British taxpayers forked out more than £500 million last year to help poor countries build renewable energy sources like wind turbines and adapt to climate change.
Environment Correspondent 7:30AM GMT 01 Dec 2010
The money is part of a ‘climate change aid package’ promised by rich countries to help poor nations avoid the floods and droughts caused by global warming.
The United Nations agreed to $30 billion (pounds 19 billion) in ‘fast start financing’ from 2010 to 2013 at a meeting in Copenhagen last year.
The pressure is now on for countries to prove they are doing their bit at the latest round of talks in Cancun Mexico.
The EU announced that it has put aside 7.2 billion euros for the fund.
Of this the UK is paying out pounds 1.5 billion over the next three years, of which pounds 568 has already been spent.
Critics said Britain is paying more than its fair share, especially at a time of austerity.
Most of the UK money is in loans rather than grants, meaning that the cash will eventually have to paid back, although there is no interest.
More than half the money went towards ‘mitigation’, or projects that reduce the greenhouses gases blamed for climate change. This includes small hydro-electric projects in Nepal, solar panels in the Maldives and wind turbines in Ethiopia. Also reforestation of land in the Congo Basin.
Just over 40 per cent of the money went towards adapting to the floods and droughts that could be caused by climate change. Projects include handing drought-resistant maize in Malawi and improving flood emergency plans in Bangladesh.
Andrew Mitchell, the Development Secretary, insisted that it is money well spent as green energy projects not only reduce greenhouse gases but tackle poverty, for example by enabling children to do their homework because they have lights.
He said some of the money will be used to attract private investment in green energy, meaning the tax payer is doing more good for every pound they spend.
However critics Matthew Sinclair, Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said the UK is already subsidizing green energy at home.
"Taxpayers are paying enough for investment in extremely expensive and inefficient wind turbines and solar panels here in the UK, 14 per cent of electricity bills at the last Government estimate and the cost has risen since, without having to finance expensive energy abroad as well,” he said.
In the Comprehensive Spending Review, pounds 2.9 billion was allocated to climate aid as part of the development budget including the pounds 1.5 billion.
The Department for International Development is one of the few departments protected from spending cuts.
Mr Sinclair said the UK is paying more than its fair share towards the EU fund.
“The last thing we need is to waste even more money by duplicating that funding through the aid budget. This is one more sign that ring fencing massive increases in the aid budget, instead of making sensible cuts, is a dreadful decision that unnecessarily heaps pressure on budgets here at home. UK taxpayers will be further angered to see that we are paying substantially more than many other EU countries towards this package."
Aid agencies were also critical of the UK’s funding package.
Asad Rehman, Friends of the Earth’s International Climate Campaigner, said the money should be in grants not loans.
“The UK, as a major contributor to this fund, has a responsibility to ensure that money for developing countries comes from grants, not loans – at the moment, far too much of this cash will simply shackle developing countries with more debt.”
The EU balance between mitigation and adaptation is also about 50/50, but like Britain more money is going towards mitigation than adaptation.
The aid agencies want the money for climate change to be divided evenly between adaptation and mitigation.
At the moment more money is going towards mitigation as green energy can attract private investment and helps the rich world to cut greenhouse gases.
But it is argued that adaptation is much more of an urgent need for aid as people are already suffering and few countries can raise the funds themselves.
There are also concerns that the fast start financing is being handed out by the World Bank, which many poor countries mistrust because it is bureaucratic and dominated by the rich world.
They are calling for a new ‘Fair Climate Fund’ or ‘Green Fund’ to be set up during the talks at Cancun that would have a board including poor countries and would hand out cash in a much more efficient way.
Tracy Carter, Oxfam’s climate policy adviser, said the new institution could be up and running next year.
“A new Fair Climate Fund must be established at Cancun that ensures at least half of the funds are used for adaptation and delivered transparently so that it is spent most effectively and where it is needed most,” she said.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Busting the myths about electric cars
Mother Jones: With the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf plug-in and electric cars about to go on sale, Kiera Butler exposes eight myths about electric vehicles
• In pictures: Electric cars coming soon to a road near you
• Test-driving the plug-in Prius: is this the future of greener motoring?
Kiera Butler for Mother Jones guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 November 2010 10.00 GMT
I'm about as far from a gearhead as it gets, but even so, I was excited about the release of the nation's first two consumer plug-in electric vehicles: the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf.
The Volt can go 40 miles on battery power and another 310 thanks to an auxiliary gas engine, which kicked in smoothly as I floored it up a hill during a recent test drive. The Leaf is—even cooler—completely electric, with a range of about 100 miles. In 2011, Ford, Mitsubishi, and Mercedes-Benz plan to introduce their own tailpipe-free models. GE has ordered up thousands for its sales force, and the federal government has set a target for 1 million electric vehicles by 2015. (A good step, even considering the 246 million or so gas vehicles already on the road.)
Are we finally ready after years of false starts? Despite widespread public jitters, the experts I polled said yes. Herewith, eight e-car worries not to spin your wheels over.
Our grid can't handle the added burden
While electric cars do use a great deal of juice, utilities have been working behind the scenes for years to make sure the cars don't fry the grid. Blackouts are "extremely unlikely," notes Simon Mui, a scientist who studies clean vehicles and fuels for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Advanced charging technology will help distribute power loads more evenly, and many home charging stations will operate only during off-peak hours—which is more efficient and usually cheaper. "Smart chargers," slated to hit the market in 2011, will decide when to charge based on the time and distance you commute, local rates, and electricity demand in your neighborhood.
My utility bill will skyrocket
Yep, you'll spend more on amperage, but your savings on gas will more than cover it. If you drive a battery-only car 12,000 miles a year at going power rates, you'll pay an extra $27 or so per month for electricity, but save about $97 on gas. Some utilities offer special rates during off-peak hours—in California, you might pay as little as $13 a month (roughly half-price) to charge up at night. The one drawback of cheaper fuel is, well, cheaper driving, which some experts worry will lure commuters away from public transit, carpools, and bikes.
Coal-burning utilities mean electric cars will make emissions worse
Hardly. Even in predominantly coal-burning regions, an electric car releases 35 to 60 percent less CO2 than a comparable conventional car, according to industry think tank Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). In areas with an ecofriendly power mix, the emissions are up to 75 percent lower. EPRI transportation expert Mark Duvall points out that "as the grid gets cleaner—which it almost certainly will—electric cars will get cleaner, too." Bonus: Unlike gas, which is refined largely from imported petroleum, electricity flows from domestic sources.
Electric cars already flopped once, so why should I believe they'll succeed?
Climate worries, obviously, have gained traction since the 1990s, but the main reason to believe in a comeback is economic. Perhaps you've noticed that Detroit seems, uh, a little leaner than it was during the Clinton years. To compete with foreign automakers in places with high gas prices and tougher climate regs—think Europe and California—the industry needs to roll out efficient models. "Automakers see this as a necessity," says Mui. Technology has really improved, too; old-school e-car batteries, famous for exploding and generally sucking, have joined your wallet chains and Crash Test Dummies albums in '90s heaven.
Government rebates on electric cars favor the rich
To ease sticker shock (the Volt starts at $40,280; the Leaf, $32,780), the feds are offering a tax credit of up to $7,500 to the first 200,000 buyers of each model. If you still can't afford one, there's a consolation prize: As Mui points out, the reductions in emissions and pollution will benefit everyone. Plus, prices are sure to come down. The very first iPods, you may recall, set you back more than $400.
Electric cars handle like roller skates
I'm not the savviest driver, but I thought the Volt felt pretty much like a regular mid-size. Car and Driver writes that it "drives surprisingly well, with a reassuringly steady suspension." The Leaf gets dinged for its short range, but its transmission works so smoothly in stop-and-go traffic "that we started rationalizing our range concerns."
Lithium-ion auto batteries are as crappy as lithium-ion laptop batteries
Now here's something that might be worth fretting about. Although battery technology is light-years beyond where it was back when GM was peddling EV1s, it's far from perfect. Lithium-ion cells are sluggish in cold weather—and cranking the heat, AC, or stereo will reduce your range. More worrisome: No one can predict how long they'll last. "There will be degradation of the battery over its lifetime," says EPRI's Duvall. "But we don't know exactly how much." The good news: Recent breakthroughs in battery technology promise faster charging and greater reliability. In the meantime, both Volt and Leaf come with eight-year battery warranties.
I'll run out of juice in the sticks
This is only an issue for fully electric cars, and as long as you're within range of a socket, you'll make do. A full charge takes about 10 hours using a standard outlet, or half as long with a home 220-volt station that'll run you about $2,000. Meanwhile, the federal government plans to spend $115 million to help cities set up 15,000 pay-as-you-go chargers in public places. Electric vehicles "do require a lot of planning, but not as much as you might think," says Mark Vaughn, an AutoWeek editor who blogged last summer about his trial run with Mitsubishi's i MiEV—comparable to the Leaf. When Vaughn showed up at a hotel with a low battery, he told me, a kitchen employee offered to snake an extension cord out to the parking lot. "You really learn as much about people as you do about amps and volts and things like that."
• In pictures: Electric cars coming soon to a road near you
• Test-driving the plug-in Prius: is this the future of greener motoring?
Kiera Butler for Mother Jones guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 November 2010 10.00 GMT
I'm about as far from a gearhead as it gets, but even so, I was excited about the release of the nation's first two consumer plug-in electric vehicles: the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf.
The Volt can go 40 miles on battery power and another 310 thanks to an auxiliary gas engine, which kicked in smoothly as I floored it up a hill during a recent test drive. The Leaf is—even cooler—completely electric, with a range of about 100 miles. In 2011, Ford, Mitsubishi, and Mercedes-Benz plan to introduce their own tailpipe-free models. GE has ordered up thousands for its sales force, and the federal government has set a target for 1 million electric vehicles by 2015. (A good step, even considering the 246 million or so gas vehicles already on the road.)
Are we finally ready after years of false starts? Despite widespread public jitters, the experts I polled said yes. Herewith, eight e-car worries not to spin your wheels over.
Our grid can't handle the added burden
While electric cars do use a great deal of juice, utilities have been working behind the scenes for years to make sure the cars don't fry the grid. Blackouts are "extremely unlikely," notes Simon Mui, a scientist who studies clean vehicles and fuels for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Advanced charging technology will help distribute power loads more evenly, and many home charging stations will operate only during off-peak hours—which is more efficient and usually cheaper. "Smart chargers," slated to hit the market in 2011, will decide when to charge based on the time and distance you commute, local rates, and electricity demand in your neighborhood.
My utility bill will skyrocket
Yep, you'll spend more on amperage, but your savings on gas will more than cover it. If you drive a battery-only car 12,000 miles a year at going power rates, you'll pay an extra $27 or so per month for electricity, but save about $97 on gas. Some utilities offer special rates during off-peak hours—in California, you might pay as little as $13 a month (roughly half-price) to charge up at night. The one drawback of cheaper fuel is, well, cheaper driving, which some experts worry will lure commuters away from public transit, carpools, and bikes.
Coal-burning utilities mean electric cars will make emissions worse
Hardly. Even in predominantly coal-burning regions, an electric car releases 35 to 60 percent less CO2 than a comparable conventional car, according to industry think tank Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). In areas with an ecofriendly power mix, the emissions are up to 75 percent lower. EPRI transportation expert Mark Duvall points out that "as the grid gets cleaner—which it almost certainly will—electric cars will get cleaner, too." Bonus: Unlike gas, which is refined largely from imported petroleum, electricity flows from domestic sources.
Electric cars already flopped once, so why should I believe they'll succeed?
Climate worries, obviously, have gained traction since the 1990s, but the main reason to believe in a comeback is economic. Perhaps you've noticed that Detroit seems, uh, a little leaner than it was during the Clinton years. To compete with foreign automakers in places with high gas prices and tougher climate regs—think Europe and California—the industry needs to roll out efficient models. "Automakers see this as a necessity," says Mui. Technology has really improved, too; old-school e-car batteries, famous for exploding and generally sucking, have joined your wallet chains and Crash Test Dummies albums in '90s heaven.
Government rebates on electric cars favor the rich
To ease sticker shock (the Volt starts at $40,280; the Leaf, $32,780), the feds are offering a tax credit of up to $7,500 to the first 200,000 buyers of each model. If you still can't afford one, there's a consolation prize: As Mui points out, the reductions in emissions and pollution will benefit everyone. Plus, prices are sure to come down. The very first iPods, you may recall, set you back more than $400.
Electric cars handle like roller skates
I'm not the savviest driver, but I thought the Volt felt pretty much like a regular mid-size. Car and Driver writes that it "drives surprisingly well, with a reassuringly steady suspension." The Leaf gets dinged for its short range, but its transmission works so smoothly in stop-and-go traffic "that we started rationalizing our range concerns."
Lithium-ion auto batteries are as crappy as lithium-ion laptop batteries
Now here's something that might be worth fretting about. Although battery technology is light-years beyond where it was back when GM was peddling EV1s, it's far from perfect. Lithium-ion cells are sluggish in cold weather—and cranking the heat, AC, or stereo will reduce your range. More worrisome: No one can predict how long they'll last. "There will be degradation of the battery over its lifetime," says EPRI's Duvall. "But we don't know exactly how much." The good news: Recent breakthroughs in battery technology promise faster charging and greater reliability. In the meantime, both Volt and Leaf come with eight-year battery warranties.
I'll run out of juice in the sticks
This is only an issue for fully electric cars, and as long as you're within range of a socket, you'll make do. A full charge takes about 10 hours using a standard outlet, or half as long with a home 220-volt station that'll run you about $2,000. Meanwhile, the federal government plans to spend $115 million to help cities set up 15,000 pay-as-you-go chargers in public places. Electric vehicles "do require a lot of planning, but not as much as you might think," says Mark Vaughn, an AutoWeek editor who blogged last summer about his trial run with Mitsubishi's i MiEV—comparable to the Leaf. When Vaughn showed up at a hotel with a low battery, he told me, a kitchen employee offered to snake an extension cord out to the parking lot. "You really learn as much about people as you do about amps and volts and things like that."
Ugandans turn Kampala's uncollected garbage into versatile fuel
Cement kilns are used to transform waste, which would otherwise pollute the city, into a fuel that suits petrol engines
Wambi Michael
Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 30 November 2010 14.00 GMT
Fred Kyagulanyi and James Sendikwanawa used to get up in the dark to dump bags of rubbish in Kampala's suburbs. Trying not to be spotted, they would sneak past the houses of sleeping neighbours and throw the bags on to the roadside or toss them in drains.
"We would wait several days until we had many bags and then make a trip," Kyagulanyi says. "We were embarrassed, even if nobody was watching us at the time."
Without a proper waste collection and management system, such nocturnal enterprises are not unusual in Uganda. These days, however, the two men turn rubbish into fuel. The friends have honed a technique to produce what Kyagulanyi calls "non-fossil fuel", made from refuse such as plastic bottles, polythene bags and organic waste.
Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa, who are from Ndegye, a township about 17km outside the Ugandan capital, were inspired to find a use for rubbish after waking each morning to find piles of garbage thrown by other people.
"We decided that we would try to find a solution to deal with garbage," says Kyagulanyi. "So we began researching how we could put it to good use."
The pair had dropped out of school before their final exams, but Sendikwanawa had always had an interest in chemistry. It occurred to him that each year hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste were piling up in Kampala and around other towns across Uganda and that perhaps he could do something with it all.
The result of their research can be found in a factory, little more than a corrugated iron roof held up with wooden poles. Here they use cement kilns to turn rubbish into fuel.
The men are heroes among the boda boda (motorbike taxi) riders who buy fuel from them at around $1 a litre – half the price of the petrol stations. Other customers include local car drivers and the neighbourhood video hall manager.
"We have three types of petrol here," Kyagulanyi explains. "We have 'super', we have 'premium' and also we have 'pure'. This is our factory language but in the language of fossil fuels, it can be called unleaded premium or benzene. But ours is very different so we have different names."
"We use all types of waste from plants, plastic bottles, shoe soles and all different types of organic waste," Kyagulanyi says. "We use all that waste to make fuel that runs petrol engines," adds Sendikwanawa, who is known as "engineer" in Ndegye Township due to his day job: fixing biogas digesters on pit latrines.
He says they had originally tried turning waste into manure and fertilisers, hoping to sell it to farmers, but found there was little demand. However, with fuel prices soaring they knew they would have an eager market if they could power engines. Kyagulanyi found out about biodiesel during a four-year stint working in Germany. When he returned to Uganda he brought back literature on biodiesel, which inspired Sendikwanawa, who, he says, is the brains behind the project.
The men dry and sort the rubbish then heat it in kilns to produce a crude oil. A catalyst is added to produce different types of fuel. It is a process known as catalytic pyrolysis, in which material is heated at high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis is the basis of several methods being developed around the world as a means of producing fuel from crops or waste products.
The pair admit there were a few hiccups, but they kept experimenting until they had a breakthrough in early 2009. Now they can process up to two tonnes of garbage a day.
Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa have formed Lat Photo Energy Uganda Limited and hope to ramp up production, pointing out there is no shortage of raw material for their fuel.
Kampala's suburbs are choked with tonnes of uncollected waste, with city officials estimating that each person generates 0.2 tonnes of waste annually. Michael Mudanye, a waste engineer for Kampala council, says the city generates an estimated 1,500 tonnes of garbage a day, three-quarters of which rots uncollected on the streets, or gets thrown into in sewerage outlets and water channels, some of which run into Lake Victoria.
"So far we can only produce 100 litres of fuel a day," says Kyagulanyi. We hope to increase the production if we get partners to expand our kilns. The challenge is that some people are still doubtful that our fuel works. We are now out to show the nation that we can produce enough fuel for everyone to run their vehicles while cleaning up all the rubbish left lying around the country."
Uganda's state minister for energy, Simon Du'janga, said he was aware that some gas and fuel could be obtained from garbage but his message to Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa was: "Tell those fellows they should not waste their time. It is a very costly process with very little output."
However, Lat Photo Energy Uganda appears to be proving him wrong. The company may be small but it's doing steady business.
Raj Kaakeeto is a boda boda rider and one of Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa's regular customers. He says at first he doubted whether the fuel would work. "One day I had no money yet I needed fuel. So I bought some of their fuel and mixed it with the little that I had in the tank. I was surprised – it worked," he says. He likes it because it's a lot cheaper than the regular petrol.
Jimmy Lutakome, another resident in the area, testifies that the fuel works well in petrol engine generators. He says: "The fuel lasts longer if you mix it with that from the petrol stations. I have been saving about 2,000 shillings per day [about 90 cents] compared to the past."
Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa have a grander vision than just providing cheaper fuel for their neighbours. "We thought we should be part of the solution to the global demand for environmentally beneficial practice. And I think we are succeeding," Sendikwanawa says. "We only need to expand the capacity of our kiln and distilleries and we shall clean up the city of waste."
Wambi Michael
Guardian Weekly, Tuesday 30 November 2010 14.00 GMT
Fred Kyagulanyi and James Sendikwanawa used to get up in the dark to dump bags of rubbish in Kampala's suburbs. Trying not to be spotted, they would sneak past the houses of sleeping neighbours and throw the bags on to the roadside or toss them in drains.
"We would wait several days until we had many bags and then make a trip," Kyagulanyi says. "We were embarrassed, even if nobody was watching us at the time."
Without a proper waste collection and management system, such nocturnal enterprises are not unusual in Uganda. These days, however, the two men turn rubbish into fuel. The friends have honed a technique to produce what Kyagulanyi calls "non-fossil fuel", made from refuse such as plastic bottles, polythene bags and organic waste.
Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa, who are from Ndegye, a township about 17km outside the Ugandan capital, were inspired to find a use for rubbish after waking each morning to find piles of garbage thrown by other people.
"We decided that we would try to find a solution to deal with garbage," says Kyagulanyi. "So we began researching how we could put it to good use."
The pair had dropped out of school before their final exams, but Sendikwanawa had always had an interest in chemistry. It occurred to him that each year hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste were piling up in Kampala and around other towns across Uganda and that perhaps he could do something with it all.
The result of their research can be found in a factory, little more than a corrugated iron roof held up with wooden poles. Here they use cement kilns to turn rubbish into fuel.
The men are heroes among the boda boda (motorbike taxi) riders who buy fuel from them at around $1 a litre – half the price of the petrol stations. Other customers include local car drivers and the neighbourhood video hall manager.
"We have three types of petrol here," Kyagulanyi explains. "We have 'super', we have 'premium' and also we have 'pure'. This is our factory language but in the language of fossil fuels, it can be called unleaded premium or benzene. But ours is very different so we have different names."
"We use all types of waste from plants, plastic bottles, shoe soles and all different types of organic waste," Kyagulanyi says. "We use all that waste to make fuel that runs petrol engines," adds Sendikwanawa, who is known as "engineer" in Ndegye Township due to his day job: fixing biogas digesters on pit latrines.
He says they had originally tried turning waste into manure and fertilisers, hoping to sell it to farmers, but found there was little demand. However, with fuel prices soaring they knew they would have an eager market if they could power engines. Kyagulanyi found out about biodiesel during a four-year stint working in Germany. When he returned to Uganda he brought back literature on biodiesel, which inspired Sendikwanawa, who, he says, is the brains behind the project.
The men dry and sort the rubbish then heat it in kilns to produce a crude oil. A catalyst is added to produce different types of fuel. It is a process known as catalytic pyrolysis, in which material is heated at high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis is the basis of several methods being developed around the world as a means of producing fuel from crops or waste products.
The pair admit there were a few hiccups, but they kept experimenting until they had a breakthrough in early 2009. Now they can process up to two tonnes of garbage a day.
Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa have formed Lat Photo Energy Uganda Limited and hope to ramp up production, pointing out there is no shortage of raw material for their fuel.
Kampala's suburbs are choked with tonnes of uncollected waste, with city officials estimating that each person generates 0.2 tonnes of waste annually. Michael Mudanye, a waste engineer for Kampala council, says the city generates an estimated 1,500 tonnes of garbage a day, three-quarters of which rots uncollected on the streets, or gets thrown into in sewerage outlets and water channels, some of which run into Lake Victoria.
"So far we can only produce 100 litres of fuel a day," says Kyagulanyi. We hope to increase the production if we get partners to expand our kilns. The challenge is that some people are still doubtful that our fuel works. We are now out to show the nation that we can produce enough fuel for everyone to run their vehicles while cleaning up all the rubbish left lying around the country."
Uganda's state minister for energy, Simon Du'janga, said he was aware that some gas and fuel could be obtained from garbage but his message to Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa was: "Tell those fellows they should not waste their time. It is a very costly process with very little output."
However, Lat Photo Energy Uganda appears to be proving him wrong. The company may be small but it's doing steady business.
Raj Kaakeeto is a boda boda rider and one of Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa's regular customers. He says at first he doubted whether the fuel would work. "One day I had no money yet I needed fuel. So I bought some of their fuel and mixed it with the little that I had in the tank. I was surprised – it worked," he says. He likes it because it's a lot cheaper than the regular petrol.
Jimmy Lutakome, another resident in the area, testifies that the fuel works well in petrol engine generators. He says: "The fuel lasts longer if you mix it with that from the petrol stations. I have been saving about 2,000 shillings per day [about 90 cents] compared to the past."
Kyagulanyi and Sendikwanawa have a grander vision than just providing cheaper fuel for their neighbours. "We thought we should be part of the solution to the global demand for environmentally beneficial practice. And I think we are succeeding," Sendikwanawa says. "We only need to expand the capacity of our kiln and distilleries and we shall clean up the city of waste."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
