Saturday, 4 June 2011
A new film protesting against US coal mining and starring Robert F.Kennedy Jr. aims to boost green alternatives such as wind power and highlight "criminal" destruction by the industry.
Five years after "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's landmark movie about climate change, makers of "The Last Mountain" hope the documentary will engage viewers through the story of a Virginia community threatened by "Big Coal."
"'An Inconvenient Truth' woke up the world to the dangers of climate change, in a way that it hadn't been awoken before," said director Bill Haney.
But "what you as individuals can do to challenge the interests that be, that are creating this problem .. it did not do," he told AFP, saying that he would be happy if his movie was as successful as former US vice president Gore's.
The film opened Friday in New York and Washington and will be released in other US cities in the coming weeks.
The movie tells the story of a community in West Virginia's Appalachian mountains taking on Massey Energy, one of the biggest coal producers in the US, trying to stop its practice of mountain-top removal to mine coal seams.
Kennedy, a member of the storied US political family and a long-time environmental activist, is shown joining protestors in the Coal River Valley as they fight to preserve their health and the local environment.
"I was a little reluctant to get involved with doing a film just because I was more attuned to other kinds of advocacy and really didn't know much about filmmaking," Kennedy said, describing his initial reaction to the project.
But after meeting Haney he decided he could "articulate the link between democracy and environment," and help fight Massey in West Virginia, where he has long been involved.
"Virtually this entire industry is a criminal enterprise, and I don't say that lightly," he told AFP.
Perhaps surprisingly, the movie gives relatively generous time to mining bosses and workers, asserting how vital the industry is for jobs in tough economic times.
Haney contrasts his movie with more directly polemical documentaries like those of Michael Moore, including "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the health services movie "Sicko."
"I really respect Michael Moore's filmmaking and his talent, but he clearly is making polemics. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying that's what they are. That's not what I do," he said.
While much of the film follows the protests - including tree-top demonstrators and campaigners against the health impact on a local school - it also shows people developing alternatives, such as building wind turbines.
Kennedy argues that the coal industry is, ultimately, unsustainable without political help.
"If we had a true free market, coal couldn't function in the marketplace. It's just too expensive. And oil couldn't function. If we had to pay at the pump for the war in Iraq, we'd be off oil overnight."
Kennedy also draws comparisons with last year's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which took place during the editing of the film.
"It's the same story, different place," he said.
Haney cited US authorities as saying the spill, blamed on British oil giant BP, was the biggest environmental disaster in the history of the country.
"But Massey has spilled twice that amount of ... waste, and not into the deep ocean and salt water where it disperses, but into the nation's rivers, fresh water supplies. So if that's the worst, is Massey twice the worst?
"It did give us a perspective to help the public, which has seen tremendous media coverage of BP's oil spill and very little coverage of this coal stuff."
Sunday, 5 June 2011
European airlines fear trade war over carbon emissions trading
From January airlines flying through the EU will have to acquire credits to account for carbon emissions generated by their flights
Dan Milmo in Singapore
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 June 2011 15.29 BST
According to Standard & Poor's rating agency airline fares could rise by up to €40 by 2020 to offset cost of carbon emissions trading. Photograph Noah Berger/AP
European airlines have warned of a damaging trade war with the US, Russia and China if Brussels pushes ahead with plans to include carriers in the emissions trading scheme next year in a move that will put fares up by €40 and cost the industry €1.1bn (£980m).
The warning comes as US airlines prepare to launch a legal challenge against the ETS in Luxembourg next month, adding to unease from the Russian and Chinese governments. From January carriers flying in and out of the European Union must join power companies in the EU in the cap-and-trade system, where they will have to acquire carbon credits to account for the emissions generated by their flights.
According to the Standard & Poor's rating agency, return fares could rise by between €4.60 and €39.60 by 2020 to offset carbon costs of about €30 per tonne. However, the Association of European Airlines (AEA) warned that the proposals have yet to secure the backing of non-EU carriers and could spark tit-for-tat trade measures.
"If this is not sorted out in the next six months we run the risk of a trade conflict between the EU and third countries," said Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, secretary general of the AEA, whose members include British Airways, bmi and Virgin Atlantic. Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Singapore [PLEASE KEEP THAT IN ALL IN], Schulte-Strathaus said that some airlines could be forced to cede routes to non-EU carriers because they will not be able to pass extra costs on to passengers. Non-EU carriers, by contrast, will be able to offset the higher costs as the rest of their network will not fly via the EU.
Iata, the global airline body whose members include British Airways, Air France and American Airlines, said the ETS would add more than €1bn in costs to a European airline industry that is expected to make a profit of $500m (£304m) this year. The worldwide profit, largely generated by Asian and US carriers, is expected to be $8.6bn.
"It makes Europe completely uncompetitive," said an Iata spokesman, who added that airlines are already grappling with a fuel bill that is expected to rise by at least $27bn this year. "Whether the airlines can recover it from passengers depends on market conditions."
US airlines will take their legal fight against ETS to the European court of justice next month where they will argue that the system breaches international law. The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) believes that imposing a European scheme on non-EU airlines contravenes various agreements including the Chicago Convention, which regulates the global airline industry. ATA argues that it breaches article 1 of the convention, which states that countries have sovereignty over airlines in their airspace. By that rationale, the EU has no right to tax a carrier flying out of, say, Dubai or New York. The US government has backed ATA, claiming that the scheme takes money away from airlines that could otherwise be invested in greener aircraft and engines.
Nicholas Calio, ATA chief and an experienced Washington lobbyist who worked as an aide for President Bush, said a global trading scheme was the best solution.
"The legal case is important as a means of addressing what is wrong with the European scheme, but also as an opportunity for us to continue to pursue an approach that is appropriate for this global industry," he said. Meanwhie, Calio added, US airlines are preparing to join the ETS "under protest."
Dan Milmo in Singapore
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 June 2011 15.29 BST
According to Standard & Poor's rating agency airline fares could rise by up to €40 by 2020 to offset cost of carbon emissions trading. Photograph Noah Berger/AP
European airlines have warned of a damaging trade war with the US, Russia and China if Brussels pushes ahead with plans to include carriers in the emissions trading scheme next year in a move that will put fares up by €40 and cost the industry €1.1bn (£980m).
The warning comes as US airlines prepare to launch a legal challenge against the ETS in Luxembourg next month, adding to unease from the Russian and Chinese governments. From January carriers flying in and out of the European Union must join power companies in the EU in the cap-and-trade system, where they will have to acquire carbon credits to account for the emissions generated by their flights.
According to the Standard & Poor's rating agency, return fares could rise by between €4.60 and €39.60 by 2020 to offset carbon costs of about €30 per tonne. However, the Association of European Airlines (AEA) warned that the proposals have yet to secure the backing of non-EU carriers and could spark tit-for-tat trade measures.
"If this is not sorted out in the next six months we run the risk of a trade conflict between the EU and third countries," said Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus, secretary general of the AEA, whose members include British Airways, bmi and Virgin Atlantic. Speaking at the annual meeting of the International Air Transport Association in Singapore [PLEASE KEEP THAT IN ALL IN], Schulte-Strathaus said that some airlines could be forced to cede routes to non-EU carriers because they will not be able to pass extra costs on to passengers. Non-EU carriers, by contrast, will be able to offset the higher costs as the rest of their network will not fly via the EU.
Iata, the global airline body whose members include British Airways, Air France and American Airlines, said the ETS would add more than €1bn in costs to a European airline industry that is expected to make a profit of $500m (£304m) this year. The worldwide profit, largely generated by Asian and US carriers, is expected to be $8.6bn.
"It makes Europe completely uncompetitive," said an Iata spokesman, who added that airlines are already grappling with a fuel bill that is expected to rise by at least $27bn this year. "Whether the airlines can recover it from passengers depends on market conditions."
US airlines will take their legal fight against ETS to the European court of justice next month where they will argue that the system breaches international law. The Air Transport Association of America (ATA) believes that imposing a European scheme on non-EU airlines contravenes various agreements including the Chicago Convention, which regulates the global airline industry. ATA argues that it breaches article 1 of the convention, which states that countries have sovereignty over airlines in their airspace. By that rationale, the EU has no right to tax a carrier flying out of, say, Dubai or New York. The US government has backed ATA, claiming that the scheme takes money away from airlines that could otherwise be invested in greener aircraft and engines.
Nicholas Calio, ATA chief and an experienced Washington lobbyist who worked as an aide for President Bush, said a global trading scheme was the best solution.
"The legal case is important as a means of addressing what is wrong with the European scheme, but also as an opportunity for us to continue to pursue an approach that is appropriate for this global industry," he said. Meanwhie, Calio added, US airlines are preparing to join the ETS "under protest."
When energy-saving does not mean saving energy
The 'rebound effects' of carbon-saving measures can undermine savings – or worse, backfire completely
Adam Corner
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 June 2011 11.41 BST
Turning down the thermostat may not have straightforward carbon-saving effects. Photograph: Frank Conlon/ Frank Conlon/Star Ledger/Corbis
The news that global carbon emissions reached their highest ever level in 2010 can have surprised few people.
Against that backdrop, reducing the amount of energy consumed by households in industrialised countries is a key battleground for tackling carbon emissions. Increasingly, the British government seems to be catching on. Few streets have no provision for recycling, and the "green deal" aims to insulate millions of homes – reducing carbon emissions and (ultimately) saving householders money.
But a newly published paper in the journal Energy Policy shows that even straightforward carbon-saving activities such as home insulation are not always quite what they seem. The problem is that making one change around the house leaves the door open for other changes – which might include "rebound effects" that undermine the carbon savings. If a driver who replaces their car with a fuel-efficient model takes advantage of the cheaper running costs and drives further and more often, then the amount of carbon saved is clearly reduced.
Even worse, there are some circumstances where seemingly carbon-saving measures actually increase overall emissions – where the change backfires completely. Dr Angela Druckman and her colleagues analysed several different types of patterns of hypothetical household behaviour. Using the basic assumption that the money saved on reducing energy consumption has to be spent on something, they examined several different carbon-saving behaviours, and asked what happens next.
They found that on average, only about two-thirds of the calculated carbon reductions are likely to be achieved for typical household actions such as lowering the thermostat or reducing food waste. Money saved on the weekly food bill by reducing food waste is money available for going out for dinner at the exotic Thai restaurant on the weekend. Of course, it is possible that the money saved on the weekly food bill will be spent on an energy-efficient washing machine instead. But it is also possible that the money saved becomes an exotic Thai holiday rather than a Thai meal. In this case, the low-carbon behaviour would have backfired completely.
The message is simply that when you look across a range of actions – rather than just focusing in on one in particular – the reduction in energy consumption is often less than initial calculations suggest.
Although the authors are cautious in drawing their conclusions, the research has an obvious implication – there is no point focusing obsessively on single behavioural changes if subsequent actions undo the carbon savings initially achieved. Current government strategy is to nudge people into specific behavioural changes – but much more effective would be to engage with people at a deeper level, focusing on their personal values and social identities , which impact on a range of behaviours.
People can be nudged into making a specific change, but to adopt a low-carbon lifestyle, they need to think about it for themselves.
It is tempting to go for the quick wins – but without an opportunity for more meaningful engagement with the issue, the danger is that people will unwittingly crank up the carbon in other areas of their lives.
There is also an important lesson here about calculating carbon emissions. In just the same way that the UK cannot claim to have reduced domestic emissions if we have simply "exported" them to China, when we are totting up household carbon we have to take everything into account – not just the convenient numbers.
Climate change is not going to be solved by a series of clever campaigns that achieve specific outcomes but are blind to the scale of the challenge. It is critical that the government does not lose sight of the bigger picture when promoting low-carbon behaviour - because the danger is that even well-intended household actions will backfire.
Adam Corner
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 June 2011 11.41 BST
Turning down the thermostat may not have straightforward carbon-saving effects. Photograph: Frank Conlon/ Frank Conlon/Star Ledger/Corbis
The news that global carbon emissions reached their highest ever level in 2010 can have surprised few people.
Against that backdrop, reducing the amount of energy consumed by households in industrialised countries is a key battleground for tackling carbon emissions. Increasingly, the British government seems to be catching on. Few streets have no provision for recycling, and the "green deal" aims to insulate millions of homes – reducing carbon emissions and (ultimately) saving householders money.
But a newly published paper in the journal Energy Policy shows that even straightforward carbon-saving activities such as home insulation are not always quite what they seem. The problem is that making one change around the house leaves the door open for other changes – which might include "rebound effects" that undermine the carbon savings. If a driver who replaces their car with a fuel-efficient model takes advantage of the cheaper running costs and drives further and more often, then the amount of carbon saved is clearly reduced.
Even worse, there are some circumstances where seemingly carbon-saving measures actually increase overall emissions – where the change backfires completely. Dr Angela Druckman and her colleagues analysed several different types of patterns of hypothetical household behaviour. Using the basic assumption that the money saved on reducing energy consumption has to be spent on something, they examined several different carbon-saving behaviours, and asked what happens next.
They found that on average, only about two-thirds of the calculated carbon reductions are likely to be achieved for typical household actions such as lowering the thermostat or reducing food waste. Money saved on the weekly food bill by reducing food waste is money available for going out for dinner at the exotic Thai restaurant on the weekend. Of course, it is possible that the money saved on the weekly food bill will be spent on an energy-efficient washing machine instead. But it is also possible that the money saved becomes an exotic Thai holiday rather than a Thai meal. In this case, the low-carbon behaviour would have backfired completely.
The message is simply that when you look across a range of actions – rather than just focusing in on one in particular – the reduction in energy consumption is often less than initial calculations suggest.
Although the authors are cautious in drawing their conclusions, the research has an obvious implication – there is no point focusing obsessively on single behavioural changes if subsequent actions undo the carbon savings initially achieved. Current government strategy is to nudge people into specific behavioural changes – but much more effective would be to engage with people at a deeper level, focusing on their personal values and social identities , which impact on a range of behaviours.
People can be nudged into making a specific change, but to adopt a low-carbon lifestyle, they need to think about it for themselves.
It is tempting to go for the quick wins – but without an opportunity for more meaningful engagement with the issue, the danger is that people will unwittingly crank up the carbon in other areas of their lives.
There is also an important lesson here about calculating carbon emissions. In just the same way that the UK cannot claim to have reduced domestic emissions if we have simply "exported" them to China, when we are totting up household carbon we have to take everything into account – not just the convenient numbers.
Climate change is not going to be solved by a series of clever campaigns that achieve specific outcomes but are blind to the scale of the challenge. It is critical that the government does not lose sight of the bigger picture when promoting low-carbon behaviour - because the danger is that even well-intended household actions will backfire.
Solar energy potential underestimated, says Greg Barker
The UK overlooks the benefits and overestimates the costs of solar, according to the energy and climate minister
Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 June 2011 14.58 BST
The UK underestimates the potential of solar energy, says Greg Barker, climate minister Photograph: Lang Lang/Reuters
Britain has underestimated the potential of solar energy and the government needs to reappraise the technology because of rapidly falling costs, according to energy and climate minister Greg Barker.
"Historically, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) has underestimated the contribution that solar can make," he said. "But solar is now going through an extraordinary stage of development … it's capable of scaling up and competing with the big boys. It's not just for enthusiasts. It has potential to be a significant source of energy."
Barker's comments were made in response to a report issued today by the Solar Trade Association (STA), which claims the government and its advisers have underestimated the benefits and overestimated the costs of solar energy.
"While I wouldn't necessarily concur with all the specific recommendations of the report," Barker said, "there is one clear message that I do agree with: that solar has far more potential than has previously been thought."
Despite these statements, Barker plans to press ahead with plans to slash the subsidy given to large-scale solar installations via the feed-in tariff scheme (Fits) – a move that the STA chairman, Howard Johns, claims could "decapitate" or even "destroy" Britain's fledgling solar industry.
Asked how he can reconcile his statements about solar's potential with the cuts to the Fits, Barker replied: "I'd like to be able to be more generous with the large-scale projects, but I've got £860m from the spending review … so the focus of the current scheme needs to be on the small scale, to get the maximum number of installations. But we now need to think creatively about how we can engage commercial-scale solar as a more important part of the energy mix … we've got to find additional pathways – and that means changing the way that solar is perceived in the department."
The report also claims that the government and its advisers – the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) – have misunderstood the economics of solar power.
In its recent renewable energy review, the committee advised the government that solar's role in the coming decade "should be limited" due to "current high costs and limited UK impact on global costs". Britain may do better to "buy in [solar panels] from overseas later", the CCC concluded.
The STA claims this analysis is flawed because unless the UK solar industry continues to scale up, there won't be the capacity to actually install large quantities of panels as prices drop.
In addition, the report argues that solar is already much less expensive than the CCC suggests. In their analysis, the CCC compares the cost of solar electricity with the wholesale price of generating power from sources such as gas and nuclear. This is an "apples with pears" comparison, according to the STA, because most of the final costs to the consumer of nuclear and gas power are accounted for by transmission and supplier profits, not generation. In contrast, solar delivers energy directly to buildings and therefore should instead be compared with the retail power price, according to the STA – a change that would slash solar's perceived cost.
A spokesperson for the CCC disagreed with this claim: "The argument runs that solar PV does not need to use the power network, and therefore that investment in solar PV saves network costs. However, given that we will continue to have power networks, and that the costs associated with these are mainly fixed, there is only very limited network cost saving – due to avoided network losses - from investing in solar PV. So when considering the economics of solar PV from the perspective of UK plc, the relevant comparator is the wholesale price."
Barker said that he agreed with the CCC that "even if you install a huge amount of solar, you're still going to want access to the grid", but he acknowledged that "there is clearly a point in what [the STA] say. Solar is different from other technologies and that needs to be recognised. We need a more sophisticated level of analysis."
Another key point of debate is the rate at which solar prices will come down and how soon the technology will be able to compete on cost without subsidy – so-called grid parity. Today's report cites recent research by consultants A T Kearney that suggests grid parity will arrive by 2019 in the UK, and much sooner in some other European countries. But the CCC expects solar to remain expensive for much longer.
Duncan Clark
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 June 2011 14.58 BST
The UK underestimates the potential of solar energy, says Greg Barker, climate minister Photograph: Lang Lang/Reuters
Britain has underestimated the potential of solar energy and the government needs to reappraise the technology because of rapidly falling costs, according to energy and climate minister Greg Barker.
"Historically, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) has underestimated the contribution that solar can make," he said. "But solar is now going through an extraordinary stage of development … it's capable of scaling up and competing with the big boys. It's not just for enthusiasts. It has potential to be a significant source of energy."
Barker's comments were made in response to a report issued today by the Solar Trade Association (STA), which claims the government and its advisers have underestimated the benefits and overestimated the costs of solar energy.
"While I wouldn't necessarily concur with all the specific recommendations of the report," Barker said, "there is one clear message that I do agree with: that solar has far more potential than has previously been thought."
Despite these statements, Barker plans to press ahead with plans to slash the subsidy given to large-scale solar installations via the feed-in tariff scheme (Fits) – a move that the STA chairman, Howard Johns, claims could "decapitate" or even "destroy" Britain's fledgling solar industry.
Asked how he can reconcile his statements about solar's potential with the cuts to the Fits, Barker replied: "I'd like to be able to be more generous with the large-scale projects, but I've got £860m from the spending review … so the focus of the current scheme needs to be on the small scale, to get the maximum number of installations. But we now need to think creatively about how we can engage commercial-scale solar as a more important part of the energy mix … we've got to find additional pathways – and that means changing the way that solar is perceived in the department."
The report also claims that the government and its advisers – the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) – have misunderstood the economics of solar power.
In its recent renewable energy review, the committee advised the government that solar's role in the coming decade "should be limited" due to "current high costs and limited UK impact on global costs". Britain may do better to "buy in [solar panels] from overseas later", the CCC concluded.
The STA claims this analysis is flawed because unless the UK solar industry continues to scale up, there won't be the capacity to actually install large quantities of panels as prices drop.
In addition, the report argues that solar is already much less expensive than the CCC suggests. In their analysis, the CCC compares the cost of solar electricity with the wholesale price of generating power from sources such as gas and nuclear. This is an "apples with pears" comparison, according to the STA, because most of the final costs to the consumer of nuclear and gas power are accounted for by transmission and supplier profits, not generation. In contrast, solar delivers energy directly to buildings and therefore should instead be compared with the retail power price, according to the STA – a change that would slash solar's perceived cost.
A spokesperson for the CCC disagreed with this claim: "The argument runs that solar PV does not need to use the power network, and therefore that investment in solar PV saves network costs. However, given that we will continue to have power networks, and that the costs associated with these are mainly fixed, there is only very limited network cost saving – due to avoided network losses - from investing in solar PV. So when considering the economics of solar PV from the perspective of UK plc, the relevant comparator is the wholesale price."
Barker said that he agreed with the CCC that "even if you install a huge amount of solar, you're still going to want access to the grid", but he acknowledged that "there is clearly a point in what [the STA] say. Solar is different from other technologies and that needs to be recognised. We need a more sophisticated level of analysis."
Another key point of debate is the rate at which solar prices will come down and how soon the technology will be able to compete on cost without subsidy – so-called grid parity. Today's report cites recent research by consultants A T Kearney that suggests grid parity will arrive by 2019 in the UK, and much sooner in some other European countries. But the CCC expects solar to remain expensive for much longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
