What we really need is Die Hard 2030 starring Bruce Willis in his most knife-edge car chase yet.

Two weeks ago I suggested that the IPCC report is partly to blame for the ambivalent reaction it has so far received in policy making quarters and the general disinterest in the popular press.

Outrageous suggestion? Read on.

I have no qualification to judge the scientific or economic merit of the IPCC report, nor would I dare. But it is not easy reading. The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) – all 34 pages of it – is meticulously balanced and scientific in style. What’s wrong with that – it has to be doesn’t it? Yes, but this is intended to be a document which makes the observations more accessible for policy makers, and I don’t think it does that. Its very balance and absence of any theatrics does not bring to life the consequences of inaction in a way that will make populations and policy makers sit up and take note in the way that we need.

I’d suggest that what we need is text that paints a picture and offers some tangible and localised examples. E.g. ‘If we don’t get to net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 then Hurricane Michaels will hit the Eastern Seaboard of the USA at a rate of one a week during the hurricane season’… ‘Venice will be uninhabitable by 2035’… ’Majorca will be finished as a tourist destination by 2040.’  (I’m not saying that precisely these things will happen – it’s the nature of the language I’m trying to get across).

Instead what we get is language like this:

Limiting the risks from global warming of 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication implies system transitions that can be enabled by an increase of adaptation and mitigation investments, policy instruments, the acceleration of technological innovation and behaviour changes (high confidence).

Did your eyes glaze over? Could it be more generalised and obtuse? Here’s another example:

A reduction of 0.1 m in global sea level rise implies that up to 10 million fewer people would be exposed to related risks, based on population in the year 2010 and assuming no adaptation (medium confidence).

See what I mean? The first extract is dryer than an extra dry Ryvita biscuit, and completely open to interpretation by those with vested interests. The second is precise and sounds serious enough. But again, it’s too easily ignored by policy makers. Which 10 million people are going to be saved? Which coastlines are going to escape devastation? Because if it’s not going to be in my backyard I don’t need to worry, do I?

The point is that this is disaster movie material starting to come true, before our very eyes, but it’s being portrayed with all the (absence of) drama of a parliamentary select committee session. (Sorry Ministers).

I suggest what we need from the IPCC now is a Summary of the Summary, with some graphic, localised examples that will make voters pay attention. Because if the voters ain’t moved, the leaders won’t act.

We need to get the Daily Mail fired up and Bruce Willis back behind the wheel for one more movie…Yippee-i-a Mr Trump.

By now everybody must know that the IPCC published a report on Climate Change last week. The gist is that we really do need to keep the rise in average global temperatures down to only 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid a lot of trouble; and to do that we need to reduce and limit carbon emissions, which will require ‘rapid and far-reaching transitions’ across the global economy of an unprecedented scale: in short, a sea-change in how we acquire and run global energy for human use. The report notes that we are already at 1.5 degrees in parts of the globe and already experiencing some of the effects.

I took time out to read the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), all 34 pages of it. It’s not easy reading. If you want a helpful summary of The Summary by one Jeremy Leggett, go to this link https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/10/10/this-weeks-un-warning-of-climate-chaos-is-the-total-world-rewrite-they-say-we-need-doable/

Reactions have been interesting, to say the least, and in a sense those reactions tell us more about the challenge we face than the report itself.

Consider – this is a credible report by an international collection of experts. The future is grave indeed. I’d use the analogy that we are on the Titanic, we are going to hit the iceberg, the ship is going to sink, there are not enough lifeboats, and now the task is to work out how best to use the available lifeboats to save as many lives as we can. Or maybe cut up other parts of the ship as well to make more rafts.

Doesn’t look good. In response the responsible organisations already deeply concerned with the impact of man-made climate change have used it to reinforce their point. Perfectly reasonable reaction.

Many of them have also noted that the report shows that the drastic transformation required can be achieved in time to avert trouble. I don’t think so. Not because it’s not technically feasible; but because – to continue the analogy – the Titanic is commanded by 193 captains, with different languages, interests, codes of practice, etc, and a host of fare-paying passengers intent on carrying on having a party. Here are some examples and I’m sure you can see the inferences:

• Most UK newspapers thought the Strictly Snog saga was more important.
• The BBC covered it well enough the day it came out, but then in the coverage of Hurricane Michael and the Mallorca Storm on subsequent days failed to make any connection. Don’t we think these events might just be clues?
• EU ministers met this week to agree vehicle emission reductions, but many of them hedged their bets and refused to endorse the levels proposed.
• The boss of Shell, Mr van Beurden, agreed that it’s very serious; but instead of using it as a moment to announce how Shell are going to take a lead in developing low-carbon/low emissions alternatives he said that we’d need to plant forests equivalent to the size of Brazil, so that the CO2 from continuing use of high-carbon fossil fuels (oil and gas) can be absorbed.
• Mr Trump is just, well… Mr Trump.

It’s not hard to see why this would happen, given that there is no precedent for all the nations of the world to work together to a common goal in times of adversity, except when half of them were working together to beat the other half.

Paradoxically, I believe the report is partly to blame, but I’ll offer a justification for that statement in another piece shortly.

We’re exhibiting at the Farm Business Innovation Show on the 7th & 8th November 2018 at the NEC, Birmingham. The show is free to attend and you can register for your free ticket on http://bit.ly/2A1DFda. Visitors can choose from 200 free inspiring and insightful seminars including leading sector case studies and top industry role models who have made ground-breaking business decisions when diversifying their land. Visitors also have the opportunity to meet 500 handpicked suppliers who aim to provide any rural business with new and innovative methods of developing their land.

Bean Beanland, our leading low-carbon energy consultant, is speaking in Theatre 4 at 2pm on Thursday 8th November with Hugh Taylor from Roadnight Taylor. Bean and Hugh will be talking about opportunities for Heat, Cooling, Power & Energy Storage in a post-subsidy environment.

We’ll be at stand 3080 so come and see us to discuss the optimisation of the use of land assets with respect to heat and discuss investment and funding mechanisms which might be available to you.

Thank you to the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) members who attended our seminar last week on the future of renewables in a post-subsidy world. We were fortunate to hold the event at The Grange, home to The Grange Opera Festival in Northington, Hampshire. Interesting talks were given by Tarquin Henderson and Bean Beanland from ReEnergise on the future direction of heat and power in the rural economy and a look at government strategy, and its effects, in the next few years.

There was a good discussion on heat pumps versus biomass for heating, and the future of Solar PV after the end of the subsidy (FiT) in April 2019. We also talked about the tightening of the EPC criteria for the rental sector (MEES), and on recommendations for tackling any below par rental properties in the most cost-effective manner.

Remember that song by the Walker Brothers? Of course, it ain’t true – it’s gonna go on shining and shining and shining. What they should have written was that the Government subsidies for solar PV aren’t going to go on forever, but they couldn’t get the words to fit the melody so they compromised.

In fact the Government subsidy regime is closing for new installations on 1st April next year. I am talking about new here. So, that means that any estate that gets its solar PV registered with Ofgem before 1st April next year gets locked into receipt of the 20-year index-linked subsidy for every kWh generated or exported to the grid; whereas any estate that gets it done after 1st April next year gets no subsidy at all. It does make a difference to the net benefit.

A lot of schools and rural estates, with a bit of prompting from us, have recognised the significance of this and we are now working with them to get their solar installations done before the deadline. Over the Summer holidays we’re organising the installations at Repton College, Pocklington School, Solihull School and Barlavington Estate, and several others are in the pipeline for later in the year.

There’s quite of lot of detail to be worked through: assessing the estate for the best sites, scoping the right array for each site, securing local grid operator permission to install, tendering for installers, commissioning, registering the installations with Ofgem. However, recognising that most of our clients have neither the time nor the in-house knowledge, we arrange all of that.

If you’re interested, it’s not too late to make the most of free sunshine.

♫♬Don’t Let the Sun Go Down On Me ♫♫

Following an initial feasibility study we conducted in 2017, we are now working with the Firle Estate in East Sussex and community energy specialists, the Brighton & Hove Energy Services Cooperative (BHESCo) to build a comprehensive technical study into the options available to take this beautiful South Downs village off fossil fuels through the installation of a dedicated 2km district heating system.  The scheme will include the supply of heating and hot water to both domestic and commercial users in the village.  Our work will identify the optimum technical mix of low-carbon technologies and, in addition to heat, will consider options for behind and beyond the meter low-carbon power generation and storage systems.  The final scheme will be delivered through a community energy supply company administered by BHESCo.  In addition to the technical scope report, our work will subsequently entail contractor tender and project management.

We were delighted and honoured to be asked to speak at the launch of the Stephen Tindale Climate Answers charity in London in June.  Stephen was an important and highly valued friend and colleague who tragically took his own life in July 2017.  A man of utter integrity and huge influence, Stephen was one of this country’s leading political thinkers on climate policy and low-carbon energy.  The charity launch in London was a fair reflection of this with guests ranging from the media, industry, NGOs and political circles in addition to members of his family and friends.  Our founder, Tarquin Henderson, shared the speaking honours with Sir Kier Starmer QC, one of Stephen’s many friends in the Labour Party and Suzanna Hinson from the charity.

The charity has been set up to support young people looking to forge a career in the low-carbon sector through the provision of research grants and work experience.  Our company is looking forward to hosting our first research associate later this year.  The charity website provides more detail on their work and of course Stephen’s legacy.

https://stephentindaleclimateanswers.org/

Recently declared Government policy is that oil is to be removed from the fuel mix for rural estates by 2030.

Seems a long time away, but we already know that the deadline for new systems to qualify for the current 20-year heat subsidy regime is 1 April 2021. The implication is clear enough: schools and other estates need to be getting any oil systems converted to low-carbon alternatives before April 2021, or take the financial risk of doing it after the subsidy regime has closed.

Schools, at least, need to start considering their options during 2018 or at the very latest during 2019, because switching from oil cannot be done in a hurry without incurring undue risk. The right technology needs to be identified, which means getting hold of some trustworthy impartial advice. The finance needs to be put in place, either from within or through a 3rd party, as subsidies only start once an installation has been commissioned and registered with Ofgem. And, for schools, the programme needs to be approved by the Governing Body, which in our experience is likely to take some months. After all, it’s a significant investment. The installation project is likely to take from 4 to 8 months, so all told the lead time is 1 to 2 years.

Working back from the April 2021 deadline, it rather suggests planning should start during 2018 or at the very latest during 2019.

It’s not all doom and gloom. The subsidies are helpful. All depending on the detail at the site, the value of the subsidy over its 20-year life could be as high as £1M or more. Likewise, the net financial benefit in switching to a low-carbon alternative could be well over £1M.

Here’s a chart we’ve shown before. It’s a relatively small ground source heat pump system, but do please take a look at the average return on investment and eventual net benefit figures in the Performance overview box.

Ground Source Heat Pump returns chart: Fandangle Hall School. (Results based on a real school estate. Wouldn’t it be great if there was a real school called Fandangle Hall).