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#ixzz0recmdweW
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
UK wave energy firm raises cash to build world's 1st commercial wave farm
LONDON -- Britain's Aquamarine Power has raised 6 million pounds (US$9 million) for the manufacture and installation of its new wave energy device, as it seeks to build the world's first commercial wave farm. Privately held Aquamarine, which raised the funds by selling equity to investors, plans to develop up to 1,000 MW of marine energy sites by 2020 in partnership with utility SSE Renewables.
In the world's first commercial wave and tidal leasing round, it won the rights to develop the Brough Head wave farm off the coast of Scotland, which at 200 MW could provide enough energy for around 190,000 homes.
Its Oyster 1 device has been undergoing trials at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and is connected to the grid, and it hopes to deploy its new Oyster 2 device next summer.
In the world's first commercial wave and tidal leasing round, it won the rights to develop the Brough Head wave farm off the coast of Scotland, which at 200 MW could provide enough energy for around 190,000 homes.
Its Oyster 1 device has been undergoing trials at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and is connected to the grid, and it hopes to deploy its new Oyster 2 device next summer.
Osborne snubs low carbon economy
The focus on deficit reduction was expected, but it provides no excuse for the absence of green commitments
BusinessGreen, 22 Jun 2010
For years the announcement of a new budget was followed by protests from environmental groups that the green section of the chancellor's budget address amounted to little more than political rhetoric. Well, how they will be missing that rhetoric this afternoon.
George Osborne's emergency budget contained barely a mention of the low carbon economy, climate change, the need to cut carbon emissions, or even the coalition's own pledge to become the greenest government in history.
The coalition will insist this is not a snub to green businesses and that the primary focus of the emergency budget was necessarily on the need to cut the deficit. But as Barack Obama witheringly observed when his presidential rival John McCain attempted to suspend the campaign so he could focus on the financial crisis: leadership is about being able to do more than one thing at a time.
There are rumours around Whitehall that environmental groups have been promised far more substantial green policy proposals and new green taxes in the autumn as part of the annual spending review and pre budget report.
Osborne hinted at some of these moves in his speech, confirming that the government would "bring forward" plans for a green investment bank and look at reforms to air passenger duty designed to curb emissions from aviation. The full budget document similarly confirmed plans to "support" the carbon price through reform of the carbon levy and referenced on-going plans for a green home loan scheme, new green "financial products" and reforms of the energy market.
In many ways the current waiting game is fair enough. It is unrealistic to expect the government to deliver a fully-fledged low carbon policy framework within weeks of taking office, particularly when it has to deal with deficit and the delicate workings of the new coalition. If all the promised reviews and proposals do indeed deliver clear cut recommendations by the autumn it may still be possible to have all of the government's main green policies enacted within a year of it taking office.
But the absence of green commitments from Osborne will still grate with many low carbon businesses.
Over the past five or six years Gordon Brown and then Alistair Darling established the green section of the budget as an important part of the theatre. We have grown used to chancellors trumpeting the fact the UK has exceeded its Kyoto commitments and is on track to meet its carbon targets. We expect our chancellor to praise the importance of the low carbon economy as a means of bolstering competitiveness, creating jobs and reducing climate change risks. We require at least a few green policy pronouncements to chew over if we are to convince financiers that low carbon investments remain a good bet. It may only amount to a few paragraphs in an hour long speech, but this rhetoric is important.
In this respect, George Osborne failed one of his first tests as Chancellor.
BusinessGreen, 22 Jun 2010
For years the announcement of a new budget was followed by protests from environmental groups that the green section of the chancellor's budget address amounted to little more than political rhetoric. Well, how they will be missing that rhetoric this afternoon.
George Osborne's emergency budget contained barely a mention of the low carbon economy, climate change, the need to cut carbon emissions, or even the coalition's own pledge to become the greenest government in history.
The coalition will insist this is not a snub to green businesses and that the primary focus of the emergency budget was necessarily on the need to cut the deficit. But as Barack Obama witheringly observed when his presidential rival John McCain attempted to suspend the campaign so he could focus on the financial crisis: leadership is about being able to do more than one thing at a time.
There are rumours around Whitehall that environmental groups have been promised far more substantial green policy proposals and new green taxes in the autumn as part of the annual spending review and pre budget report.
Osborne hinted at some of these moves in his speech, confirming that the government would "bring forward" plans for a green investment bank and look at reforms to air passenger duty designed to curb emissions from aviation. The full budget document similarly confirmed plans to "support" the carbon price through reform of the carbon levy and referenced on-going plans for a green home loan scheme, new green "financial products" and reforms of the energy market.
In many ways the current waiting game is fair enough. It is unrealistic to expect the government to deliver a fully-fledged low carbon policy framework within weeks of taking office, particularly when it has to deal with deficit and the delicate workings of the new coalition. If all the promised reviews and proposals do indeed deliver clear cut recommendations by the autumn it may still be possible to have all of the government's main green policies enacted within a year of it taking office.
But the absence of green commitments from Osborne will still grate with many low carbon businesses.
Over the past five or six years Gordon Brown and then Alistair Darling established the green section of the budget as an important part of the theatre. We have grown used to chancellors trumpeting the fact the UK has exceeded its Kyoto commitments and is on track to meet its carbon targets. We expect our chancellor to praise the importance of the low carbon economy as a means of bolstering competitiveness, creating jobs and reducing climate change risks. We require at least a few green policy pronouncements to chew over if we are to convince financiers that low carbon investments remain a good bet. It may only amount to a few paragraphs in an hour long speech, but this rhetoric is important.
In this respect, George Osborne failed one of his first tests as Chancellor.
Michael McCarthy: The less said the better about the planet, but there are cuts to come
When we get down to the nitty-gritty of individual department budgets, we see trouble
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Green cuts are coming – the environment will be affected like everything else. But it will take several months before they become apparent.
Yesterday there was thanks for what was preserved. Some of the commitments dearest to green hearts have been ring-fenced, so there was no slashing, for example, of the money intended to provide immediate help to people seen as already suffering the effects of climate change (known as the "Fast Start Climate Funding"), which was agreed at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December. Britain's share of the EU's £2bn commitment is a whopping great pile of cash, but there was no touching that, because there was no major cutting of overseas aid.
Other key environmental proposals, such as that for a Green Investment Bank which figured in all the party's recent election manifestos, or the Green Deal package of loans for low-carbon energy projects, are similarly going ahead, it was made clear yesterday.
It is when we get down to the nitty-gritty of individual departmental budgets, which of course Mr Osborne could not spell out in detail, that we see trouble ahead. A number of Government departments with environmental responsibilities – including Communities and Local Government, Transport, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and Energy & Climate Change – have been asked to make 25 per cent cuts in their spending over the next four years.
These will bite directly at services with a strong environmental aspect, such as public transport. The Campaign for Better Transport estimated yesterday that blanket 25 per cent cuts to transport budgets could lead to bus services being decimated, train fares rising by 33 per cent over the next five years and train overcrowding, speed restrictions and withdrawal of many local train services outside London.
Similarly, if Defra has to chop 25 per cent from its spending, it seems almost certain that the agri-environment funding, which provides grants to farmers to manage their land in a much more wildlife-friendly way, will be cut. They are achieving real results, such as slowing down the catastrophic declines in farmland birds, half of which have gone in the last 40 years, yet over the UK as a whole, they represent large sums – in England alone, theytotal some £2bn annually. So it seems likely they will be cut.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Green cuts are coming – the environment will be affected like everything else. But it will take several months before they become apparent.
Yesterday there was thanks for what was preserved. Some of the commitments dearest to green hearts have been ring-fenced, so there was no slashing, for example, of the money intended to provide immediate help to people seen as already suffering the effects of climate change (known as the "Fast Start Climate Funding"), which was agreed at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December. Britain's share of the EU's £2bn commitment is a whopping great pile of cash, but there was no touching that, because there was no major cutting of overseas aid.
Other key environmental proposals, such as that for a Green Investment Bank which figured in all the party's recent election manifestos, or the Green Deal package of loans for low-carbon energy projects, are similarly going ahead, it was made clear yesterday.
It is when we get down to the nitty-gritty of individual departmental budgets, which of course Mr Osborne could not spell out in detail, that we see trouble ahead. A number of Government departments with environmental responsibilities – including Communities and Local Government, Transport, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) and Energy & Climate Change – have been asked to make 25 per cent cuts in their spending over the next four years.
These will bite directly at services with a strong environmental aspect, such as public transport. The Campaign for Better Transport estimated yesterday that blanket 25 per cent cuts to transport budgets could lead to bus services being decimated, train fares rising by 33 per cent over the next five years and train overcrowding, speed restrictions and withdrawal of many local train services outside London.
Similarly, if Defra has to chop 25 per cent from its spending, it seems almost certain that the agri-environment funding, which provides grants to farmers to manage their land in a much more wildlife-friendly way, will be cut. They are achieving real results, such as slowing down the catastrophic declines in farmland birds, half of which have gone in the last 40 years, yet over the UK as a whole, they represent large sums – in England alone, theytotal some £2bn annually. So it seems likely they will be cut.
Car fumes raise spectre of 1980s revival nobody wants...acid rain
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Thirty years ago it was one of the great environmental issues, along with the hole in the ozone layer and CFC chemicals. Now acid rain may be making a comeback – but this time, there's a change in the chemicals responsible.
Nitrogen emissions from motor vehicles and agricultural fertilisers, are combining with rain to produce nitric acid, and are starting to replace the sulphuric acid resulting from power-station emissions as a major source of the environmental scourge of the 1970s and 1980s, according to American experts.
The result is a renewed and serious environmental risk for forests, rivers and wildlife, as nitric acid rain can – just like its sulphuric equivalent – kill plants, fish and insects by leaching important plant nutrients such potassium, calcium and magnesium from the soil. At the same time, it can help to liberate potentially toxic minerals such as aluminium, which can flow off into watercourses. The concern is surfacing in the US, where several scientists have voiced their worries in the current issue of the journal Scientific American.
But the problem exists in Britain and Europe too, especially in Scandinavia, which, because of prevailing westerly winds, receives much of the UK's air pollution. "The issue hasn't gone away," said Ed Dearnley, policy officer for air quality at the charity Environmental Protection UK.
In fact, many EU member states are not on course to meet new limits on nitrogen air pollution which come into force at the end of this year, under the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol, which attempts to do for air pollution what the 1997 Kyoto Protocol attempted to do for climate change: solve the problem by reducing emissions.
The UK is unlikely to meet its limits for NOx (oxides of nitrogen) under the EU National Emission Ceilings Directive, although by a smaller margin than many other countries. Britain expects to overshoot its NOx ceilings by less than 5 per cent, whereas France and Spain look like exceeding theirs by about 30 per cent.
In the US, although nitrogen pollution has been reduced, it has not gone down as much as sulphur pollution. Sulphur dioxide emissions decreased by almost 70 per cent from 1990 to 2008, but emissions of NOx went down only 35 per cent during the same period. Scientists "have grown increasingly aware of the consequences of the remaining nitric acid deposition", according to Professor William Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York.
Professor Schlesinger said it is clear that humans are adding nitrogen to the Earth's surface, and although researchers do not know yet where it all goes, "we do know that increasing concentrations of nitrogen in unexpected places will cause significant environmental damage that we will all learn to regret".
According to Scientific American, the Professor thinks that national arguments over climate change have allowed the US to ignore the nitrogen problem, which he predicts will be the next big environmental issue.
Atmospheric nitrogen is not only responsible for acid rain; when it falls to earth it also causes eutrophication, an excess of nutrients which can lead to algal blooms on lakes and can disrupt plant diversity by letting a very few plant species outcompete almost everything else.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Thirty years ago it was one of the great environmental issues, along with the hole in the ozone layer and CFC chemicals. Now acid rain may be making a comeback – but this time, there's a change in the chemicals responsible.
Nitrogen emissions from motor vehicles and agricultural fertilisers, are combining with rain to produce nitric acid, and are starting to replace the sulphuric acid resulting from power-station emissions as a major source of the environmental scourge of the 1970s and 1980s, according to American experts.
The result is a renewed and serious environmental risk for forests, rivers and wildlife, as nitric acid rain can – just like its sulphuric equivalent – kill plants, fish and insects by leaching important plant nutrients such potassium, calcium and magnesium from the soil. At the same time, it can help to liberate potentially toxic minerals such as aluminium, which can flow off into watercourses. The concern is surfacing in the US, where several scientists have voiced their worries in the current issue of the journal Scientific American.
But the problem exists in Britain and Europe too, especially in Scandinavia, which, because of prevailing westerly winds, receives much of the UK's air pollution. "The issue hasn't gone away," said Ed Dearnley, policy officer for air quality at the charity Environmental Protection UK.
In fact, many EU member states are not on course to meet new limits on nitrogen air pollution which come into force at the end of this year, under the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol, which attempts to do for air pollution what the 1997 Kyoto Protocol attempted to do for climate change: solve the problem by reducing emissions.
The UK is unlikely to meet its limits for NOx (oxides of nitrogen) under the EU National Emission Ceilings Directive, although by a smaller margin than many other countries. Britain expects to overshoot its NOx ceilings by less than 5 per cent, whereas France and Spain look like exceeding theirs by about 30 per cent.
In the US, although nitrogen pollution has been reduced, it has not gone down as much as sulphur pollution. Sulphur dioxide emissions decreased by almost 70 per cent from 1990 to 2008, but emissions of NOx went down only 35 per cent during the same period. Scientists "have grown increasingly aware of the consequences of the remaining nitric acid deposition", according to Professor William Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York.
Professor Schlesinger said it is clear that humans are adding nitrogen to the Earth's surface, and although researchers do not know yet where it all goes, "we do know that increasing concentrations of nitrogen in unexpected places will cause significant environmental damage that we will all learn to regret".
According to Scientific American, the Professor thinks that national arguments over climate change have allowed the US to ignore the nitrogen problem, which he predicts will be the next big environmental issue.
Atmospheric nitrogen is not only responsible for acid rain; when it falls to earth it also causes eutrophication, an excess of nutrients which can lead to algal blooms on lakes and can disrupt plant diversity by letting a very few plant species outcompete almost everything else.
White House Backs Electric-Car Aid
Administration Supports Spending $6 Billion More to Promote Plug-Ins; Gulf Oil Spill Cited at Hearing.
By JOSH MITCHELL
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Tuesday backed a proposal to spend up to $6 billion more on subsidies for electric vehicles, amid renewed interest on Capitol Hill in measures to cut petroleum consumption in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The proposals include more spending for research and development of car-battery technology, aid to utilities and homeowners to build recharging outlets, and consumer tax credits to offset the higher costs of battery-electric vehicles.
A bill drafted by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.), Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) and Jeff Alan Merkley (D., Ore.) calls for the additional spending, and includes a provision that would establish up to 15 "development" communities to receive funds for infrastructure and other programs for plug-ins.
The rest of the world is moving up quickly on this technology," David Sandalow, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for policy and international affairs, told a Senate hearing Tuesday. "The question before us is whether the United States will lead in this technology."
The proposal has drawn criticism from auto makers, which worry that it focuses on electric vehicles at the expense of other alternative technologies, and from Republicans who cite the need to cut government spending.
Democrats may seek to attach the legislation to an energy bill that could be taken up later this year, Sen. Dorgan said in an interview.
.The federal government has already spent billions of dollars to spur the development of plug-in cars, including funds from a $25 billion program to help auto makers retool plants, $2.4 billion in stimulus money for battery development and other projects, and a $7,500 consumer tax credit for electric-car purchases.
The auto industry has lobbied for more programs out of concern that consumers will balk at the high prices of plug-ins and lack of charging stations. Some big corporations, including delivery giant FedEx Corp., back spending on electric vehicles to help them save money on fuel costs.
FedEx Chief Executive Fred Smith, who also serves as co-chairman of the Energy Security Leadership Council, told the panel that the government should help auto makers sell enough electric vehicles to bring down their price. He said companies such as his are heavily reliant on foreign oil, and vulnerable to wide swings in petroleum prices. "The environmental catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico is making clear once again yet another aspect of the danger posed by our dependence," he said.
But the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the car makers' main lobbying group, criticized the bill from Sens. Dorgan, Alexander and Merkley for leaving out potentially promising technologies such as fuel cells.
The group also criticized a provision that would establish five to 15 communities that would receive much of the funding to build an electric-car infrastructure, saying a nationwide approach is needed.
Some senators on the panel said the bill would fall short of ensuring the success of plug-ins, contending much more spending is needed if plug-ins are to avoid the fate of other technologies that have challenged petroleum-fueled internal combustion engines, which enjoy significant advantages in cost, reliability and range compared to the available alternatives.
Others, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Energy Committee's ranking Republican, questioned why the bill was tailored to favor one type of technology. She said that the Clinton administration had programs to promote diesel hybrids and the Bush administration encouraged fuel-cell vehicles.
"I'm as hopeful as anyone that electric vehicles are here to stay. But the truth is that Washington has a dismal record of picking winners and losers," she said.
Write to Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com
By JOSH MITCHELL
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Tuesday backed a proposal to spend up to $6 billion more on subsidies for electric vehicles, amid renewed interest on Capitol Hill in measures to cut petroleum consumption in response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The proposals include more spending for research and development of car-battery technology, aid to utilities and homeowners to build recharging outlets, and consumer tax credits to offset the higher costs of battery-electric vehicles.
A bill drafted by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.), Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) and Jeff Alan Merkley (D., Ore.) calls for the additional spending, and includes a provision that would establish up to 15 "development" communities to receive funds for infrastructure and other programs for plug-ins.
The rest of the world is moving up quickly on this technology," David Sandalow, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for policy and international affairs, told a Senate hearing Tuesday. "The question before us is whether the United States will lead in this technology."
The proposal has drawn criticism from auto makers, which worry that it focuses on electric vehicles at the expense of other alternative technologies, and from Republicans who cite the need to cut government spending.
Democrats may seek to attach the legislation to an energy bill that could be taken up later this year, Sen. Dorgan said in an interview.
.The federal government has already spent billions of dollars to spur the development of plug-in cars, including funds from a $25 billion program to help auto makers retool plants, $2.4 billion in stimulus money for battery development and other projects, and a $7,500 consumer tax credit for electric-car purchases.
The auto industry has lobbied for more programs out of concern that consumers will balk at the high prices of plug-ins and lack of charging stations. Some big corporations, including delivery giant FedEx Corp., back spending on electric vehicles to help them save money on fuel costs.
FedEx Chief Executive Fred Smith, who also serves as co-chairman of the Energy Security Leadership Council, told the panel that the government should help auto makers sell enough electric vehicles to bring down their price. He said companies such as his are heavily reliant on foreign oil, and vulnerable to wide swings in petroleum prices. "The environmental catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico is making clear once again yet another aspect of the danger posed by our dependence," he said.
But the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the car makers' main lobbying group, criticized the bill from Sens. Dorgan, Alexander and Merkley for leaving out potentially promising technologies such as fuel cells.
The group also criticized a provision that would establish five to 15 communities that would receive much of the funding to build an electric-car infrastructure, saying a nationwide approach is needed.
Some senators on the panel said the bill would fall short of ensuring the success of plug-ins, contending much more spending is needed if plug-ins are to avoid the fate of other technologies that have challenged petroleum-fueled internal combustion engines, which enjoy significant advantages in cost, reliability and range compared to the available alternatives.
Others, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the Energy Committee's ranking Republican, questioned why the bill was tailored to favor one type of technology. She said that the Clinton administration had programs to promote diesel hybrids and the Bush administration encouraged fuel-cell vehicles.
"I'm as hopeful as anyone that electric vehicles are here to stay. But the truth is that Washington has a dismal record of picking winners and losers," she said.
Write to Josh Mitchell at joshua.mitchell@dowjones.com
Budget 2010: Green policies 'sidelined', campaigners say
Green groups disappointed after chancellor reveals no further details on plans for a green investment bank or home energy-efficiency schemes
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 June 2010 17.07 BST
Green groups expressed disappointment and surprise today at the lack of environmental policies in George Osborne's budget.
Hopes that the emergency budget would shed light on plans for a green investment bank, renewable energy and financial incentives for individuals to make their homes more energy efficient were dashed in the chancellor's speech.
Plans to introduce a floor price for carbon pollution permits to provide stability for emissions trading, as already laid out in the coalition agreement, were reiterated with a pledge to consult, this autumn, on the reform of Labour's climate change levy.
No new details were forthcoming on the new green bank, which will be designed to help fund clean energy projects such as windfarms. The Treasury said it will publish detail proposals of the bank's creation in the autumn, after the spending review. The only other measure mentioned in Osborne's speech was changes to air taxes, which would be "examined".
Dr Victoria Johnson, climate scientist at the New Economics Foundation, said: "The chancellor says he is committed to a green investment bank, but we still have no more detail about what it will do and how it will be funded. Osborne spoke a great deal about the 'crisis' of national debt, but barely mentioned the much bigger and more dangerous crisis of climate change. These are supposedly five-year plans, but we heard nothing about the need for a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy."
The budget repeated support but offered no further detail on a "Green New Deal: for householders, which is likely to include a pay-as-you-save energy efficiency scheme announced by the previous government.
The government reiterated plans to reform company car tax, with vehicles requiring lower exhaust emissions to fit into the cheapest bands of company car tax. Levels of 121-129g CO2 per km will be the new band for 15% company car tax, which rises to 35% for more polluting vehicles.
Responding to Osborne's promise to not increase fuel duty, the executive director of Campaign for Better Transport, Stephen Joseph, said: "A fuel-duty stabiliser might sound good when you're looking for votes ahead of an election, but the fact that George Osborne has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to examine the idea suggests that he knows that it won't be workable in practice."
Ben Stafford, head of campaigns at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said the budget had sidelined green issues: "In a budget that focused on significant cuts to spending and changes to taxation, the chancellor had relatively little to say on the environment. We hope this does not indicate a retreat by ministers from their desire to be 'the greenest government ever' or the advocacy of environmental issues by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats when they were in opposition."
Gaynor Hartnell, the chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said: "We do appreciate the pressures this new government faces, however there is now real urgency to move to detailed plans for action. The government needs to apply the same firmness of purpose it has shown today to renewables."
Richard Gledhill, partner for sustainability and climate change at PricewaterhouseCoopers noted that "climate change has hardly featured".
However, Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, Phil Bloomer, referring to climate aid money, said: "Oxfam also welcomes the government's recent reaffirmation of the UK's Fast Start climate money which will provide immediate funding to help people who are already suffering the devastating effects of climate change."
Other groups expressed concern that the 25% cuts promised across government departments over the next five years would damage efforts to protect and enhance the environment.
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 June 2010 17.07 BST
Green groups expressed disappointment and surprise today at the lack of environmental policies in George Osborne's budget.
Hopes that the emergency budget would shed light on plans for a green investment bank, renewable energy and financial incentives for individuals to make their homes more energy efficient were dashed in the chancellor's speech.
Plans to introduce a floor price for carbon pollution permits to provide stability for emissions trading, as already laid out in the coalition agreement, were reiterated with a pledge to consult, this autumn, on the reform of Labour's climate change levy.
No new details were forthcoming on the new green bank, which will be designed to help fund clean energy projects such as windfarms. The Treasury said it will publish detail proposals of the bank's creation in the autumn, after the spending review. The only other measure mentioned in Osborne's speech was changes to air taxes, which would be "examined".
Dr Victoria Johnson, climate scientist at the New Economics Foundation, said: "The chancellor says he is committed to a green investment bank, but we still have no more detail about what it will do and how it will be funded. Osborne spoke a great deal about the 'crisis' of national debt, but barely mentioned the much bigger and more dangerous crisis of climate change. These are supposedly five-year plans, but we heard nothing about the need for a rapid transition to a low-carbon economy."
The budget repeated support but offered no further detail on a "Green New Deal: for householders, which is likely to include a pay-as-you-save energy efficiency scheme announced by the previous government.
The government reiterated plans to reform company car tax, with vehicles requiring lower exhaust emissions to fit into the cheapest bands of company car tax. Levels of 121-129g CO2 per km will be the new band for 15% company car tax, which rises to 35% for more polluting vehicles.
Responding to Osborne's promise to not increase fuel duty, the executive director of Campaign for Better Transport, Stephen Joseph, said: "A fuel-duty stabiliser might sound good when you're looking for votes ahead of an election, but the fact that George Osborne has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to examine the idea suggests that he knows that it won't be workable in practice."
Ben Stafford, head of campaigns at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said the budget had sidelined green issues: "In a budget that focused on significant cuts to spending and changes to taxation, the chancellor had relatively little to say on the environment. We hope this does not indicate a retreat by ministers from their desire to be 'the greenest government ever' or the advocacy of environmental issues by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats when they were in opposition."
Gaynor Hartnell, the chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said: "We do appreciate the pressures this new government faces, however there is now real urgency to move to detailed plans for action. The government needs to apply the same firmness of purpose it has shown today to renewables."
Richard Gledhill, partner for sustainability and climate change at PricewaterhouseCoopers noted that "climate change has hardly featured".
However, Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, Phil Bloomer, referring to climate aid money, said: "Oxfam also welcomes the government's recent reaffirmation of the UK's Fast Start climate money which will provide immediate funding to help people who are already suffering the devastating effects of climate change."
Other groups expressed concern that the 25% cuts promised across government departments over the next five years would damage efforts to protect and enhance the environment.
Hydropower schemes surge in decade, Environment Agency figures show
Businesses and communities cash in on small-scale renewables, but some areas deemed too environmentally sensitive
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 June 2010 06.00 BST
The number of small-scale hydropower schemes to generate energy from rivers in England and Wales has surged in the last decade, figures from the Environment Agency showed today.
The number of new licences issued by the government agency for hydropower schemes has increased sixfold since 2000.
Last year, 31 new licences for energy schemes in rivers were granted – compared with just five in 2000.
The Environment Agency has already issued 29 licences this year and is considering a further 166 applications, as businesses and communities attempt to cash in on a new government incentive which pays people for generating electricity from small-scale renewables.
In all, there are around 400 hydropower schemes in England and Wales and the Environment Agency estimates the number could rise to 1,200 by 2020.
Small-scale hydropower currently produces enough electricity to power 120,000 homes in the UK, but could produce significantly more.
Earlier this year, the agency identified thousands of hotspots for hydropower schemes which could each provide clean energy for dozens of homes and benefit from "feed-in tariffs" which pay people for generating electricity from small-scale renewable technology.
The feed-in tariffs scheme, which came into force in April, could pay around £25,000 a year for a medium-sized hydropower project which would cost around £100,000 to £150,000 to install, the Environment Agency said.
The organisation said many areas were not suitable for installing hydropower because it could damage the environment, harm fish or increase the risk of flooding.
But it identified more than 4,000 places where sensitively designed schemes which included fish passes, enabling species such as salmon to navigate around the turbine or other technology, could provide a "win-win" situation for the environment.
At a speech to the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) National Hydropower conference today, Environment Agency chairman Lord Chris Smith will say that hydropower presents a "unique set of challenges".
"It is a great example of a natural resource which produces few wastes. It is a reliable and proven technology and is increasingly attractive to local communities."
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 23 June 2010 06.00 BST
The number of small-scale hydropower schemes to generate energy from rivers in England and Wales has surged in the last decade, figures from the Environment Agency showed today.
The number of new licences issued by the government agency for hydropower schemes has increased sixfold since 2000.
Last year, 31 new licences for energy schemes in rivers were granted – compared with just five in 2000.
The Environment Agency has already issued 29 licences this year and is considering a further 166 applications, as businesses and communities attempt to cash in on a new government incentive which pays people for generating electricity from small-scale renewables.
In all, there are around 400 hydropower schemes in England and Wales and the Environment Agency estimates the number could rise to 1,200 by 2020.
Small-scale hydropower currently produces enough electricity to power 120,000 homes in the UK, but could produce significantly more.
Earlier this year, the agency identified thousands of hotspots for hydropower schemes which could each provide clean energy for dozens of homes and benefit from "feed-in tariffs" which pay people for generating electricity from small-scale renewable technology.
The feed-in tariffs scheme, which came into force in April, could pay around £25,000 a year for a medium-sized hydropower project which would cost around £100,000 to £150,000 to install, the Environment Agency said.
The organisation said many areas were not suitable for installing hydropower because it could damage the environment, harm fish or increase the risk of flooding.
But it identified more than 4,000 places where sensitively designed schemes which included fish passes, enabling species such as salmon to navigate around the turbine or other technology, could provide a "win-win" situation for the environment.
At a speech to the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) National Hydropower conference today, Environment Agency chairman Lord Chris Smith will say that hydropower presents a "unique set of challenges".
"It is a great example of a natural resource which produces few wastes. It is a reliable and proven technology and is increasingly attractive to local communities."