Public Interest Research Centre - PIRC

Communications & Research Officer

Salary: £16,000
Location: Machynlleth, mid-Wales
Position Type: Paid / Full time / 1 year
Closing Date: 2nd February
Contact: Richard Hawkins / 01654 70 22 77 / rich@pirc.info

We are seeking an enthusiastic and confident generalist with experience of project management, communications and research to join our small and dynamic team, based in Machynlleth, mid-Wales on a one-year contract.

PIRC is an independent charity integrating key research on climate change, energy & economics - widening its audience and increasing its impact.

Our recent work has included "Climate Safety", a synthesis of the latest climate science and its implications on policymaking and campaigning; "Coal in the UK", an interactive map exposing and monitoring the proposed expansion of the UK coal industry and "Zero Carbon Britain", an ambitious 20 year decarbonisation plan for the UK in collaboration with the Centre for Alternative Technology.

We act as a bridge between the academic/scientific community and policymakers and campaigning groups, translating technical research into engaging materials including reports, briefing papers, presentations, websites, videos and animations.

Our future work will explore social and technical solutions to the challenges of climate change and energy security in the face of economic uncertainty. This will include: promoting the ability of renewable energy to provide the majority of our energy needs; critiquing the media's role in climate change communications and exploring mechanisms which can finance the transition to zero-carbon infrastructure.

PIRC has three permanent staff members supported by a rolling internship programme. Our working model minimises hierarchy, with all staff sharing administrative tasks, alongside core/project work.

The successful applicant will become a core part our team, working on a number PIRC projects, both existing and upcoming as well as contributing to the overall running of the organisation, including administration and fundraising when necessary.

Role

Essential:

• A demonstrated interest in PIRC’s areas of work – climate, energy and economics.
• Experience of project management.
  
• Editorial experience – including copy editing, proofreading.
• The ability to work independently, and be self-motivated.
• Experience of working in a small team.
• IT skills including Word, Excel, email etc.
  

Desirable:

• Research experience, drawing on a broad range of technical material to create accessible communications.
• Experience of working with the media – writing press releases, giving interviews, understanding the processes of the media.
• Interest or experience of participatory decision-making and workshop processes.

To Apply 

Send a CV supported by a covering letter that shows how your experience and skillset suits the position, along with a sample of your writing (preferably published) by 9am, Monday 2nd February, to:

Richard Hawkins
PIRC
Y Plas
Machynlleth
Powys
SY20 8ER

01654 702277
rich@pirc.info

Interviews will be held on the 19th-21st February.

It's that time of year again, when we're looking for a budding, confident and enthusiastic intern to join our small and dynamic team, in mid-Wales - applications to rich@pirc.info - details below:

The successful candidate will work over a six-month period on one or two of the following projects:

• Climate safety - a project synthesising the latest climate science and its implications on policymaking and campaigning;
• Coal in the UK - documenting the proposed expansion of the UK coal industry;
• Renewables can do it - a project promoting the potential for renewable energy to provide the majority of our energy needs;
• Core work - exploring mechanisms which can finance the transition to zero-carbon infrastructure.

This will involve:

• Independent research to support PIRC projects;
• Participation in project development sessions;
• Opportunities to present material in meetings and seminars;
• Collective duties and some administrative work.

Full training will be provided where necessary.

Personal & skills:

• Great organisational skills;
• Self-motivated & hard-working;
• Environmentally conscious;
• Ability to work individually & in a small team;
• Some experience of copywriting an advantage;
• IT skills essential (Word, Excel, Email etc.. )

In return we can offer a chance to make a significant contribution to our work, to get experience of working for a small charity on environmental issues, and the supervision and support of our staff.

You would need to be based in mid-Wales for the duration of the placement. Within certain limits, PIRC will cover accommodation, travel and lunch expenses for volunteers.

About PIRC

PIRC is an independent charity integrating key research on climate change, energy & economics - widening its audience and increasing its impact. Our most recent work has included "Climate Safety", a report synthesising the latest climate science and its implications on policymaking and campaigning (climatesafety.org); "Coal in the UK", an interactive map and website exposing and monitoring the proposed expansion of the UK coal industry (coalintheuk.org) and last year "Zero Carbon Britain" a collaboration with the Centre for Alternative Technology on an ambitious 20 year decarbonisation plan for the UK (zerocarbonbritain.org).

PIRC has three permanent staff members, and a working model which minimises hierarchy, with all staff members sharing administrative tasks, as well as more interesting work!

Availability

6 month placement
Interviews will take place between the 19-21st February.

Included

PIRC can cover accommodation, travel and lunch expenses, within certain limits

To Apply

Send a CV supported by a covering letter that shows how your experience and skillset suits the position, to arrive by 9am, Monday 2nd February, to:

Richard Hawkins
PIRC
Y Plas
Machynlleth
Powys
SY20 8ER

01654 702277
rich@pirc.info

Since James Hansen's recent assertion that we've already passed safe levels of greenhouse gases, there's been a lot of talk about "drawdown".

Imagine it like limbo dancing if you will… the dancer representing human emissions, standing 8 feet tall say (1 foot for every billion tonnes of carbon) and the limbo pole, 4 feet high, represents the Earth’s carbon sinks (how much carbon the Earth soaks up every year).

Now, traditional policy, 'stabilisation', says all you need to do is come in just a fraction under the pole. Then human emissions are matched by the Earth’s absorption (both at 4)… and so atmospheric concentrations are 'stable'.

What this new analysis says is that we have to lower the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - reducing emissions is no longer enough, we have to now reduce concentrations, that means we have to reduce our emissions to well below the level that Earth can reabsorb. In the Limbo analogy we can’t just come in fractionally under the pole anymore, we need clearance between the dancer and the pole, and the more clearance the better… the greater the clearance, the faster reductions in atmospheric concentrations occur...

The complication is, that no matter how much politicians tell us to the contrary, we haven’t even started the dance yet… and every year that passes, every year we twiddle our thumbs at international negotiations the dancer grows taller, about 3 inches every year (much taller than we thought the dancer would grow!). But not only is the dancer growing, the pole is also falling… as the Earth warms the carbon sinks reduce… as the pole drops it not only makes it harder for the dancer to get under, it also reduces the total amount of clearance they can hope to achieve...

And we only get one chance to play the game.

So all this talk of "sequestration" through afforestation, biochar (terra pretta) or air capture etc. it's all just a method of slowing the pole's descent (or even possibly raising it!), by enhancing the earth's ability to absorb carbon.

Restorative processes that also store carbon are a good thing, so reforestation and afforestation, carried out responsibly, are great. Air capture however, appears to have problems.... the main one being cost. In a world of ever increasing fossil fuel prices, it's going to be much cheaper to decarbonise an economy rather the suck millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the air, compress it, transport it and store it permanently underground.

But more on that another time...

 

 Worse than “worst-case”!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely recognised as the international authority on climate change; however recent scientific observations indicate that in many key areas the IPCC’s predictions are being outpaced by events.

• Since 2000, emissions have grown three times faster than the IPCC predicted; emissions in 2006 were half a billion tonnes higher than their “worst-case scenario”(1).
• The Earth’s carbon sinks, which offset human emissions by around 40-50%, are declining faster than predicted(2), particularly the oceans(3).
• While the Siberian permafrost – which contains a volume of trapped greenhouse gas greater than that currently held in the atmosphere(4) – is melting at an alarming rate(5).
• In 2007, the IPCC was heavily criticized by many leading scientists(6) following its moderate sea-level rise projections of 18–59cm by the end of the 21st century. In a 2007 paper, James Hansen demonstrated that rapid melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could lead to sea-level rise reaching approximately 5 metres by 2100, which would mean the displacement of approximately 800 million people(7).
• Worryingly the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is accelerating faster than predicted(8).

“Changes in winter sea-ice cover are moderate, late summer sea-ice is projected to disappear almost completely towards the end of the 21st century”(9). Only months after it was published, this passage - taken from the 2007 IPCC report - was made redundant as the Arctic sea-ice minimum reached a record low of 4.13 million square kilometers in September 2007. Scientists are now predicting an ice-free Arctic by the summer of 2013, a full 80 years ahead of IPCC predictions(10).

The significance of this cannot be understated. When light-reflecting ice sheets melt and are replaced by dark sea, the Earth subsequently absorbs more solar radiation, the loss of the entire Arctic “reflector”, replaced by a dark ocean “absorber” adds another heat “engine” that the world could really do without!

This switch is what James Hansen refers to as the “albedo flip”.

This will increase the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and also lead to an increase in global temperatures, estimated to be at least 0.3 degrees(11) and probably more given the knock-on effects of such a warming elsewhere in the climate system. The IPCC report contains no discussion of the events in the Arctic, and there are no global climate models or existing emissions targets which integrate the “albedo flip”. The IPCC models are seriously understating the implications of climate change in the Arctic.

If the IPCC is underestimating the potential effects of climate change it has profound implications for policymakers. In relation to risk and uncertainty there is a fundamental difference between scientific process and policymaking. While the former is based on “scientific reticence”(12), the latter should be based on risk assessment, “where risk is understood to be a combination of probability of an outcome and its magnitude”(13).

It appears that the IPCC to date has concentrated on predicting the most 'likely' outcomes, to convince governments that climate change is real(14). This is fundamentally the wrong approach to managing risk. The emphasis now must shift to reporting the low probability, high impact risks, demonstrating what governments need to do to avoid them, and the necessary speed of action.

The impacts summarised above suggest that we’re in the midst of a climate emergency. We need an honest appraisal of our situation, enabling an effective response. An effective response means:

• Reducing emissions from fossil fuels to zero – cutting energy demand and delivering 100% renewable energy.
• Reducing emissions from agriculture, cement production and other chemical processes.
• Increasing carbon sequestration through adapting patterns of land use, afforestation, biochar and using carbon capture and storage with biomass (resulting in net negative emissions).

Nature is gradual and incremental only up to a point; with climate change it is clear that the smooth curves that describe “linear” processes can flip suddenly; this is what we must avoid at all costs.

References

(1) Raupach, M.R. et al. (2007), “Global and Regional Drivers of Accelerating Co2 Emissions,” PNAS, no.0700609104

(2) Canadell, J.G., et al. (2007), “Contributions to Accelerating Atmospheric CO2 Growth from Economic Activity, Carbon Intensity, and Efficiency of Natural Sinks,” PNAS, no. 0702737104

(3) Le Quere, C., et al. (2007), “Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change,” Science 316

(4) Zimov, S.A et al. (2006), “Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget,” Science 312:1612-1613

(5) Ibid.

(6) Oppenheimer, M., B. C. O’Neill, et al. (2007), “The limits of consensus”, Climate Change 317, 14 September 2007, doi:10.1126/science.1144831; Hansen, J. (2007), “Scientific reticence and sea level rise”, Environmental Research Letters 2:024002; Rahmstorf, S., et al. (2007a), “Recent climate observations compared to projections”, Science 316: 709

(7) Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Gridded Population of the World, Version 2, Palisades, NYCIESIN, Columbia University

(8) Hanna, E. et al. (2008), “Increased runoff from melt from the Greenland Ice Sheet: a response to global warming”, Journal of Climate

(9) IPCC (2007a), “Climate Change 2007, The physical sciences basis,” Working group I report, IPCC: Geneva

(10) Revkin, A. C. (2007) “Retreating Ice: A blue Arctic Ocean in summers by 2013?”, International Herald Tribune [online]

(11) Spratt, D. and Sutton, P. (2008), “Climate ‘Code Red’ – The case for a sustainability emergency” [online]

(12) Hansen, J. (2007), “Scientific reticence and sea level rise”, Environmental Research Letters 2:024002

(13) Pittock, B. (2006), “Are scientists underestimating climate change?” Eos 87: 34

(14) Oppenheimer, M., B. C. O’Neill, et al. (2007), “The limits of consensus”, Climate Change 317, 14 September 2007, doi:10.1126/science.1144831

ENERGY CONTEXT – SCIENCE DEMANDS LARGE EMISSIONS CUTS

Around 21% of our electricity needs are currently met from nuclear (1) - Planned retirement of old sites is due to drop this figure to around 14% over the next ten years. Because it is not used for heating or transport, nuclear makes up a smaller amount of the UKs energy needs (2). Recent appraisals of climate science suggest we need to cut UK emissions at least 94% by 2050, with 50% cuts by 2020 (3). With generating capacity due to fall, and emissions cuts necessary, we need to ask where our energy is going to come from in the future.

AS A RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE NUCLEAR DOESN’T MAKE THE CUT

Optimistically, any new nuclear plants will not be operational before 2020 (4). This means that nuclear power plants could not address any ‘energy gap’. It also means that nuclear will be slow to deliver carbon savings. 10 GW of new nuclear generating capacity – replacing 10 stations scheduled to close – would provide just a 4% cut in emissions after 2024 (5). 20GW of capacity – an expansion beyond what the Government is currently suggesting – would equate to an 8% cut in emissions by 2024. Nuclear’s ability to make any significant contribution to the kind of emissions cuts discussed above for 2020 targets is therefore limited (6).

LARGE SCALE RENEWABLES AND NUCLEAR POWER NEED DIFFERENT NATIONAL GRIDS

A grid powered by decentralised renewables utilises demand management, intelligent home appliances (which vary their power consumption), increased energy storage capacity, and generally complements and encourages energy efficiency. Investing in a grid powered by centralised nuclear is failing to adapt electricity infrastructure to suit a renewably powered country, when it is likely that only renewable can deliver the emissions cuts we need.

ON A FULL LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS NUCLEAR IS EXPENSIVE

Although the installed cost of nuclear generation is broadly similar to wind (7), the costs of decommissioning nuclear plants and dealing with radioactive waste makes nuclear a much more expensive option on a full life-cycle assessment – cost estimates for decommissioning current UK nuclear plants stand at £73 billion and are expected to escalate (8). Despite 54 years of operational nuclear power plants in the UK, there is no good long-term storage option available for nuclear waste, and unknown associated costs.

IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT, NUCLEAR POWER DOES NOT PROVIDE ‘ENERGY SECURITY’

While global uranium production is sufficient to meet current demand, reserves are finite and were there massive growth in nuclear power supplies could become insecure. Nuclear thus satisfies ‘energy security’ only in its narrowest form. To have a significant impact in reducing carbon emissions, nuclear would need to be deployed on a massive scale, compounding well understood problems - security risks, poor safety records and civil nuclear power driving proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nations adopting nuclear as a way to generate low-carbon electricity will have little authority to discourage non-nuclear states from pursuing civil nuclear programmes.

BEING ABLE TO CUT EMISSIONS QUICKLY DEPENDS ON CURRENT INVESTMENT CHOICES

Emissions cuts need to begin now – the longer they are delayed the more dramatic they will have to be. We also have to be able to make very high cuts – 80%, 90%, 100%, in the future. Choices about investment in the energy sector that are made now will determine our ability to make dramatic emissions cuts in the future. Committing to nuclear as an emission cutting strategy risks choosing a slow and costly option which does not deliver adequate carbon cuts, and diverting money from developing renewable capacity (9). A fundamental restructuring of how we meet our energy needs is required. At best, nuclear provides only a limited and expensive step towards reducing emissions. At worst, it distracts from effective action, contributes to global insecurity, and leaves a long legacy of dangerous waste.

References

1. Source: Carbon Monitoring for Action – see www.carma.org
2. (In 2000) – See Godfrey Boyle, ‘Energy Systems and Sustainability’ - p 71
3. See IPPR – ‘High Stakes’ - http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=501
4. See Tom Burke at http://www.e3g.org/index.php/programmes/climate-articles/decoding-nuclear-nonsense-ii-the-real-evidence/
5. Sustainable Development Commission – See ‘The Role of Nuclear in a Low Carbon Society’ http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=344
6. SDC – Ibid.
7. See the Guardian – see http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/05/guardiansocietysupplement8
8. See http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gG31I-Bek2HrX5WA9znIUoD4bMNA

Helping People Change Their World

The Sheila McKechnie Foundation has opened applications for its 2008 awards, inspired by the legacy of Dame Sheila McKechnie.

The awards will begin a search among communities across the UK for people of all ages who are campaigning to change their world locally and globally. These will be the people with the potential to set the agenda for politicians on issues ranging from climate change to support for children with dyslexia.  

Tim Helweg-Larsen, a mechanical engineer won the 2007 Environment Award for his campaigning on global climate change.  Tim launched zerocarbonbritain, a radical vision of Britain’s energy future: www.zerocarbonbritain.com

The Awards helped TIm put his campaign on the map through 1:1 mentoring, coaching and shadowing influencers like Mike Dixon, special advisor to the Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

In 2008 the Environment Award will be sponsored by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. The Foundation, which aims to take an innovative, international and involving approach to its work, is interested in this most global of social change concerns and currently supports projects intended to help raise environmental awareness among the public.

Commenting on the bespoke support he received Tim said:

“The package of support I have received from the Sheila McKechnie Foundation has provided an amazing step up in my campaigning, and in framing the work of the small organisation I an newly running. Having previously worked alone, I cherished the independence to direct my own work. The Sheila McKechnie Foundation award has allowed me to begin to realise the potential of directing an organisation to work for positive change, and has superbly provided me with the guidance of others already experienced and expert in their field.”

Sheila McKechnie Foundation Patron and Channel 4 presenter Jon Snow commented on the Awards:

“We want to make it possible for another Sheila, another passionate informed campaigner, to break out and raise a voice from beyond organised politics on behalf of those denied rights and opportunities”.

For more information or to interview Tim Helweg-Larsen please contact Miranda Akhurst on 0207 770 7892 or miranda.akhurst@sheilamckechnie.org.uk

www.sheilamckechnie.org.uk

 

It's worth keeping an eye on the Environmental Audit Committee's homepage.  They regularly produce interesting reports on topical environmental issues, and a quick scan through some of the things they've been taking a look at - post-Kyoto frameworks for reducing emissions, reducing carbon emissions from UK business, personal carbon allowances, a general appraisal of the voluntary carbon offset market  - throws up a lot of useful reading material. 

The EAC's most recent publication, available today from their website has some interesting, and quite critical things to say, about the government's commitment to biofuels. A couple of the take-home points -

"biofuels are unlikely to improve fuel security as they largely rely on fossil fuels for their production;"

And 

"a large biofuel industry based on current technology is likely to increase food prices and could damage food security in developing countries." 

We reckon biofuels on any large scale - as a substantial way of addressing emissions from transport - are not worth the time, effort and repercussions. The EAC seem to agree: "biofuels are generally an expensive and ineffective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions when compared to other policies. Emissions from road transport can be cut cost-effectively, and with lower environmental risk, by implementing a range of other policies."

Britain currently has a target for 5% biofuels in petrol and diesel by 2010, through its Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), which is due to kick in later this spring.

I wonder if other chunks of Government are listening to the EAC...

[...]

Worth thinking about...

 

UPDATE:  Dieter Helm has published an excellent report attempting to answer this question, called "Too good to be true? The UK's Climate Change Record, download it here.

The ESRC's Research Group on Lifestyles, Values and Environment (RESOLVE) has just published an important initial analysis of the UK's carbon footprint based on final consumption. From our research on CAT's Zero Carbon Britain project we're very aware that further research in this field is sorely needed.

Abstract

The UK Climate Change Bill proposes to establish legally binding targets for a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. This paper discusses the challenges posed by measuring progress towards this target. It takes as a premise that the conventional production-based accounting framework, enshrined in the UNFCCC emissions accounting guidelines, is inappropriate for this task because it fails to account for the carbon ‘traded’ across the UK national boundary. Accordingly, it sets out a consumption-based accounting framework – using a two-region Environmental Input–Output (EIO) model – which could in principle measure progress in reducing the emissions attributable to final consumers in the UK.

It illustrates the use of this framework to measure the reduction in carbon dioxide achieved by the UK between 1990 (the Kyoto base year) and the year 2004 and compares this against the production perspective. The results indicate that any progress towards the UK's carbon reduction targets (visible under a production perspective) disappears completely when viewed from a consumption perspective. But the robustness of this conclusion depends critically on the accuracy of underlying economic and environmental datasets as well as specific assumptions concerning imports. By analysing the consistency of UK Input–Output data, we conclude that EIO is still some way from being able to answer the critical question of the carbon trade balance for the UK. In these circumstances, measuring real progress towards carbon reduction in the UK remains elusive.

Download

Download Report

Working on the basis that you can never have too much information, along comes a new web application from the Center for Global Development called CARMA (Carbon Monitoring for Action).

CARMA, at it's most basic, is a nice packaging of an enormous dataset. CGD have taken information about the size, ownership and 'carbon intensity' of all the power plants (electricity generating) around the world, and presented it through a really usable, intricate web interface. You can quickly grab information about power plants near you, or in the US, or wherever, and see which are the biggest ones, which pump out the most carbon into the atmosphere, and which are producing the most power for the lowest carbon pollution hit.

Although they apparently can't flag up what technology each power plant uses for data protection reasons, (so CARMA won't tell you if a power plant is coal fired, gas fired, or solar powered, for instance), the application gives you good quantative data clearly, and colour codes power plants so you can tell broadly whether they're burning fossil fuels like coal (high carbon intensity = red) or generating clean electricity using renewables (low carbon intensity = green).

The more you delve into it, the more interesting stuff you find. Did you know, for example, that the South American continent gets 80 per cent of its electricity from Hydro power? That's the kind of interesting bits of information that spring out at you. And, more locally to us, I can get a quick run-down on all the power stations, high and low carbon intensity, in Wales with a few clicks of the mouse.

By putting this information out there so accessibly, CARMA offers users the power to lever it to their own ends. So if you want to track down big polluters, or you want to see how the growth in renewables is going, go take a look. 

Link