that meet this criterion account for more than half the country`s total generating capacity. To sweeten the pill, they will be allowed to charge higher tariffs for supplies sourced renewably, and given tax breaks and subsidies to offset investment costs.

Zhang struck an optimistic note. “It will be a new business attraction, with huge market potential and lucrative returns.” And, significantly, the country`s top power companies, including Huaneng, Datang and China Power Investment, have already included renewable energy development in their long-term business growth strategy.

So far, their portfolios may be tiny; Datang, for example, currently relies on coal for more than 99% of its electricity generation. But it plans to cut that to 75% by 2014 and, according to its spokesman Zhang Shaopeng, is “looking at a slew of wind farm projects across the nation”.

The author: Clifford Coonan is China correspondent for The Independent (London)

This article will appear in “Greening the Dragon: China`s Sustainability Challenge”,a special supplement produced by Green Futures magazine, to be published in September 2006. www.greenfutures.org.uk

Homepage photo by Chris Webster