By The Canadian Press
CALGARY - TransAlta Corporation says pipeline operator Enbridge Inc. plans to help develop Canada's first fully integrated carbon capture and storage project at the Alberta power producer's coal-fired plant near Edmonton.
TransAlta (TSX:TA) said Monday the development involves retro-fitting Keephills 3, a coal-fired plant west of Edmonton that's jointly owned by the Calgary company and its partner Capital Power Corp.
When complete, so-called Project Pioneer is expected to be one of the largest carbon capture and storage systems in the world and among the first to have an integrated underground storage system.
Most of the captured CO2 is intended to be shipped via pipeline and used to help pressurize old oil wells for added output. The rest will be permanently stored underground and prevented from entering the atmosphere.
Enbridge (TSX:ENB), Canada's largest oil pipeline operator and natural gas distributor, brings expertise in the design and construction of pipeline infrastructure, as well as extensive knowledge of CO2 sequestration.
"We believe CCS has potential to positively impact our industry and our ability to continue to grow sustainably and in an environmentally responsible manner," Enbridge president and CEO Pat Daniel said in a release.
"One of the most pressing environmental issues facing us today is the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change. By working with the Project Pioneer partners to advance CCS technology, we're pleased to contribute to what may be one of our most significant solutions."
Project Pioneer is expected to account for at least 20 per cent of the Alberta government's target of reducing CO2 emissions in the province five million tonnes a year by 2015.
The project was awarded $778 million in federal and provincial funding last year. Another key partner is Alstom Canada, a global leader in energy technology and developer of a chilled ammonia carbon capture process.
TransAlta has long been a major industrial polluter from its coal-fired power plants in Western Canada.
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Solar Thermal or Solar Photovoltaic? Areva Says 'Both!'
June 28, 2010 - 3:21 pm
Jonathan Fahey writes about energy, technology and science for Forbes
Anne Lauvergeon, chief executive of the French nuclear giant Areva, hinted last week during a meeting in Forbes offices that Areva is developing a hybrid solar power plant concept that combines a solar thermal system with solar photovoltaic (PV) panels.
She declined to give details, but the plant is being developed by Areva Solar, the division made up largely of the solar thermal company Ausra that Areva bought in March. Ausra's technology, similar to rival technology from start-ups eSolar, SolarReserve and Bright Source, uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight and beam it at water to heat it, turn it to steam, and generate electricity. Solar PV panels convert the sun's rays directly into electricity.
(The biggest solar thermal plant in the world, located in the Mojave Desert, is operated by NextEra Energy, the Florida company until recently known as FPL Group.)
Areva's strength is nuclear power--it is the world's biggest nuclear company--but it is venturing into other carbon-free generation technologies. It is developing giant off-shore wind turbines, biomass power plants (including projects in Florida and Washington with Duke Energy), and, with its Ausra acquisition, solar thermal power plants.
Lauvergeon said she has been approached over the years with offers to get into the business of making solar PV panels, but she declined because it looked to her like a low-margin commodity business. "I've refused many times to get into that game," she said. "It is meaningless to us."
Solar thermal projects, however, are bigger than solar PV installations and they require more complicated engineering and design, the kind of projects Avena excels at. Areva would buy the panels for its hybrid solar power plant, though it is unclear how exactly Areva plants to integrate the electricity-generating panels with its solar-concentrating mirrors and steam system.
Hybrid solar systems for buildings have been developed, including by the Turkish company Solimpeks Solar Energy. In this scheme, water is circulated among the PV panels, making them more efficient by cooling them and then providing the home with hot water. A system that generates electricity directly while also generating steam to spin a turbine and make electricity, however, would be more complicated.
Proponents of solar thermal technology say it is far cheaper per megawatt than solar PV projects. Also, it can store power, at least for moderate periods of time, as hot water or, in Areva's case, as molten salt. In an interview last week, though, Lewis Hay, chief executive of NextEra Energy, the biggest solar operator in the U.S., said he has higher hopes for PV because panel prices are dropping so fast. The cost for solar thermal equipment, like mirrors and steel and gears that position the mirrors, doesn't have as far to fall.
Perhaps Lauvergeon's secret hybrid solar thermal-solar PV concept will change Hay's mind, and turn him into a customer one day.
Jonathan Fahey writes about energy, technology and science for Forbes
Anne Lauvergeon, chief executive of the French nuclear giant Areva, hinted last week during a meeting in Forbes offices that Areva is developing a hybrid solar power plant concept that combines a solar thermal system with solar photovoltaic (PV) panels.
She declined to give details, but the plant is being developed by Areva Solar, the division made up largely of the solar thermal company Ausra that Areva bought in March. Ausra's technology, similar to rival technology from start-ups eSolar, SolarReserve and Bright Source, uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight and beam it at water to heat it, turn it to steam, and generate electricity. Solar PV panels convert the sun's rays directly into electricity.
(The biggest solar thermal plant in the world, located in the Mojave Desert, is operated by NextEra Energy, the Florida company until recently known as FPL Group.)
Areva's strength is nuclear power--it is the world's biggest nuclear company--but it is venturing into other carbon-free generation technologies. It is developing giant off-shore wind turbines, biomass power plants (including projects in Florida and Washington with Duke Energy), and, with its Ausra acquisition, solar thermal power plants.
Lauvergeon said she has been approached over the years with offers to get into the business of making solar PV panels, but she declined because it looked to her like a low-margin commodity business. "I've refused many times to get into that game," she said. "It is meaningless to us."
Solar thermal projects, however, are bigger than solar PV installations and they require more complicated engineering and design, the kind of projects Avena excels at. Areva would buy the panels for its hybrid solar power plant, though it is unclear how exactly Areva plants to integrate the electricity-generating panels with its solar-concentrating mirrors and steam system.
Hybrid solar systems for buildings have been developed, including by the Turkish company Solimpeks Solar Energy. In this scheme, water is circulated among the PV panels, making them more efficient by cooling them and then providing the home with hot water. A system that generates electricity directly while also generating steam to spin a turbine and make electricity, however, would be more complicated.
Proponents of solar thermal technology say it is far cheaper per megawatt than solar PV projects. Also, it can store power, at least for moderate periods of time, as hot water or, in Areva's case, as molten salt. In an interview last week, though, Lewis Hay, chief executive of NextEra Energy, the biggest solar operator in the U.S., said he has higher hopes for PV because panel prices are dropping so fast. The cost for solar thermal equipment, like mirrors and steel and gears that position the mirrors, doesn't have as far to fall.
Perhaps Lauvergeon's secret hybrid solar thermal-solar PV concept will change Hay's mind, and turn him into a customer one day.
Bulgaria suspended from U.N. Kyoto carbon trade
Wed, Jun 23 2010SOFIA (Reuters) - Bulgaria has been suspended from United Nations carbon trading for violating greenhouse reporting rules set under the Kyoto Protocol, a key tool to fight climate change, the Bulgarian environment ministry said on Tuesday.
Gulf Oil Spill
Sofia has been expecting the move since the middle of May, when the Bonn-based U.N. Climate Change Secretariat that oversees compliance of U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol warned the Balkan country its accreditation will be revoked.
The ministry said it has already taken measures to improve emission registering and expects a visit by U.N. experts in September and October to allow the Balkan country restore its accreditation before the end of the year.
The suspension will exclude Bulgarian companies from trading in greenhouse gas trading schemes under Kyoto, and would also affect their participation in the European Union's emissions trading scheme.
Industrial producers and utilities can carry out deals in the EU's carbon scheme, but the actual transfer of allowances to and from the national register would not be possible and would hamper spot trading.
Spot EU permit trading and Bulgaria's share of permits both account for a small portion to the total EU carbon market.
The suspension also means Bulgaria cannot sell the surplus sovereign emissions rights it has accumulated under Kyoto. The recession-hit country had hoped to sell at least 40 million metric tons of its Assigned Amount Units this year, worth upwards of 400 million euros ($488.2 million).
Greece received a similar suspension for seven months in 2008, but Greek companies were able to continue trading in the EU market as it was not yet linked to the Kyoto schemes.
(Reporting by Tsvetelia Tsolova)
Gulf Oil Spill
Sofia has been expecting the move since the middle of May, when the Bonn-based U.N. Climate Change Secretariat that oversees compliance of U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol warned the Balkan country its accreditation will be revoked.
The ministry said it has already taken measures to improve emission registering and expects a visit by U.N. experts in September and October to allow the Balkan country restore its accreditation before the end of the year.
The suspension will exclude Bulgarian companies from trading in greenhouse gas trading schemes under Kyoto, and would also affect their participation in the European Union's emissions trading scheme.
Industrial producers and utilities can carry out deals in the EU's carbon scheme, but the actual transfer of allowances to and from the national register would not be possible and would hamper spot trading.
Spot EU permit trading and Bulgaria's share of permits both account for a small portion to the total EU carbon market.
The suspension also means Bulgaria cannot sell the surplus sovereign emissions rights it has accumulated under Kyoto. The recession-hit country had hoped to sell at least 40 million metric tons of its Assigned Amount Units this year, worth upwards of 400 million euros ($488.2 million).
Greece received a similar suspension for seven months in 2008, but Greek companies were able to continue trading in the EU market as it was not yet linked to the Kyoto schemes.
(Reporting by Tsvetelia Tsolova)
UK’s challenge: Finding £550bn to build low-carbon economy
By Greenbang on Tuesday, 29th June 2010 If ever a time called for creative financing, now — 2010 in the UK — is the time.
It’s a classic case of immovable object (the need to cut fossil fuel energy use and carbon emissions) meets unstoppable force (the government’s decision to slash the deficit with a £40 billion austerity programme). When the estimated cost to meet the UK’s 2020 climate and clean-energy goals stands at £550 billion, the funding mechanisms need to get very creative indeed.
The challenge looks even greater when you consider the vast array of projects and technologies that are needed to get from here, 2010, to there, 2020.
That’s why a report issued today calls for the creation of a Green Investment Bank (GIB) tasked with finding ways to tackle climate and energy investment barriers, as well as to better coordinate the efforts of an assortment of agencies, funds and initiatives currently working in those areas.
“The traditional approach of simply increasing the rewards to investors in the low-carbon economy has delivered only a fraction of the investment needed,” said Nick Mabey, coauthor of the report — “Unlocking investment to deliver Britain’s low carbon future” — released today by the Green Investment Bank Commission. “It is time for a new approach.”
The report notes that financing needed to create a low-carbon economy dwarfs the amount spent on the UK’s “dash for gas” in the 1990s. That investment came to around £11 billion, “which was considered transformational at the
time.”
Rather than simply providing capital for energy and climate efforts, the Green Investment Bank should focus on lowering risk for investors, the report recommended. It could develop a variety of financing strategies for low-carbon technologies and infrastructure, including:
•Equity co-investment, early-stage grants, insurance products and purchase and securitisation of project finance loans;
•Green bonds to access to the pools of capital held by institutional investors;
•Green individual savings accounts (ISAs); and
•New levies, sale of government-held assets or bank bonus taxes.
“The GIB, with its focus on innovative risk mitigation, will send a strong signal to investors that the UK is serious about its low carbon transformation,” Mabey said. “By unlocking major new streams of investment the GIB will give greater certainty of meeting the UK’s climate change targets and give better value for money to taxpayers and energy consumers.”
“It is a tremendous opportunity to rapidly scale up the investment we need to tackle climate change, whilst simultaneously creating the jobs and industries of our future,” added James Cameron, executive director and vice chairman of Climate Change Capital and also a member of the Green Investment Bank Commission.
A number of organisations quickly responded by welcoming the commission’s recommendations:
“The (Energy Technologies Institute’s) investment approach is very much in line with the proposals in the report, which recommend that government funding for low-carbon innovation should be channelled through ‘commercially structured investments’ which would allow the UK to ‘double or treble the private sector leverage, while doubling the pace of development,’ ” said David Clarke, chief executive of the Energy Technologies Institute. “The commission also recommends that support for the delivery of UK’s emission reduction targets should be based on a ‘public-private investment model and address specific market failures and investment barriers in a way that will achieve emission reductions at least cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.’ This aligns with the structure and operation of the Energy Technologies Institute.”
“Developing a greener UK will not only cut our climate-changing emissions: it will boost the economy, reduce our reliance on overseas fossil fuels and build a safer, cleaner future for us all,” said Simon Bullock, senior economy campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “But we cannot afford to dither — the coalition must make setting up the Green Investment Bank a major priority.”
“The GIB needs to fill the equity funding gap for emerging companies supplying new technology into the ‘green’ sector that the private sector will not provide — straddling the ‘valley of death’ for early stage financing,” said Vimal Vallabh, director of corporate finance for PricewaterhouseCoopers. “It will require the government to assume a higher risk profile than those in the private sector are prepared to take on. What the bank should not do, is compete with private capital. It should be there to support the establishment of a low carbon economy.”
It’s a classic case of immovable object (the need to cut fossil fuel energy use and carbon emissions) meets unstoppable force (the government’s decision to slash the deficit with a £40 billion austerity programme). When the estimated cost to meet the UK’s 2020 climate and clean-energy goals stands at £550 billion, the funding mechanisms need to get very creative indeed.
The challenge looks even greater when you consider the vast array of projects and technologies that are needed to get from here, 2010, to there, 2020.
That’s why a report issued today calls for the creation of a Green Investment Bank (GIB) tasked with finding ways to tackle climate and energy investment barriers, as well as to better coordinate the efforts of an assortment of agencies, funds and initiatives currently working in those areas.
“The traditional approach of simply increasing the rewards to investors in the low-carbon economy has delivered only a fraction of the investment needed,” said Nick Mabey, coauthor of the report — “Unlocking investment to deliver Britain’s low carbon future” — released today by the Green Investment Bank Commission. “It is time for a new approach.”
The report notes that financing needed to create a low-carbon economy dwarfs the amount spent on the UK’s “dash for gas” in the 1990s. That investment came to around £11 billion, “which was considered transformational at the
time.”
Rather than simply providing capital for energy and climate efforts, the Green Investment Bank should focus on lowering risk for investors, the report recommended. It could develop a variety of financing strategies for low-carbon technologies and infrastructure, including:
•Equity co-investment, early-stage grants, insurance products and purchase and securitisation of project finance loans;
•Green bonds to access to the pools of capital held by institutional investors;
•Green individual savings accounts (ISAs); and
•New levies, sale of government-held assets or bank bonus taxes.
“The GIB, with its focus on innovative risk mitigation, will send a strong signal to investors that the UK is serious about its low carbon transformation,” Mabey said. “By unlocking major new streams of investment the GIB will give greater certainty of meeting the UK’s climate change targets and give better value for money to taxpayers and energy consumers.”
“It is a tremendous opportunity to rapidly scale up the investment we need to tackle climate change, whilst simultaneously creating the jobs and industries of our future,” added James Cameron, executive director and vice chairman of Climate Change Capital and also a member of the Green Investment Bank Commission.
A number of organisations quickly responded by welcoming the commission’s recommendations:
“The (Energy Technologies Institute’s) investment approach is very much in line with the proposals in the report, which recommend that government funding for low-carbon innovation should be channelled through ‘commercially structured investments’ which would allow the UK to ‘double or treble the private sector leverage, while doubling the pace of development,’ ” said David Clarke, chief executive of the Energy Technologies Institute. “The commission also recommends that support for the delivery of UK’s emission reduction targets should be based on a ‘public-private investment model and address specific market failures and investment barriers in a way that will achieve emission reductions at least cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.’ This aligns with the structure and operation of the Energy Technologies Institute.”
“Developing a greener UK will not only cut our climate-changing emissions: it will boost the economy, reduce our reliance on overseas fossil fuels and build a safer, cleaner future for us all,” said Simon Bullock, senior economy campaigner for Friends of the Earth. “But we cannot afford to dither — the coalition must make setting up the Green Investment Bank a major priority.”
“The GIB needs to fill the equity funding gap for emerging companies supplying new technology into the ‘green’ sector that the private sector will not provide — straddling the ‘valley of death’ for early stage financing,” said Vimal Vallabh, director of corporate finance for PricewaterhouseCoopers. “It will require the government to assume a higher risk profile than those in the private sector are prepared to take on. What the bank should not do, is compete with private capital. It should be there to support the establishment of a low carbon economy.”
Greg Barker, climate change minister: 'We cannot go on relying on foreign fuel'
Greg Barker, the Climate Change Minister, tells Louise Gray about the Coalition's plans to give Britain its own supply of clean energy.
By Louise Gray, Environment correspondent
Published: 10:20AM BST 29 Jun 2010
Barker, a former PR executive who took his close friend David Cameron to the Arctic resulting in that infamous snap with the huskies that was dismissed as a cynical stunt by critics, is “100 per cent certain” that man-made global warming is happening.
In his Whitehall office, there are two prints from the “husky” set as well as a strategically placed “Save the Planet’’ cushion. However, he insists that it’s not “all doom and gloom”.
The 43-year-old believes Britain could become the “Saudi Arabia of renewable energy” by investing in offshore wind, wave and tidal sources. In the Budget, the Coalition pledged to set up a Green Investment Bank to help finance renewable power stations, and Barker has ambitious plans to make London “the world hub of green finance”, creating “green ISAs and pensions” so that the public can invest in, and benefit from, the massive growth in the clean energy industry.
“We are absolutely convinced we have to move rapidly to decarbonise our economy, but we are not in the business of scaremongering. We are in the business of promoting the opportunities this will create for the green economy,” he says.
This strategy is central to the Government’s Green New Deal to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. If that is to be achieved, between 400,000 and 1.8 million homes a year will have to be upgraded between now and then, at an annual cost of between £5 billion and £15 billion.
A flagship “pay as you save” scheme will allow people to book a free consultation with an “energy doctor” at a participating supermarket or store. After an energy audit, corrective measures up to a cost of £10,000 will be recommended. Home owners will repay the cost over time through savings on their fuel bill, says Mr Barker. Although details are yet to be finalised, the scheme could start as early as next year.
He hails this policy as a “completely new radical and ambitious approach to insulating the nation’s homes” that will not only help combat climate change by cutting emissions but help cut the average family’s fuel bill, which has soared to around £1,300 per annum.
“We have to help families reduce the amount they are spending on electricity and heating their homes, and we will do this by creating a new market,” he said. “We will bring new participants into the insulating business, like B&Q, Marks & Spencer or Virgin, as well as trusted energy companies like British Gas and others, to help pay for the upfront cost without the householder having to incur debt on their bills. The cost of upgrading each property will be attached to the energy bill and repaid over 25 years.”
Mr Barker is committed to cutting carbon emissions but, unlike his predecessors in office, he doesn’t dismiss climate-change sceptics as “flat-earthers” – there are too many of them on the back benches for him to do that.
“There are people that take different views. I am not a scientist, but I do understand science is about probabilities. I think, if anything, the slightly preachy tone that some in the climate-change debate have adopted and the rather intolerant tone of those who have genuine concerns is not helpful.”
But he says the Coalition will continue with Labour’s policy on climate change, including cutting carbon emissions by at least 34 per cent by 2020 and pushing for a global deal that could see the target increase to 42 per cent.
It will be tough to make such cuts while the Government budget is also being reduced and Liberal Dem colleagues disagree on key matters, such as nuclear energy, but the MP for Bexhill and Battle is a fighter and unafraid to court controversy. Four years ago, the father-of-three was mired in scandal after leaving his wife, Celeste, for a male interior designer. He was also caught up in the MPs’ expenses furore, having made £320,000 profit on a flat he bought with the help of his taxpayer-funded expenses.
In one sense, Barker is ideally placed for his new role, having worked for the Russian oil company Sibneft, once owned by Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich. Now, however, he says Britain must reduce dependence on imported oil and gas.
“I think there are a lot of fool’s choices that have been drawn under the last government that are not necessary. To me, energy security, with a diverse supply of clean energy and more efficient use of energy, is something we should be pursuing regardless of whether you are a believer in global warming or not.
“We cannot as a country go on relying on expensive foreign fuel. We need to have a safe, secure supply of clean energy from a diverse mix of sources.”
It remains to be seen whether a minister who describes himself as “blue-green” can convince environmentalists that his free-market strategy is the way ahead.
• Louise Gray is the Daily Telegraph’s environment correspondent
By Louise Gray, Environment correspondent
Published: 10:20AM BST 29 Jun 2010
Barker, a former PR executive who took his close friend David Cameron to the Arctic resulting in that infamous snap with the huskies that was dismissed as a cynical stunt by critics, is “100 per cent certain” that man-made global warming is happening.
In his Whitehall office, there are two prints from the “husky” set as well as a strategically placed “Save the Planet’’ cushion. However, he insists that it’s not “all doom and gloom”.
The 43-year-old believes Britain could become the “Saudi Arabia of renewable energy” by investing in offshore wind, wave and tidal sources. In the Budget, the Coalition pledged to set up a Green Investment Bank to help finance renewable power stations, and Barker has ambitious plans to make London “the world hub of green finance”, creating “green ISAs and pensions” so that the public can invest in, and benefit from, the massive growth in the clean energy industry.
“We are absolutely convinced we have to move rapidly to decarbonise our economy, but we are not in the business of scaremongering. We are in the business of promoting the opportunities this will create for the green economy,” he says.
This strategy is central to the Government’s Green New Deal to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. If that is to be achieved, between 400,000 and 1.8 million homes a year will have to be upgraded between now and then, at an annual cost of between £5 billion and £15 billion.
A flagship “pay as you save” scheme will allow people to book a free consultation with an “energy doctor” at a participating supermarket or store. After an energy audit, corrective measures up to a cost of £10,000 will be recommended. Home owners will repay the cost over time through savings on their fuel bill, says Mr Barker. Although details are yet to be finalised, the scheme could start as early as next year.
He hails this policy as a “completely new radical and ambitious approach to insulating the nation’s homes” that will not only help combat climate change by cutting emissions but help cut the average family’s fuel bill, which has soared to around £1,300 per annum.
“We have to help families reduce the amount they are spending on electricity and heating their homes, and we will do this by creating a new market,” he said. “We will bring new participants into the insulating business, like B&Q, Marks & Spencer or Virgin, as well as trusted energy companies like British Gas and others, to help pay for the upfront cost without the householder having to incur debt on their bills. The cost of upgrading each property will be attached to the energy bill and repaid over 25 years.”
Mr Barker is committed to cutting carbon emissions but, unlike his predecessors in office, he doesn’t dismiss climate-change sceptics as “flat-earthers” – there are too many of them on the back benches for him to do that.
“There are people that take different views. I am not a scientist, but I do understand science is about probabilities. I think, if anything, the slightly preachy tone that some in the climate-change debate have adopted and the rather intolerant tone of those who have genuine concerns is not helpful.”
But he says the Coalition will continue with Labour’s policy on climate change, including cutting carbon emissions by at least 34 per cent by 2020 and pushing for a global deal that could see the target increase to 42 per cent.
It will be tough to make such cuts while the Government budget is also being reduced and Liberal Dem colleagues disagree on key matters, such as nuclear energy, but the MP for Bexhill and Battle is a fighter and unafraid to court controversy. Four years ago, the father-of-three was mired in scandal after leaving his wife, Celeste, for a male interior designer. He was also caught up in the MPs’ expenses furore, having made £320,000 profit on a flat he bought with the help of his taxpayer-funded expenses.
In one sense, Barker is ideally placed for his new role, having worked for the Russian oil company Sibneft, once owned by Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich. Now, however, he says Britain must reduce dependence on imported oil and gas.
“I think there are a lot of fool’s choices that have been drawn under the last government that are not necessary. To me, energy security, with a diverse supply of clean energy and more efficient use of energy, is something we should be pursuing regardless of whether you are a believer in global warming or not.
“We cannot as a country go on relying on expensive foreign fuel. We need to have a safe, secure supply of clean energy from a diverse mix of sources.”
It remains to be seen whether a minister who describes himself as “blue-green” can convince environmentalists that his free-market strategy is the way ahead.
• Louise Gray is the Daily Telegraph’s environment correspondent
Quangos should be burnt to fuel a green revolution, Tory report recommends
By James Moore
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
The new Government should conduct a bonfire of nine low-carbon quangos and instead hand them to a planned green investment bank if Britain is to fulfill its commitments to create a low-carbon economy and catch up with its European partners, a report yesterday urged.
The Green Investment Bank Commission also recommended the sale of "green ISAs and bonds" as a way of helping to provide financing for more renewable energy projects in the United Kingdom.
And it said the new bank should be commercially independent and thus not accountable to ministers or to Parliament for its investment or lending decisions. This would, it said, be "a prerequisite for building credibility with the markets. It also should limit direct public liabilities by placing GIB liabilities off the Government balance sheet."
The commission estimates that £550bn is needed for infrastructure and supply chains to allow the UK to meet climate change targets that call on the country to cut greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy by 2020.
The scale of the investment required to meet UK climate change and renewable energy targets is unprecedented," it warned.
Headed by Yell's chairman, Bob Wigley, the Commission was set up by the Conservative Party while in opposition. It criticised what it described as a string of "ad hoc" initiatives and quangos that have been set up over the past decade and collectively spend £185m while providing funds of £2bn.
In that respect, the Commission agreed with last week's report from the Work Foundation, which was sharply critical of the way moves towards a low-carbon economy are being handled. It attacked what it described as a "tangle of red tape and bureaucracy" which it claimed was putting job creation in low-carbon industries at risk.
Mr Wigley said: "I believe our report has produced some radical and substantive policy recommendations and financing ideas.
"I was very much encouraged when the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to a low-carbon economy in his speech the day after the recent general election and was further encouraged by the terms of the coalition agreement, containing as it did specific references to a green investment bank and a low-carbon economy."
Although the coalition document promised the creation of a green investment bank, and the pledge was reiterated in the Queen's speech, decisions on implementing the plan have been deferred until the public spending review later this year. The Treasury said the scheme would need to show value for money.
Global investment in clean energy was as much as $150bn last year, but the financial crisis has put many decisions on hold and caused a number of projects to be scrapped. Europe's sovereign debt crisis has only exacerbated the trend.
After a dip in electricity demand, utilities have also been weakened. And some business lobbies have cautioned against introducing tougher green support policies in the aftermath of the recession while the economic outlook remains uncertain in many parts of the world and confidence is still wafer thin.
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
The new Government should conduct a bonfire of nine low-carbon quangos and instead hand them to a planned green investment bank if Britain is to fulfill its commitments to create a low-carbon economy and catch up with its European partners, a report yesterday urged.
The Green Investment Bank Commission also recommended the sale of "green ISAs and bonds" as a way of helping to provide financing for more renewable energy projects in the United Kingdom.
And it said the new bank should be commercially independent and thus not accountable to ministers or to Parliament for its investment or lending decisions. This would, it said, be "a prerequisite for building credibility with the markets. It also should limit direct public liabilities by placing GIB liabilities off the Government balance sheet."
The commission estimates that £550bn is needed for infrastructure and supply chains to allow the UK to meet climate change targets that call on the country to cut greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy by 2020.
The scale of the investment required to meet UK climate change and renewable energy targets is unprecedented," it warned.
Headed by Yell's chairman, Bob Wigley, the Commission was set up by the Conservative Party while in opposition. It criticised what it described as a string of "ad hoc" initiatives and quangos that have been set up over the past decade and collectively spend £185m while providing funds of £2bn.
In that respect, the Commission agreed with last week's report from the Work Foundation, which was sharply critical of the way moves towards a low-carbon economy are being handled. It attacked what it described as a "tangle of red tape and bureaucracy" which it claimed was putting job creation in low-carbon industries at risk.
Mr Wigley said: "I believe our report has produced some radical and substantive policy recommendations and financing ideas.
"I was very much encouraged when the Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to a low-carbon economy in his speech the day after the recent general election and was further encouraged by the terms of the coalition agreement, containing as it did specific references to a green investment bank and a low-carbon economy."
Although the coalition document promised the creation of a green investment bank, and the pledge was reiterated in the Queen's speech, decisions on implementing the plan have been deferred until the public spending review later this year. The Treasury said the scheme would need to show value for money.
Global investment in clean energy was as much as $150bn last year, but the financial crisis has put many decisions on hold and caused a number of projects to be scrapped. Europe's sovereign debt crisis has only exacerbated the trend.
After a dip in electricity demand, utilities have also been weakened. And some business lobbies have cautioned against introducing tougher green support policies in the aftermath of the recession while the economic outlook remains uncertain in many parts of the world and confidence is still wafer thin.
UK will miss carbon emissions targets 'unless government takes urgent action'
Committee on Climate Change says policies required within next year to reform electricity market and home efficiency
David Adam guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 June 2010 00.05 BST
The new coalition government must introduce a string of climate policies over the next twelve months or risk Britain missing its legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions, ministers were warned yesterday.
David Kennedy, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, said action was needed in four key areas. He said policies should be brought forward to reform the electricity market, and to make homes more energy efficient. Ministers need to protect efforts to encourage the development of electric cars and introduce measures to bring down the carbon footprint of UK farmers, he added.
"We've had a light-touch approach in the UK, we've talked a good game but what we've seen is emissions haven't fallen," Kennedy said. "We need to do something different. What we have to do isn't news and is becoming very well known."
Lord Turner, chair of the committee, said the recession has created the illusion that the UK is tackling climate change, but substantial declines in emissions are almost entirely the result of lower economic activity in the last year.
While greenhouse gases fell by 8.6% last year, only a fraction of that was the result of measures to tackle climate change such as renewable energy or making homes more energy efficient.
The second annual progress report from the government's advisory committee repeated the call it made last year step up efforts to drive down emissions, in order to meet targets to cut greenhouse gases.
Kennedy said some loft and cavity wall insulation was put in last year, while there was a "little bit" of investment in renewables, but efforts needed to be ramped up over the next five to 10 years.
He said continuing to implement green measures at the pace seen in 2009 would mean "we won't deliver the carbon budgets".
He said the coalition agreement contained positive pledges to make homes greener, to introduce a floor in the price companies pay for emitting polluting carbon, and emissions performance standards for power stations to drive investment in clean energy.
"These commitments are at the moment good intentions. What we need is to translate these into crunchy policies in power, buildings, transport and agriculture," he said. "The test of this government will be the policies they put in place over the next year or two. If we're going to see this step-change actually happen in two to three years, when it needs to happen, we've got to have the policies in place in the next year or so."
Peter Young, the chairman of the Aldersgate Group, said: "We welcome the committee's headline message that greater urgency is needed to meet carbon budgets. A number of the priorities identified by the committee are also commitments in the coalition agreement, such as electricity market reform and the implementation of a carbon floor price. Prompt action will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but will be vital for the economic recovery, boosting growth, jobs and competitiveness."
Andy Atkins, the head of Friends of the Earth, said: "It's extremely disturbing that, despite a similar warning from the committee last year, the recent fall in UK emissions is mainly due to the recession. This report is further evidence of the need to build our future prosperity on safe, green foundations."
Yesterday, the government abolished the Infrastructure Planning Commission, a quango with the power to approve major infrastructure projects set up last year by the previous Labour administration to fast track large projects, such as nuclear power stations and offshore wind farms.
Decentralisation minister Greg Clark said: "New infrastructure is critical to the country's return to economic growth and we believe we must have a fast track system for major projects – but it must be accountable. The previous system lacked any democratic legitimacy by giving decision making power away to a distant quango."
Replacing the IPC will be the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, in which ministers will make the decisions on projects.
Gaynor Hartnell, the chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association welcomed the move but added: "The vast majority of renewable energy projects are smaller than 50MW and therefore will not benefit directly from these reforms. We need rapid and consistent decision making for projects approved by local authorities that strikes the balance between local accountability and strategic national priorities."
David Adam guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 June 2010 00.05 BST
The new coalition government must introduce a string of climate policies over the next twelve months or risk Britain missing its legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions, ministers were warned yesterday.
David Kennedy, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, said action was needed in four key areas. He said policies should be brought forward to reform the electricity market, and to make homes more energy efficient. Ministers need to protect efforts to encourage the development of electric cars and introduce measures to bring down the carbon footprint of UK farmers, he added.
"We've had a light-touch approach in the UK, we've talked a good game but what we've seen is emissions haven't fallen," Kennedy said. "We need to do something different. What we have to do isn't news and is becoming very well known."
Lord Turner, chair of the committee, said the recession has created the illusion that the UK is tackling climate change, but substantial declines in emissions are almost entirely the result of lower economic activity in the last year.
While greenhouse gases fell by 8.6% last year, only a fraction of that was the result of measures to tackle climate change such as renewable energy or making homes more energy efficient.
The second annual progress report from the government's advisory committee repeated the call it made last year step up efforts to drive down emissions, in order to meet targets to cut greenhouse gases.
Kennedy said some loft and cavity wall insulation was put in last year, while there was a "little bit" of investment in renewables, but efforts needed to be ramped up over the next five to 10 years.
He said continuing to implement green measures at the pace seen in 2009 would mean "we won't deliver the carbon budgets".
He said the coalition agreement contained positive pledges to make homes greener, to introduce a floor in the price companies pay for emitting polluting carbon, and emissions performance standards for power stations to drive investment in clean energy.
"These commitments are at the moment good intentions. What we need is to translate these into crunchy policies in power, buildings, transport and agriculture," he said. "The test of this government will be the policies they put in place over the next year or two. If we're going to see this step-change actually happen in two to three years, when it needs to happen, we've got to have the policies in place in the next year or so."
Peter Young, the chairman of the Aldersgate Group, said: "We welcome the committee's headline message that greater urgency is needed to meet carbon budgets. A number of the priorities identified by the committee are also commitments in the coalition agreement, such as electricity market reform and the implementation of a carbon floor price. Prompt action will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but will be vital for the economic recovery, boosting growth, jobs and competitiveness."
Andy Atkins, the head of Friends of the Earth, said: "It's extremely disturbing that, despite a similar warning from the committee last year, the recent fall in UK emissions is mainly due to the recession. This report is further evidence of the need to build our future prosperity on safe, green foundations."
Yesterday, the government abolished the Infrastructure Planning Commission, a quango with the power to approve major infrastructure projects set up last year by the previous Labour administration to fast track large projects, such as nuclear power stations and offshore wind farms.
Decentralisation minister Greg Clark said: "New infrastructure is critical to the country's return to economic growth and we believe we must have a fast track system for major projects – but it must be accountable. The previous system lacked any democratic legitimacy by giving decision making power away to a distant quango."
Replacing the IPC will be the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, in which ministers will make the decisions on projects.
Gaynor Hartnell, the chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association welcomed the move but added: "The vast majority of renewable energy projects are smaller than 50MW and therefore will not benefit directly from these reforms. We need rapid and consistent decision making for projects approved by local authorities that strikes the balance between local accountability and strategic national priorities."
Green setback for UK as British power supplied by renewable sources falls
Fall of 7.5% in power obtained from wind, hydro and other renewable sources blamed on dry winter with low wind speeds
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 21.06 BST
Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report (pdf) into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (pdf) show that the proportion of electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind and hydro power fell 7.5% in the first three months of this year compared to 2009.
The drop was officially blamed mostly on a dry winter, which reduced power from water turbines, and low wind speeds, leading to the lowest absolute supply from those two sectors for four winters – as far back as the DECC figures recorded.
Experts also expressed concern that renewable energy could also have suffered from a hiatus in investment and from competition from cheap gas from overseas, as the government figures showed the UK became a net importer of gas for the first time in more than 40 years in January to March.
The latest renewable energy figures will be seized by critics and other experts who have long argued that the UK needs fewer reports and targets and more action to support and fund the long-promised low carbon transformation.
"It's absurd that despite having one of the best green energy resources in Europe, too many UK renewable projects struggle to get off the ground," said Andy Atkins, executive director of one of the country's biggest environmental groups, Friends of the Earth.
"The coalition must keep its promise to be the greenest government ever by making it easier for renewable energy projects to take off – and creating a well-funded green investment bank focused on making Britain a world leader in a developing a low-carbon economy."
The message of urgency is likely to be seconded by tomorrow's report from the independent Green Investment Bank Commission, which will call for government to use fast-track legislation to set up the new bank, which could begin operating next year.
James Cameron, executive director of Climate Change Capital bank and a member of the six-person commission on the GIB, said there was concern that there had been a slowdown in renewable energy projects because of the recession, and because of uncertainty of government policy under the new coalition government.
"If people are expecting this institution [the bank] to exist with a range of products which might lower the cost of capital, they'll wait until it does," he added.
The Green Investment Bank Commission, set up by Chancellor George Osborne while the Conservative party was in opposition, is expected to recommend a bonfire of green business quangos, whose more than £2bn a year in grants could be used to fund the bank.
It also wants an estimated £40bn from sale of permits to pollute under the European trading scheme from 2012 to 2020 to be ringfenced to support the drive to decarbonise Britain's economy.
Pension funds, other institutional investors and even ordinary savers would also be offered a chance to contribute to the low-carbon revolution by buying green bonds and green individual savings accounts, under the plans.
The bank could use the money to focus on off-shore wind power, a new "smart" grid to enable the best use to be made of renewable energy, and big schemes to make homes more energy efficient – including the government's pledge of a "green new deal" offering homeowners up to £6,500 each for improvements to cut emissions from their energy use, says the report. It suggests the total spending needed on renewable and energy efficient infrastructure will be £550bn by 2020.
The coalition government has said it will publish details of the new bank after the autumn spending review.
The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.
RenewableUK, the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.
However Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. "We can't rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," he said.
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 21.06 BST
Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report (pdf) into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (pdf) show that the proportion of electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind and hydro power fell 7.5% in the first three months of this year compared to 2009.
The drop was officially blamed mostly on a dry winter, which reduced power from water turbines, and low wind speeds, leading to the lowest absolute supply from those two sectors for four winters – as far back as the DECC figures recorded.
Experts also expressed concern that renewable energy could also have suffered from a hiatus in investment and from competition from cheap gas from overseas, as the government figures showed the UK became a net importer of gas for the first time in more than 40 years in January to March.
The latest renewable energy figures will be seized by critics and other experts who have long argued that the UK needs fewer reports and targets and more action to support and fund the long-promised low carbon transformation.
"It's absurd that despite having one of the best green energy resources in Europe, too many UK renewable projects struggle to get off the ground," said Andy Atkins, executive director of one of the country's biggest environmental groups, Friends of the Earth.
"The coalition must keep its promise to be the greenest government ever by making it easier for renewable energy projects to take off – and creating a well-funded green investment bank focused on making Britain a world leader in a developing a low-carbon economy."
The message of urgency is likely to be seconded by tomorrow's report from the independent Green Investment Bank Commission, which will call for government to use fast-track legislation to set up the new bank, which could begin operating next year.
James Cameron, executive director of Climate Change Capital bank and a member of the six-person commission on the GIB, said there was concern that there had been a slowdown in renewable energy projects because of the recession, and because of uncertainty of government policy under the new coalition government.
"If people are expecting this institution [the bank] to exist with a range of products which might lower the cost of capital, they'll wait until it does," he added.
The Green Investment Bank Commission, set up by Chancellor George Osborne while the Conservative party was in opposition, is expected to recommend a bonfire of green business quangos, whose more than £2bn a year in grants could be used to fund the bank.
It also wants an estimated £40bn from sale of permits to pollute under the European trading scheme from 2012 to 2020 to be ringfenced to support the drive to decarbonise Britain's economy.
Pension funds, other institutional investors and even ordinary savers would also be offered a chance to contribute to the low-carbon revolution by buying green bonds and green individual savings accounts, under the plans.
The bank could use the money to focus on off-shore wind power, a new "smart" grid to enable the best use to be made of renewable energy, and big schemes to make homes more energy efficient – including the government's pledge of a "green new deal" offering homeowners up to £6,500 each for improvements to cut emissions from their energy use, says the report. It suggests the total spending needed on renewable and energy efficient infrastructure will be £550bn by 2020.
The coalition government has said it will publish details of the new bank after the autumn spending review.
The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.
RenewableUK, the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.
However Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. "We can't rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," he said.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Power rationed on 'green island' Eigg after mild weather causes drought
It was hailed as Britain’s first “green” island and a glimpse of the what the future could hold for the rest of the country.
By John Bingham
Published: 3:21PM BST 28 Jun 2010
Eigg's unspoilt location is its main attraction But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
President Obama hails Ben Bernanke's courage as he gives him second Fed term
Harlequins success produced by team spirit, not climate of fearOther household equipment such as washing machines are to be used only outside times of “peak” demand for the island’s 45 homes and 20 businesses.
Weeks of what passes for heatwave conditions in the Inner Hebrides have caused water levels on the island’s three main burns to drop uncharacteristically low, cutting off the island’s hydroelectricity supply.
The normally powerful Atlantic gusts in the tiny island south of Skye have also reduced to a pleasant breeze leaving the island’s wind turbines idle for hours on end.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
The shortages come only months after Eigg’s innovative renewable power grid won a share of a £1 million first prize in a nationwide competition to become model on how to tackle climate change.
Its community-owned triple solar, wind and hydro generating station, thought to be the first of its kind, impressed the judges in the Big Green Challenge, run by the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA).
When the power scheme was switched on in 2008, it transformed life on the island, bringing mains electricity for the first time.
Residents described it as bringing Eigg “literally out of the dark ages".
“We are suffering from a lack of rain in general, believe it or not,” said Maggie Fyffe, secretary of the Eigg Heritage Trust, the group which runs the island since the 1997 community buy-out which ended centuries of semi-feudal control.
“More than half the power comes from hydro sources so the drought has hit us hard. There has also been a lack of wind too.
“We have now sent out emails and posted notices saying we are on level 'red' – which restricts the use of electrical items that are a drain on supply.
"People are having to go back to boiling kettles by gas and doing their washing at night – outside peak demand. Deep fat fryers are a definite no-no.”
The trust is now planning to spend part of its £300,000 share of the prize money on more solar panels to prevent a repeat of the shortages in future years.
Last month the area had just over an inch of rain, half of the usual total for the time of year, according to the Met Office. A similar pattern has been seen throughout the spring.
On Sunday temperatures on nearby Skye inched toward 70F, cool by comparison to conditions seen in the south but well above the average high of 59F.
By John Bingham
Published: 3:21PM BST 28 Jun 2010
Eigg's unspoilt location is its main attraction But when the inhabitants of the remote Scottish island of Eigg put their faith in the wind and rain to provide all their electricity they did not reckon for one thing – mild weather.
Now the 95 residents are being asked not to use kettles, toasters or other kitchen appliances after uncharacteristically mild weather caused a critical shortage of power.
President Obama hails Ben Bernanke's courage as he gives him second Fed term
Harlequins success produced by team spirit, not climate of fearOther household equipment such as washing machines are to be used only outside times of “peak” demand for the island’s 45 homes and 20 businesses.
Weeks of what passes for heatwave conditions in the Inner Hebrides have caused water levels on the island’s three main burns to drop uncharacteristically low, cutting off the island’s hydroelectricity supply.
The normally powerful Atlantic gusts in the tiny island south of Skye have also reduced to a pleasant breeze leaving the island’s wind turbines idle for hours on end.
As a result, the community owned power company has placed the island on “red alert” and issued notices effectively rationing electricity.
It has had to revert to using old-fashioned diesel power to run a backup generator to keep the lights on.
The shortages come only months after Eigg’s innovative renewable power grid won a share of a £1 million first prize in a nationwide competition to become model on how to tackle climate change.
Its community-owned triple solar, wind and hydro generating station, thought to be the first of its kind, impressed the judges in the Big Green Challenge, run by the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA).
When the power scheme was switched on in 2008, it transformed life on the island, bringing mains electricity for the first time.
Residents described it as bringing Eigg “literally out of the dark ages".
“We are suffering from a lack of rain in general, believe it or not,” said Maggie Fyffe, secretary of the Eigg Heritage Trust, the group which runs the island since the 1997 community buy-out which ended centuries of semi-feudal control.
“More than half the power comes from hydro sources so the drought has hit us hard. There has also been a lack of wind too.
“We have now sent out emails and posted notices saying we are on level 'red' – which restricts the use of electrical items that are a drain on supply.
"People are having to go back to boiling kettles by gas and doing their washing at night – outside peak demand. Deep fat fryers are a definite no-no.”
The trust is now planning to spend part of its £300,000 share of the prize money on more solar panels to prevent a repeat of the shortages in future years.
Last month the area had just over an inch of rain, half of the usual total for the time of year, according to the Met Office. A similar pattern has been seen throughout the spring.
On Sunday temperatures on nearby Skye inched toward 70F, cool by comparison to conditions seen in the south but well above the average high of 59F.
Why water waste just won't wash
Hosepipe bans are a nightmare for the green-fingered. But with so much flooding last year, why are utility companies threatening drastic action?
By Sam Muston
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink, as Coleridge put it – and so it seems in modern Britain. We endure endless rainy winters and yet a flicker of sunshine seems to herald the imposition of hosepipe bans up and down the country, as petunias wither and wilt. United Utilities, the water supplier for the north west of England, last week called a ban "increasingly likely" and other suppliers are said to be considering the measure if the current sunny spell continues.
The driest January to May period since records began has led to increasingly low water-levels in reservoirs and rivers in the region. And with people using more water as the weather gets hotter, the environmental implications of overextraction and evaporation are brought into ever-sharper relief.
Even before the recent heatwave and the added pressure it brings, the Environment Agency classified a number of rivers as under "serious water-stress" with abstraction for domestic use a major factor behind this. The upshot of this is that the ecosystems these waterways sustain is under threat, as lower flow levels lead to decreased levels of oxygen in the water and increased incidence of Algae overproduction and the reduction in spawning grounds for fish. As a recent report by the WWF points out, only 15 per cent of rivers are in a condition to support a healthy, vibrant ecosystem and this figure now looks optimistic for the north west of England. But is a hosepipe ban really the best way to tackle this problem?
The media has certainly taken a view, and it isn't favourable to the water companies. Many point to the "biblical flooding" in the area last October and suggest the real reason ecosystems are under threat is the mismanagement of supplies. There is a widespread perception that the real problem is water companies failing to maintain service pipes, leading to massive losses through leaky pipes. However, not so, says Jacob Tompkins, managing director of Waterwise, a British NGO devoted to increasing water efficiency. "Despite what you may read," he says, "the utilities are pretty good at stopping leaks.
"Ten years ago this was not the case, but things have improved dramatically. We are now at the point where further repairs are uneconomical – the disruption and cost would be disproportionate. The real problem is simple: the British public use an awful lot of water."
While our continental neighbours use around 120 litres of water per person per day, we consume around 40 litres more. And in the summer months, no small part of this is used to keep our lawns green. The wastage involved is enormous. A sprinkler left on for an hour uses as much water as a family of four does in a day and a half.
But Waterwise is still not a supporter of an outright ban: "Bans are creatures of the 1950s," continues Tompkins. "They're old fashioned and unsophisticated. What we really need is a change in our attitude to water use – and the best way to do this is by retrofitting water meters." He has a point.
The environment agency points to research that shows water metering is the most effective method of reducing consumer usage, with metered properties using around 15 per cent less water. And by how much do hosepipe bans reduce usage? About 15 per cent, says Waterwise.
Hosepipe bans remain a blunt instrument that penalise both the wasteful and virtuous. They are a short term palliative that fails to tackle a long-term ecological problem. If we do value the biodiversity that our lakes and rivers sustain, we need to look further forward and change our relationship to water. And the best way to do this? By actually paying for what we as consumers use.
Large scale retrofitting of meters would herald a radical change in our relationship with water, meaning it would no longer be considered an endless resource. As a society, we respond better to carrots than sticks. So, in future, water utilities must put away the stick of hosepipe bans, and offer the consumer real incentives to conserve water. Then we can safeguard our precious waterways, as well as protect our petunias.
By Sam Muston
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink, as Coleridge put it – and so it seems in modern Britain. We endure endless rainy winters and yet a flicker of sunshine seems to herald the imposition of hosepipe bans up and down the country, as petunias wither and wilt. United Utilities, the water supplier for the north west of England, last week called a ban "increasingly likely" and other suppliers are said to be considering the measure if the current sunny spell continues.
The driest January to May period since records began has led to increasingly low water-levels in reservoirs and rivers in the region. And with people using more water as the weather gets hotter, the environmental implications of overextraction and evaporation are brought into ever-sharper relief.
Even before the recent heatwave and the added pressure it brings, the Environment Agency classified a number of rivers as under "serious water-stress" with abstraction for domestic use a major factor behind this. The upshot of this is that the ecosystems these waterways sustain is under threat, as lower flow levels lead to decreased levels of oxygen in the water and increased incidence of Algae overproduction and the reduction in spawning grounds for fish. As a recent report by the WWF points out, only 15 per cent of rivers are in a condition to support a healthy, vibrant ecosystem and this figure now looks optimistic for the north west of England. But is a hosepipe ban really the best way to tackle this problem?
The media has certainly taken a view, and it isn't favourable to the water companies. Many point to the "biblical flooding" in the area last October and suggest the real reason ecosystems are under threat is the mismanagement of supplies. There is a widespread perception that the real problem is water companies failing to maintain service pipes, leading to massive losses through leaky pipes. However, not so, says Jacob Tompkins, managing director of Waterwise, a British NGO devoted to increasing water efficiency. "Despite what you may read," he says, "the utilities are pretty good at stopping leaks.
"Ten years ago this was not the case, but things have improved dramatically. We are now at the point where further repairs are uneconomical – the disruption and cost would be disproportionate. The real problem is simple: the British public use an awful lot of water."
While our continental neighbours use around 120 litres of water per person per day, we consume around 40 litres more. And in the summer months, no small part of this is used to keep our lawns green. The wastage involved is enormous. A sprinkler left on for an hour uses as much water as a family of four does in a day and a half.
But Waterwise is still not a supporter of an outright ban: "Bans are creatures of the 1950s," continues Tompkins. "They're old fashioned and unsophisticated. What we really need is a change in our attitude to water use – and the best way to do this is by retrofitting water meters." He has a point.
The environment agency points to research that shows water metering is the most effective method of reducing consumer usage, with metered properties using around 15 per cent less water. And by how much do hosepipe bans reduce usage? About 15 per cent, says Waterwise.
Hosepipe bans remain a blunt instrument that penalise both the wasteful and virtuous. They are a short term palliative that fails to tackle a long-term ecological problem. If we do value the biodiversity that our lakes and rivers sustain, we need to look further forward and change our relationship to water. And the best way to do this? By actually paying for what we as consumers use.
Large scale retrofitting of meters would herald a radical change in our relationship with water, meaning it would no longer be considered an endless resource. As a society, we respond better to carrots than sticks. So, in future, water utilities must put away the stick of hosepipe bans, and offer the consumer real incentives to conserve water. Then we can safeguard our precious waterways, as well as protect our petunias.
How About a Program for Sustainable Government?
Al Gore and David Blood seek to transform unregulated, unfair capitalism into a socially conscious "sustainable" version that encompasses environmental, social and governmental interests ("Toward Sustainable Capitalism," op-ed, June 24). Interestingly, never once in the op-ed does the word "capital" appear, suggesting that the capitalism envisioned by Mr. Gore and Mr. Blood is a hybrid breed of many "isms," the least of which is the system heretofore known as free-market capitalism.
It does not take a Nobel Prize winner to understand that the shortest time horizons on Earth for measuring performance belong to politicians, not capitalists. What 200-year record of success can they demonstrate that proves that the current capitalist system doesn't deliver optimal long-term results, but their transformed system will?
Kevin Johnson
Chatham, Mass.
What is especially curious about Messrs. Blood and Gore's piece is what they leave out. For example, how about creating a climate that rewards investment, for one, by reducing tax rates on long-term capital gains which will lead to greater investment and greater overall wealth? What about radically simplifying the tax code to eliminate the billions wasted each year for tax compliance and tax avoidance? Perhaps government-mandated investment boondoggles and shameless borrowing, which crowd out private investment, should be ended, too. Might long-term income in equality be reduced by improving the education system, such as through school choice, robust vocational training, and by returning the focus of education to knowledge, rather than the grievance du jour?
Of course, these ideas, none of which are original, are of no interest to these gentlemen.
Jonathan A. Lesser
Sandia Park, N.M.
Investors place their money with a firm in the expectation of a financial return in a stream of dividends or rising stock price due to improved earnings. Who would invest in a firm with no earnings, but a high environmental, social and governance factor (ESG)? Answer: a philanthropist. But charity is not capitalism, and philanthropy will not raise the standard of living for Americans. Companies which focus on ESG good are most likely not to drive job growth and economic expansion.
George Hamilton
Claiborne, Md.
With the amount of money that Mr. Gore's party accepts from lobbyists and unions, I surmise they understand financial incentives fully well. I also find it amusing when they pose the question: "What type of capitalism will maximize sustainable economic growth?" Messrs. Gore and Blood, please take note: There are not several "types" of capitalism to choose from. We all know that you are using capitalism as a catch phrase to divert our attention from what you are really talking about. I'll give you a hint. Like "sustainable capitalism," it begins with an "s" and ends with an "m." It's called "socialism."
Heidi Adams
Clearfield, Pa.
Ludwig von Mises sheds light on this subject in his book "Human Action." "The concept of capitalism is as an economic concept immutable; if it means anything, it means the market economy. . . . This faulty nomenclature becomes understandable only if we realize that the pseudo-economists and the politicians who apply it want to prevent people from knowing what the market economy really is. They want to make people believe that all the repulsive manifestations of restrictive government policies are produced by 'capitalism.' "
Bill Burbage
Cayce, S.C.
How about instituting the concept of sustainable government policy?
Allan Page
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
It does not take a Nobel Prize winner to understand that the shortest time horizons on Earth for measuring performance belong to politicians, not capitalists. What 200-year record of success can they demonstrate that proves that the current capitalist system doesn't deliver optimal long-term results, but their transformed system will?
Kevin Johnson
Chatham, Mass.
What is especially curious about Messrs. Blood and Gore's piece is what they leave out. For example, how about creating a climate that rewards investment, for one, by reducing tax rates on long-term capital gains which will lead to greater investment and greater overall wealth? What about radically simplifying the tax code to eliminate the billions wasted each year for tax compliance and tax avoidance? Perhaps government-mandated investment boondoggles and shameless borrowing, which crowd out private investment, should be ended, too. Might long-term income in equality be reduced by improving the education system, such as through school choice, robust vocational training, and by returning the focus of education to knowledge, rather than the grievance du jour?
Of course, these ideas, none of which are original, are of no interest to these gentlemen.
Jonathan A. Lesser
Sandia Park, N.M.
Investors place their money with a firm in the expectation of a financial return in a stream of dividends or rising stock price due to improved earnings. Who would invest in a firm with no earnings, but a high environmental, social and governance factor (ESG)? Answer: a philanthropist. But charity is not capitalism, and philanthropy will not raise the standard of living for Americans. Companies which focus on ESG good are most likely not to drive job growth and economic expansion.
George Hamilton
Claiborne, Md.
With the amount of money that Mr. Gore's party accepts from lobbyists and unions, I surmise they understand financial incentives fully well. I also find it amusing when they pose the question: "What type of capitalism will maximize sustainable economic growth?" Messrs. Gore and Blood, please take note: There are not several "types" of capitalism to choose from. We all know that you are using capitalism as a catch phrase to divert our attention from what you are really talking about. I'll give you a hint. Like "sustainable capitalism," it begins with an "s" and ends with an "m." It's called "socialism."
Heidi Adams
Clearfield, Pa.
Ludwig von Mises sheds light on this subject in his book "Human Action." "The concept of capitalism is as an economic concept immutable; if it means anything, it means the market economy. . . . This faulty nomenclature becomes understandable only if we realize that the pseudo-economists and the politicians who apply it want to prevent people from knowing what the market economy really is. They want to make people believe that all the repulsive manifestations of restrictive government policies are produced by 'capitalism.' "
Bill Burbage
Cayce, S.C.
How about instituting the concept of sustainable government policy?
Allan Page
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Paris looks for power from turbines beneath the Seine
River currents could be harnessed at four bridges across the capital
Kim Willsher guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 14.01 BST
The river Seine, the historical "sacred river" running through Paris, inspired Monet, Matisse and even the British painter Turner, who sat on its banks to capture the scenery.
Now the landscape is to undergo a subtle change, with a plan to install eight turbines underneath the city's celebrated bridges to raise energy from river currents.
Paris city hall is to launch an appeal this week for power companies to come up with suitable projects to install the turbines, or hydroliennes.
"After a study by our urban ecology service and the French waterways, four potential sites have already been identified," Denis Baupin, the deputy mayor, told Le Parisien newspaper. One is to the west of the city, at the Pont du Garigliano, while the others are in central Paris, at the Pont de la Tournelle, Pont Marie and Pont au Change. Two energy-harnessing machines will be placed at each spot.
"At these places the current speeds up a little," said Baupin. "The idea is to locate all the natural power sources that we have in Paris and that we might be able to exploit."
French energy company EDF has already declared the idea "interesting".
The companies interested in the project have until the autumn to submit proposals. The winner will be chosen next January and the first turbines or propellers installed by next spring.
While the bulk of the machinery to harness the currents of the Seine will be hidden under water, part of the structure of many modern hydro-mill prototypes sits above the water.
Paris authorities — already experimenting with the heating of buildings with water from underground springs, and installing mini-windmills on buildings — say the project is aimed more at raising public awareness of renewable energy than powering the city.
"We're not expecting the moon and the stars with these techniques," Baupin said, "but the educational impact of these experiments is just as important. Vélib [Paris's free bicycle scheme] has made Parisians realise they can use cycles in the city, and these renewable energy schemes will make them aware of the need to watch what they consume."
The reaction of Le Parisien readers was mixed: "Bravo! Let's hope the local authorities and fishing community understand the importance of this kind of energy," one wrote.
Another said: "The idea seems good at first glance, but when they say before they've even started that the quantity of energy produced will be symbolic, almost ridiculous, why push ahead?"
"We're going to throw a fortune into useless hydroliennes," another commented. "Their cost will be considerably higher than the electricity produced. All that to be 'educational'?" .
An underwater turbine has previously been placed under the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
Kim Willsher guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 14.01 BST
The river Seine, the historical "sacred river" running through Paris, inspired Monet, Matisse and even the British painter Turner, who sat on its banks to capture the scenery.
Now the landscape is to undergo a subtle change, with a plan to install eight turbines underneath the city's celebrated bridges to raise energy from river currents.
Paris city hall is to launch an appeal this week for power companies to come up with suitable projects to install the turbines, or hydroliennes.
"After a study by our urban ecology service and the French waterways, four potential sites have already been identified," Denis Baupin, the deputy mayor, told Le Parisien newspaper. One is to the west of the city, at the Pont du Garigliano, while the others are in central Paris, at the Pont de la Tournelle, Pont Marie and Pont au Change. Two energy-harnessing machines will be placed at each spot.
"At these places the current speeds up a little," said Baupin. "The idea is to locate all the natural power sources that we have in Paris and that we might be able to exploit."
French energy company EDF has already declared the idea "interesting".
The companies interested in the project have until the autumn to submit proposals. The winner will be chosen next January and the first turbines or propellers installed by next spring.
While the bulk of the machinery to harness the currents of the Seine will be hidden under water, part of the structure of many modern hydro-mill prototypes sits above the water.
Paris authorities — already experimenting with the heating of buildings with water from underground springs, and installing mini-windmills on buildings — say the project is aimed more at raising public awareness of renewable energy than powering the city.
"We're not expecting the moon and the stars with these techniques," Baupin said, "but the educational impact of these experiments is just as important. Vélib [Paris's free bicycle scheme] has made Parisians realise they can use cycles in the city, and these renewable energy schemes will make them aware of the need to watch what they consume."
The reaction of Le Parisien readers was mixed: "Bravo! Let's hope the local authorities and fishing community understand the importance of this kind of energy," one wrote.
Another said: "The idea seems good at first glance, but when they say before they've even started that the quantity of energy produced will be symbolic, almost ridiculous, why push ahead?"
"We're going to throw a fortune into useless hydroliennes," another commented. "Their cost will be considerably higher than the electricity produced. All that to be 'educational'?" .
An underwater turbine has previously been placed under the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
Green setback for UK as British power supplied by renewable sources falls
Fall of 7.5% in power obtained from wind, hydro and other renewable sources blamed on dry winter with low wind speeds
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 21.06 BST
Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that the proportion of electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind and hydro power fell 7.5% in the first three months of this year compared to 2009.
The drop was officially blamed mostly on a dry winter, which reduced power from water turbines, and low wind speeds, leading to the lowest absolute supply from those two sectors for four winters – as far back as the DECC figures recorded.
Experts also expressed concern that renewable energy could also have suffered from a hiatus in investment and from competition from cheap gas from overseas, as the government figures showed the UK became a net importer of gas for the first time in more than 40 years in January to March.
The latest renewable energy figures will be seized by critics and other experts who have long argued that the UK needs fewer reports and targets and more action to support and fund the long-promised low carbon transformation.
"It's absurd that despite having one of the best green energy resources in Europe, too many UK renewable projects struggle to get off the ground," said Andy Atkins, executive director of one of the country's biggest environmental groups, Friends of the Earth.
"The coalition must keep its promise to be the greenest government ever by making it easier for renewable energy projects to take off – and creating a well-funded green investment bank focused on making Britain a world leader in a developing a low-carbon economy."
The message of urgency is likely to be seconded by tomorrow's report from the independent Green Investment Bank Commission, which will call for government to use fast-track legislation to set up the new bank, which could begin operating next year.
James Cameron, executive director of Climate Change Capital bank and a member of the six-person commission on the GIB, said there was concern that there had been a slowdown in renewable energy projects because of the recession, and because of uncertainty of government policy under the new coalition government.
"If people are expecting this institution [the bank] to exist with a range of products which might lower the cost of capital, they'll wait until it does," he added.
The Green Investment Bank Commission, set up by Chancellor George Osborne while the Conservative party was in opposition, is expected to recommend a bonfire of green business quangos, whose more than £2bn a year in grants could be used to fund the bank.
It also wants an estimated £40bn from sale of permits to pollute under the European trading scheme from 2012 to 2020 to be ringfenced to support the drive to decarbonise Britain's economy.
Pension funds, other institutional investors and even ordinary savers would also be offered a chance to contribute to the low-carbon revolution by buying green bonds and green individual savings accounts, under the plans.
The bank could use the money to focus on off-shore wind power, a new "smart" grid to enable the best use to be made of renewable energy, and big schemes to make homes more energy efficient – including the government's pledge of a "green new deal" offering homeowners up to £6,500 each for improvements to cut emissions from their energy use, says the report. It suggests the total spending needed on renewable and energy efficient infrastructure will be £550bn by 2020.
The coalition government has said it will publish details of the new bank after the autumn spending review.
The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.
RenewableUK, the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.
However Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. "We can't rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," he said.
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 21.06 BST
Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that the proportion of electricity supplied from renewable sources such as wind and hydro power fell 7.5% in the first three months of this year compared to 2009.
The drop was officially blamed mostly on a dry winter, which reduced power from water turbines, and low wind speeds, leading to the lowest absolute supply from those two sectors for four winters – as far back as the DECC figures recorded.
Experts also expressed concern that renewable energy could also have suffered from a hiatus in investment and from competition from cheap gas from overseas, as the government figures showed the UK became a net importer of gas for the first time in more than 40 years in January to March.
The latest renewable energy figures will be seized by critics and other experts who have long argued that the UK needs fewer reports and targets and more action to support and fund the long-promised low carbon transformation.
"It's absurd that despite having one of the best green energy resources in Europe, too many UK renewable projects struggle to get off the ground," said Andy Atkins, executive director of one of the country's biggest environmental groups, Friends of the Earth.
"The coalition must keep its promise to be the greenest government ever by making it easier for renewable energy projects to take off – and creating a well-funded green investment bank focused on making Britain a world leader in a developing a low-carbon economy."
The message of urgency is likely to be seconded by tomorrow's report from the independent Green Investment Bank Commission, which will call for government to use fast-track legislation to set up the new bank, which could begin operating next year.
James Cameron, executive director of Climate Change Capital bank and a member of the six-person commission on the GIB, said there was concern that there had been a slowdown in renewable energy projects because of the recession, and because of uncertainty of government policy under the new coalition government.
"If people are expecting this institution [the bank] to exist with a range of products which might lower the cost of capital, they'll wait until it does," he added.
The Green Investment Bank Commission, set up by Chancellor George Osborne while the Conservative party was in opposition, is expected to recommend a bonfire of green business quangos, whose more than £2bn a year in grants could be used to fund the bank.
It also wants an estimated £40bn from sale of permits to pollute under the European trading scheme from 2012 to 2020 to be ringfenced to support the drive to decarbonise Britain's economy.
Pension funds, other institutional investors and even ordinary savers would also be offered a chance to contribute to the low-carbon revolution by buying green bonds and green individual savings accounts, under the plans.
The bank could use the money to focus on off-shore wind power, a new "smart" grid to enable the best use to be made of renewable energy, and big schemes to make homes more energy efficient – including the government's pledge of a "green new deal" offering homeowners up to £6,500 each for improvements to cut emissions from their energy use, says the report. It suggests the total spending needed on renewable and energy efficient infrastructure will be £550bn by 2020.
The coalition government has said it will publish details of the new bank after the autumn spending review.
The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.
RenewableUK, the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.
However Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. "We can't rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," he said.
Unilever tops climate change index with 'superb' track record
Unilever followed by BT, Morrisons and Rolls-Royce in a comparison of Britain's 350 largest firms on energy efficiency and carbon reduction
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 29 June 2010
Unilever has topped a new index that assesses how Britain's largest companies are dealing with climate change, outperforming other industry leaders such as Tesco and Centrica.
The new FTSE carbon strategy index weighs up the "carbon risk and performance" of the UK's largest 350 firms. It compares them on cutting carbon emissions, making their products more energy-efficient and setting the most ambitious reduction targets.
The first index, compiled by the consultancy ENDS Carbon using Carbon Disclosure Project data, describes Unilever's track record on cutting emissions as "superb". The company aims to have cut its emissions by 25% by 2012.
The multinational has also seen a 20% improvement in its carbon efficiency – a measure of its carbon emissions per pound sterling of turnover, also known as "carbon intensity" – over the last three years, and has improved its carbon efficiency by 40% since 1995.
The index, published today, is one of a series of initiatives to measure and reward carbon efficiency. It argues that firms with a strong grasp of the risks of climate change and of high carbon emissions are likely to be the most efficient and best-run.
Perhaps surprisingly, Rolls-Royce, the civil and military engine maker, is No 4 in the rankings, behind BT Group in second place and the supermarket chain Morrisons in third.
The rankings weigh firms by comparing their performance against the average for all 350 firms in the index. Rolls-Royce came top in the category of improving the carbon efficiency of its products and manufacturing. Although it failed to make the overall top 10, Imperial Tobacco tied for second with BSkyB for managing CO2 emissions in the supply chain, just behind publisher Reed Elsevier.
Sixty of the FTSE 350 firms – including one FTSE 100 company, Aggreko – failed to make the index because they refuse to publish information on carbon emissions.
The index also published a risk assessment for the most carbon-intensive companies. The operator of the UK's largest coal-fired power station, Drax, came in last, owing to its complete dependency on coal. Easyjet came second-last in this category: under the new European emissions carbon trading scheme, the airline faces having to buy a significant amount of emissions permits to cover its high level of year-on-year growth.
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday 29 June 2010
Unilever has topped a new index that assesses how Britain's largest companies are dealing with climate change, outperforming other industry leaders such as Tesco and Centrica.
The new FTSE carbon strategy index weighs up the "carbon risk and performance" of the UK's largest 350 firms. It compares them on cutting carbon emissions, making their products more energy-efficient and setting the most ambitious reduction targets.
The first index, compiled by the consultancy ENDS Carbon using Carbon Disclosure Project data, describes Unilever's track record on cutting emissions as "superb". The company aims to have cut its emissions by 25% by 2012.
The multinational has also seen a 20% improvement in its carbon efficiency – a measure of its carbon emissions per pound sterling of turnover, also known as "carbon intensity" – over the last three years, and has improved its carbon efficiency by 40% since 1995.
The index, published today, is one of a series of initiatives to measure and reward carbon efficiency. It argues that firms with a strong grasp of the risks of climate change and of high carbon emissions are likely to be the most efficient and best-run.
Perhaps surprisingly, Rolls-Royce, the civil and military engine maker, is No 4 in the rankings, behind BT Group in second place and the supermarket chain Morrisons in third.
The rankings weigh firms by comparing their performance against the average for all 350 firms in the index. Rolls-Royce came top in the category of improving the carbon efficiency of its products and manufacturing. Although it failed to make the overall top 10, Imperial Tobacco tied for second with BSkyB for managing CO2 emissions in the supply chain, just behind publisher Reed Elsevier.
Sixty of the FTSE 350 firms – including one FTSE 100 company, Aggreko – failed to make the index because they refuse to publish information on carbon emissions.
The index also published a risk assessment for the most carbon-intensive companies. The operator of the UK's largest coal-fired power station, Drax, came in last, owing to its complete dependency on coal. Easyjet came second-last in this category: under the new European emissions carbon trading scheme, the airline faces having to buy a significant amount of emissions permits to cover its high level of year-on-year growth.
Invest in rail, not roads
Arguing that rail investment is pointless because more people use cars ignores the reality of congestion and climate change
Richard Hebditch guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 15.00 BST
So the RAC Foundation's Stephen Glaister argues that roads are missing out on the lavish attention spent on rail. The argument that the road network suffers in comparison with rail simply does not stand up. Rail, as part of a better integrated and supported public transport network, has to be the future priority for investment if we are to stop adding to congestion and climate change.
The RAC Foundation's arguments against rail seem to come down a circular argument that not enough people use rail, therefore it shouldn't receive significant investment to expand its capacity, which will mean that not enough people will use it, which justifies not investing in it … This just won't do as the basis for deciding where scarce public investment should go.
So why should we invest in rail as part of a decent public transport network? Well, I'd suggest the first answer is that the country can't afford not to. The costs resulting from the current poor transport system mean we have to move to a better mix of transport modes. The Cabinet Office's study on urban transport showed that the costs of congestion in urban areas alone are over £10bn a year, and on top of that are costs of £8.7bn from people injured in collisions, up to £10bn from poor air quality, £9.8bn from physical inactivity as people are put off walking and cycling by the levels and speed of traffic, and up to £5bn from noise pollution.
Building more roads will not tackle these problems, and evidence shows that congestion simply builds up with the traffic jam often simply moved a few miles down the road. Road building eats up more and more public funding, with schemes like the A46 from Newark to Widmerpool costing five times as much as when it originally entered the roads programme and the proposed new 21-mile section of the A14 costing almost £1,000 an inch.
Spending on these schemes are justified through a system that gives a massive value to tiny time-savings, but which consistently undervalues the cost of the increased carbon produced as a result.
Which brings us to the second reason why we need to invest in rail – the need to meet our carbon reduction targets. The Committee on Climate Change found that the distance we travel by car needs to come down if we are to reduce CO2 from transport by enough to meet our legally binding carbon targets. Rail will have to be a part of that, alongside improving bus services and making it easier to walk and cycle for short trips.
Transport spending is likely to be cut more than other areas, but we have to think about the country's long-term needs, not just short-term pressures to cut back.
At Campaign for Better Transport, we have set out where the axe needs to fall in our Smarter Cuts report . We agree with the RAC Foundation that things like maintaining the roads and improving road safety need investment. But where new capacity is needed, it has to be public transport that helps to reduce congestion and CO2, not add to it.
Richard Hebditch guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 June 2010 15.00 BST
So the RAC Foundation's Stephen Glaister argues that roads are missing out on the lavish attention spent on rail. The argument that the road network suffers in comparison with rail simply does not stand up. Rail, as part of a better integrated and supported public transport network, has to be the future priority for investment if we are to stop adding to congestion and climate change.
The RAC Foundation's arguments against rail seem to come down a circular argument that not enough people use rail, therefore it shouldn't receive significant investment to expand its capacity, which will mean that not enough people will use it, which justifies not investing in it … This just won't do as the basis for deciding where scarce public investment should go.
So why should we invest in rail as part of a decent public transport network? Well, I'd suggest the first answer is that the country can't afford not to. The costs resulting from the current poor transport system mean we have to move to a better mix of transport modes. The Cabinet Office's study on urban transport showed that the costs of congestion in urban areas alone are over £10bn a year, and on top of that are costs of £8.7bn from people injured in collisions, up to £10bn from poor air quality, £9.8bn from physical inactivity as people are put off walking and cycling by the levels and speed of traffic, and up to £5bn from noise pollution.
Building more roads will not tackle these problems, and evidence shows that congestion simply builds up with the traffic jam often simply moved a few miles down the road. Road building eats up more and more public funding, with schemes like the A46 from Newark to Widmerpool costing five times as much as when it originally entered the roads programme and the proposed new 21-mile section of the A14 costing almost £1,000 an inch.
Spending on these schemes are justified through a system that gives a massive value to tiny time-savings, but which consistently undervalues the cost of the increased carbon produced as a result.
Which brings us to the second reason why we need to invest in rail – the need to meet our carbon reduction targets. The Committee on Climate Change found that the distance we travel by car needs to come down if we are to reduce CO2 from transport by enough to meet our legally binding carbon targets. Rail will have to be a part of that, alongside improving bus services and making it easier to walk and cycle for short trips.
Transport spending is likely to be cut more than other areas, but we have to think about the country's long-term needs, not just short-term pressures to cut back.
At Campaign for Better Transport, we have set out where the axe needs to fall in our Smarter Cuts report . We agree with the RAC Foundation that things like maintaining the roads and improving road safety need investment. But where new capacity is needed, it has to be public transport that helps to reduce congestion and CO2, not add to it.
Monday, 28 June 2010
Grid issues to impinge on renewables growth
17 June 2010
Electricity industry experts have raised concerns that Europe’s distribution grid is not up to the task of handling the growing capacity from renewable sources, threatening the profitability of plants and the EU’s renewable energy targets.
Spain and Germany, the two European countries with the most installed wind and solar generating capacity, are seeing zero or negative spot prices for power when the wind is blowing strongly, said delegates at the Eurelectric conference in Dublin this week.
Spain has had 300 hours of zero prices in its power pool so far this year, said Stephen Woodhouse, director of Poyry Energy Counsulting, which means wind farms earn only a feed-in tariff for selling power at these times. “These plants are earning significantly lower than thermal plants,” he said. “Already we are seeing curtailment of wind power installation in certain areas.”
At times when the wind is not blowing, combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power stations are seen as the ‘swing’ supplier, stepping in to cope with demand. On the back of Europe’s targets to source 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020, forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggest 299 TWh of additional wind energy will be supplied over 2008-20, equating to 140GW of extra capacity. Alongside this, 97 TWh will come from gas-fired plants.
But as wind capacity grows, the intermittent nature of the resource will also affect earnings for gas plants, which will only be powered up on demand. “CCGT investors will face greater price and volume risk. They will really have to trust their traders,” said Woodhouse. “There will be a premium in the future for reliable capacity and flexibility. Maybe we need some market-based prices for these” attributes, as well as quantity, he questioned.
In an instant poll of some 200 delegates in the room, 31% said the best solution to managing the impact of large-scale wind generation is cross-border balancing in intra-day markets – effectively broadening the available market for the power.
“Even with 10-20GW of wind capacity in Spain and Germany, these markets are islanded,” said Ian Cronshaw, head of energy diversification at the International Energy Agency. “Transmission investments are still low and lagging.”
However, there are disagreements over who should pay for better grid connections – the generating country that lacks a market, or the consuming country that could benefit from cheaper power. Woodhouse said it will largely fall to governments to collaborate and create a unified grid with regulated assets that would in turn attract investment. “We don’t see rates of return will be sufficient for merchant connection,” he said.
European energy regulators are beginning to work together to develop a pan-European market, and the European Commission will also address the issue in its energy infrastructure package to be announced later this year.
The poll revealed that 20% thought electricity storage is the best solution. However, experts on a panel session suggested grid-scale electricity storage technology is currently inadequate and expensive.
Meanwhile, they highlighted the need for better demand management and said more should be done to make customers aware of energy price peaks and troughs. “We can’t absorb renewables properly without demand-side management,” said Jerry O’Sullivan, executive director of Ireland’s ESB Networks.
Ian Marchant, chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, said electricity suppliers should take a lesson from airlines, asking more for electricity during peak demand periods instead of charging a flat price at all times, and whatever the cost to utilities.
Christopher Cundy
Electricity industry experts have raised concerns that Europe’s distribution grid is not up to the task of handling the growing capacity from renewable sources, threatening the profitability of plants and the EU’s renewable energy targets.
Spain and Germany, the two European countries with the most installed wind and solar generating capacity, are seeing zero or negative spot prices for power when the wind is blowing strongly, said delegates at the Eurelectric conference in Dublin this week.
Spain has had 300 hours of zero prices in its power pool so far this year, said Stephen Woodhouse, director of Poyry Energy Counsulting, which means wind farms earn only a feed-in tariff for selling power at these times. “These plants are earning significantly lower than thermal plants,” he said. “Already we are seeing curtailment of wind power installation in certain areas.”
At times when the wind is not blowing, combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power stations are seen as the ‘swing’ supplier, stepping in to cope with demand. On the back of Europe’s targets to source 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020, forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggest 299 TWh of additional wind energy will be supplied over 2008-20, equating to 140GW of extra capacity. Alongside this, 97 TWh will come from gas-fired plants.
But as wind capacity grows, the intermittent nature of the resource will also affect earnings for gas plants, which will only be powered up on demand. “CCGT investors will face greater price and volume risk. They will really have to trust their traders,” said Woodhouse. “There will be a premium in the future for reliable capacity and flexibility. Maybe we need some market-based prices for these” attributes, as well as quantity, he questioned.
In an instant poll of some 200 delegates in the room, 31% said the best solution to managing the impact of large-scale wind generation is cross-border balancing in intra-day markets – effectively broadening the available market for the power.
“Even with 10-20GW of wind capacity in Spain and Germany, these markets are islanded,” said Ian Cronshaw, head of energy diversification at the International Energy Agency. “Transmission investments are still low and lagging.”
However, there are disagreements over who should pay for better grid connections – the generating country that lacks a market, or the consuming country that could benefit from cheaper power. Woodhouse said it will largely fall to governments to collaborate and create a unified grid with regulated assets that would in turn attract investment. “We don’t see rates of return will be sufficient for merchant connection,” he said.
European energy regulators are beginning to work together to develop a pan-European market, and the European Commission will also address the issue in its energy infrastructure package to be announced later this year.
The poll revealed that 20% thought electricity storage is the best solution. However, experts on a panel session suggested grid-scale electricity storage technology is currently inadequate and expensive.
Meanwhile, they highlighted the need for better demand management and said more should be done to make customers aware of energy price peaks and troughs. “We can’t absorb renewables properly without demand-side management,” said Jerry O’Sullivan, executive director of Ireland’s ESB Networks.
Ian Marchant, chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, said electricity suppliers should take a lesson from airlines, asking more for electricity during peak demand periods instead of charging a flat price at all times, and whatever the cost to utilities.
Christopher Cundy
Solar’s time in the sun is nigh, say financiers
24 June 2010
The focus of growth in renewables is likely to flip from wind to solar, as the falling price of the technology and equipment make it more competitive with other renewables, experts said.
In the next five years, the renewable energy sector will be defined by tremendous growth in photovoltaic and thermal solar projects, financing experts told attendees of Argyle Executive Forum’s 2010 Deal Making in the Energy Sector conference in New York last week.
“Solar is going to be huge in the future,” said Geoff Broglio, vice president of Hudson Clean Energy Partners in Teaneck, New Jersey. “It’s growing tremendously now.”
Global wind installations have increased about 27% every year for the last decade, said Olav Junttila, partner with Greentech Capital Advisors based in New York. “That’s a pretty astonishing number,” he said. “I think we’re really going to see something very similar on the solar side.”
But there will be ups and downs in the solar sector, with feed-in tariffs being readjusted, in Europe especially, and investment tax credits in the US constantly in danger of expiration, he said. “But there is an underlying trend toward more cost competitiveness,” Junttila said. “There is so much supply at this point around the world that it’s going to keep those costs down.”
Meanwhile, one of the main drivers of costly solar projects is the “healthy” margins for manufacturers, he said. “You’ve got First Solar, the king of the industry, earning 40% margins on the manufacturing business,” Broglio said. “It’s been going on for a while, but that’s not really sustainable. That makes a technology look a lot more expensive, but the true cost is much lower.”
“The technology is better, the price is coming down and frankly it is something that can be more easily sited behind fences, closer to the load,” said David Bickham, a partner at law firm K&L Gates in Austin, Texas. “You’re not constrained by where the wind resources are.”
Wind will continue to be a big component of the renewable energy sector, but until transmission issues are resolved, wind projects will remain confined to selected areas where the transmission is already available or can be made available within a single state pretty quickly, he said.
But on a long-term basis, offshore wind will present a major opportunity once the supply chain is built, said Michael Donnelly, managing director at GE Equity in New York.
Gloria Gonzalez
The focus of growth in renewables is likely to flip from wind to solar, as the falling price of the technology and equipment make it more competitive with other renewables, experts said.
In the next five years, the renewable energy sector will be defined by tremendous growth in photovoltaic and thermal solar projects, financing experts told attendees of Argyle Executive Forum’s 2010 Deal Making in the Energy Sector conference in New York last week.
“Solar is going to be huge in the future,” said Geoff Broglio, vice president of Hudson Clean Energy Partners in Teaneck, New Jersey. “It’s growing tremendously now.”
Global wind installations have increased about 27% every year for the last decade, said Olav Junttila, partner with Greentech Capital Advisors based in New York. “That’s a pretty astonishing number,” he said. “I think we’re really going to see something very similar on the solar side.”
But there will be ups and downs in the solar sector, with feed-in tariffs being readjusted, in Europe especially, and investment tax credits in the US constantly in danger of expiration, he said. “But there is an underlying trend toward more cost competitiveness,” Junttila said. “There is so much supply at this point around the world that it’s going to keep those costs down.”
Meanwhile, one of the main drivers of costly solar projects is the “healthy” margins for manufacturers, he said. “You’ve got First Solar, the king of the industry, earning 40% margins on the manufacturing business,” Broglio said. “It’s been going on for a while, but that’s not really sustainable. That makes a technology look a lot more expensive, but the true cost is much lower.”
“The technology is better, the price is coming down and frankly it is something that can be more easily sited behind fences, closer to the load,” said David Bickham, a partner at law firm K&L Gates in Austin, Texas. “You’re not constrained by where the wind resources are.”
Wind will continue to be a big component of the renewable energy sector, but until transmission issues are resolved, wind projects will remain confined to selected areas where the transmission is already available or can be made available within a single state pretty quickly, he said.
But on a long-term basis, offshore wind will present a major opportunity once the supply chain is built, said Michael Donnelly, managing director at GE Equity in New York.
Gloria Gonzalez
Utility-only’ cap and trade no silver bullet
23 June, 2010
Advocates of pricing carbon in the US economy are shifting their efforts to a ‘utility-only’ cap and trade system – but some experts warn that the proposal causes as many problems as it solves, and even its advocates concede its chances are slim.
On Sunday, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) – co-author alongside John Kerry (D-Mass) of the American Power Act, which would introduce an economy-wide carbon cap-and-trade programme – told CNN that he was open to a scaled back system, beginning with utilities.
His comments follow an address by President Barack Obama last week where he called for comprehensive energy and climate legislation, but neglected to call for carbon caps. However, Obama has become more engaged with the issue, and his chief of staff and Congressional fixer, Rahm Emanuel, told ABC News on Sunday that the president wanted to see legislation that deals with “environmental degradation caused by carbon pollution”.
Obama was due to meet with key Senators from both sides of the aisle today to discuss energy and climate legislation, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has said he hopes to bring to the floor this summer. That meeting was cancelled, with the president instead holding a crisis meeting with his Afghanistan commander, Stanley McChrystal.
At this point, it is unclear which approach Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate are likely to pursue. However, Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, described utility-only cap-and-trade as “the best chance we have got” to put a federal cap on US carbon emissions.
As to whether such a proposal would garner the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, she told Carbon Finance that “it’s still very challenging, but the chances are better than with economy-wide cap and trade.”
She added that while, “today, I can’t get to 60”, she said it is impossible to accurately gauge support for a hypothetical bill.
Kyle Danish, a Washington, DC-based partner at law firm Van Ness Feldman, said that a utility-only approach “has some obvious appeal, because it’s simpler and because the power sector has dealt with cap and trade for over a decade”, to control sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution.
Also, most analyses show the power sector delivering the lion’s share of early emissions reductions, even under wider trading programmes.
“But simpler by no means equals simple,” he added.
Such a proposal would undermine the complex deals and compromises that underpin the Kerry-Lieberman proposal, many of which rely on the generous distribution of carbon allowances. “If it’s a utility-only programme, there are far fewer allowances to distribute,” he said.
Claussen – who has written an op-ed piece with Jim Rogers, the CEO of power utility Duke Energy advocating a utilities-first approach – acknowledged some of these drawbacks.
“It does mean that there will be a lot less money available for a lot of the other things that people care about,” she said, such as international climate financing, adaptation finance for US states and technology assistance.
Dan Reidinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, said that the organisation “has been focusing on economy-wide, comprehensive climate legislation, [so] we have not fully discussed a utility-only approach at this point.
“However, we believe that any utility-only legislation would have to incorporate major consumer protections to attract 60 votes in the Senate,” he added.
Advocates of pricing carbon in the US economy are shifting their efforts to a ‘utility-only’ cap and trade system – but some experts warn that the proposal causes as many problems as it solves, and even its advocates concede its chances are slim.
On Sunday, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) – co-author alongside John Kerry (D-Mass) of the American Power Act, which would introduce an economy-wide carbon cap-and-trade programme – told CNN that he was open to a scaled back system, beginning with utilities.
His comments follow an address by President Barack Obama last week where he called for comprehensive energy and climate legislation, but neglected to call for carbon caps. However, Obama has become more engaged with the issue, and his chief of staff and Congressional fixer, Rahm Emanuel, told ABC News on Sunday that the president wanted to see legislation that deals with “environmental degradation caused by carbon pollution”.
Obama was due to meet with key Senators from both sides of the aisle today to discuss energy and climate legislation, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has said he hopes to bring to the floor this summer. That meeting was cancelled, with the president instead holding a crisis meeting with his Afghanistan commander, Stanley McChrystal.
At this point, it is unclear which approach Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate are likely to pursue. However, Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, described utility-only cap-and-trade as “the best chance we have got” to put a federal cap on US carbon emissions.
As to whether such a proposal would garner the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, she told Carbon Finance that “it’s still very challenging, but the chances are better than with economy-wide cap and trade.”
She added that while, “today, I can’t get to 60”, she said it is impossible to accurately gauge support for a hypothetical bill.
Kyle Danish, a Washington, DC-based partner at law firm Van Ness Feldman, said that a utility-only approach “has some obvious appeal, because it’s simpler and because the power sector has dealt with cap and trade for over a decade”, to control sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution.
Also, most analyses show the power sector delivering the lion’s share of early emissions reductions, even under wider trading programmes.
“But simpler by no means equals simple,” he added.
Such a proposal would undermine the complex deals and compromises that underpin the Kerry-Lieberman proposal, many of which rely on the generous distribution of carbon allowances. “If it’s a utility-only programme, there are far fewer allowances to distribute,” he said.
Claussen – who has written an op-ed piece with Jim Rogers, the CEO of power utility Duke Energy advocating a utilities-first approach – acknowledged some of these drawbacks.
“It does mean that there will be a lot less money available for a lot of the other things that people care about,” she said, such as international climate financing, adaptation finance for US states and technology assistance.
Dan Reidinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, said that the organisation “has been focusing on economy-wide, comprehensive climate legislation, [so] we have not fully discussed a utility-only approach at this point.
“However, we believe that any utility-only legislation would have to incorporate major consumer protections to attract 60 votes in the Senate,” he added.
Employment, Environment at Odds
U.S. Agency Won't Back Sale of Coal Equipment; Company Says That Costs Jobs.
Text By JAMES R. HAGERTY And AMOL SHARMA
For the second time in recent weeks, the Obama administration's environmental policies have clashed with its efforts to boost American jobs.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal body charged with promoting U.S. exports with loan guarantees, decided against backing a sale of coal-mining equipment to an Indian company. The guarantees were denied amid the agency's concerns about the mine's environmental impact.
Bucyrus International Inc. said it was likely to lose orders totaling as much as $600 million for mining machinery from a subsidiary of Reliance Power Ltd. of India because of a decision by the Ex-Im Bank against providing loan guarantees to help finance the purchase. The orders were contingent on obtaining the guarantees, which would cut the cost of financing for Reliance, part of a conglomerate headed by Anil Ambani.
Ex-Im Bank Supports Chile Infrastructure. Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More .A person familiar with the situation in India said Reliance has chosen not to purchase the mining equipment from Bucyrus because of the bank's decision.
The bank's chairman cited Obama administration policy against backing projects with heavy carbon emissions.
The decision means "throwing 1,000 jobs in the ditch," Tim Sullivan, chief executive officer of the South Milwaukee, Wis., maker of mining equipment, said in an interview. Bucyrus cited an estimate that the order would create or protect 984 jobs in 13 U.S. states.
Last month, the Obama administration angered many people in Louisiana by imposing a six-month ban on deep-water oil drilling in the wake of the BP PLC oil spill. That ban could cost thousands of highly paid Gulf energy jobs, Louisiana officials have said. A U.S. District Court last week overturned the ban, but the government is appealing. The administration argues that "green" energy technology will prove a big generator of jobs.
Political leaders in Wisconsin hope to use a planned visit by President Barack Obama to the state Wednesday to plead for a reversal of the Ex-Im Bank decision. Mr. Obama is due to speak at a town-hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wis.
The board of the Ex-Im Bank voted 2-1 Thursday against supporting the project. The bank is required to consider the environmental effects of projects it backs, a bank official said. The mining equipment would be used for a coal mine that is to supply a power plant under construction at Sasan in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
Miners at India's Gevra coal mine last year. Most new power plants use coal, which Indian officials say they need to rely on to support growth.
.Mr. Sullivan said Reliance could turn to rival suppliers in countries such as China and Belarus.
Thebank board split along party lines. Two Democratic members—Fred Hochberg, chairman, and Diane Farrell—voted against supporting the project, while Republican Bijan Kian, voted in favor.
Mr. Hochberg said: "President Obama has made clear this administration's commitment to transition away from high-carbon investments and toward a cleaner energy future." He said he voted against the guarantees, which would lower the cost of financing for Reliance, because of the "projected adverse environmental impact."
The decision drew protests from some local politicians. "We have to focus on creating jobs," Tom Barrett, the Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin, said in a statement. Mr. Barrett, currently mayor of Milwaukee, pledged to "explore avenues to reverse the outcome."
A Reliance Power spokesman said the Ex-Im Bank decision "will have no adverse impact" on the $4.5 billion power project.
Mr. Sullivan, the Bucyrus CEO, said the power plant's expected emissions of 830 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour were within the Ex-Im Bank's limit of 850 grams. An Ex-Im Bank official said the margin of error on such estimates meant the emissions easily could exceed that guideline. Mr. Sullivan said the Ex-Im Bank decision was likely to kill U.S. jobs without protecting the environment because the power plant would be built in any case.
Indian companies are racing to build power plants to power the country's growth. Most of the large new projects are coal-based. Although India has pledged to ramp up solar, wind and nuclear projects, officials say they need to continue to rely on coal to support growth.
Write to James R. Hagerty at bob.hagerty@wsj.com and Amol Sharma at amol.sharma@wsj.com
Text By JAMES R. HAGERTY And AMOL SHARMA
For the second time in recent weeks, the Obama administration's environmental policies have clashed with its efforts to boost American jobs.
The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal body charged with promoting U.S. exports with loan guarantees, decided against backing a sale of coal-mining equipment to an Indian company. The guarantees were denied amid the agency's concerns about the mine's environmental impact.
Bucyrus International Inc. said it was likely to lose orders totaling as much as $600 million for mining machinery from a subsidiary of Reliance Power Ltd. of India because of a decision by the Ex-Im Bank against providing loan guarantees to help finance the purchase. The orders were contingent on obtaining the guarantees, which would cut the cost of financing for Reliance, part of a conglomerate headed by Anil Ambani.
Ex-Im Bank Supports Chile Infrastructure. Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More .A person familiar with the situation in India said Reliance has chosen not to purchase the mining equipment from Bucyrus because of the bank's decision.
The bank's chairman cited Obama administration policy against backing projects with heavy carbon emissions.
The decision means "throwing 1,000 jobs in the ditch," Tim Sullivan, chief executive officer of the South Milwaukee, Wis., maker of mining equipment, said in an interview. Bucyrus cited an estimate that the order would create or protect 984 jobs in 13 U.S. states.
Last month, the Obama administration angered many people in Louisiana by imposing a six-month ban on deep-water oil drilling in the wake of the BP PLC oil spill. That ban could cost thousands of highly paid Gulf energy jobs, Louisiana officials have said. A U.S. District Court last week overturned the ban, but the government is appealing. The administration argues that "green" energy technology will prove a big generator of jobs.
Political leaders in Wisconsin hope to use a planned visit by President Barack Obama to the state Wednesday to plead for a reversal of the Ex-Im Bank decision. Mr. Obama is due to speak at a town-hall meeting on the economy in Racine, Wis.
The board of the Ex-Im Bank voted 2-1 Thursday against supporting the project. The bank is required to consider the environmental effects of projects it backs, a bank official said. The mining equipment would be used for a coal mine that is to supply a power plant under construction at Sasan in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
Miners at India's Gevra coal mine last year. Most new power plants use coal, which Indian officials say they need to rely on to support growth.
.Mr. Sullivan said Reliance could turn to rival suppliers in countries such as China and Belarus.
Thebank board split along party lines. Two Democratic members—Fred Hochberg, chairman, and Diane Farrell—voted against supporting the project, while Republican Bijan Kian, voted in favor.
Mr. Hochberg said: "President Obama has made clear this administration's commitment to transition away from high-carbon investments and toward a cleaner energy future." He said he voted against the guarantees, which would lower the cost of financing for Reliance, because of the "projected adverse environmental impact."
The decision drew protests from some local politicians. "We have to focus on creating jobs," Tom Barrett, the Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin, said in a statement. Mr. Barrett, currently mayor of Milwaukee, pledged to "explore avenues to reverse the outcome."
A Reliance Power spokesman said the Ex-Im Bank decision "will have no adverse impact" on the $4.5 billion power project.
Mr. Sullivan, the Bucyrus CEO, said the power plant's expected emissions of 830 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour were within the Ex-Im Bank's limit of 850 grams. An Ex-Im Bank official said the margin of error on such estimates meant the emissions easily could exceed that guideline. Mr. Sullivan said the Ex-Im Bank decision was likely to kill U.S. jobs without protecting the environment because the power plant would be built in any case.
Indian companies are racing to build power plants to power the country's growth. Most of the large new projects are coal-based. Although India has pledged to ramp up solar, wind and nuclear projects, officials say they need to continue to rely on coal to support growth.
Write to James R. Hagerty at bob.hagerty@wsj.com and Amol Sharma at amol.sharma@wsj.com
Sunday, 27 June 2010
Vauxhall wins £30m funding for new electric car and prepares to make Britain the centre of production
By Tom Mcghie
Last updated at 10:30 PM on 26th June 2010
The Government is expected to give funds and financial assurances to General Motors that could see Britain become its centre for electric car production in Europe, creating thousands of new jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds of investment.
Nick Reilly, chief of the company's Vauxhall Opel division, will meet Business Secretary Vince Cable in an effort to secure £30 million of funding to start production of the Ampera long-range electric car at Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, within the next four years.
Though the previous government is understood to have offered £275 million in loan guarantees on condition that the 170mpg Ampera was built in the North-West, Vauxhall is now seeking only a small proportion of that to kick-start the massive project.
And Financial Mail understands that at the crunch meeting within the next two weeks, Reilly is likely to be given the assurances he is seeking to bring the Ampera to Britain, rather than building it in Spain or Germany.
The funding is expected to go ahead despite the huge cuts being imposed across all Whitehall departments.
More...Ten tips for lowering your car insurance
Money saving tips and ideas
The Government will also emphasise to Reilly that it remains committed to helping bring electric cars to Britain by boosting the infrastructure and helping to fund thousands of charging points across the country. It will also stick to the commitment to provide up to £5,000 per vehicle to help subsidise the production of all electric cars.
The Government believes it is vital to bring down the level of greenhouse gases by limiting emissions from cars. It has already given Nissan £20 million to help the Japanese car maker bring the Leaf electric car to its factory in Sunderland and could be accused of acting unfairly if it did not make a similar offer to Vauxhall.
Reilly, who used to head Vauxhall, believes that Ellesmere Port 'ticks most of the boxes' as a site to make the Ampera. Industrial relations and productivity at the vast factory are excellent.
If the Ampera was to be brought to Ellesmere Port the company would have to put in another production line and recruit a further 2,000 workers to meet demand for the £25,000 car.
Meanwhile, one in eight Britons plan to bring forward their car purchase to avoid the Chancellor's VAT tax increase, signalling an upbeat picture for the British car industry, according to a new survey.
Research among 2,000 people by GfK NOP market research in the wake of the Budget reveals that the 2.5 percentage point increase in VAT in January will drive people to the forecourts earlier, particularly middle- to high-income owners.
The rise in insurance tax is making a quarter of car owners consider scaling down to smaller vehicles.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1289772/Vauxhall-wins-cash-new-electric-car.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0s3HvcNAb
Last updated at 10:30 PM on 26th June 2010
The Government is expected to give funds and financial assurances to General Motors that could see Britain become its centre for electric car production in Europe, creating thousands of new jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds of investment.
Nick Reilly, chief of the company's Vauxhall Opel division, will meet Business Secretary Vince Cable in an effort to secure £30 million of funding to start production of the Ampera long-range electric car at Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, within the next four years.
Though the previous government is understood to have offered £275 million in loan guarantees on condition that the 170mpg Ampera was built in the North-West, Vauxhall is now seeking only a small proportion of that to kick-start the massive project.
And Financial Mail understands that at the crunch meeting within the next two weeks, Reilly is likely to be given the assurances he is seeking to bring the Ampera to Britain, rather than building it in Spain or Germany.
The funding is expected to go ahead despite the huge cuts being imposed across all Whitehall departments.
More...Ten tips for lowering your car insurance
Money saving tips and ideas
The Government will also emphasise to Reilly that it remains committed to helping bring electric cars to Britain by boosting the infrastructure and helping to fund thousands of charging points across the country. It will also stick to the commitment to provide up to £5,000 per vehicle to help subsidise the production of all electric cars.
The Government believes it is vital to bring down the level of greenhouse gases by limiting emissions from cars. It has already given Nissan £20 million to help the Japanese car maker bring the Leaf electric car to its factory in Sunderland and could be accused of acting unfairly if it did not make a similar offer to Vauxhall.
Reilly, who used to head Vauxhall, believes that Ellesmere Port 'ticks most of the boxes' as a site to make the Ampera. Industrial relations and productivity at the vast factory are excellent.
If the Ampera was to be brought to Ellesmere Port the company would have to put in another production line and recruit a further 2,000 workers to meet demand for the £25,000 car.
Meanwhile, one in eight Britons plan to bring forward their car purchase to avoid the Chancellor's VAT tax increase, signalling an upbeat picture for the British car industry, according to a new survey.
Research among 2,000 people by GfK NOP market research in the wake of the Budget reveals that the 2.5 percentage point increase in VAT in January will drive people to the forecourts earlier, particularly middle- to high-income owners.
The rise in insurance tax is making a quarter of car owners consider scaling down to smaller vehicles.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1289772/Vauxhall-wins-cash-new-electric-car.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0s3HvcNAb
UT to add $1M facility for algae biofuel work
University of Toledo and Ohio University are partnering for algae biofuel research.
By early next year, the University of Toledo's Scott Park Campus for Energy and Innovation will be home to a nearly $1 million facility to research and develop algae biofuels in hopes of accelerating the alternative fuel's commercialization.
Ohio University, which plans to increase analysis at its algae research facility, and UT are leading a three-year project with a dozen partners, including some Ohio businesses involved in energy. Among partners are Recombinant Innovation of Toledo, Red Lion Bio-Energy of Maumee, and Midwest Biorenewables of Toledo.
The project, called the Center for Algal Engineering Research and Commercialization, recently was awarded a nearly $3 million grant through the Ohio Third Frontier Wright Projects Program.
At UT's Scott Park, the half-acre facility will have open ponds to grow algae, as well as ponds in a greenhouse. It also will be equipped with enclosed photobioreactors to test the efficiency of a variety of growth systems.
University and company researchers also will be able to convert algae materials into fuel, said Sridhar Viamajala, UT assistant professor of chemical and environmental engineering.
"Our goal is to be able to grow our own fuel stocks and to go through the whole process of making fuel," said Mr. Viamajala, an investigator for the project. "We'll have a complete system."
Traditional laboratories typically are not able to produce enough materials to do meaningful testing, such as using algae biofuels in engines, he said.
Oil from algae can be used to make fuel, and it doesn't need clean water or high-quality land to grow. It is a simple, single-celled organism that grows quickly.
By early next year, the University of Toledo's Scott Park Campus for Energy and Innovation will be home to a nearly $1 million facility to research and develop algae biofuels in hopes of accelerating the alternative fuel's commercialization.
Ohio University, which plans to increase analysis at its algae research facility, and UT are leading a three-year project with a dozen partners, including some Ohio businesses involved in energy. Among partners are Recombinant Innovation of Toledo, Red Lion Bio-Energy of Maumee, and Midwest Biorenewables of Toledo.
The project, called the Center for Algal Engineering Research and Commercialization, recently was awarded a nearly $3 million grant through the Ohio Third Frontier Wright Projects Program.
At UT's Scott Park, the half-acre facility will have open ponds to grow algae, as well as ponds in a greenhouse. It also will be equipped with enclosed photobioreactors to test the efficiency of a variety of growth systems.
University and company researchers also will be able to convert algae materials into fuel, said Sridhar Viamajala, UT assistant professor of chemical and environmental engineering.
"Our goal is to be able to grow our own fuel stocks and to go through the whole process of making fuel," said Mr. Viamajala, an investigator for the project. "We'll have a complete system."
Traditional laboratories typically are not able to produce enough materials to do meaningful testing, such as using algae biofuels in engines, he said.
Oil from algae can be used to make fuel, and it doesn't need clean water or high-quality land to grow. It is a simple, single-celled organism that grows quickly.
Europe to switch on Saharan solar power by 2015
The race to harness the sun of the Sahara and Middle East deserts is one initiative in a far-ranging European energy consensus
Alok Jha The Observer, Sunday 27 June 2010
There are probably easier ways to meet Europe's thirst for clean energy than importing it from vast solar farms in the Sahara. But it is very tempting. According to the European commission's Institute for Energy, it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle Eastern deserts (an area around the size of Wales) to meet all of Europe's energy needs.
Several groups have come up with plans to harness the sun in Africa to make electricity, which could then be exported to Europe, or use it to turn desert into forests by using the power to desalinate sea water. And how far is this from a reality? In a recent interview, European energy commissioner Günther Oettinger said that Europe will be importing hundreds of megawatts of solar-generated electricity from north Africa within five years. The EU is committed to sourcing 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Most advanced in the planning is the German-led Desertec Industrial Initiative, which aims to provide 15% of Europe's electricity by 2050 or earlier, via power lines stretching across the desert and the Mediterranean. Its $400bn plan is supported by some of Germany's biggest companies, including Siemens, E.On and Deutsche Bank.
And there is a precedent. Nine EU governments – including the UK – are already planning to build an advanced high-voltage, direct current network within the next decade. Europe's first electricity grid dedicated to renewable power took a step forward earlier this year when nine countries began to formalise plans to link their clean energy projects around the North Sea. These could join up the wind-lashed north coast of Scotland with Germany's vast array of solar panels and Norway's hydro-electric dams.
As well as providing more power, a transnational renewable electricity grid would help sort out the intermittencies associated with natural energy sources. With such a grid, electricity can be supplied across the continent from wherever the wind is blowing, the sun is shining or the waves are crashing.
Alok Jha The Observer, Sunday 27 June 2010
There are probably easier ways to meet Europe's thirst for clean energy than importing it from vast solar farms in the Sahara. But it is very tempting. According to the European commission's Institute for Energy, it would require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle Eastern deserts (an area around the size of Wales) to meet all of Europe's energy needs.
Several groups have come up with plans to harness the sun in Africa to make electricity, which could then be exported to Europe, or use it to turn desert into forests by using the power to desalinate sea water. And how far is this from a reality? In a recent interview, European energy commissioner Günther Oettinger said that Europe will be importing hundreds of megawatts of solar-generated electricity from north Africa within five years. The EU is committed to sourcing 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Most advanced in the planning is the German-led Desertec Industrial Initiative, which aims to provide 15% of Europe's electricity by 2050 or earlier, via power lines stretching across the desert and the Mediterranean. Its $400bn plan is supported by some of Germany's biggest companies, including Siemens, E.On and Deutsche Bank.
And there is a precedent. Nine EU governments – including the UK – are already planning to build an advanced high-voltage, direct current network within the next decade. Europe's first electricity grid dedicated to renewable power took a step forward earlier this year when nine countries began to formalise plans to link their clean energy projects around the North Sea. These could join up the wind-lashed north coast of Scotland with Germany's vast array of solar panels and Norway's hydro-electric dams.
As well as providing more power, a transnational renewable electricity grid would help sort out the intermittencies associated with natural energy sources. With such a grid, electricity can be supplied across the continent from wherever the wind is blowing, the sun is shining or the waves are crashing.
Matthew Lloyd's innovation: the zero-energy liftThe 47-year-old inventor introduces his water and solar-powered wheelchair lift
Lucy Siegle The Observer, Sunday 27 June 2010
"All the signs are good. We think it's going to work!" says ebullient architect Matthew Lloyd, putting together the final stages on the extraordinary Perspex lift that you can find operating during the London Festival of Architecture (lfa2010.org) on the Duke of York Steps behind Pall Mall. The steps' steep rake up to the monument to the Grand Old Duke of York takes many a tourist by surprise – and if you're in a wheelchair, forget it. Previously you would have needed to divert via Trafalgar Square. When Lloyd's father was ill and confined to a wheelchair, it brought home to the architect just how inaccessible many places are.
Creating a lift on the Grade I-listed steps was "remarkably difficult", not least because the structure had to be entirely freestanding. The breakthrough came when the architect called in the Royal Engineers – historically connected to this quarter of London and experts in developing site-specific solutions. On one seminal train journey, he and Major David Blow sketched a water-based solution.
This is the world's first zero-energy lift. Water weights counterbalance the lift cart and the drive is powered entirely by energy harnessed from two large solar panels. All the mechanical innards are laid bare through the Perspex. Lloyd describes this design as "genuine sustainability – as distinct from cosmetic sustainability". Using renewable energy not only addresses the need to unlink our lives from fossil fuel but also allows the lift to be used away from mains electricity. And incredibly, thanks to the goodwill and enthusiasm of some lift specialists and renewable energy providers, it cost just £10,000 to produce.
"All the signs are good. We think it's going to work!" says ebullient architect Matthew Lloyd, putting together the final stages on the extraordinary Perspex lift that you can find operating during the London Festival of Architecture (lfa2010.org) on the Duke of York Steps behind Pall Mall. The steps' steep rake up to the monument to the Grand Old Duke of York takes many a tourist by surprise – and if you're in a wheelchair, forget it. Previously you would have needed to divert via Trafalgar Square. When Lloyd's father was ill and confined to a wheelchair, it brought home to the architect just how inaccessible many places are.
Creating a lift on the Grade I-listed steps was "remarkably difficult", not least because the structure had to be entirely freestanding. The breakthrough came when the architect called in the Royal Engineers – historically connected to this quarter of London and experts in developing site-specific solutions. On one seminal train journey, he and Major David Blow sketched a water-based solution.
This is the world's first zero-energy lift. Water weights counterbalance the lift cart and the drive is powered entirely by energy harnessed from two large solar panels. All the mechanical innards are laid bare through the Perspex. Lloyd describes this design as "genuine sustainability – as distinct from cosmetic sustainability". Using renewable energy not only addresses the need to unlink our lives from fossil fuel but also allows the lift to be used away from mains electricity. And incredibly, thanks to the goodwill and enthusiasm of some lift specialists and renewable energy providers, it cost just £10,000 to produce.
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Canadian Firms to Design World’s First Carbon Capture Standard
By BC Upham | June 22nd, 2010
In an attempt to bring some order to a fractured – and controversial – industry, two Canadian organizations have announced a partnership to develop a set of standards for carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Standards organization CSA Standards and the International Performance Assessment Centre for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide (IPAC-CO2) hope the best practices they develop for the Canadian CCS industry will eventually provide a model for CCS standards internationally.
CCS is the process of pulling CO2 out of emissions from industrial and energy sources and pumping it into geological formations underground, instead of allowing the CO2 into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming.
“This is a growing industry, and like any industry, you have technology going ahead of the standards,” said Joe Ralko, Manager of Corporate Communications for IPAC-CO2. Ralko predicted the CCS industry will be larger than the natural gas industry within forty years – a trillion dollar industry.
The standards the two organizations develop will be “cradle to grave,” according to Ralko, covering every aspect of the CCS process, and will be completed in 18 months.
There are several CCS research projects underway worldwide, but there is currently no universal set of standards governing the process of CO2 extraction, transport and sequestration. A universal set of standards for safety, storage site selection and other aspects of CCS would help regulators, environmental groups and industry determine whether a CCS project is safe and viable.
CCS has come under criticism as being an impractical and extremely expensive method of reducing emissions from fossil fuels.
The Department of Energy estimates CCS costs $150 per ton of CO2 (others say $200), but the technology is attractive to the coal industry and other big polluters, as it may prove a savior if a cap on industrial CO2 emissions is introduced.
Two professors at Houston University claimed in a paper publicized in April that CCS’s potential has been greatly exaggerated.
According to the paper by Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and co-author Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University, it would take a geologic reservoir the size of a small state to store the CO2 from just one power plant.
Read more: http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/06/canadian-firms-to-design-worlds-first-carbon-capture-standard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TriplePundit+%28Triple+Pundit%29#ixzz0rvoC4VZr
In an attempt to bring some order to a fractured – and controversial – industry, two Canadian organizations have announced a partnership to develop a set of standards for carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Standards organization CSA Standards and the International Performance Assessment Centre for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide (IPAC-CO2) hope the best practices they develop for the Canadian CCS industry will eventually provide a model for CCS standards internationally.
CCS is the process of pulling CO2 out of emissions from industrial and energy sources and pumping it into geological formations underground, instead of allowing the CO2 into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming.
“This is a growing industry, and like any industry, you have technology going ahead of the standards,” said Joe Ralko, Manager of Corporate Communications for IPAC-CO2. Ralko predicted the CCS industry will be larger than the natural gas industry within forty years – a trillion dollar industry.
The standards the two organizations develop will be “cradle to grave,” according to Ralko, covering every aspect of the CCS process, and will be completed in 18 months.
There are several CCS research projects underway worldwide, but there is currently no universal set of standards governing the process of CO2 extraction, transport and sequestration. A universal set of standards for safety, storage site selection and other aspects of CCS would help regulators, environmental groups and industry determine whether a CCS project is safe and viable.
CCS has come under criticism as being an impractical and extremely expensive method of reducing emissions from fossil fuels.
The Department of Energy estimates CCS costs $150 per ton of CO2 (others say $200), but the technology is attractive to the coal industry and other big polluters, as it may prove a savior if a cap on industrial CO2 emissions is introduced.
Two professors at Houston University claimed in a paper publicized in April that CCS’s potential has been greatly exaggerated.
According to the paper by Michael Economides, professor of chemical engineering at Houston, and co-author Christene Ehlig-Economides, professor of energy engineering at Texas A&M University, it would take a geologic reservoir the size of a small state to store the CO2 from just one power plant.
Read more: http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/06/canadian-firms-to-design-worlds-first-carbon-capture-standard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TriplePundit+%28Triple+Pundit%29#ixzz0rvoC4VZr
USDA Releases Regional Roadmap for Biofuels
Published: 25 June 2010
Washington, D.C., United States -- This week, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released a report outlining both the current state of renewable transportation fuels efforts in America and a plan to develop regional strategies to increase the production, marketing and distribution of biofuels.
USDA plans to adopt regional strategies that allow the placement of biorefineries in areas of economic distress through the leveraging of regional resources for transportation, labor and feedstocks.
The report provides information on current production and consumption capacities as well as projections to meet the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) mandate to use 36 billion gallons of biofuel per year in America's fuel supply by 2022.
"The Obama Administration has made domestic production of renewable energy a national priority because it will create jobs, combat global warming, reduce fossil fuel dependence and lay a strong foundation for a strong 21st Century rural economy, and I am confident that we can meet the threshold of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022," Vilsack said.
The report provides data on the significant impact the ethanol industry will have on job creation. It is estimated that as many as 40 direct jobs and additional indirect jobs are created with each 100-million-gallon ethanol facility built. USDA plans to adopt regional strategies that allow the placement of biorefineries in areas of economic distress through the leveraging of regional resources for transportation, labor and feedstocks. The regional strategy provides greater potential for economic benefit.
"The current ethanol industry provides a solid foundation to build upon and reach the 36 billion gallon goal. As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day, we must reaffirm our commitment to bring our country closer to complete energy independence and this report provides a roadmap to achieve that goal," Vilsack continued.
Washington, D.C., United States -- This week, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released a report outlining both the current state of renewable transportation fuels efforts in America and a plan to develop regional strategies to increase the production, marketing and distribution of biofuels.
USDA plans to adopt regional strategies that allow the placement of biorefineries in areas of economic distress through the leveraging of regional resources for transportation, labor and feedstocks.
The report provides information on current production and consumption capacities as well as projections to meet the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) mandate to use 36 billion gallons of biofuel per year in America's fuel supply by 2022.
"The Obama Administration has made domestic production of renewable energy a national priority because it will create jobs, combat global warming, reduce fossil fuel dependence and lay a strong foundation for a strong 21st Century rural economy, and I am confident that we can meet the threshold of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022," Vilsack said.
The report provides data on the significant impact the ethanol industry will have on job creation. It is estimated that as many as 40 direct jobs and additional indirect jobs are created with each 100-million-gallon ethanol facility built. USDA plans to adopt regional strategies that allow the placement of biorefineries in areas of economic distress through the leveraging of regional resources for transportation, labor and feedstocks. The regional strategy provides greater potential for economic benefit.
"The current ethanol industry provides a solid foundation to build upon and reach the 36 billion gallon goal. As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day, we must reaffirm our commitment to bring our country closer to complete energy independence and this report provides a roadmap to achieve that goal," Vilsack continued.
Sweden Now Using More Biofuel Than Oil
Written by Philip Proefrock on 25/06/10
There's more news on the sustainable and renewable energy front in Europe. Not only is wind power nearly on par with natural gas in Europe, but in Sweden now, biomass has passed oil as the top source for energy generation. The most recent figures indicate that biomass energy production reached 115 terrawatt hours in 2009, representing 32% of all energy consumption. At the same time, oil-based fuels were used to produce 112 TWh. Biofuel use is expected to increase, while fossil fuel use should further decline in the coming years.
Biofueled combined heat and power (CHP) plants generate heat for more than half of the multifamily dwelling units in Sweden, as well as producing electricity. Sweden has a goal to have renewable energy reach 50% of all energy consumed in the country by 2020 and to be independent from imported fossil fuel for all transportation by 2030.
Wood is the source for the vast majority of the fuel used. However, the increased use of wood for energy has led to higher prices for other products requiring logs and paper pulp.
There's more news on the sustainable and renewable energy front in Europe. Not only is wind power nearly on par with natural gas in Europe, but in Sweden now, biomass has passed oil as the top source for energy generation. The most recent figures indicate that biomass energy production reached 115 terrawatt hours in 2009, representing 32% of all energy consumption. At the same time, oil-based fuels were used to produce 112 TWh. Biofuel use is expected to increase, while fossil fuel use should further decline in the coming years.
Biofueled combined heat and power (CHP) plants generate heat for more than half of the multifamily dwelling units in Sweden, as well as producing electricity. Sweden has a goal to have renewable energy reach 50% of all energy consumed in the country by 2020 and to be independent from imported fossil fuel for all transportation by 2030.
Wood is the source for the vast majority of the fuel used. However, the increased use of wood for energy has led to higher prices for other products requiring logs and paper pulp.
Tidal power still has a future in N.B
Energy minister says tidal technology still not commercially viable
Last Updated: Friday, June 25, 2010 | 6:24 AM AT
CBC News
New Brunswick's quest for tidal power isn't dead despite Irving Oil's decision to pull the plug on its research project, according to Energy Minister Jack Keir.
Keir said Thursday he wasn't given a reason why Irving Oil opted to abandon its tidal research project in the Bay of Fundy, including parts of Passamaquoddy Bay, Cape Enrage and the Cape Spencer area near Saint John.
The energy minister said he doesn't think the technology to generate electricity from the tides is commercially viable right now, and that may have led to the company's decision.
He also points to the challenges Nova Scotia Power is facing with a test turbine that broke earlier this month in Minas Passage.
"It's six storeys high, the size of a football field and I think it generates — when it's working — one megawatt of electricity. You know it's just — the technology just isn't there yet," Keir said.
Irving Oil partnered with the Huntsman Marine Science Centre in St. Andrews and started research in May 2008 on how to harness the Fundy tides to make electricity.
Despite the setback, Keir said the New Brunswick government hasn't given up on tidal power.
Now that the Irving project is dead, the energy department plans to watch developments in Nova Scotia closely and encourage private sector investment. Keir said he expects to issue another request for proposals once he's reviewed the file.
Tide tests held promise
Irving Oil's sudden decision to halt the tidal project didn't just catch politicians off guard.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the operations manager for the Huntsman Marine Science Centre in St. Andrews, is putting away his tidal research equipment.
The centre was measuring the speed and direction of the current at five of the 11 Crown land sites that Irving Oil was given rights to, and Fitzgerald said the results of those tests were promising.
But last week, after conducting a strategic review, Fitzgerald said Irving terminated the project without explanation.
"I think there was a number of factors that played into it, everything from the current world price of energy, to the political climate, to the technology challenges doing this," Fitzgerald said.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/06/25/nb-keir-tidal-research-irving-538.html?ref=rss#ixzz0rvmWWB00
Last Updated: Friday, June 25, 2010 | 6:24 AM AT
CBC News
New Brunswick's quest for tidal power isn't dead despite Irving Oil's decision to pull the plug on its research project, according to Energy Minister Jack Keir.
Keir said Thursday he wasn't given a reason why Irving Oil opted to abandon its tidal research project in the Bay of Fundy, including parts of Passamaquoddy Bay, Cape Enrage and the Cape Spencer area near Saint John.
The energy minister said he doesn't think the technology to generate electricity from the tides is commercially viable right now, and that may have led to the company's decision.
He also points to the challenges Nova Scotia Power is facing with a test turbine that broke earlier this month in Minas Passage.
"It's six storeys high, the size of a football field and I think it generates — when it's working — one megawatt of electricity. You know it's just — the technology just isn't there yet," Keir said.
Irving Oil partnered with the Huntsman Marine Science Centre in St. Andrews and started research in May 2008 on how to harness the Fundy tides to make electricity.
Despite the setback, Keir said the New Brunswick government hasn't given up on tidal power.
Now that the Irving project is dead, the energy department plans to watch developments in Nova Scotia closely and encourage private sector investment. Keir said he expects to issue another request for proposals once he's reviewed the file.
Tide tests held promise
Irving Oil's sudden decision to halt the tidal project didn't just catch politicians off guard.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the operations manager for the Huntsman Marine Science Centre in St. Andrews, is putting away his tidal research equipment.
The centre was measuring the speed and direction of the current at five of the 11 Crown land sites that Irving Oil was given rights to, and Fitzgerald said the results of those tests were promising.
But last week, after conducting a strategic review, Fitzgerald said Irving terminated the project without explanation.
"I think there was a number of factors that played into it, everything from the current world price of energy, to the political climate, to the technology challenges doing this," Fitzgerald said.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/06/25/nb-keir-tidal-research-irving-538.html?ref=rss#ixzz0rvmWWB00
Kenya hopes to become Africa's carbon trade hub
Duncan Mboya
21 June 2010
The government also allocated US$721 million to conservation
[NAIROBI] Kenya has announced plans to establish a regional carbon emissions trading scheme to steer Africa's carbon market.
This would hopefully position the country as the continent's carbon credit trade hub, finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta said in his budget speech to parliament earlier this month (10 June).
Kenyatta said a framework for carbon trading — in which polluters buy and sell the right to emit carbon — would be set up to outline how to register to participate in the scheme, how revenue would be shared and how to ensure accountability.
The framework would also describe development areas to be funded by the resources generated from the scheme.
Kenyatta said a carbon credit investment framework would help streamline conservation efforts and alleviate poverty in the country, saying it had the potential to attract billions of Kenyan shillings annually.
The government also allocated 58 billion Kenyan shillings (US$721 million) for environmental conservation in the 2010/11 financial year — a more than 50 per cent rise from the previous year's US$473 million.
Out of this, US$640 million will go to the environment, water and sanitation sectors, in efforts aimed at reversing what many see as Kenya's battered biodiversity systems.
"Efforts must be made through comprehensive environmental conservation to forestall the adverse effects of climate change in order to reverse damages to our scarce arable land, water and biodiversity resources," Kenyatta told parliament.
"The government recognises that the restoration of ecosystems provides the key to reducing poverty, creating employment and improving food security."
Fredrick Njau, of the Nairobi-based Green Belt Movement, told SciDev.Net he believed the trading scheme would improve the livelihoods of communities by generating money in exchange for trees planted.
"This is the first time in the past 30 years that communities are set to benefit from planting trees in this country," he said.
Claudia Ringler, a senior research fellow at the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute, said: "It is certainly laudable that Kenya plans to set up a regional emissions trading scheme for Africa.
"[But] setting up such a system is highly complex and will require a large amount of resources and capacity development. It is not clear if the government has the will or the resources needed to both develop and keep such a system alive.
"Secondly, while a Kenya-based scheme could and should support poor rural smallholder farmers in the country, reaching out to farmers, pastoralists and those in charge of conserving forests will be even more complex, and has yet to be achieved at scale by existing voluntary carbon markets."
21 June 2010
The government also allocated US$721 million to conservation
[NAIROBI] Kenya has announced plans to establish a regional carbon emissions trading scheme to steer Africa's carbon market.
This would hopefully position the country as the continent's carbon credit trade hub, finance minister Uhuru Kenyatta said in his budget speech to parliament earlier this month (10 June).
Kenyatta said a framework for carbon trading — in which polluters buy and sell the right to emit carbon — would be set up to outline how to register to participate in the scheme, how revenue would be shared and how to ensure accountability.
The framework would also describe development areas to be funded by the resources generated from the scheme.
Kenyatta said a carbon credit investment framework would help streamline conservation efforts and alleviate poverty in the country, saying it had the potential to attract billions of Kenyan shillings annually.
The government also allocated 58 billion Kenyan shillings (US$721 million) for environmental conservation in the 2010/11 financial year — a more than 50 per cent rise from the previous year's US$473 million.
Out of this, US$640 million will go to the environment, water and sanitation sectors, in efforts aimed at reversing what many see as Kenya's battered biodiversity systems.
"Efforts must be made through comprehensive environmental conservation to forestall the adverse effects of climate change in order to reverse damages to our scarce arable land, water and biodiversity resources," Kenyatta told parliament.
"The government recognises that the restoration of ecosystems provides the key to reducing poverty, creating employment and improving food security."
Fredrick Njau, of the Nairobi-based Green Belt Movement, told SciDev.Net he believed the trading scheme would improve the livelihoods of communities by generating money in exchange for trees planted.
"This is the first time in the past 30 years that communities are set to benefit from planting trees in this country," he said.
Claudia Ringler, a senior research fellow at the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute, said: "It is certainly laudable that Kenya plans to set up a regional emissions trading scheme for Africa.
"[But] setting up such a system is highly complex and will require a large amount of resources and capacity development. It is not clear if the government has the will or the resources needed to both develop and keep such a system alive.
"Secondly, while a Kenya-based scheme could and should support poor rural smallholder farmers in the country, reaching out to farmers, pastoralists and those in charge of conserving forests will be even more complex, and has yet to be achieved at scale by existing voluntary carbon markets."
Japanese told to go to bed an hour early to cut carbon emissions
Japanese households are being urged to go to bed one hour earlier than normal in order to help tackle climate change.
Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo
Published: 12:38PM BST 24 Jun 2010
The Japanese government has launched a campaign encouraging people to go to bed and get up extra early in order to reduce household carbon dioxide emissions.
The Morning Challenge campaign, unveiled by the Environment Ministry, is based on the premise that swapping late night electricity for an extra hour of morning sunlight could significantly cut the nation's carbon footprint.
A typical family can reduce its carbon dioxide footprint by 85kg a year if everyone goes to bed and gets up one hour earlier, according to the campaign.
The amount of carbon dioxide emissions potentially saved from going to bed an hour early was the equivalent of 20 per cent of annual emissions from household lights, "Many Japanese people waste electric power at night time, for example by watching TV until very late," a ministry spokesperson told The Daily Telegraph.
"But going to bed early and getting up early can avoid wasting electrical power which causes carbon dioxide emissions. If people change their lifestyle, we can save energy and reduce emissions." The campaign also proposes that people take advantage of an extra hour of morning sunlight by improve their lifestyles in general by running, doing yoga and eating a nutritious breakfast.
It is the latest initiative tackling climate change by the Japanese environment ministry, which is faced with the challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 25 per cent from 1990 levels within the next decade.
It was the same government department that launched the high profile Cool Biz campaign five years ago, which encourages workers to wear short-sleeved shirts and offices not to turn air con lower than 28 degrees during the summer.
Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo
Published: 12:38PM BST 24 Jun 2010
The Japanese government has launched a campaign encouraging people to go to bed and get up extra early in order to reduce household carbon dioxide emissions.
The Morning Challenge campaign, unveiled by the Environment Ministry, is based on the premise that swapping late night electricity for an extra hour of morning sunlight could significantly cut the nation's carbon footprint.
A typical family can reduce its carbon dioxide footprint by 85kg a year if everyone goes to bed and gets up one hour earlier, according to the campaign.
The amount of carbon dioxide emissions potentially saved from going to bed an hour early was the equivalent of 20 per cent of annual emissions from household lights, "Many Japanese people waste electric power at night time, for example by watching TV until very late," a ministry spokesperson told The Daily Telegraph.
"But going to bed early and getting up early can avoid wasting electrical power which causes carbon dioxide emissions. If people change their lifestyle, we can save energy and reduce emissions." The campaign also proposes that people take advantage of an extra hour of morning sunlight by improve their lifestyles in general by running, doing yoga and eating a nutritious breakfast.
It is the latest initiative tackling climate change by the Japanese environment ministry, which is faced with the challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 25 per cent from 1990 levels within the next decade.
It was the same government department that launched the high profile Cool Biz campaign five years ago, which encourages workers to wear short-sleeved shirts and offices not to turn air con lower than 28 degrees during the summer.
Greens face a battle in California
Californians will have their say on global warming at the ballot box, writes Geoffrey Lean.
By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 6:43PM BST 25 Jun 2010
Grey area: Los Angeles wreathed in smog. California is voting on whether to suspend its ambitious environmental measures Photo: Getty Images Mark the date – November 2. It will see the outcome of the most crucial battle yet between the old economy and the new, between the fossil-fuel-powered industrialisation of the last two centuries that has enriched much of the world and the low-carbon prosperity that is needed in future. Indeed, it bids to be a pivotal point in the biggest economic transition since the Industrial Revolution.
The battle will take place in California, of course, where trends tend to originate, and where the environmental movement first took off more than four decades ago. It will focus that most bad-tempered of slanging matches, overglorified as the "global warming debate". And it will deliver much the most important popular verdict so far on what, if anything should be done to combat climate change – 10 years, almost to the day, after the election of George W Bush pulled the United States out of international attempts to address it.
Why Whitehall hates solar panelsFor on that date, US mid-term election day, Californians will vote on whether to suspend their state's ambitious anti-global warming law that sets out to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2025, and 80 per cent below them by 2050. It also promotes the use of renewable energy and is credited with giving the state a worldwide lead in developing clean technologies.
An official analysis by California's Air Resources Board concluded that the law would increase economic production by $27 billion, while its Employment Development Department says that nearly half a million people in the state are already employed in "green jobs". Renewable energy typically employs at least three times as many people per dollar invested as fossil fuels and John Doerr, Silicon Valley's leading venture capitalist calls "green tech" the "biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century".
Opponents retort that the law will cost Californians billions of dollars in higher fuel and electricity prices and lead to job losses. They have now gathered more than 800,000 signatures – nearly twice as many as they needed – to get its suspension on November's ballot paper.
Their resolution would halt enforcement of the law until the state's unemployment rate sinks to no more than 5.5 per cent over a whole year. That might be a very long time coming – that has only happened twice in the past 34 years, and the rate now stands at 12.4 per cent.
Perhaps unsurprisingly the campaign was launched – and its $3 million cost has mainly been financed – by two big Texan oil companies, provoking an equally predictable hissy fit from the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who regards the legislation as a key part of his legacy. "This initiative, sponsored by greedy Texas oil companies," he said this week, "would cripple California's fastest-growing economic sector, reverse our renewable energy policy and decimate our environmental progress for the benefit of those oil companies' profit margins."
More significantly, the new industry has begun mobilising to fight off the threat from the old. Some 300 cleantech companies have joined to raise money in support of the law, which Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, calls "an incubator of innovation". They even have an ally in Ronald Reagan's old Treasury Secretary, George Schultz, who calls the resolution a "misguided proposition" that will harm "growing entrepreneurial ventures".
With deep pockets and high emotions, on both sides, we are in for an epic, the outcome of which will be felt way beyond the Golden State. Passage of the resolution would not kill off all its green measures – regulations to clean car engines and promote renewable electricity would remain – but it would have a powerful, chilling effect on combating climate change worldwide. Its defeat, on the other hand, could give them a needed boost.
Already the battle is spilling over into California's gubernatorial race. Jerry Brown, the Democratic candidate, wants to expand renewable energy even further, while Meg Whitman, his opponent, has vowed to suspend the law for a year. And climate change has featured heavily in primary battles in several states.
It will also be at the heart of the coming Australian general election. Opposition leader Tony Abbott toppled his predecessor last year on a climate sceptic platform, while the reverse has just happened with the premiership. Disillusion with prime minister Kevin Rudd, which led to his fall this week, goes back to his shelving of a carbon trading scheme supported by two thirds of voters in marginal seats: his British‑born successor, Julia Gillard, promptly promised to revive it.
So, on both sides of the world, voters will give their verdict this autumn on whether greening the economy would deepen the recession or provide a sustainable way out of it. The polls could mark the moment when environmental issues are finally recognised as also being economic ones – and that would be an important transition, too.
An unexpected boost for overseas aid
Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the Government’s tax and spending plans is the decision not just to ringfence the budget for overseas aid, but to increase it.
Next year it will rise from the present 0.52 per cent of Britain’s GDP to 0.6 per cent, en route to reaching the official UN target of 0.7 per cent by 2013. And David Cameron is now at the G8 summit in Canada trying to persuade fellow leaders to follow suit.
This contradicts Alistair Darling’s assertion that George Osborne has gone “far further” in his assault on spending than Margaret Thatcher – the Iron Lady immediately took an axe to the aid programme.
Her chosen hatchet man, Neil Marten – appointed as aid minister – apparently thought that world poverty was invented by the BBC. Once, when the news was showing harrowing footage of skeletal people in a famine in Uganda, he turned to an aide and asked: “Tell me. How do they fake those pictures? How do they fake them?”
This mindset did not endear him to his high-minded officials. When he was swimming in the sea on an African trip, his Civil Service escort told their host that it was time they were leaving. The host replied that it might be good to call the minister in anyway, as a shark had been seen in the area recently. “Come to think of it,” ruminated the official, “we have probably got plenty of time after all.”
UN roots for eco-friendly farming
Feeding a rapidly growing population is going to require much more intensive agriculture, right? Wrong. So concluded a meeting of top international experts this week, as news breaks of attempts to build record-sized factory farms in Britain and, as we report today, every supermarket in Britain is selling meat from animals fed GM crops.
The experts, convened by the United Nations, concluded counterintuitively that “the best option” was not to use ever more fertilisers, pesticides and machines but to adopt environmentally friendly practices going by the ugly name of agro‑ecology – planting trees and crops together, mixing livestock and arable farming, and using natural predators to control pests and diseases.
It sounds unlikely, but there is evidence that it works. Prof Jules Pretty of Essex University, who looked at 286 projects in 57 developing countries, in the biggest study of its kind, recorded an average 79 per cent increase in yields, while 350,000 acres of land in what used to be called “the Desert of Tanzania” have been rehabilitated in this way over two decades.
Using lots of chemicals still produces more food in the short term. But most Third World farmers cannot afford them and intensive methods degrade the soil; agro‑ecology preserves and nourishes it. It could also combat climate change: planting trees with crops, says the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre, could make a third of the cuts in atmospheric carbon-dioxide the world needs.
By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 6:43PM BST 25 Jun 2010
Grey area: Los Angeles wreathed in smog. California is voting on whether to suspend its ambitious environmental measures Photo: Getty Images Mark the date – November 2. It will see the outcome of the most crucial battle yet between the old economy and the new, between the fossil-fuel-powered industrialisation of the last two centuries that has enriched much of the world and the low-carbon prosperity that is needed in future. Indeed, it bids to be a pivotal point in the biggest economic transition since the Industrial Revolution.
The battle will take place in California, of course, where trends tend to originate, and where the environmental movement first took off more than four decades ago. It will focus that most bad-tempered of slanging matches, overglorified as the "global warming debate". And it will deliver much the most important popular verdict so far on what, if anything should be done to combat climate change – 10 years, almost to the day, after the election of George W Bush pulled the United States out of international attempts to address it.
Why Whitehall hates solar panelsFor on that date, US mid-term election day, Californians will vote on whether to suspend their state's ambitious anti-global warming law that sets out to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2025, and 80 per cent below them by 2050. It also promotes the use of renewable energy and is credited with giving the state a worldwide lead in developing clean technologies.
An official analysis by California's Air Resources Board concluded that the law would increase economic production by $27 billion, while its Employment Development Department says that nearly half a million people in the state are already employed in "green jobs". Renewable energy typically employs at least three times as many people per dollar invested as fossil fuels and John Doerr, Silicon Valley's leading venture capitalist calls "green tech" the "biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century".
Opponents retort that the law will cost Californians billions of dollars in higher fuel and electricity prices and lead to job losses. They have now gathered more than 800,000 signatures – nearly twice as many as they needed – to get its suspension on November's ballot paper.
Their resolution would halt enforcement of the law until the state's unemployment rate sinks to no more than 5.5 per cent over a whole year. That might be a very long time coming – that has only happened twice in the past 34 years, and the rate now stands at 12.4 per cent.
Perhaps unsurprisingly the campaign was launched – and its $3 million cost has mainly been financed – by two big Texan oil companies, provoking an equally predictable hissy fit from the Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who regards the legislation as a key part of his legacy. "This initiative, sponsored by greedy Texas oil companies," he said this week, "would cripple California's fastest-growing economic sector, reverse our renewable energy policy and decimate our environmental progress for the benefit of those oil companies' profit margins."
More significantly, the new industry has begun mobilising to fight off the threat from the old. Some 300 cleantech companies have joined to raise money in support of the law, which Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, calls "an incubator of innovation". They even have an ally in Ronald Reagan's old Treasury Secretary, George Schultz, who calls the resolution a "misguided proposition" that will harm "growing entrepreneurial ventures".
With deep pockets and high emotions, on both sides, we are in for an epic, the outcome of which will be felt way beyond the Golden State. Passage of the resolution would not kill off all its green measures – regulations to clean car engines and promote renewable electricity would remain – but it would have a powerful, chilling effect on combating climate change worldwide. Its defeat, on the other hand, could give them a needed boost.
Already the battle is spilling over into California's gubernatorial race. Jerry Brown, the Democratic candidate, wants to expand renewable energy even further, while Meg Whitman, his opponent, has vowed to suspend the law for a year. And climate change has featured heavily in primary battles in several states.
It will also be at the heart of the coming Australian general election. Opposition leader Tony Abbott toppled his predecessor last year on a climate sceptic platform, while the reverse has just happened with the premiership. Disillusion with prime minister Kevin Rudd, which led to his fall this week, goes back to his shelving of a carbon trading scheme supported by two thirds of voters in marginal seats: his British‑born successor, Julia Gillard, promptly promised to revive it.
So, on both sides of the world, voters will give their verdict this autumn on whether greening the economy would deepen the recession or provide a sustainable way out of it. The polls could mark the moment when environmental issues are finally recognised as also being economic ones – and that would be an important transition, too.
An unexpected boost for overseas aid
Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the Government’s tax and spending plans is the decision not just to ringfence the budget for overseas aid, but to increase it.
Next year it will rise from the present 0.52 per cent of Britain’s GDP to 0.6 per cent, en route to reaching the official UN target of 0.7 per cent by 2013. And David Cameron is now at the G8 summit in Canada trying to persuade fellow leaders to follow suit.
This contradicts Alistair Darling’s assertion that George Osborne has gone “far further” in his assault on spending than Margaret Thatcher – the Iron Lady immediately took an axe to the aid programme.
Her chosen hatchet man, Neil Marten – appointed as aid minister – apparently thought that world poverty was invented by the BBC. Once, when the news was showing harrowing footage of skeletal people in a famine in Uganda, he turned to an aide and asked: “Tell me. How do they fake those pictures? How do they fake them?”
This mindset did not endear him to his high-minded officials. When he was swimming in the sea on an African trip, his Civil Service escort told their host that it was time they were leaving. The host replied that it might be good to call the minister in anyway, as a shark had been seen in the area recently. “Come to think of it,” ruminated the official, “we have probably got plenty of time after all.”
UN roots for eco-friendly farming
Feeding a rapidly growing population is going to require much more intensive agriculture, right? Wrong. So concluded a meeting of top international experts this week, as news breaks of attempts to build record-sized factory farms in Britain and, as we report today, every supermarket in Britain is selling meat from animals fed GM crops.
The experts, convened by the United Nations, concluded counterintuitively that “the best option” was not to use ever more fertilisers, pesticides and machines but to adopt environmentally friendly practices going by the ugly name of agro‑ecology – planting trees and crops together, mixing livestock and arable farming, and using natural predators to control pests and diseases.
It sounds unlikely, but there is evidence that it works. Prof Jules Pretty of Essex University, who looked at 286 projects in 57 developing countries, in the biggest study of its kind, recorded an average 79 per cent increase in yields, while 350,000 acres of land in what used to be called “the Desert of Tanzania” have been rehabilitated in this way over two decades.
Using lots of chemicals still produces more food in the short term. But most Third World farmers cannot afford them and intensive methods degrade the soil; agro‑ecology preserves and nourishes it. It could also combat climate change: planting trees with crops, says the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre, could make a third of the cuts in atmospheric carbon-dioxide the world needs.