When it comes to environmental sustainability, the prognosis is grim: Britain is "winning battles, but still losing the war".
The UK is failing to hit a raft of key targets on sustainable living, according to a new report to be published this week. In its critical analysis, released on Wednesday, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) warns that progress on a number of green targets has been "undermined by stasis or even reversion". Jonathon Porritt, outgoing SDC chair and one-time "green guru" to Tony Blair, claims sustainability plays second fiddle to the drive for consumption-driven economic growth. "The thing that stands out is the very limited progress we've made on reducing inequity in our society... it's a startling indictment of this Government that more people will be living in fuel poverty at the time of next election than were living in fuel poverty in 1997," he said.
The "review of progress on sustainable development" details how the "Securing the Future" strategy launched by Tony Blair in 2005 has failed in a number of areas. It says Britain remains the EU's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is not on track to meet its target of a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010.
Britain remains well behind most European countries on supplying renewable energy, which accounts for less than 2 per cent of overall energy consumption, according to the report, which also predicts the proportion of energy produced by renewables in 2020 will be just 5 per cent – far short of the EU target of 20 per cent. And while recycling is on the increase, there is a long way to go to meet the 40 per cent target by 2010, with the UK heavily reliant on landfill, says the report.
Mr Porritt, who steps down next month, admitted: "I feel some disappointment inevitably because I would have wanted to see faster progress," and cites a new energy White Paper as something "they could, and should, have done four or five years ago".
The embarrassing report comes just days after Gordon Brown's proposals for a £60bn international fund to help poorer countries deal with climate change were announced. The Prime Minister is also arguing for aviation and maritime emissions to be included in global climate-change talks taking place in Copenhagen in December.
The Government's record on sustainability also came under attack from politicians and pressure groups last night. Greg Clark, Tory spokesman on energy and climate change, said: "This is a time when we need action rather than spin."
And Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth said of the Government: "They've produced strategies and had press conferences but there hasn't been conviction... that sustainable development is of critical importance."
In a statement, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "We're grateful to the SDC for the work they've put into this report. We look forward to its publication... and we will consider its content carefully."
Greenhouse gas emissions
Government target
Twenty per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2010, and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.
What the report says
Britain remains the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Europe. In 2007, CO2 emissions were 8.5 per cent below 1990 levels.
Verdict
Britain is not on track to meet its target on emissions. An apparent decrease becomes a significant increase once emissions embedded in trade and travel are taken into account.
Energy production
Government target
Britain to supply 10 per cent renewable energy by 2010. Twenty per cent of EU energy production from renewables by 2020.
What the report says
In 2007, the percentage of final energy consumption from renewable sources was less than 2 per cent. Projections suggest that this will increase to 5 per cent by 2020.
Verdict
Britain is one of the poorest performers in Europe in supplying energy from renewables and is not on track to meet national and EU targets.
Existing homes
Government target
To eliminate fuel poverty in all households by 2016.
What the report says
Cavity wall insulation is one of the most cost-effective measures to reduce carbon, yet 8.5 million UK households do not have this. In 2006, there were approximately 3.5 million UK households (14 per cent) in fuel poverty, an increase of 1 million since 2005. Some 2.75 million of these were classed as 'vulnerable' households.
Verdict
Despite some improvements, significant energy efficiency improvements are required to meet climate-change targets.
Healthy and safe mobility
Government target
To encourage cycling and walking and reduce dependence on cars.
Halve the number of children killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads by 2010.
What the report says
Between 1986 and 2003, the average number of trips by foot fell by 30 per cent. There has been a 52 per cent fall in children killed or seriously injured on roads.
Verdict
Road traffic volume has risen by 20 per cent since 1990, and the frequency of car journeys in the UK outranks walking, cycling and public transport.
Health
Government target
Halt increase in childhood obesity in under-11s by 2010.
Reduce adult smoking rates to 21 per cent.
Reduce health inequalities by 10 per cent by 2010.
What the report says
Almost 40 per cent of the population is expected to be obese by 2020.
Average smoking rates have fallen to 22 per cent.
In Scotland, life expectancy in deprived areas is around 10 years lower than the general population.
Verdict
Britain has the highest rate of childhood obesity in the EU.
We are not on target to meet the 2010 goal of reducing inequalities.
Sustainable communities
Government target
Eradicate child poverty by 2020.
Reduce the proportion of children living in workless households by 5 per cent between 2005 and 2008.
What the report says
Between 1997 and 2007 the number of children in workless households decreased from 19 to 16 per cent. One in five children still live in poverty.
Verdict
Some progress has been made on reducing income inequalities, but the gap between the richest and poorest is increasing. The UK is not on track to meet its child poverty target.
Local economies
Government target
Job and business creation with benefits for the community, and town centres that are economically viable and attractive.
Eighty per cent overall employment rate.
What the report says
There are more than 55,000 social enterprises in Britain generating more than £27bn in turnover. Over the past decade Britain has had high rates of employment but this fell to 74 per cent in December 2008.
Verdict
The economic downturn has caused increases in unemployment. Unemployment is not distributed evenly across the UK, and basic and intermediate skills need improving.
Domestic waste
Government target
Reduce household residual waste by 29 per cent in 2010.
Recycle or compost 40 per cent of household waste by 2010.
What the report says
In England, total household waste fell by 2 per cent between 2006/07 and 2007/08. The national household recycling rate has reached 34.5 per cent but is short of the 40 per cent 2010 target. The UK is also still heavily reliant on landfill.
Verdict
Households are recycling more of their waste, but most of that which is not recycled still goes to landfill. A third of the food we buy goes to waste.
Biodiversity
Government target
To halt biodiversity loss by 2010. To deliver 95 per cent of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) into 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition by 2010.
What the report says
Eighty per cent of SSSIs are in 'favourable' or 'recovering' condition. Sustainable development issues, including biodiversity, risk being sidelined by Rural Development Agencies, due to an overriding focus on economic growth.
Verdict
Britain is not on target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Protected area arrangements appear to be working but the lack of cross-government action means non-protected areas are particularly vulnerable.
Air quality
Government target
The EU Air Quality Directive sets standards for major pollutants, including levels of particulates, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone.
What the report says
Overall emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulates and sulphur dioxide have been steadily decreasing since 1990. Despite this, air pollution in 2005 was estimated to reduce life expectancy by seven to eight months and cost up to £20.2bn per annum.
Verdict
Despite decreases in overall emissions of air pollutants, 20 cities fail to meet EU legislation for particulates, and the UK is at risk of missing targets for nitrogen dioxide levels.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Batteries included: Are eco-friendly cars any good?
The first shot of the electrical car revolution was fired on 10 January 1985.
Rather than change the world, it hit a wall of media criticism, ricocheted against several bricks of public abuse and pinged back to strike its originator between the eyes. It was the winter morning when Sir Clive Sinclair, the eccentric, beady-eyed, ginge-bearded inventor of pocket calculators and microcomputers, introduced the Sinclair C5, the world's first electric car.
It was an odd-looking thing, like a pointlessly streamlined invalid carriage, 6ft long, 2ft 6in high, 2ft 6in wide and weighing just 99lb. Instead of petrol, it ran on a 33lb lead acid battery which drove a 250-watt electric motor – identical, journalists noted, to the one that powers your mum's washing machine. Its top speed was a snaily 15mph, and it could travel a whole 20 miles between recharges. Imagine.
How they scoffed, the C5's first spectators, as they watched the shoe-shaped machine slither in the snow. Nobody believed the 20-mile claim. Sceptics noted it used more electricity in cold weather and struggled so much uphill, the driver was obliged to use pedals. Its height made it dangerous for the occupant, who, A: couldn't been seen by lorry- or jeep-drivers, and B: would be choked by car fumes just at the level of his or her nose.
It was a disaster. Nobody wanted the C5, the invention that conferred instant wally status on anyone foolish enough to climb into it. Sir Clive became a figure of ridicule. The price was slashed from £399 to £199 to offload the surplus stock. By October, Sinclair vehicles were in the hands of the receivers, and production of the C5 ceased. Electric cars? Pah, everyone said. They're battery-powered toys, one step up from milk floats. They are slow, anaemic, whining, pathetic and need charging up with flex and socket every few miles. How am I supposed to drive one to the Cairngorms? Don't talk to me about electric cars.
Scoot forward to 2009 and you could be forgiven for thinking our relationship with the things had scarcely improved. The only electric car driven by anyone I know is the GoinGreen G-Wiz and, much as I like the owner, you'd never catch me in one. I recall the nitric scorn heaped on it by Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. He abused its cramped conditions, its lethal cornering, its arse-juddering suspension, its sluggish performance: you can't, he pointed out, access the radio or the fan, or have electric windows, or go fast or even stop, "because it'll wear the battery down". He mocked the fact that the EU didn't classify the G-Wiz as a car at all, but a "quadricycle". He raced one against a standard Renault (it lost) and a kitchen table carried by six men (it lost when it ran out of juice). Plus, EU data also revealed that, whatever its manufacturers claimed about a 45mph top speed, the average speed at which it's usually driven is 10mph. Twenty-odd years after the C5, the electric car is still becalmed near the intersection of Toytown and Rubbishville.
Not for much longer. Last week, the Government rolled out a scheme to persuade the population to love, or consider loving, electric cars – sorry, "environmentally-friendly vehicles", because they're not all electric; at least one runs on wind turbine energy. The scheme, fronted by Paul Drayson, the science minister, is costing £25m and will make 340 cars from various manufacturers available, at the end of the year, to members of the public to test, on short-term leases, in eight areas, including London, Glasgow, Birmingham and Oxford.
Universities and regional areas will be encouraged to help by experimenting with finding ways to supply the nervous electric motorist with charging points. The aim is to cut road transport emissions in the UK by half, from 22 per cent to 11 per cent.
The Government's scheme will start with four models: they'll be given the Star Wars-ish title of the Ultra Low-Carbon Vehicle Fleet. They are the Smart Electric Drive, owned by Mercedes; the MiniE from BMW; the Expert Eurobus (formerly the Teepee) from Peugeot, and the Lightning from the combined forces of Westfield and Delta Motorsport. But hardly had the scheme been announced than other makers pitched in. Ford Motors announced its own "global commitment" to developing "Battery Electric Vehicles" or BEVs. They're not saying which makes or models will take part in the scheme, but we shall find out by the end of the year.
Will we like them? I thought I'd go for an early sighting. I am no petrol-head, but I love cars. I practically live in my Alfa Romeo 159. Could I find an electric one that didn't make me feel (and look) a fool or a geek when driving it? Could I turn myself into an amp-head, a watt-brain, an ohm-body?
The cool-looking Lightning, sad to report, isn't currently available, since it's still being built. Ditto the Mini E, which BMW hope will be available to the public by November. So I high-tailed it to west London to try out the Smart ED.
People are in two minds about Smart cars. They look slightly ludicrous, but are becoming less so. They nip in and out of traffic like annoying hornets, but have a certain miniature charm.
At first sighting of the ED, your heart sinks. Climbing into one is like getting into one of those electrically-operated toy vans you see outside supermarkets. It's all front seat, driver's door, then nothing. I was reminded of the moment in the wartime movie Kings Row, when the unfortunate Ronald Reagan, having fallen foul of a vindictive surgeon, wakes up in hospital to find both his legs amputated, and cries: "Where's the rest of me?" Inside, though, it's not half bad. There's plenty of headroom. Even if, like me, you're six-feet-one, there's plenty of legroom. The dashboard is charming. On the left of the speedometer, two little dials poke up like antennae on a robot: one's a clock, the other tells you how much percentage of electricity remains.
I switched it on, nervously. I put it in gear. (There are three gears: neutral, drive and reverse. Electric cars don't need clutches, transmission, spark plugs, engine oil, filters, exhaust, any of that stuff.) I gingerly placed my foot on the accelerator. A strange, mosquito whine filled the air: "Eeeeeeeee." Slowly, painfully, the Smart ED inched forward, as though expressing a whingey reluctance to go anywhere (or anywhere with me). Once I left the car park, the noise resolved into a cute, kittenish mewing, then disappeared. It was damned odd to be driving something so discreetly, mutedly, virginally, monkishly, mortifiedly silent.
As I became used to its teeny size, things became easier. It was still sluggish getting away from traffic lights, but I could feel it trying. It handled very lightly – sometimes I felt I was sitting on a metal tray with windows – but was a little ponderous when taking corners, hardly surprising when you think of the heavy battery pack under the floor. Though my reflection in shop windows looked a little ridiculous (especially with the words "emission zero!" emblazoned just under my nose), it was easy to feel rather cool and zippy.
The makers claim a top speed of 60 mph and I can confirm that, in a burst of enthusiasm, I got it up to 56mph on the M4 before being forced to subside. The main drawback of the Smart ED, though, is that you spend a lot of time watching the dial that tells you how much juice is left. At the start of my drive, the dial said 83 per cent remained. After an hour, the figure had reduced to 60. At times, I thought I could see the needle moving before my eyes while I hummed along. They say you can drive 70 miles before needing to recharge the battery. I'm afraid I'd have one eye on the dial all the way.
It's a simple drive, in a car that feels properly constructed, rather than fashioned from plastic. It doesn't emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, unburned hydrocarbons – it doesn't emit anything except a high-pitched whine. And charging it means sticking a blue plug into a six-pin socket and sticking the three-pin plug at the end of a long yellow flex into a household socket, for up to eight hours. Call me a dreamer, but the Smart ED seems to represent the normalisation of the electric car. If only someone could apply the transformation to a family-sized saloon ...
Should you have an unusually large family – very large – you might talk to Peugeot, who are taking part in the Government's trial. For a year from this autumn, they'll supply 40 of their "zero emission vehicles" (ZEVs) for drivers in Glasgow, in partnership with the local battery company, Axeon. During the trial period, Scottish Power will set up 40 electric-charging points around Glasgow. All the data about car journeys will be recorded by satellite and analysed by boffins at Strathclyde University. The only drawback to the plan is that ZEVs aren't your usual family runaround. They are big commercial vans and "multiple passenger vehicles" (or as we say in English, "buses").
I headed for the Peugeot showroom in Chiswick and took out a Peugeot Expert Eurobus. It's a big, roomy, metal box with windows; it will never appeal to the boy racer but, in its electrical incarnation, it's fun to drive. You feel like you're sitting six feet above other motorists, humming along in near-silence. The suspension is so bouncy that driving over speed bumps is like hitting a trampoline – and then there's the gear lever.
Just the sight of it made me laugh out loud. Plonked in the middle of the wide dashboard, sitting on a metallic pad the size of a beer mat, the lever is the size of a toothpick, tapering outwards at the top. It resembles one of those miniscule screwdrivers you get in a Christmas cracker. You flick it forward an inch, and the 3,000kg bus moves forward. Flick it back an inch, and the metal Behemoth obediently reverses. I flicked it back and forth a dozen times, entranced by the power and heft that could be accessed by prodding something the size of a Twiglet.
The Eurobus has a top speed of 70, and a range of 100 miles between rechargings; the makers suggest you treat it like a pet, settling it down after a hard day's driving, for "a good night's charge", so you can assume eight hours is standard.
I was beginning to warm to electric cars – their silent efficiency, their clean energy, their lack of bits that can go wrong. Hard-core petrol-heads will never love them – without all the complex engine parts, no exhaust system, fuel system, gearbox or clutch, they rather resemble a human body with no internal organs, only a robot brain and an On/Off switch – but you can see them catching on, as soon as the problem of recharging availability is solved. Should sockets be available on the forecourt of every petrol service station? Or would the petrol companies consider that helping the enemy?
What I missed about the cars I'd tried was a sense of style. Then I learned that the Tesla company was opening a London outpost. Tesla is a name that raises goose-bumps on some motorists' skin. Rumours have flown for months about the Californian company owned by Elon Munsk, whose electric Roadster is a sports car that can reportedly out-race a Porsche and a Ferrari from a standing start.
The showroom was in Knightsbridge. The four cars on display were jaw-droppingly beautiful - sleek and glistening in red or silver. The makers have adapted the chassis from a Lotus Elise, made it 6in longer and 2in wider, its carbon-fibre skin as smooth as butter. The gear stick is a perfect silver ball like a Ferrari's. The seats are low-lying and buttock-clenching. The leather upholstery is black and red, finished with exposed stitching like a Savile Row suit.
Don Cochrane, who runs the UK office, is a handsome, Wapping-born Londoner with coal-black hair and a boundless optimism about electric cars. He dismissed the idea that Tesla was in competition with the environmentally-friendly cars coming out from BMW, Peugeot, Mercedes and Ford. "We're not making cars in their price bracket. But I'm happy to see more electric cars in the market place. The more people see them, the more they'll say, 'Maybe it's realistic for me to have an electric car for the 20 miles a day that I drive, instead of a combustion-engined vehicle.' " A car lover rather than an environmental zealot, he is nonetheless keen to change people's perspectives: "It makes sense that if things are going to change, you should be part of that change and not have it forced upon you." He used to work for Formula One under Bernie Ecclestone. Could he imagine an electric model ever having the performance level of Formula One cars?
"Certainly. Give it five years. There's so much investment now in battery technology. One positive side-effect of this recession is that governments are bailing out companies but, as part of the bailout, are forcing them to work on more environmental cars. Ford just announced they're going to build two; that's because they're just got $1.5bn of DOE money from the States."
Mr Cochrane can talk at torrential length about battery technology and the 6,831 lithium-ion cells that make up the battery in every Tesla Roadster. He can explain with admirable fluency the "torque curve" of ordinary cars, as they increase their power ratio through the gears, and how electric cars provide 100 per cent torque all the time (but controllably). He explained how the Roadster's top speed is 125 mph and that it can go 200 miles without recharging. I listened politely, but itched to try it. We rolled the doors aside, Cochrane started the engine (silently) and rolled the silver Roadster out into the narrow roadway. He glided into a side-road, then – in a burst of pure showing-off – whizzed in reverse round the corner, fast as a whipcrack. I climbed in (the seats make you virtually horizontal), plied the key, engaged "Drive" and glided away, with no whining, no wheel-grind, no noise at all except the envious cooing of passers-by.
It was a completely new driving experience: touch the accelerator and you rocket forward, the G-force pushing you back in your leather seat as if you're on a fairground ride, although you never feel out of control. The handling is (as with the Smart ED) a touch heavy when cornering, but deliciously smooth on the straight. Though the car lies very close to the road, it bounces over bumps and sleeping policemen as if pillowed in goosedown. And you can't help but feel a boyish glee about the vast coiled spring of power and speed that's detectable under your hands. On Hammersmith flyover, doing 50 with no traffic ahead, I experimentally floored the accelerator to see what would happen. The car leapt forward, in a split-second, to 70mph. Talk about torque. It was scary (and possibly illegal) but tremendously exhilarating.
By the time I returned it, with the greatest reluctance, to Mr Cochrane's tender care, I was determined to buy one. There are 500 lucky Californians driving Roadsters and amazing their friends with their environmental responsibility and their love of speed. It's time I joined them. It'll only take 20 years or so of patient savings to find the £94,000 I'll need.
With their curious little fleet of tiny Smart cars and Minis, and huge utility vehicles from Peugeot, the Government may have an uphill struggle making British people love electrical cars. The shadow of the Sinclair C5 hasn't completely dispersed. I suspect if the sceptics were given five minutes in a Tesla, they'd change their minds. It's becoming obvious that the electrics are where the future of cars must lie. Whoever comes up with the first mid-range, sensible-sized, four-door family model for under £20,000, with a charging-range of at least 100 miles, will be a very lucky winner indeed, in this fascinating off-shoot of the race to environmental purity.
Rather than change the world, it hit a wall of media criticism, ricocheted against several bricks of public abuse and pinged back to strike its originator between the eyes. It was the winter morning when Sir Clive Sinclair, the eccentric, beady-eyed, ginge-bearded inventor of pocket calculators and microcomputers, introduced the Sinclair C5, the world's first electric car.
It was an odd-looking thing, like a pointlessly streamlined invalid carriage, 6ft long, 2ft 6in high, 2ft 6in wide and weighing just 99lb. Instead of petrol, it ran on a 33lb lead acid battery which drove a 250-watt electric motor – identical, journalists noted, to the one that powers your mum's washing machine. Its top speed was a snaily 15mph, and it could travel a whole 20 miles between recharges. Imagine.
How they scoffed, the C5's first spectators, as they watched the shoe-shaped machine slither in the snow. Nobody believed the 20-mile claim. Sceptics noted it used more electricity in cold weather and struggled so much uphill, the driver was obliged to use pedals. Its height made it dangerous for the occupant, who, A: couldn't been seen by lorry- or jeep-drivers, and B: would be choked by car fumes just at the level of his or her nose.
It was a disaster. Nobody wanted the C5, the invention that conferred instant wally status on anyone foolish enough to climb into it. Sir Clive became a figure of ridicule. The price was slashed from £399 to £199 to offload the surplus stock. By October, Sinclair vehicles were in the hands of the receivers, and production of the C5 ceased. Electric cars? Pah, everyone said. They're battery-powered toys, one step up from milk floats. They are slow, anaemic, whining, pathetic and need charging up with flex and socket every few miles. How am I supposed to drive one to the Cairngorms? Don't talk to me about electric cars.
Scoot forward to 2009 and you could be forgiven for thinking our relationship with the things had scarcely improved. The only electric car driven by anyone I know is the GoinGreen G-Wiz and, much as I like the owner, you'd never catch me in one. I recall the nitric scorn heaped on it by Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear. He abused its cramped conditions, its lethal cornering, its arse-juddering suspension, its sluggish performance: you can't, he pointed out, access the radio or the fan, or have electric windows, or go fast or even stop, "because it'll wear the battery down". He mocked the fact that the EU didn't classify the G-Wiz as a car at all, but a "quadricycle". He raced one against a standard Renault (it lost) and a kitchen table carried by six men (it lost when it ran out of juice). Plus, EU data also revealed that, whatever its manufacturers claimed about a 45mph top speed, the average speed at which it's usually driven is 10mph. Twenty-odd years after the C5, the electric car is still becalmed near the intersection of Toytown and Rubbishville.
Not for much longer. Last week, the Government rolled out a scheme to persuade the population to love, or consider loving, electric cars – sorry, "environmentally-friendly vehicles", because they're not all electric; at least one runs on wind turbine energy. The scheme, fronted by Paul Drayson, the science minister, is costing £25m and will make 340 cars from various manufacturers available, at the end of the year, to members of the public to test, on short-term leases, in eight areas, including London, Glasgow, Birmingham and Oxford.
Universities and regional areas will be encouraged to help by experimenting with finding ways to supply the nervous electric motorist with charging points. The aim is to cut road transport emissions in the UK by half, from 22 per cent to 11 per cent.
The Government's scheme will start with four models: they'll be given the Star Wars-ish title of the Ultra Low-Carbon Vehicle Fleet. They are the Smart Electric Drive, owned by Mercedes; the MiniE from BMW; the Expert Eurobus (formerly the Teepee) from Peugeot, and the Lightning from the combined forces of Westfield and Delta Motorsport. But hardly had the scheme been announced than other makers pitched in. Ford Motors announced its own "global commitment" to developing "Battery Electric Vehicles" or BEVs. They're not saying which makes or models will take part in the scheme, but we shall find out by the end of the year.
Will we like them? I thought I'd go for an early sighting. I am no petrol-head, but I love cars. I practically live in my Alfa Romeo 159. Could I find an electric one that didn't make me feel (and look) a fool or a geek when driving it? Could I turn myself into an amp-head, a watt-brain, an ohm-body?
The cool-looking Lightning, sad to report, isn't currently available, since it's still being built. Ditto the Mini E, which BMW hope will be available to the public by November. So I high-tailed it to west London to try out the Smart ED.
People are in two minds about Smart cars. They look slightly ludicrous, but are becoming less so. They nip in and out of traffic like annoying hornets, but have a certain miniature charm.
At first sighting of the ED, your heart sinks. Climbing into one is like getting into one of those electrically-operated toy vans you see outside supermarkets. It's all front seat, driver's door, then nothing. I was reminded of the moment in the wartime movie Kings Row, when the unfortunate Ronald Reagan, having fallen foul of a vindictive surgeon, wakes up in hospital to find both his legs amputated, and cries: "Where's the rest of me?" Inside, though, it's not half bad. There's plenty of headroom. Even if, like me, you're six-feet-one, there's plenty of legroom. The dashboard is charming. On the left of the speedometer, two little dials poke up like antennae on a robot: one's a clock, the other tells you how much percentage of electricity remains.
I switched it on, nervously. I put it in gear. (There are three gears: neutral, drive and reverse. Electric cars don't need clutches, transmission, spark plugs, engine oil, filters, exhaust, any of that stuff.) I gingerly placed my foot on the accelerator. A strange, mosquito whine filled the air: "Eeeeeeeee." Slowly, painfully, the Smart ED inched forward, as though expressing a whingey reluctance to go anywhere (or anywhere with me). Once I left the car park, the noise resolved into a cute, kittenish mewing, then disappeared. It was damned odd to be driving something so discreetly, mutedly, virginally, monkishly, mortifiedly silent.
As I became used to its teeny size, things became easier. It was still sluggish getting away from traffic lights, but I could feel it trying. It handled very lightly – sometimes I felt I was sitting on a metal tray with windows – but was a little ponderous when taking corners, hardly surprising when you think of the heavy battery pack under the floor. Though my reflection in shop windows looked a little ridiculous (especially with the words "emission zero!" emblazoned just under my nose), it was easy to feel rather cool and zippy.
The makers claim a top speed of 60 mph and I can confirm that, in a burst of enthusiasm, I got it up to 56mph on the M4 before being forced to subside. The main drawback of the Smart ED, though, is that you spend a lot of time watching the dial that tells you how much juice is left. At the start of my drive, the dial said 83 per cent remained. After an hour, the figure had reduced to 60. At times, I thought I could see the needle moving before my eyes while I hummed along. They say you can drive 70 miles before needing to recharge the battery. I'm afraid I'd have one eye on the dial all the way.
It's a simple drive, in a car that feels properly constructed, rather than fashioned from plastic. It doesn't emit carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, unburned hydrocarbons – it doesn't emit anything except a high-pitched whine. And charging it means sticking a blue plug into a six-pin socket and sticking the three-pin plug at the end of a long yellow flex into a household socket, for up to eight hours. Call me a dreamer, but the Smart ED seems to represent the normalisation of the electric car. If only someone could apply the transformation to a family-sized saloon ...
Should you have an unusually large family – very large – you might talk to Peugeot, who are taking part in the Government's trial. For a year from this autumn, they'll supply 40 of their "zero emission vehicles" (ZEVs) for drivers in Glasgow, in partnership with the local battery company, Axeon. During the trial period, Scottish Power will set up 40 electric-charging points around Glasgow. All the data about car journeys will be recorded by satellite and analysed by boffins at Strathclyde University. The only drawback to the plan is that ZEVs aren't your usual family runaround. They are big commercial vans and "multiple passenger vehicles" (or as we say in English, "buses").
I headed for the Peugeot showroom in Chiswick and took out a Peugeot Expert Eurobus. It's a big, roomy, metal box with windows; it will never appeal to the boy racer but, in its electrical incarnation, it's fun to drive. You feel like you're sitting six feet above other motorists, humming along in near-silence. The suspension is so bouncy that driving over speed bumps is like hitting a trampoline – and then there's the gear lever.
Just the sight of it made me laugh out loud. Plonked in the middle of the wide dashboard, sitting on a metallic pad the size of a beer mat, the lever is the size of a toothpick, tapering outwards at the top. It resembles one of those miniscule screwdrivers you get in a Christmas cracker. You flick it forward an inch, and the 3,000kg bus moves forward. Flick it back an inch, and the metal Behemoth obediently reverses. I flicked it back and forth a dozen times, entranced by the power and heft that could be accessed by prodding something the size of a Twiglet.
The Eurobus has a top speed of 70, and a range of 100 miles between rechargings; the makers suggest you treat it like a pet, settling it down after a hard day's driving, for "a good night's charge", so you can assume eight hours is standard.
I was beginning to warm to electric cars – their silent efficiency, their clean energy, their lack of bits that can go wrong. Hard-core petrol-heads will never love them – without all the complex engine parts, no exhaust system, fuel system, gearbox or clutch, they rather resemble a human body with no internal organs, only a robot brain and an On/Off switch – but you can see them catching on, as soon as the problem of recharging availability is solved. Should sockets be available on the forecourt of every petrol service station? Or would the petrol companies consider that helping the enemy?
What I missed about the cars I'd tried was a sense of style. Then I learned that the Tesla company was opening a London outpost. Tesla is a name that raises goose-bumps on some motorists' skin. Rumours have flown for months about the Californian company owned by Elon Munsk, whose electric Roadster is a sports car that can reportedly out-race a Porsche and a Ferrari from a standing start.
The showroom was in Knightsbridge. The four cars on display were jaw-droppingly beautiful - sleek and glistening in red or silver. The makers have adapted the chassis from a Lotus Elise, made it 6in longer and 2in wider, its carbon-fibre skin as smooth as butter. The gear stick is a perfect silver ball like a Ferrari's. The seats are low-lying and buttock-clenching. The leather upholstery is black and red, finished with exposed stitching like a Savile Row suit.
Don Cochrane, who runs the UK office, is a handsome, Wapping-born Londoner with coal-black hair and a boundless optimism about electric cars. He dismissed the idea that Tesla was in competition with the environmentally-friendly cars coming out from BMW, Peugeot, Mercedes and Ford. "We're not making cars in their price bracket. But I'm happy to see more electric cars in the market place. The more people see them, the more they'll say, 'Maybe it's realistic for me to have an electric car for the 20 miles a day that I drive, instead of a combustion-engined vehicle.' " A car lover rather than an environmental zealot, he is nonetheless keen to change people's perspectives: "It makes sense that if things are going to change, you should be part of that change and not have it forced upon you." He used to work for Formula One under Bernie Ecclestone. Could he imagine an electric model ever having the performance level of Formula One cars?
"Certainly. Give it five years. There's so much investment now in battery technology. One positive side-effect of this recession is that governments are bailing out companies but, as part of the bailout, are forcing them to work on more environmental cars. Ford just announced they're going to build two; that's because they're just got $1.5bn of DOE money from the States."
Mr Cochrane can talk at torrential length about battery technology and the 6,831 lithium-ion cells that make up the battery in every Tesla Roadster. He can explain with admirable fluency the "torque curve" of ordinary cars, as they increase their power ratio through the gears, and how electric cars provide 100 per cent torque all the time (but controllably). He explained how the Roadster's top speed is 125 mph and that it can go 200 miles without recharging. I listened politely, but itched to try it. We rolled the doors aside, Cochrane started the engine (silently) and rolled the silver Roadster out into the narrow roadway. He glided into a side-road, then – in a burst of pure showing-off – whizzed in reverse round the corner, fast as a whipcrack. I climbed in (the seats make you virtually horizontal), plied the key, engaged "Drive" and glided away, with no whining, no wheel-grind, no noise at all except the envious cooing of passers-by.
It was a completely new driving experience: touch the accelerator and you rocket forward, the G-force pushing you back in your leather seat as if you're on a fairground ride, although you never feel out of control. The handling is (as with the Smart ED) a touch heavy when cornering, but deliciously smooth on the straight. Though the car lies very close to the road, it bounces over bumps and sleeping policemen as if pillowed in goosedown. And you can't help but feel a boyish glee about the vast coiled spring of power and speed that's detectable under your hands. On Hammersmith flyover, doing 50 with no traffic ahead, I experimentally floored the accelerator to see what would happen. The car leapt forward, in a split-second, to 70mph. Talk about torque. It was scary (and possibly illegal) but tremendously exhilarating.
By the time I returned it, with the greatest reluctance, to Mr Cochrane's tender care, I was determined to buy one. There are 500 lucky Californians driving Roadsters and amazing their friends with their environmental responsibility and their love of speed. It's time I joined them. It'll only take 20 years or so of patient savings to find the £94,000 I'll need.
With their curious little fleet of tiny Smart cars and Minis, and huge utility vehicles from Peugeot, the Government may have an uphill struggle making British people love electrical cars. The shadow of the Sinclair C5 hasn't completely dispersed. I suspect if the sceptics were given five minutes in a Tesla, they'd change their minds. It's becoming obvious that the electrics are where the future of cars must lie. Whoever comes up with the first mid-range, sensible-sized, four-door family model for under £20,000, with a charging-range of at least 100 miles, will be a very lucky winner indeed, in this fascinating off-shoot of the race to environmental purity.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Kidney stones? Blame global warming
Latest research indicates that global warming could have another unwanted spin-off – it may spur the formation of kidney stones.
Dehydration, particularly in warmer climes and higher temperatures, will only exacerbate this effect. Consequently, the prevalence of stone disease may increase, along with the costs of treatment.
Using published data bearing on temperature-dependence of stone disease, researchers applied predictions of temperature increase to determine the impact of global warming on the incidence and cost of kidney stone disease.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated significant increases in temperature by 2050.
These findings were presented at the ongoing 103rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Association.
Dehydration, particularly in warmer climes and higher temperatures, will only exacerbate this effect. Consequently, the prevalence of stone disease may increase, along with the costs of treatment.
Using published data bearing on temperature-dependence of stone disease, researchers applied predictions of temperature increase to determine the impact of global warming on the incidence and cost of kidney stone disease.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated significant increases in temperature by 2050.
These findings were presented at the ongoing 103rd Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Association.
Clearing the Air: Aviation Exec Tries to Go Green
Virgin Atlantic Airlines owner Sir Richard Branson is placing his latest bet on biofuels, hoping to one day power commercial aircraft with something other than petroleum
Branson, who is known for his competitive spirit, made headlines recently after turning to the United States and Boeing to buy 15 787's to replace some of his Airbus fleet.
While the deal made plenty of money for Boeing, $2.8 billion, it comes with a promise to "go green."
In the last 25 years, the amount of jet fuel used in this country has more than doubled to more than 70 million gallons a day.
It is expensive, and the vast majority of it comes from overseas. But Branson is convinced that this could change.
He and Boeing are exploring environmentally friendly biofuel and plan to conduct a test run with a 747 by the end of next year.
"We're confident that we can fly a plane in 12 months time using biofuels and having zero emissions," Branson said.
General Electric Engineers, who design engines for Boeing, are already testing a number of potential biofuel sources like corn, algae, switchgrass and even newspaper.
Drivers are already turning to alternative fuels such as vegetable oil to power their vehicles. Branson's venture will be decidedly more high-tech.
And the challenges are substantial -- chief among them is finding a fuel that doesn't freeze at high altitudes.
ABC aviation analyst John Nance said it is not certain a biofuel can be developed with enough power to fly a jet.
"The danger is that after a lot of research, we are going to find that we are still going to need to have a large amount of petroleum, basically fossil fuel, in addition to some of the bio-fuel to make this work," he said.
With the rising cost of oil and the growing pressure to reduce carbon emissions, Branson says the industry has to do something.
And Nance agrees that while Branson's goal of flying a commercial flight on biofuel in two years may be a reach, at least he's reaching.
"Up until now, all of our discussion of biofuel and aviation has been someday, sometime, someway," Nance said. "It is thrilling to see heavyweights like this get involved on the launching pad."
Branson, who is known for his competitive spirit, made headlines recently after turning to the United States and Boeing to buy 15 787's to replace some of his Airbus fleet.
While the deal made plenty of money for Boeing, $2.8 billion, it comes with a promise to "go green."
In the last 25 years, the amount of jet fuel used in this country has more than doubled to more than 70 million gallons a day.
It is expensive, and the vast majority of it comes from overseas. But Branson is convinced that this could change.
He and Boeing are exploring environmentally friendly biofuel and plan to conduct a test run with a 747 by the end of next year.
"We're confident that we can fly a plane in 12 months time using biofuels and having zero emissions," Branson said.
General Electric Engineers, who design engines for Boeing, are already testing a number of potential biofuel sources like corn, algae, switchgrass and even newspaper.
Drivers are already turning to alternative fuels such as vegetable oil to power their vehicles. Branson's venture will be decidedly more high-tech.
And the challenges are substantial -- chief among them is finding a fuel that doesn't freeze at high altitudes.
ABC aviation analyst John Nance said it is not certain a biofuel can be developed with enough power to fly a jet.
"The danger is that after a lot of research, we are going to find that we are still going to need to have a large amount of petroleum, basically fossil fuel, in addition to some of the bio-fuel to make this work," he said.
With the rising cost of oil and the growing pressure to reduce carbon emissions, Branson says the industry has to do something.
And Nance agrees that while Branson's goal of flying a commercial flight on biofuel in two years may be a reach, at least he's reaching.
"Up until now, all of our discussion of biofuel and aviation has been someday, sometime, someway," Nance said. "It is thrilling to see heavyweights like this get involved on the launching pad."
Global Warming Health Threats
Devastating heat waves sweeping across continents. Poisonous plants producing more potent toxins. Air quality plummeting on summer days. Disease-carrying insects swarming mountain villages.These scenarios aren't the recipe for a summer disaster movie. They're some of the widespread health consequences caused by global warming. And they're happening right now, all over the world. (For examples of climate-related health effects and what's being done to cope with them, explore the map at the right.)
Scientists say that as earth's thermostat continues to climb, human health problems will only become more frequent. The threats range from emerging tropical diseases to life-threatening temperatures to an increase in allergies and asthma.
Feeling the Impact
Here are some examples of what's already happening due to global warming:
In the summer of 2003, an intense heat wave was blamed for an estimated 35,000 deaths across large swaths of Europe. A study says that global warming has doubled the likelihood of heat waves of this magnitude.
Scientists found in 2008 that poison ivy vines have grown 10 times denser near Savannah, Ga., over the last 20 years. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes poison ivy to grow larger and produce stronger irritants.
Six young men and boys were killed by fatal parasites in 2007 at Lake Havasu, Ariz., after they swam in water infested with a heat-loving amoeba. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expect more of these illnesses as global temperatures rise.
Mosquitoes that carry malaria were found at never-before-seen elevations on Mount Kenya in 2006. As temperatures rise, higher elevations become more hospitable for mosquitoes -- and more dangerous for local inhabitants.
Future health problems can also be expected from sea-level rise, increased flooding and stronger storms, among other climate-related threats.
Action Needed Now
There is still time to avert the worst of the health threats by taking aggressive action now to cut global warming pollution. Even so, health care systems should begin preparing so that communities can be protected as temperatures rise.
Local strategies already in the works include heat-wave warning systems and response plans for cities, improved infrastructure in vulnerable coastal areas, and green buildings that stay cool and save energy. But a greater local, national and international understanding of the health risks is needed. There's no time to wait.
NRDC is working to research the links between global warming and health so that the public and policymakers can better understand the risks. We're also taking steps to prepare the public health system and promote solutions that will offer added health benefits by reducing both greenhouse gases and toxic pollution
Scientists say that as earth's thermostat continues to climb, human health problems will only become more frequent. The threats range from emerging tropical diseases to life-threatening temperatures to an increase in allergies and asthma.
Feeling the Impact
Here are some examples of what's already happening due to global warming:
In the summer of 2003, an intense heat wave was blamed for an estimated 35,000 deaths across large swaths of Europe. A study says that global warming has doubled the likelihood of heat waves of this magnitude.
Scientists found in 2008 that poison ivy vines have grown 10 times denser near Savannah, Ga., over the last 20 years. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes poison ivy to grow larger and produce stronger irritants.
Six young men and boys were killed by fatal parasites in 2007 at Lake Havasu, Ariz., after they swam in water infested with a heat-loving amoeba. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expect more of these illnesses as global temperatures rise.
Mosquitoes that carry malaria were found at never-before-seen elevations on Mount Kenya in 2006. As temperatures rise, higher elevations become more hospitable for mosquitoes -- and more dangerous for local inhabitants.
Future health problems can also be expected from sea-level rise, increased flooding and stronger storms, among other climate-related threats.
Action Needed Now
There is still time to avert the worst of the health threats by taking aggressive action now to cut global warming pollution. Even so, health care systems should begin preparing so that communities can be protected as temperatures rise.
Local strategies already in the works include heat-wave warning systems and response plans for cities, improved infrastructure in vulnerable coastal areas, and green buildings that stay cool and save energy. But a greater local, national and international understanding of the health risks is needed. There's no time to wait.
NRDC is working to research the links between global warming and health so that the public and policymakers can better understand the risks. We're also taking steps to prepare the public health system and promote solutions that will offer added health benefits by reducing both greenhouse gases and toxic pollution
Asia set to become biggest climate change driver
Asia's share of global greenhouse gas emissions could rise to more than 40 percent by 2030, making it the world's main driver of climate change, experts warned Tuesday.
The most populous continent with the fastest-growing economies in China and India already accounts for a third of world emissions of gases blamed for warming weather, including carbon dioxide, Asian Development Bank President Haruhiko Kuroda told a conference in Manila.
Its share of discharges from energy use has tripled over the past 30 years, he said.
Asia also stands out as the most vulnerable region to climate change.
In addition to water shortages, crop yields in Central and South Asia could drop by 30 percent by 2050, and coastal cities including Bangkok, Jakarta, Karachi, Manila, Mumbai and Shanghai will be vulnerable to flooding or damage from unpredictable weather patterns, the ADB said.
Within this century, people living in coastal Bangladesh, Maldives and Tuvalu in the southwest Pacific may be forced to flee because of rising sea levels, the Manila-based lender said.
"Climate change has this characteristic of exacerbating the existing stress in a region ... which is afflicted by poverty and a lack of infrastructure," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate scientists have urged rich countries to reduce emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of warming.
They say warming weather will lead to widespread droughts, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.
Even a 3.6-degree Fahrenheit (2-degree Celsius) temperature rise could subject up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species, according to a 2007 report by the intergovernmental panel, a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists.
Kuroda said it was imperative to step up efforts to put the region on a path of low-carbon growth.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a video address to the conference, called on Asian countries to help achieve a new global warming agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December. Ban said he wants to see an "ambitious, comprehensive and fair" deal.
U.N. climate delegates in Bonn completed a draft Friday of a new agreement containing gaps and competing ideas that await decisions by political leaders.
The rift more clearly exposed differences between industrial and emerging nations—and within those blocs—on the obligations of the 192 countries involved in the talks to control greenhouse gases.
The U.S. and China are the largest emitters, accounting for about half the world's carbon emissions. But neither country was part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which called on 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by a total of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Meanwhile, about 30 activists criticized the ADB for continuing to support coal-energy projects they say pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.
ADB officials say the bank funds very few coal power plants, which for some developing countries are a cheap energy source.
Kuroda said the ADB provided nearly $1.7 billion last year for projects with clean energy components like wind power in China and India, exceeding its $1 billion target.
The most populous continent with the fastest-growing economies in China and India already accounts for a third of world emissions of gases blamed for warming weather, including carbon dioxide, Asian Development Bank President Haruhiko Kuroda told a conference in Manila.
Its share of discharges from energy use has tripled over the past 30 years, he said.
Asia also stands out as the most vulnerable region to climate change.
In addition to water shortages, crop yields in Central and South Asia could drop by 30 percent by 2050, and coastal cities including Bangkok, Jakarta, Karachi, Manila, Mumbai and Shanghai will be vulnerable to flooding or damage from unpredictable weather patterns, the ADB said.
Within this century, people living in coastal Bangladesh, Maldives and Tuvalu in the southwest Pacific may be forced to flee because of rising sea levels, the Manila-based lender said.
"Climate change has this characteristic of exacerbating the existing stress in a region ... which is afflicted by poverty and a lack of infrastructure," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Climate scientists have urged rich countries to reduce emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of warming.
They say warming weather will lead to widespread droughts, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.
Even a 3.6-degree Fahrenheit (2-degree Celsius) temperature rise could subject up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world's species, according to a 2007 report by the intergovernmental panel, a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists.
Kuroda said it was imperative to step up efforts to put the region on a path of low-carbon growth.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a video address to the conference, called on Asian countries to help achieve a new global warming agreement in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December. Ban said he wants to see an "ambitious, comprehensive and fair" deal.
U.N. climate delegates in Bonn completed a draft Friday of a new agreement containing gaps and competing ideas that await decisions by political leaders.
The rift more clearly exposed differences between industrial and emerging nations—and within those blocs—on the obligations of the 192 countries involved in the talks to control greenhouse gases.
The U.S. and China are the largest emitters, accounting for about half the world's carbon emissions. But neither country was part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which called on 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by a total of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Meanwhile, about 30 activists criticized the ADB for continuing to support coal-energy projects they say pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.
ADB officials say the bank funds very few coal power plants, which for some developing countries are a cheap energy source.
Kuroda said the ADB provided nearly $1.7 billion last year for projects with clean energy components like wind power in China and India, exceeding its $1 billion target.
Brown proposes £60bn climate fund
Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants to set up a £60bn annual fund to help poor countries deal with climate change.
He hopes it will break the deadlock over who will pay developing nations to adapt to the changing climate and who will help them obtain clean technology.
Countries must reach a binding global agreement on carbon emission cuts at December's Copenhagen summit, he said.
The summit is seen as the last chance to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
Environment and anti-poverty campaigners welcomed Mr Brown's remarks but said he and other leaders must deliver real financial support not merely "empty rhetoric".
Finance is one of the key sticking points in global negotiations, with poor nations demanding huge amounts of cash and rich nations reluctant to commit.
The UK figure is less than developing nations say they need - but at least it will provide a negotiating point in the coming G8 when the leaders of emerging nations will join for a special climate summit chaired by US President Barack Obama.
Some of the political blocks need to be cleared in this meeting if there is to be a new global deal at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
Mr Brown said: "Copenhagen is twenty-three weeks away. When historians look back on this critical moment, let them say, not that we were the generation that failed our children; but that we had the courage, and the will, to succeed."
'Act with vision'
Speaking in London, Mr Brown said leading industrialised economies must support developing nations most at risk from climate change to enable them to keep on growing while meeting their environmental obligations.
He suggested £60bn would be needed to help poor countries adjust to climate change, stressing the UK would pay "its fair share" towards this.
"Over recent years, the world has woken to the reality of climate change," he said.
"But the fact that is that we have not yet joined together to act against it.
"Copenhagen must be the moment we do so.
"If we act now, act together and act with vision and resolve, success at Copenhagen is within reach."
Money could be raised from selling carbon permits and from existing development aid budgets, although he said contributions from the latter should be limited.
The BBC's Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin said Mr Brown's efforts were designed to break the deadlock over who would pay for poorer countries to make the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy.
But Oxfam said at least $150bn a year was needed to protect poorer countries from climate change.
"The prime minister's proposal could give a welcome kick-start to negotiations if other leaders rise to the challenge," said chief executive Barbara Stocking.
"Ultimately, if catastrophe is to be avoided and the poorest people protected, we need more money and sooner."
Friends of the Earth said it welcomed the government's "recognition that finance is key to breaking the deadlock in the stalled UN talks," but added: "We have no chance of achieving the cuts required through the con of carbon offsetting."
Temperature rises
By putting a figure on the cost of climate change adjustment, Greenpeace said Gordon Brown was showing leadership but urged him to put "serious money" on the table when G8 leaders meet in Italy next month.
Lord Stern, who wrote a climate change report for the government in 2008, said Mr Brown's initiative was "timely" but countries getting money should be able to follow their own development agendas and not have them imposed.
Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics
Simon Hughes, Lib Dems
The UK government is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and argues the rest of the world must follow suit if global temperature rises are to be restricted to 2 Celsius - above which is regarded dangerous.
"We cannot in good conscience plan for the world to exceed that limit," Mr Brown said.
Ministers say the legally-binding target puts the UK in the vanguard of international efforts on climate change.
But the Lib Dems said the UK's targets were not ambitious enough and its green credentials were undermined by the government's approval of new coal-fired power stations and airport runways.
"People in the UK and around the world should do all they can to tackle climate change, but we need the government to lead by example," said the party's climate spokesman Simon Hughes.
"Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics."
He hopes it will break the deadlock over who will pay developing nations to adapt to the changing climate and who will help them obtain clean technology.
Countries must reach a binding global agreement on carbon emission cuts at December's Copenhagen summit, he said.
The summit is seen as the last chance to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012.
Environment and anti-poverty campaigners welcomed Mr Brown's remarks but said he and other leaders must deliver real financial support not merely "empty rhetoric".
Finance is one of the key sticking points in global negotiations, with poor nations demanding huge amounts of cash and rich nations reluctant to commit.
The UK figure is less than developing nations say they need - but at least it will provide a negotiating point in the coming G8 when the leaders of emerging nations will join for a special climate summit chaired by US President Barack Obama.
Some of the political blocks need to be cleared in this meeting if there is to be a new global deal at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
Mr Brown said: "Copenhagen is twenty-three weeks away. When historians look back on this critical moment, let them say, not that we were the generation that failed our children; but that we had the courage, and the will, to succeed."
'Act with vision'
Speaking in London, Mr Brown said leading industrialised economies must support developing nations most at risk from climate change to enable them to keep on growing while meeting their environmental obligations.
He suggested £60bn would be needed to help poor countries adjust to climate change, stressing the UK would pay "its fair share" towards this.
"Over recent years, the world has woken to the reality of climate change," he said.
"But the fact that is that we have not yet joined together to act against it.
"Copenhagen must be the moment we do so.
"If we act now, act together and act with vision and resolve, success at Copenhagen is within reach."
Money could be raised from selling carbon permits and from existing development aid budgets, although he said contributions from the latter should be limited.
The BBC's Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin said Mr Brown's efforts were designed to break the deadlock over who would pay for poorer countries to make the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy.
But Oxfam said at least $150bn a year was needed to protect poorer countries from climate change.
"The prime minister's proposal could give a welcome kick-start to negotiations if other leaders rise to the challenge," said chief executive Barbara Stocking.
"Ultimately, if catastrophe is to be avoided and the poorest people protected, we need more money and sooner."
Friends of the Earth said it welcomed the government's "recognition that finance is key to breaking the deadlock in the stalled UN talks," but added: "We have no chance of achieving the cuts required through the con of carbon offsetting."
Temperature rises
By putting a figure on the cost of climate change adjustment, Greenpeace said Gordon Brown was showing leadership but urged him to put "serious money" on the table when G8 leaders meet in Italy next month.
Lord Stern, who wrote a climate change report for the government in 2008, said Mr Brown's initiative was "timely" but countries getting money should be able to follow their own development agendas and not have them imposed.
Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics
Simon Hughes, Lib Dems
The UK government is committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and argues the rest of the world must follow suit if global temperature rises are to be restricted to 2 Celsius - above which is regarded dangerous.
"We cannot in good conscience plan for the world to exceed that limit," Mr Brown said.
Ministers say the legally-binding target puts the UK in the vanguard of international efforts on climate change.
But the Lib Dems said the UK's targets were not ambitious enough and its green credentials were undermined by the government's approval of new coal-fired power stations and airport runways.
"People in the UK and around the world should do all they can to tackle climate change, but we need the government to lead by example," said the party's climate spokesman Simon Hughes.
"Ministers should push for tougher targets that follow the science and not the politics."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)