I have talked a few times about the conferences organised by Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum (WEET). Despite its name, WEET’s conferences almost always seem to be about something to do with the net zero/”carbon” reduction agenda, and precious little to do with the environment. And so it made a pleasant change to receive an email today telling me about a WEET conference to take place on 25^th April 2023 with the title “Next steps for the natural environment in the UK” and the sub-heading “Policy, regulation, implementation and the way forward for ELMs, biodiversity net gain and the UK’s approach”.

On reading the notes about the conference, it was a pleasure to find not a single reference to net zero or climate change and only a single reference to “carbon storage” (in the context of a session about “the Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment: development – investment – environmental reforms – addressing air quality, biodiversity, carbon storage, habitat protection, and resilience”. It is gratifying to see a conference devoted to environmental issues without there being an assumption that concern for the environment and attempts to “deal with” climate change are just two sides of the same coin, when the reality is that they are often in direct conflict.

Environmental Land Management Schemes

In case you’re wondering (I was), ELM is apparently short for Environmental Land Management Scheme. This is another new area for me, and I have an open mind about it. DEFRA put up a fairly detailed explanation of the plans on its website on 22^nd August 2022, and for those interested in this kind of thing, it’s well worth a look. In essence they say “we [of course they mean we the taxpayer] will pay farmers and land managers to enhance the natural environment alongside food production.” This will be done via the Sustainable Farming Incentive:

Through the SFI, farmers will be paid for looking after the natural environment in the course of their farming.

This initial offer will pay farmers for taking care of their soil or assessing the condition of moorland.

In future, we’ll add more actions that farmers can get paid to take.

Also, a Local Nature Recovery Scheme:

Perhaps inevitably, at this point net zero and climate change receive a mention, but at least they aren’t high on the list of priorities:

Through Local Nature Recovery, farmers will be able to contribute to important national priorities, including:

reversing the decline in biodiversity

improving water quality

net zero

building the resilience of the environment to climate change

improving air quality

natural flood management

coastal erosion risk mitigation

heritage and access

Reading further, climate change and net zero seem to move up the pecking order. Nevertheless, it doesn’t sound too bad, from an environmentalist’s perspective, albeit there is a mildly worrying lapse into the borderline meaningless language of bureaucrats everywhere:

We will work with farmers and other experts to design the detailed options over the course of this year. In designing options for the scheme, we will take into account:

their potential contribution to the statutory targets we will set under the Environment Act, including our new target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030, and our Net Zero and climate change adaptation commitments

affordability and value for money for the taxpayer

their coherence with private schemes and markets for climate and environmental outcomes such as carbon offsets, biodiversity net gain, and nutrient credits

their viability as options for farmers and land managers to deliver and for government to manage effectively

Assuming DEFRA is true to its word and there are no hidden catches, farmers should be happy:

There are already around 30,000 farmers in existing schemes and we have reviewed the payment rates and revised them up, on average, by around 30%.

Environmental Improvement Plan

Apparently there is a 25 year plan in place to improve the UK’s environment, and there is a 151 page document to prove it. The introduction starts well, but in short order I start to worry:

By using our land more sustainably and creating new habitats for wildlife, including by planting more trees, we can arrest the decline in native species and improve our biodiversity. By tackling the scourge of waste plastic we can make our oceans cleaner and healthier. Connecting more people with the environment will promote greater well-being. And by making the most of emerging technologies, we can build a cleaner, greener country and reap the economic rewards of the clean growth revolution.

It’s those “emerging technologies” that have the potential to be a concern. If they include wind farms, then we have an immediate contradiction, since filling our oceans with them, whatever else it does, won’t make them cleaner and healthier. And putting them onshore has to date involved cutting down rather a lot of trees, ploughing up a lot of peat, and killing a lot of bats and birds. It was signed off by Theresa May in 2018, and we’re on our third Prime Minister since then, with the prospect of another one after the next general election, so who knows whether all this still holds good. That said, it’s easy to be cynical, and the document does make a reasonably impressive read. It’s nice to know that somebody in a position of authority is thinking about these issues, however it all plays out in the end.

Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment Programme

Again, who knew? Not I. More can be found about it here. It seems to be about better data capture, in order to enable better decision-making to take place:

Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment (NCEA) is a science innovation and transformation programme, which spans across land and water environments. It has been set up to collect data on the extent, condition and change over time of England’s ecosystems and natural capital, and the benefits to society.

All the groups one might hope to see being involved in this collaborative exercise do get a mention – Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas); Environment Agency; Forest Research; Natural England; Joint Nature Conservation Committee; Marine Management Organisation; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

There are a few references to “carbon stocks” and “carbon accounting”, but not so many as to skew the programme unduly, so far as I can see.

Sundries

Reference is made to lots of other schemes and plans, such as the government’s (now closed) Consultation on Biodiversity Net Gain regulations and implementation; the 10 Point Plan for financing biodiversity; the Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund (“Apply to become a facilitator to bring together groups of farmers, foresters and other land managers to improve local environmental outcomes”); the Nature Recovery Green Paper (“We are setting out proposals to create a system which better reflects the latest science and the impending impacts of climate change, which better reflects our domestic species and habitats, and which will help us achieve our significant goals to recover nature”). There is also a reference to the announcement of some (in the scheme of things – certainly in the scheme of things net zero – minor) funding: £30m to the Big Nature Impact Fund, aimed at unlocking significant private investment into nature projects, such as new tree planting or restoring peatlands and £12m to the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance, to protect and restore vulnerable coastal communities and habitats.

Conclusion

I am grateful to WEET for the information set out as background to its forthcoming conference, for drawing all this together in a single place. It is good to know that a lot is going on. From a brief perusal it seems a bit scatter-gun and a bit repetitive; concerns remain that net zero, “carbon” reduction schemes, and “green” energy plans seem in the eyes of most government officials to be synonymous with environmentalism, when the reality is that they are often in conflict with it; and the sums available for real environmental projects look like chickenfeed compared to the money thrown at climate change projects.

On the other hand, it seems that a lot is going on and that a lot of thought is being given to important issues. I am not as depressed as I might be if I relied solely on the environment pages of the Guardian website for my news.

By Jo Nova

If Italy really does go back to nuclear power, it marks an astonishing turnaround. Italy abandoned nuclear energy 30 years ago. It’s the only major European country to have stopped using nuclear power. (Though Germany is trying to). Italy had four nuclear plants in the early 1980s but after the Chernobyl accident, they held a referendum on nuclear power, and the voters didn’t want it anymore, so they closed the last two reactors by 1990, (back in the days when voting made a difference). Furthermore, Italy held another referendum in 2011, and 94% of the voters rejected it again, which shows how desperate the situation must be now if an opinion poll like that has shifted so far in 11 years?

The thing is, Italy only makes 25% of its energy itself, and so it is suddenly very attuned to “geopolitical risk”.

Pierre Goselin at NoTricksZone found a news piece on this Nuclear U-turn in the Berliner Morgenpost. Otherwise, it’s crickets from the worlds media.

by Micaela Taroni

Under the pressure of the energy crisis, however, the Italians suddenly became painfully aware of their heavy dependence on electricity from abroad. The topic moves the citizens because they clearly feel the increase in their electricity bills despite government support.

Although renewable energies have been significantly expanded in recent years, the production of green electricity is far from sufficient.

No wonder that the new government around the right-wing populist Giorgia Meloni regards the return to nuclear energy, which the Italians had renounced following a referendum in 1987, as a solution to the energy problems.

The Infrastructure Minister (who happens to lead the second largest party in the Coalition) is dead keen:

“Italy cannot be the only major country in the world without nuclear energy. We cannot talk about phasing out gas, petrol and diesel without discussing nuclear energy,” [Matteo] Salvini explained, proposing that a nuclear power plant could be built in Milan, in his Baggio district.

When environmentalists objected that Italy was a densely populated country prone to earthquakes, landslides and floods, and on whose soil it would be better not to build nuclear reactors, Salvini replied that there were 440 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, including several in seismically active Japan and one A dozen of them in France, just over the Italian border. “Reactors of the latest generation are the safest and cleanest form of energy production, that’s the future,” assured the Lega boss.

As usual the left-leaning parties that want to reduce emissions will do anything to Not achieve that. Apparently, the big problem with nuclear power is that even though it will solve their emissions fears, it won’t meet some arbitrary committee deadline that no one else is going to meet anyway:

The Social Democrats see this “green transition” as an opportunity for the country’s economy. They oppose nuclear energy because, in their view, the timeframe and existing technologies are incompatible with a significant reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030.

It’s almost like the Social Democrats are just the useless minions for the big bankers or the renewable industry. What they fear more than a climate catastrophe is the end of their fake crisis.

So the big question then, is will Italians accept a nuclear plant now?

(The translation here is just from Chrome, don’t blame Pierre! )

The World Nuclear Association has more information on Nuclear Power in Italy.

Essay by Eric Worrall

Climate scientists have acted to ensure the world receives their narrative as quickly as possible, whenever a severe weather event strikes.

‘I am an optimistic person’: the scientist who studies climate catastrophes

Friederike Otto, a member of the world’s only rapid reaction force of climate scientists, on looking into the apocalypse of extreme weather

Sandra Laville Environment correspondent
Fri 30 Dec 2022 01.30 AEDT

…

Otto, known as Fredi, and a small team of researchers are the world’s only rapid reaction force of climate scientists. They target extreme weather across the world almost as it happens, reach out to local people on the ground, and carry out deep, rigorous statistical analysis, which is transforming our understanding of how human-caused global heating is affecting the planet and our lives.

Until now, scientists have had to be equivocal about whether a single weather event is linked to global heating. Otto’s work makes the connection between the string of disasters the world is suffering and global heating, much clearer. Her work was recognised internationally in 2021 when she was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people.

…

The journey from the creation of the World Weather Attribution unit to its current iteration, began with a paper Otto and Oldenborgh wrote on a heatwave in Russia in 2010. It was a classical academic paper, peer reviewed and published long after the event.

…

This last study drew her up short by the starkness of its findings. “One of the biggest scientific surprises for me this year was the floods in Nigeria because there was such a huge climate change impact,” said Otto. “They were made 80 times more likely as a result of climate change. That makes me think: ‘Oh wow, there is really a lot that we don’t understand in Africa’.”

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/29/i-am-an-optimistic-person-the-scientist-who-studies-climate-catastrophes

Obviously it is critically important to climate science that attribution studies align with news cycles. Otto has been very successful in attracting attention, her World Weather Attribution team made Time Magazine’s top 100 most influential people in 2021.