By RAY BRINDAL
CANBERRA—Australia's controversial plan to introduce a tax on carbon emissions cleared a major political hurdle Wednesday, securing the expected approval of the country's lower legislative house.
The package to introduce a price on carbon pollution and encourage investment in clean and renewable energy narrowly passed at 74-72. The law is now assured easy passage through the Australian parliament.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has staked her Labor Party's future in government on introducing the reform, which wasn't included in its manifesto in last year's election. The policy was almost guaranteed approval after independent lawmakers who back Ms. Gillard agreed to support the bill despite a fierce campaign by the opposition to derail the process.
A group of almost 70 demonstrators against the tax chanting "no mandate, democracy is dead" were expelled from the House of Representatives for disrupting Ms. Julia Gillard's question time after the package passed.
Treasurer Wayne Swan described the passage of the legislation as "the most significant economic and environmental reform in a generation."
The package will allow the government to price emissions of carbon dioxide at a rate of 23 Australian dollars (US$23) a metric ton to the nation's 500 biggest polluters to curb emissions and cut pollution. The measure also aims to encourage investment in clean and renewable energy, provide assistance to some affected industries including steel, and to provide compensation by way of tax cuts and increase government pension payments, Ms. Gillard said.
Business lobby groups in Australia have mostly opposed the tax, arguing that it will add to rising operating costs at a time when the strong Australian dollar weighs on areas of the economy like manufacturing and tourism.
Heather Ridout, chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, said that the timing of the Clean Energy Bill couldn't be worse given weaker economic circumstances, the lack of global and domestic consensus on issues related to climate change and the existing structural pressures on manufacturing.
The Business Council of Australia, which represents big companies, wants amendments to the measure so that Australia acts only in tandem with other nations over time, and adjustment to make Australia competitive in case of economic shocks.
But Frank Jotzo, Director of the Center for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University, said the carbon pricing legislation will give businesses more certainty for their investments.
"The fundamental point is that putting a price on carbon is the economically best way of reining in emissions growth. What was voted in today could well be the first step on the journey to effective and economically sensible climate policy in Australia," Mr. Jotzo said in a statement.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Are biofuel flights good news for the environment?
Airlines are starting to test biofuels on commercial routes, but 'sustainable' alternatives to kerosene remain controversial
Are biofuel flights really a good thing for the environment? How can we ever produce enough biofuels to power all flights? And won't they just consume precious land that could be used to grow food instead?
T Granger, by email
Last week saw the first commercial flight part-powered by biofuels take off from a UK airport. The TUI Travel Boeing 757 flight from Birmingham to Lanzarote took off and landed without any reported hitches. No technical modifications were made to the plane with one of its two engines powered with a 50/50 blend of conventional Jet A1 fuel and a "Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids" fuel produced from used cooking oil. TUI Travel said the fuel was supplied by a Dutch firm called SkyNRG and that the fuel was "approved as sustainable by WWF and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels".
Judging by the increasing number of airlines around the world announcing such flights, and the likely imminent inclusion by the EU of aviation within its emissions trading scheme, it would appear that biofuels are likely to play a very significant role in the future of aviation. Aviation - unlike its ground-based transport alternatives - is currently totally reliant on fuels with the energy density offered by a fossil fuel such as kerosene. So a plug-and-play biofuel substitute for kerosene seems to be the only viable alternative at present. After all, we can't electrify our planes or power them by nuclear fission (or not in a way that would be accepted by paying passengers) - and most aircraft operating or purchased today have a predicted lifespan of at least 40 years.
But just how "sustainable" are the biofuels used in aircraft? And will they only act to force up food prices? To rely solely on second-hand cooking oil seems complete folly. But the aviation industry says it is only using this source of biofuel for demonstration purposes. TUI Travel, for example, says it is looking at using biofuels made from the "purge family of plants as well as from camelina". Meanwhile, Virgin has just announced a "breakthrough" in biofuel production with a fuel produced from "reprocessed waste gases from industrial steel production". And other aviation fuel developers say they are exploring algae-based biofuels.
Or, perhaps, all this talk of biofuels is a convenient distraction: with aviation said to be the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, should we instead be concentrating on reducing the number of aircraft we send into the sky? Or is aviation so crucial to us all that it deserves a special status of exemption, as it has long enjoyed when it comes to fuel duty and VAT?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your own thoughts below (as opposed to emailing them) and, if quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Or, alternatively, message me on Twitter @LeoHickman
Are biofuel flights really a good thing for the environment? How can we ever produce enough biofuels to power all flights? And won't they just consume precious land that could be used to grow food instead?
T Granger, by email
Last week saw the first commercial flight part-powered by biofuels take off from a UK airport. The TUI Travel Boeing 757 flight from Birmingham to Lanzarote took off and landed without any reported hitches. No technical modifications were made to the plane with one of its two engines powered with a 50/50 blend of conventional Jet A1 fuel and a "Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids" fuel produced from used cooking oil. TUI Travel said the fuel was supplied by a Dutch firm called SkyNRG and that the fuel was "approved as sustainable by WWF and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels".
Judging by the increasing number of airlines around the world announcing such flights, and the likely imminent inclusion by the EU of aviation within its emissions trading scheme, it would appear that biofuels are likely to play a very significant role in the future of aviation. Aviation - unlike its ground-based transport alternatives - is currently totally reliant on fuels with the energy density offered by a fossil fuel such as kerosene. So a plug-and-play biofuel substitute for kerosene seems to be the only viable alternative at present. After all, we can't electrify our planes or power them by nuclear fission (or not in a way that would be accepted by paying passengers) - and most aircraft operating or purchased today have a predicted lifespan of at least 40 years.
But just how "sustainable" are the biofuels used in aircraft? And will they only act to force up food prices? To rely solely on second-hand cooking oil seems complete folly. But the aviation industry says it is only using this source of biofuel for demonstration purposes. TUI Travel, for example, says it is looking at using biofuels made from the "purge family of plants as well as from camelina". Meanwhile, Virgin has just announced a "breakthrough" in biofuel production with a fuel produced from "reprocessed waste gases from industrial steel production". And other aviation fuel developers say they are exploring algae-based biofuels.
Or, perhaps, all this talk of biofuels is a convenient distraction: with aviation said to be the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, should we instead be concentrating on reducing the number of aircraft we send into the sky? Or is aviation so crucial to us all that it deserves a special status of exemption, as it has long enjoyed when it comes to fuel duty and VAT?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's question, so please let us know your own thoughts below (as opposed to emailing them) and, if quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too.
• Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk.
Or, alternatively, message me on Twitter @LeoHickman
Energy market faces shakeup as SSE auctions electricity share
Scottish and Southern Energy breaks ranks with other Big Six suppliers by letting domestic suppliers bid for its energy supply
Graeme Wearden
The Guardian, Wednesday 12 October 2011
Scottish and Southern Energy is shaking up Britain's energy market by auctioning all its electricity on the open market.
SSE announced last night that it will break ranks with its fellow Big Six power suppliers by letting domestic suppliers bid for its entire energy supply. The company will also buy all its own electricity from the same "day-ahead" wholesale market.
"By selling its total supply of electricity and buying its total electricity demand simultaneously in the day-ahead auction, SSE will significantly improve the liquidity, depth and credibility of the market, and assist in the creation of a robust and tangible pricing index," said a company statement.
The move comes two weeks after Labour pledged to break the Big Six's "stranglehold" on the UK energy market, in the face of rising prices. The shadow energy secretary, Meg Hillier, told the party's conference in Liverpool energy production should be fed into a central "pool", allowing any company to buy and supply it. Huw Irranca-Davies, Labour MP for Ogmore, welcomed SSE's decision to "break ranks" with the rest of the industry, predicting it would benefit consumers.
Today, UK suppliers trade just 40GWh of electricity per day – a figure dwarfed by Germany, where upwards of 500GWh changes hands each day.
SSE, which provides nearly 15% of the electricity used in the UK, will start auctioning its power on Friday, and hopes to complete the change by the end of the current financial year.
Alistair Phillips-Davies, SSE's generation and supply director, said Britain's wholesale electricity market could be transformed if other energy companies moved all their energy trading to the day-ahead market, rather than simply selling off any surplus supply. Ian Marchant, chief executive of SSE, predicted that some of his rival suppliers might launch similar plans before the end of 2011.
Energy suppliers have been lambasted this summer for raising prices, often above the headline rate of inflation, at a time when household incomes are being squeezed.
Graeme Wearden
The Guardian, Wednesday 12 October 2011
Scottish and Southern Energy is shaking up Britain's energy market by auctioning all its electricity on the open market.
SSE announced last night that it will break ranks with its fellow Big Six power suppliers by letting domestic suppliers bid for its entire energy supply. The company will also buy all its own electricity from the same "day-ahead" wholesale market.
"By selling its total supply of electricity and buying its total electricity demand simultaneously in the day-ahead auction, SSE will significantly improve the liquidity, depth and credibility of the market, and assist in the creation of a robust and tangible pricing index," said a company statement.
The move comes two weeks after Labour pledged to break the Big Six's "stranglehold" on the UK energy market, in the face of rising prices. The shadow energy secretary, Meg Hillier, told the party's conference in Liverpool energy production should be fed into a central "pool", allowing any company to buy and supply it. Huw Irranca-Davies, Labour MP for Ogmore, welcomed SSE's decision to "break ranks" with the rest of the industry, predicting it would benefit consumers.
Today, UK suppliers trade just 40GWh of electricity per day – a figure dwarfed by Germany, where upwards of 500GWh changes hands each day.
SSE, which provides nearly 15% of the electricity used in the UK, will start auctioning its power on Friday, and hopes to complete the change by the end of the current financial year.
Alistair Phillips-Davies, SSE's generation and supply director, said Britain's wholesale electricity market could be transformed if other energy companies moved all their energy trading to the day-ahead market, rather than simply selling off any surplus supply. Ian Marchant, chief executive of SSE, predicted that some of his rival suppliers might launch similar plans before the end of 2011.
Energy suppliers have been lambasted this summer for raising prices, often above the headline rate of inflation, at a time when household incomes are being squeezed.
$48bn a year would provide electricity to the poor, report says
Giving the poor access to electricity would bring huge gains in health, education and economic growth, with little increase in emmissions, according to International Energy Agency study
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.13 BST
More than 1 billion people in poor countries around the world could have access to electricity within 20 years, if the international community is prepared to make the effort, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Monday.
Giving poor people access to electricity – more than a century after it became available to the rich – would cost about $48bn a year, and would have huge advantages in terms of health, education and economic growth, a global study for the IEA concluded. Moreover, it would not require a leap in greenhouse gas emissions, as low-carbon energy could make up a large part of the new energy sources to bring the poor into step with the modern world.
If done properly, providing electricity access to those who lack it would increase carbon dioxide emissions by about 0.7%, according to the IEA report, which it said would be "equivalent to the annual emissions of New York State but giving electricity to a population more than 50 times the size".
"Eradicating energy poverty is a moral imperative, and this report shows that it is achievable. Now it is just a question of mustering the political will," said Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA. "In too many countries today, children cannot do their homework because they have no light. Food cannot be kept because there is no electricity. In short, modern society cannot function. The United Nations has declared 2012 the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All, and this is an excellent opportunity for us to agree on rapid collective action to address this unacceptable problem."
People with access to electricity suffer far less from indoor air pollution, mostly caused by cooking over traditional wood fires. Close to 3 billion people around the world currently have no access to clean cooking facilities, and indoor air pollution is one of the world's biggest "silent killers", causing millions of deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness every year, mostly in women and children, who are more exposed to the pollution.
Education is also improved with electricity access, as children are able to study at home after school, rather than having to rely on kerosene lamps or candles.
Although the $48bn a year is a massive hike from current levels of investment, Van der Hoeven pointed out it would be only about 3% of the worldwide investment needed in the electricity sector, in order to update services and to move to low-carbon electricity provision.
The IEA calculates that of the money needed, $18bn could come from multilateral and bilateral development sources, $15bn from the governments of developing countries and $15bn from the private sector.
Most of the people currently lacking modern energy facilities are in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, the IEA report found.
The IEA study forms part of its annual "world energy outlook" report, its respected and eagerly awaited update on the world's energy scene, encompassing climate change, energy access and forecasts of pressures on the oil price. This year's report will also include information on shale gas, following the IEA's summer publication of a report dismantling some of the claims from the fossil fuel industry that the world is entering a "golden age of gas".
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.13 BST
More than 1 billion people in poor countries around the world could have access to electricity within 20 years, if the international community is prepared to make the effort, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Monday.
Giving poor people access to electricity – more than a century after it became available to the rich – would cost about $48bn a year, and would have huge advantages in terms of health, education and economic growth, a global study for the IEA concluded. Moreover, it would not require a leap in greenhouse gas emissions, as low-carbon energy could make up a large part of the new energy sources to bring the poor into step with the modern world.
If done properly, providing electricity access to those who lack it would increase carbon dioxide emissions by about 0.7%, according to the IEA report, which it said would be "equivalent to the annual emissions of New York State but giving electricity to a population more than 50 times the size".
"Eradicating energy poverty is a moral imperative, and this report shows that it is achievable. Now it is just a question of mustering the political will," said Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA. "In too many countries today, children cannot do their homework because they have no light. Food cannot be kept because there is no electricity. In short, modern society cannot function. The United Nations has declared 2012 the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All, and this is an excellent opportunity for us to agree on rapid collective action to address this unacceptable problem."
People with access to electricity suffer far less from indoor air pollution, mostly caused by cooking over traditional wood fires. Close to 3 billion people around the world currently have no access to clean cooking facilities, and indoor air pollution is one of the world's biggest "silent killers", causing millions of deaths and many more cases of respiratory illness every year, mostly in women and children, who are more exposed to the pollution.
Education is also improved with electricity access, as children are able to study at home after school, rather than having to rely on kerosene lamps or candles.
Although the $48bn a year is a massive hike from current levels of investment, Van der Hoeven pointed out it would be only about 3% of the worldwide investment needed in the electricity sector, in order to update services and to move to low-carbon electricity provision.
The IEA calculates that of the money needed, $18bn could come from multilateral and bilateral development sources, $15bn from the governments of developing countries and $15bn from the private sector.
Most of the people currently lacking modern energy facilities are in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, the IEA report found.
The IEA study forms part of its annual "world energy outlook" report, its respected and eagerly awaited update on the world's energy scene, encompassing climate change, energy access and forecasts of pressures on the oil price. This year's report will also include information on shale gas, following the IEA's summer publication of a report dismantling some of the claims from the fossil fuel industry that the world is entering a "golden age of gas".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
