29 July 2010
Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) could be transformed into the Green Investment Bank (GIB) “to kick start a green economy” and help the UK meet its climate change targets, according to an NGO report.
The report, A bank for the future: maximising public investment in a low-carbon economy, was written by former PricewaterhouseCoopers consultant James Leaton and economist Howard Reed, and commissioned by activist organisation Platform and anti-poverty group World Development Movement.
Taking the opportunity for both banking reform and sustainability action, the report authors set out how RBS could be reinvented as the GIB, boosting green jobs and reducing the UK’s carbon emissions.
RBS was bailed out by the UK government in 2008, at the height of the credit crunch, and is now 80% publicly owned. Since then, environmental activists have been campaigning for the government to impose tougher environmental and social criteria to investments made by the state-controlled bank.
By focusing on financing renewables and energy efficiency projects, the report said a revamped RBS could help to create 50,000 green jobs a year, increase energy security, stabilise energy costs and improve the UK’s international competitiveness.
The report said by taking “a more activist, imaginative approach” RBS could reinvent itself in a way that would advance both the green agenda and responsible banking.
The success of such a bank would depend on whether it was perceived by the private sector as credible, the report said, adding the involvement of state-controlled banks would send a “powerful signal” of the government’s intent to foster green gro wth.
"The government needs to bring together its banking reform and green agendas to set an example with RBS of how expertise in project finance, renewables and small to medium size enterprises can contribute green jobs and infrastructure for the UK and beyond," said lead report author, James Leaton, who estimates at least £200 billion ($313 billion) is needed for investment in UK energy infrastructure over the next 10–15 years.
The report said the transformation of the RBS into a GIB would form part of a wider bank restructuring strategy designed to reduce the risk of future financial crises.
Proposals to establish a GIB in the UK were laid out last month. However, the government has said it will not respond until after its spending review in October.
Charlotte Dudley
Monday, 2 August 2010
UK may have to import rubbish for incinerators
Waste Britain: Improved recycling rates mean that we may not have enough garbage to feed planned new plants
By Kate Youde
Environmental groups are demanding an end to the building of new waste incinerators, which they say will undermine recycling. Experts question whether Britain will produce enough household waste to fuel energy-from-waste plants as the country improves its recycling efforts. And they warn that waste will have to be diverted from sustainable recycling schemes or imported from elsewhere to keep a rash of new planned waste incinerators working.
The UK has 25 waste incinerators, but, according to the UK Without Incineration Network, there are a further 65 "potential" incinerators outlined for England, nine in Scotland and one for Wales. Environmentalists are calling for a moratorium, urging the Government to take a more sustainable approach to waste management.
Last week, the coalition government announced a review of waste policies in England. It will include consideration of "how to ensure the right contribution of energy from waste, including delivery of a step change in generation from anaerobic digestion", a method of processing biological wastes that generates methane which can be used to produce power and heat, as well as a soil improver. Preliminary findings are not due to be published until next year.
Incinerator policy will come under scrutiny next month when the public inquiry into a proposed 180,000-ton energy recovery facility at Rufford, Nottinghamshire, recommences. Becky Slater, campaign assistant at Friends of the Earth, said the UK should learn from Europe, where some countries with many incinerators "are now finding they are struggling to fill them and recycling rates are being restricted".
In Hampshire, where the Veolia waste contractor operates three incinerators, a shortage of municipal waste has already led the company to seek to vary the plants' planning conditions to allow them to process more commercial waste and, potentially, import waste from outside the county. A county council spokeswoman denied the incinerators would impact on recycling. However, only one of the county's 14 local authorities recycles domestic food waste – the rest incinerate it.
Gill Weeks, of the Environmental Services Association, the trade body representing the UK's waste management industry, claimed there was particular overcapacity in Germany and the Netherlands, with other EU member states exporting waste there. Campaigners warn that the possibility of overcapacity in the UK arises because waste levels across the country are now in decline as Britons get better at recycling. Official statistics show collected municipal waste in England alone decreased by 4.1 per cent to 27.3 million tons in 2008-09, compared to 28.5 million tons in 2007-08. The proportion of municipal waste being recycled or composted increased from 34 per cent to 36.9 per cent in the same period, while waste incinerated with energy recovery rose from 11.1 per cent to 12.2 per cent. Landfill disposal fell from 54.4 per cent to 50.3 per cent.
"If you combine that stabilisation of waste growth and an ever-increasing recycling rate, it shows we need to be very careful not to build too much infrastructure to deal with waste," said Ms Slater. Despite this, there has been a "surge" of PFI incinerator proposals, she said.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says there are 39 waste PFI projects, two of which are operational and two which are being built. Four more await a planning inquiry or appeal. Environmentalists warn that PFI agreements lock councils into expensive, inflexible, long-term contracts that make predicting future recycling rates difficult.
A Defra spokesman said the priority was to prevent waste being created, but that there would always be some unavoidable waste. "Reusing and recycling this waste is important, but where this can't happen, a more environmentally friendly alternative to sending it to landfill can be to use it to generate power for homes and businesses," he added. "We monitor potential waste-incineration capacity very closely and we do not believe at this stage there will be overcapacity. Many European countries such as the Netherlands have a higher rate of recycling than England and combine it with high rates of incineration."
Additional reporting by Pavan Amara
By Kate Youde
Environmental groups are demanding an end to the building of new waste incinerators, which they say will undermine recycling. Experts question whether Britain will produce enough household waste to fuel energy-from-waste plants as the country improves its recycling efforts. And they warn that waste will have to be diverted from sustainable recycling schemes or imported from elsewhere to keep a rash of new planned waste incinerators working.
The UK has 25 waste incinerators, but, according to the UK Without Incineration Network, there are a further 65 "potential" incinerators outlined for England, nine in Scotland and one for Wales. Environmentalists are calling for a moratorium, urging the Government to take a more sustainable approach to waste management.
Last week, the coalition government announced a review of waste policies in England. It will include consideration of "how to ensure the right contribution of energy from waste, including delivery of a step change in generation from anaerobic digestion", a method of processing biological wastes that generates methane which can be used to produce power and heat, as well as a soil improver. Preliminary findings are not due to be published until next year.
Incinerator policy will come under scrutiny next month when the public inquiry into a proposed 180,000-ton energy recovery facility at Rufford, Nottinghamshire, recommences. Becky Slater, campaign assistant at Friends of the Earth, said the UK should learn from Europe, where some countries with many incinerators "are now finding they are struggling to fill them and recycling rates are being restricted".
In Hampshire, where the Veolia waste contractor operates three incinerators, a shortage of municipal waste has already led the company to seek to vary the plants' planning conditions to allow them to process more commercial waste and, potentially, import waste from outside the county. A county council spokeswoman denied the incinerators would impact on recycling. However, only one of the county's 14 local authorities recycles domestic food waste – the rest incinerate it.
Gill Weeks, of the Environmental Services Association, the trade body representing the UK's waste management industry, claimed there was particular overcapacity in Germany and the Netherlands, with other EU member states exporting waste there. Campaigners warn that the possibility of overcapacity in the UK arises because waste levels across the country are now in decline as Britons get better at recycling. Official statistics show collected municipal waste in England alone decreased by 4.1 per cent to 27.3 million tons in 2008-09, compared to 28.5 million tons in 2007-08. The proportion of municipal waste being recycled or composted increased from 34 per cent to 36.9 per cent in the same period, while waste incinerated with energy recovery rose from 11.1 per cent to 12.2 per cent. Landfill disposal fell from 54.4 per cent to 50.3 per cent.
"If you combine that stabilisation of waste growth and an ever-increasing recycling rate, it shows we need to be very careful not to build too much infrastructure to deal with waste," said Ms Slater. Despite this, there has been a "surge" of PFI incinerator proposals, she said.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says there are 39 waste PFI projects, two of which are operational and two which are being built. Four more await a planning inquiry or appeal. Environmentalists warn that PFI agreements lock councils into expensive, inflexible, long-term contracts that make predicting future recycling rates difficult.
A Defra spokesman said the priority was to prevent waste being created, but that there would always be some unavoidable waste. "Reusing and recycling this waste is important, but where this can't happen, a more environmentally friendly alternative to sending it to landfill can be to use it to generate power for homes and businesses," he added. "We monitor potential waste-incineration capacity very closely and we do not believe at this stage there will be overcapacity. Many European countries such as the Netherlands have a higher rate of recycling than England and combine it with high rates of incineration."
Additional reporting by Pavan Amara
Ingeborg Schumacher Likes New-Energy Firms
By TARA LOADER WILKINSON
Ingeborg Schumacher, director of business development in Kaiser Ritter Partner's responsible investing division, tells The Wall Street Journal how to benefit from new energy.
There is increasing evidence that sustainable investing—investing in companies with sustainable business models, and avoiding those most exposed to environmental and legal risks—pays off financially.
BP is a dramatic illustration of how environmental risks stemming from weaknesses in facilities maintenance and operational safety can lead to significant losses for the company and its investors.
But the fundamental shifts in the energy sector also offer opportunities to investors. Declining oil reserves and concerns about climate change, together with the increasing global demand for energy, are stimulating more and more demand for renewable sources of energy.
In 2009, more than 60% of the new electricity capacity created in [European Union] states was based on renewable resources. China, the U.S. and European countries are investing significant proportions of their stimulus packages in green infrastructure.
Regulation like feed-in tariffs for renewable energies have created confidence in stable revenue streams of renewable energy companies. The numerous IPOs and increasing market capitalization in this sector have attracted interest from investors who are looking for financial performance as well as ethical credentials.
Investors who want to benefit from the new energy trend have a variety of options to choose from, including actively managed funds and index-tracking products. The WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index (www.nexindex.com) was created with Bloomberg New Energy Finance Ltd. and serves as a benchmark for a range of funds. Index members are companies who are responding to climate change with lower-carbon approaches, and whose technologies help reduce emissions relative to traditional fossil fuel use.
There are a wide range of climate-change and new-energy funds, some of which also include the exposure to nuclear or gas companies—technologies which can be seen as part of the transition to a low-carbon future. Therefore investors can choose between very "pure" or broadly diversified, pragmatic approaches.
Careful manager selection is also critical in this sector. We recommend that clients choose active managers with close contacts to the management of the companies.
Ingeborg Schumacher, director of business development in Kaiser Ritter Partner's responsible investing division, tells The Wall Street Journal how to benefit from new energy.
There is increasing evidence that sustainable investing—investing in companies with sustainable business models, and avoiding those most exposed to environmental and legal risks—pays off financially.
BP is a dramatic illustration of how environmental risks stemming from weaknesses in facilities maintenance and operational safety can lead to significant losses for the company and its investors.
But the fundamental shifts in the energy sector also offer opportunities to investors. Declining oil reserves and concerns about climate change, together with the increasing global demand for energy, are stimulating more and more demand for renewable sources of energy.
In 2009, more than 60% of the new electricity capacity created in [European Union] states was based on renewable resources. China, the U.S. and European countries are investing significant proportions of their stimulus packages in green infrastructure.
Regulation like feed-in tariffs for renewable energies have created confidence in stable revenue streams of renewable energy companies. The numerous IPOs and increasing market capitalization in this sector have attracted interest from investors who are looking for financial performance as well as ethical credentials.
Investors who want to benefit from the new energy trend have a variety of options to choose from, including actively managed funds and index-tracking products. The WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index (www.nexindex.com) was created with Bloomberg New Energy Finance Ltd. and serves as a benchmark for a range of funds. Index members are companies who are responding to climate change with lower-carbon approaches, and whose technologies help reduce emissions relative to traditional fossil fuel use.
There are a wide range of climate-change and new-energy funds, some of which also include the exposure to nuclear or gas companies—technologies which can be seen as part of the transition to a low-carbon future. Therefore investors can choose between very "pure" or broadly diversified, pragmatic approaches.
Careful manager selection is also critical in this sector. We recommend that clients choose active managers with close contacts to the management of the companies.
Sparks fly over study suggesting wildfires cut CO2
A controversial NOAA study estimating CO2 released by US wildlifes says they could actually cut emissions
From Conservation Magazine, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 09.57 BST
Call it a hot topic. A study suggesting that intentional forest blazes could significantly cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wildfires in the Western United States has prompted a piquant scholarly quarrel. The exchange highlights the challenge forest managers may face in balancing plans to use fire to restore forest ecosystems with efforts to curb carbon emissions.
Forests have emerged as a key player in climate change because trees can suck huge amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and "sequester" the carbon for decades. A raging wildfire, however, can reverse those gains in just a few days by vaporizing vast swathes of timber. In the Western United States, concerns about the climate impacts of wildfires have grown, as centuries of fire suppression has left forests packed with tinder ripe for combustion. And researchers fear fire risks could rise in the future, as the western climate become hotter and drier.
To reduce the threat of runaway infernos – and help restore fire-starved forest ecosystems — some researchers advocate "prescribed burns." These intentional fires tend to burn cooler and vaporize less wood, leading some researchers to wonder just how much they might also help reduce CO2 emissions from wildfires.
To find out, Christine Wiedinmyer of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado and Matthew Hurteau Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona, estimated how much CO2 had been released by wildfires in the western U.S. from 2001 to 2008. Then, they estimated what the total might have been if the wildfires had been replaced by cooler, more controlled prescribed burns. The result, they reported in the 11 February online issue of Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), is that the planned fires might have cut CO2 emissions by 18% to 25% in the western U.S., and by as much as 60% in specific forest types.
Those numbers, however, are the product of "a fundamentally unrealistic scenario," argue Garrett W. Meigs and John L. Campbell of Oregon State University in Corvallis. In a comment published online in ES&T on July 23, the pair says the original study makes some "completely unrealistic" assumptions, such as that prescribed fires would be 100% effective in eliminating wildfires and that no prescribed fire would escape control. Still, the critics say Wiedinmyer and Hurteau did make some "important
improvements" in clarifying the climate implications of forest fires. For instance, they concluded that wildfires release about twice as much carbon per-unit-area as prescribed fires, far less than the 10-fold increase assumed by earlier studies. Overall, however, Miegs and Campbell say prescribed burns to improve ecosystem health may well reduce the carbon-storing capacity of forests over the short run. And they worry that "the authors present misleading conclusions that could result in flawed forest carbon policies."
Wideinmyer and Hurteau fire back in a response in the same issue, writing that the criticism stems from a "misunderstanding" of a key term, and a "faulty assessment" of their methods. Their goal, they note, was to set an "upper bound" on the potential benefits of prescribed burns, and not to advocate for particular policies. Not surprisingly, both sides suggest that the fire and climate issue would benefit from more research – perhaps after a cooling off period. – David Malakoff
Sources: Wiedinmyer, C., & Hurteau, M. (2010). Prescribed Fire As a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States. Environmental Science & Technology, DOI: 10.1021/es902455e
Meigs, G., & Campbell, J. (2010). Comment on "Prescribed Fire As a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States." Environmental Science & Technology DOI: 10.1021/es101595t
Hurteau, M., & Wiedinmyer, C. (2010). Response to Comment on "Prescribed Fire As a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States." Environmental Science & Technology DOI: 10.1021/es102186b
From Conservation Magazine, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 09.57 BST
Call it a hot topic. A study suggesting that intentional forest blazes could significantly cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wildfires in the Western United States has prompted a piquant scholarly quarrel. The exchange highlights the challenge forest managers may face in balancing plans to use fire to restore forest ecosystems with efforts to curb carbon emissions.
Forests have emerged as a key player in climate change because trees can suck huge amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and "sequester" the carbon for decades. A raging wildfire, however, can reverse those gains in just a few days by vaporizing vast swathes of timber. In the Western United States, concerns about the climate impacts of wildfires have grown, as centuries of fire suppression has left forests packed with tinder ripe for combustion. And researchers fear fire risks could rise in the future, as the western climate become hotter and drier.
To reduce the threat of runaway infernos – and help restore fire-starved forest ecosystems — some researchers advocate "prescribed burns." These intentional fires tend to burn cooler and vaporize less wood, leading some researchers to wonder just how much they might also help reduce CO2 emissions from wildfires.
To find out, Christine Wiedinmyer of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado and Matthew Hurteau Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona, estimated how much CO2 had been released by wildfires in the western U.S. from 2001 to 2008. Then, they estimated what the total might have been if the wildfires had been replaced by cooler, more controlled prescribed burns. The result, they reported in the 11 February online issue of Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), is that the planned fires might have cut CO2 emissions by 18% to 25% in the western U.S., and by as much as 60% in specific forest types.
Those numbers, however, are the product of "a fundamentally unrealistic scenario," argue Garrett W. Meigs and John L. Campbell of Oregon State University in Corvallis. In a comment published online in ES&T on July 23, the pair says the original study makes some "completely unrealistic" assumptions, such as that prescribed fires would be 100% effective in eliminating wildfires and that no prescribed fire would escape control. Still, the critics say Wiedinmyer and Hurteau did make some "important
improvements" in clarifying the climate implications of forest fires. For instance, they concluded that wildfires release about twice as much carbon per-unit-area as prescribed fires, far less than the 10-fold increase assumed by earlier studies. Overall, however, Miegs and Campbell say prescribed burns to improve ecosystem health may well reduce the carbon-storing capacity of forests over the short run. And they worry that "the authors present misleading conclusions that could result in flawed forest carbon policies."
Wideinmyer and Hurteau fire back in a response in the same issue, writing that the criticism stems from a "misunderstanding" of a key term, and a "faulty assessment" of their methods. Their goal, they note, was to set an "upper bound" on the potential benefits of prescribed burns, and not to advocate for particular policies. Not surprisingly, both sides suggest that the fire and climate issue would benefit from more research – perhaps after a cooling off period. – David Malakoff
Sources: Wiedinmyer, C., & Hurteau, M. (2010). Prescribed Fire As a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States. Environmental Science & Technology, DOI: 10.1021/es902455e
Meigs, G., & Campbell, J. (2010). Comment on "Prescribed Fire As a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States." Environmental Science & Technology DOI: 10.1021/es101595t
Hurteau, M., & Wiedinmyer, C. (2010). Response to Comment on "Prescribed Fire As a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States." Environmental Science & Technology DOI: 10.1021/es102186b
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
