Perhaps more realistic are some of the technologies outlined in the Institute of Mechanical engineers report ‘Geo-Engineering – Giving us time to act?’.  This report discusses three technologies which are, more or less, possible now.

1. Artificial trees are machines which remove CO2 from the air, similar to the carbon capture devices advocated for power stations.  These can be placed anywhere, perhaps beside a motorway, or in the middle of the North Sea, where the carbon captured could be stored in depleted oil wells.
2. Growing algae on the sides of buildings would sequester carbon, with the resulting green goop used as biofuel, which could be burnt to biochar and later buried or stored underground, as well as insulating the building and reducing heating costs.  Although its hard to imagine these photobioreactors really operating on a global scale, it could allow buildings become net carbon absorbers.
3. Finally, the idea of increasing the albedo of buildings to reflect more sunlight back into space is an idea which has been around ever since the first villager in a hot country somewhere figured out limewash and painted her house with it.  If applied to our modern sprawling cities, using uptodate highly reflective coverings, it would at least have a local effect.

From a Green perspective, should we just reject these technologies out of hand, or should we consider them as part of a balanced climate change strategy, along with power down emission reductions?

If, over the last 10-20 years that climate change has been seen as a major issue, carbon levels had at least started to come down, I’d say ignore all this.  It’s an oil industry conspiracy to keep on with business as usual.  But the truth is that the Green movement, party and campaigning organisations alike has been spectacularly ineffective at making any dent on global emissions.   In the UK, we’ve reduced ours slightly since Kyoto in 1990, first by putting everyone onto gas heating and more recently by outsourcing our emissions to China.  Even with all that, last year we managed a whopping 1.7% reduction.

We need ways of not just reducing emissions but of rolling back the damage already done.  We desperately need time to adjust to a low-carbon world.  These technologies could give us time, and a way of cleaning up.

The difficulty for any Green is that they could give us more than that.  If (and its a big if) they fulfill their promise, then our high-consumption, growth obsessed world could continue a while longer, at least until the next resource blockage is reached.

A Green approach then has to consider a number of factors:

• Will the technologies work?  Research spent on something that doesn’t is research not spent elsewhere.
• Will they have undesirable side effects, both environmental and economic?
• Are they sustainable?
• Is there an ethical concern?

The technologies which simply reduce warming (eg all the albedo increasing ideas) a symptomatic fix that does not get at root causes, and do not address the other effects of increased greenhouse gases.  In particular, they do not address the problem of ocean acidification.  Space mirrors and the like should be avoided, at least until its clear there is no alternative.

However Greens should support the idea of making buildings more reflective to reduce emissions by reducing the need for aircon, and perhaps to reduce local increases in temperature (urban heat island effect).  This isn’t likely to have much effect on a global scale (see table 1 in Lenton and Vaughan (2009) ).

The idea of algae-based biophotoreactors should be seriously considered too.   Most Green objections to biofuels have to do with the displacement of food crops, particularly in the developing world, and with unknown consequences of biochar.  Algae, grown in tubes on the sides of buildings, or perhaps along roadsides or even in highly saline areas, don’t raise this objection.  Unknown consequences should be researched, not abandoned in fear.

Because the artificial trees are an air capture and storage technology, and cost the same to capture carbon no matter how that carbon was originally emitted, they will effectively put an upper limit on amount paid for any emission reduction strategy.   At the moment, they’re expensive, but it will come down and then noone will want to invest in renewables, changing transport patterns or anything else.   If it works, all the other problems associated with fossil fuel dependency – peak oil, dependence on problematic suppliers, use of all those lovely molecules just to burn them – won’t go away.

Greens may therefore be reluctant to consider them, but if they actually work, they will give us time we desperately need.   They’re worth a funding bet right now, and perhaps the chance of slowly coming off fossil fuels..

Geo-engineering contains some frightening possibilities, but, as the Royal Society said in their report on the state of the technology last week, we’re as much  in danger of prematurely dismissing useful techniques as we are of promoting dangerous proposals.

When our grandchildren ask us why we didn’t just stop burning the oil, I don’t want to have tell them that not only did we see it coming and do very little, we abandoned the search for ways to clean up after ourselves.

The article was based on a press release from Ecotricity, another green electricity supplier, and a quick check back to their website gives a few more details, and does indeed show their claim that the  two green suppliers investing nothing.

So what’s the story with Good Energy and Green Energy UK?

With Green Energy UK, I think the answer is quite simple – they work by making supply contracts with other companies, and so support the development of renewables that way.  Green Energy UK has a vast array of suppliers, generating by every way you could think of – biofuel from recycled vegetable oil, solar, hydro.  They provide a way for small, local generators to sell their excess capacity.  It’s not fair to say they invested nothing, and that statement looks like a pure marketing ploy by Ecotricity against the two companies which compete directly with them.

Good Energy seems to be in a slightly different situation.  Most of their capacity is supplied by their 4MW windfarm in Delabole, in Cornwall.  This farm was established in 1991, and there doesn’t seem to have been any major investment in it over the last few years.  The company has just gained planning permission to decommission the current turbines, and replace them with new ones, tripling the generation capacity.  They may not have been investing much lately, but that’s about to change.  They are also a very small company.

Ecotricity, of course, does invest heavily in renewables.  All their profits go to increasing capacity on their windfarms so, although their supply is not 100% renewable, they are making the biggest contribution they can to increasing the renewable capacity.  That’s why I use them (and they’ve got nice call centre staff).

The article is basically a marketing press release with a fair amount of mudslinging at the competition, but it does raise an important issue.  Overall, the amount of investment in renewable energy by the major suppliers is truly pathetic.  The UK should be a leader in wind power generation, instead it has only the fifth highest capacity in Europe.

I admire and am very grateful to those women who opened so many doors for us.  They had the courage of their convictions, they stood up for themselves and their more nervous sisters, and the world is a better place for their action.

Reading reports of Plane Stupid’s activities at Stansted this week, bringing the airport to a halt to make an important point in a strong but non-violent way, I am equally full of gratitude and admiration.  If we’re going to do anything about global warming it will be because of people like this, prepared to go to the edge, push harder than the rest of us at home with our nice low-wattage light bulbs.  People protesting at the edge open up space for the rest of us, creating the sense of public urgency so lacking in the global warming debate.

I am quite scared of being arrested.  Cowards like me could at least send them a donation – they’ll be needing help with the legal fees.

There is an excellent initiative going on in Camden, that will probably do more to save the planet than all the carbon-generating talkfests in exotic places held by central government. Led by Liberal Democrat councillor Alexis Rowell, and including councillors from other parties, particularly the Greens, the Camden Sustainability Taskforce is starting to make a real difference. Each quarter, it produces a report on a particular issue for the executive, and its recommendations are being accepted. The first report, on Energy and Energy Efficiency went to the Executive in May, and work is now underway on a number of its recommendations.

The task force’s meetings are open to the public, and are well worth attending. A series of talks by experts in the area being discussed is followed by a brainstorming session of ideas to include in the report. The latest meeting, on biodiversity, included the council’s Biodiversity Officer, a representative of the Peabody Trust discussing the challenges facing social landlords in increasing biodiversity on their land and a specialist in Green roofs.

The Peabody Trust speaker talked about how green space in housing estates is often seen as a liability, rather than an asset. A culture of fear – health and safety worries, along with muggers hiding behind bushes (but not cars) – pervades many social landlords, and is indeed very evident in the housing department of the council, and this makes it difficult to create imaginative outdoor spaces. Being asked to cut down trees because they spread disease (its called pollen), or children’s playing areas having to be sealed because dirt is, well, dirty. This isn’t just the fault of the landlord by a long way – its also the view of many residents. If you have been brought up in a place where green space is rare and not very inviting, its probably natural to dislike and fear it.

I go walking in the countryside on my own sometimes. Its a little risky perhaps, but we’re talking farms and small woodlands, not going bush in New Zealand. I’m never far from a pub, or out of mobile range for long. I once got lost, and it took a couple of hours to find myself again. Hardly the end of the world, though falling and breaking a leg might be a bit more of a problem if hardly life-threatening. So often, I’ve had someone tell me its dangerous, and suggest that I’m either extremely brave, or just foolish.

But this fear of the world around us is debilitating and dangerous. Whether its fear of losing out to China and India stopping major governments setting realistic emissions targets, fear of someone getting hurt by falling on a rock stopping wildlife gardens, or the notion that three teenagers constitutes an ASBO stopping our communities from talking to each other. This is the first thing we have to overcome if we’re to get anywhere beyond the low-energy lightbulb approach to saving the planet.

How do we get rid of the fear?

And now the Guardian is in on the act, with it’s new Tread Lightly campaign, which gets people to take on a different pledge every week, and calculates how much CO2 emission is saved.   Of course if it makes someone think about their impact on the planet, then its a good thing, but do we really need to hear about Green-lite household hints from yet another source?

This week’s pledge is to reduce your thermostat by 1 degree.  Personally, I haven’t even switched my heating on yet, so I can’t sign up to that one.  I wonder how many other Guardian readers (at least in mild London) are in the same position?

The best thing about the site is its blog.  A piece of puff about the pledge of the week is followed by some good, practical ideas from readers, and interesting stories about making your own thermal backing for curtains.  And read the post on low-energy lightbulbs (you means someone still uses the old ones?) for a general view on this light-weight contribution.

Now, how about a few more pledges:

• Never buy or hire a car with CO2 emissions above the 10th percentile again.
• Reduce personal miles travelled by any non-human powered form (ie. walking or cycling is fine, ALL motorised transport needs to reduce) by 20% this year
• Do not use central heating until the outside air temperature drops to single digits
• Buy only goods packaged in recyclable packaging

Come to think of it, I did this once before.  Have a look here.

This week you can read about what’s really going on in Africa, as the struggle for diminishing natural resources heats up. The post on Veggie Revolution describes the plight of the Dyeratu family, a Malawi family with few options.

The Greener Magazine talks about the Ecology Center’s Consumer Guide to Toxic Chemicals in Cars, turns out gas prices are not the only ‘gas’ issue you may have to consider when buying a new car.

From Triplepundit, we have a lengthy but interesting piece on the impact of conservation strategies such as buying land to save it for conservation purposes on local people and economies, and questions whether these practices will actually deliver their stated aims, or whether they simply displace the problem elsewhere.

Jeremy Bruno presents Climate Crisis Action Day: Part I posted at The Voltage Gate.

Luigi Guarino presents Mapping underutilized genomes posted at Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog.

Welcome back to MaryEllen of The Blue Voice, who has been rather quiet for a while, with some personal musings on World Water Day, 2007, water conservation in general, and some helpful web links on the subject.

At The Wild Green Yonder, Adam Brock summarizes current trends in the exploding urban agriculture movement, and extrapolates a future where agriculture is woven into the urban fabric.

Silicon Valley Blogger presents How Much Credit Have You Turned Down? Maybe Half A Million Dollars Worth posted at The Digerati Life.

The Evanagelical Ecologist and his son waded in the headwaters of the Old Testament book of Exodus this week, and read the account of Moses and the plagues, and were struck by how tightly the fate of creation is bound to the fates of Egypt and Israel and the decisions of God and Pharaoh. Why, for instance, would God not only kill the firstborn of the Egyptians, but their firstborn camels too?

Niki Anders presents The truth about our global climate posted at The-A-TEAM.

Paul Michael presents An energy bill of $0.00 posted at Wisebread Frugal.

john presents Blogs for Global Temperature Denial posted at hell’s handmaiden.

Eric presents Practical Reasons to Eat Less Meat posted at saving simply.

Technorati Tags: greenfilm.net

Its a wonderful example of local community involvement in an environmentally positive way, so ideal for Green involvement.  Apparently it was started in the late eighties by concerned locals who saw the need for a little bit of green in an industrial area, and has gone from strength to strength.  Nearly twenty years on, it provides a chance for local children, many of whom will not even have a garden, to learn about native wildlife, and a good place for adults to relax or volunteer.

Local politics at its best, this sounds like a good way to be involved.

Technorati Tags: Camley St, Camden, Green

But, if you use that excuse, consider this. China has, in the last twenty years, turned from a backward, poverty ridden nation, to a powerhouse economy. It has done that without worrying about planning regulations, human rights or any of the other, deeply desirable, ideas that may slow the West’s ability to respond to the need to reduce carbon. Its geography means that it may suffer more than Britain will, with encroaching deserts and sea level rise threatening delta and coastal cities. Its bright youth study engineering and science.

The first hydrogen refueling plant has opened in Beijing, and will be used for fueling a hydrogen vehicle fleet for the 2008 Olympics.

If China, its government and power brokers, decide that they will reduce their own carbon emissions, and perhaps use their economic power to encourage others to do so, they will do it, and quickly.

It is complacent, and somehow patronising, to assume that China will fail to recognise the problems its industrial revolution and economic boom are causing and, having recognised them, will fail to deal with them. We, who have had 200 years of industrialisation, need to look to our own dirty back yard now, before we are passed by in this as well.

Camden Council is proud of its recycling record, though its hard to see why given our low rates of recycling compared to many parts of Europe.  We’re better than most in London, but that’s hardly a major achievement.

One of the reasons recycling is poor is a policy which says that bins will only be given to buildings with six or less homes in them, therefore eliminating doorstep recycling as an option for many people who live in larger blocks of flats.  The usual ‘health and safety’ nonsense is cited, as if it is more difficult to take away bags of recyclable material than bags of rubbish.   I’ve questioned that, and have now been promised a visit from a ‘Recycling Officer’ within two weeks, so it will be interesting to see where that leads.

There’s no need for doorstep recycling to be in plastic boxes, and in fact Camden themselves have a scheme whereby each flat is given a large bag which can be hung on the railings on collection day.  Its less hassle than a box, and easier to keep inside.  I look forward to convincing the Officer that they’d be perfect for our building.

Technorati Tags: recycling