Wednesday, July 28, 2010, 07:00
A BRISTOL company that specialises in developing the latest technology for harvesting tidal energy has won a grant for £250,000.
Marine Current Turbines is planning to use the funding to pay for research into the next generation of tidal power turbines.
The firm will be working alongside the Queen's University Belfast, Mojo Maritime and Edinburgh University on the project. The grant has come from the Government's Technology Strategy Board and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and will be used to develop a fully submerged version of the SeaGen tidal turbine. The company will lead the project, which will build on the success of its SeaGen tidal system that has been generating electricity for the National Grid for more than two years.
MCT's new technology will use similar turbines, power trains and control systems to those already proven with SeaGen.
The next-generation SeaGen will be able to be maintained above the surface of the water but will also have internal air-filled space to carry the equipment essential to connect the device to the National Grid.
Charles Hendry, the Energy Minister, said: "Wave and tidal stream technologies, such as SeaGen, have the potential to supply millions of homes with low carbon energy – reducing our dependency on foreign energy imports and cutting dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
"SeaGen is an excellent example of the UK's world-class engineering and offshore expertise and skills."
Martin Wright, managing director of the firm, said: "The experience that we have gained with SeaGen's deployment and commercial operation is a huge asset in taking forward the development of the next-generation technology, and we greatly welcome the support given to us and our partners by the Technology Strategy Board, the EPSRC and the UK Government."
Iain Gray, chief executive of the Technology Strategy Board, said: "By 2050 we are going to have very different energy needs than we have today and we will be getting our energy from different sources.
"The UK is well placed to exploit wave and tidal stream energy resources with all of the coast line that we have, and it is expected this kind of technology will be an important part of the renewable energy mix needed in the future."
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Advanced Biofuel Trade Associations Express Support for Tax Policy on Second-Generation Biofuels
WASHINGTON--As Congress takes action on critical tax incentive packages, the leading advanced biofuel trade associations reemphasized the importance of advanced biofuels as promising opportunities for the United States to reduce its reliance on oil and create green jobs. Sustained and diverse federal programs, including tax incentives, can help producers secure financing for construction of projects. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), Advanced BioFuels Association (ABFA) and Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) today thanked Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-Mich.) for introducing legislation that would make algae and other second-generation biofuels eligible for the cellulosic biofuels production tax credit and create an optional investment tax credit. The groups released the following joint statement:
As a result of the recession, private capital has been on the sidelines. Enactment of an investment tax credit, similar to those given other nascent industries, can help second-generation advanced biofuel projects make the crucial step to commercializing innovative technologies. This approach was granted to the wind, biomass and geothermal industries under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, and this spring the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Treasury testified that this approach was a great success in the deployment of new jobs and new renewable technology over the last year. We believe the same results of creating jobs in the algae, advanced and cellulosic biofuels sectors can be realized with this much-needed boost by Congress.
Advanced biofuel producers seeking the investment needed to build biorefineries and infrastructure are finding it especially challenging to raise financing for first-of-a-kind commercial-scale facilities. Enduring federal commitment to increasing alternative energy production should provide potential investors the certainty they need to make long-term investments in new cellulosic and algae-based advanced biofuel facilities. An optional investment tax credit can provide second-generation biofuel developers critical flexibility in electing the form of tax incentive that best suits a given project.
BIO, ABFA and ABO believe these measures are a very good start to providing advanced biofuel producers assistance in attracting necessary capital to build new biorefineries. We look forward to working with the committee as well as leaders in the Senate to enact them.
The Chairman's discussion draft of tax legislation is intended to support industry efforts to secure project financing by strengthening and expanding federal tax incentives for second-generation biofuels. The legislation includes language authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that would open existing cellulosic biofuels tax credits to algae-based fuels. The proposed legislation also includes a provision introduced by Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and co-sponsored by 15 members of the Ways and Means Committee that would provide cellulosic and algae-based biorefineries an option to choose a 30 percent investment tax credit in lieu of production incentives. Businesses would not be allowed to claim both the production and investment incentives but would be granted the flexibility to choose the incentive best suited to their business condition.
About BIO
BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world’s largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world.
About ABFA
The member companies of The Advanced BioFuels Association (ABFA) represent the new generation of advanced and renewable technologies that will help drive America's new economy and fuel a sustainable future for the world. For more information click on http://www.advancedbiofuelsassociation.com.
About ABO
The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote the development of viable commercial markets for renewable and sustainable commodities derived from algae. Its membership is comprised of people, companies and organizations across the value chain. More information about ABO, including its leadership, membership, costs, benefits and members and their affiliations, is available at the website: www.algalbiomass.org.
As a result of the recession, private capital has been on the sidelines. Enactment of an investment tax credit, similar to those given other nascent industries, can help second-generation advanced biofuel projects make the crucial step to commercializing innovative technologies. This approach was granted to the wind, biomass and geothermal industries under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, and this spring the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Treasury testified that this approach was a great success in the deployment of new jobs and new renewable technology over the last year. We believe the same results of creating jobs in the algae, advanced and cellulosic biofuels sectors can be realized with this much-needed boost by Congress.
Advanced biofuel producers seeking the investment needed to build biorefineries and infrastructure are finding it especially challenging to raise financing for first-of-a-kind commercial-scale facilities. Enduring federal commitment to increasing alternative energy production should provide potential investors the certainty they need to make long-term investments in new cellulosic and algae-based advanced biofuel facilities. An optional investment tax credit can provide second-generation biofuel developers critical flexibility in electing the form of tax incentive that best suits a given project.
BIO, ABFA and ABO believe these measures are a very good start to providing advanced biofuel producers assistance in attracting necessary capital to build new biorefineries. We look forward to working with the committee as well as leaders in the Senate to enact them.
The Chairman's discussion draft of tax legislation is intended to support industry efforts to secure project financing by strengthening and expanding federal tax incentives for second-generation biofuels. The legislation includes language authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that would open existing cellulosic biofuels tax credits to algae-based fuels. The proposed legislation also includes a provision introduced by Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and co-sponsored by 15 members of the Ways and Means Committee that would provide cellulosic and algae-based biorefineries an option to choose a 30 percent investment tax credit in lieu of production incentives. Businesses would not be allowed to claim both the production and investment incentives but would be granted the flexibility to choose the incentive best suited to their business condition.
About BIO
BIO represents more than 1,200 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of innovative healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products. BIO also produces the BIO International Convention, the world’s largest gathering of the biotechnology industry, along with industry-leading investor and partnering meetings held around the world.
About ABFA
The member companies of The Advanced BioFuels Association (ABFA) represent the new generation of advanced and renewable technologies that will help drive America's new economy and fuel a sustainable future for the world. For more information click on http://www.advancedbiofuelsassociation.com.
About ABO
The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote the development of viable commercial markets for renewable and sustainable commodities derived from algae. Its membership is comprised of people, companies and organizations across the value chain. More information about ABO, including its leadership, membership, costs, benefits and members and their affiliations, is available at the website: www.algalbiomass.org.
A-Power Renews Wind Turbine License Agreement with Fuhrlander
SHENYANG, China, July 28 /PRNewswire-Asia-FirstCall/ -- A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. (Nasdaq: APWR) ("A-Power" or "the Company"), a leading provider of distributed power generation systems in China and a fast-growing manufacturer of wind turbines, today announced that it renewed its license agreement with German wind technology company, Fuhrlander AG ("Fuhrlander").
Pursuant to the renewed license agreement, Fuhrlander granted A-Power the right to manufacture, operate, service and sell 2.5MW wind turbines using Furhlander's F2500 technology throughout China.
"This license agreement with Fuhrlander represents a great opportunity for A-Power to bolster its position in the market of high capacity 2.5MW turbines, as the wind industry is increasingly transitioning to higher capacity turbines," Mr. Jinxiang Lu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of A-Power, commented. "Wind business is a key component of our long-term growth strategy for A-Power. We're very excited with the prospects that our partnership with Fuhrlander provides, which will allow us to continue to extend our presence in the market and to realize our goal of becoming a leading turbine manufacturer in China."
About A-Power
A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. ("A-Power") is an engineering, procurement and construction ("EPC") services company. Through its China-based operating subsidiaries, it is the largest provider of distributed power generation systems in China and is expanding into the production of alternative power generation systems. Focusing on energy-efficient and environmentally friendly projects of 25MW to 400MW, A-Power operates one of the largest wind turbine manufacturing facilities in China and in March 2009, entered into an agreement to establish a joint venture partnership with GE Drivetrain Technologies to produce wind turbine gearboxes in Shenyang, Liaoning Province. It also acquired Evatech, a designer and manufacturer of industrial equipment for amorphous-silicon (a-Si) photovoltaic (PV) panels, in 2010.
In addition to the establishment of strategic relationships with the world's leading wind energy design and engineering companies, A-Power has formed joint research programs with Tsinghua University and the China Academy of Sciences to develop and commercialize other renewable energy technologies. For more information, please visit http://www.apowerenergy.com .
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release may contain forward-looking statements. Any such statement is made within the 'safe harbor' provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may", "will," "expects," "anticipates," "future," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," and other similar statements. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements relating to anticipated future earnings, margins, and other operating results, future growth, construction plans and anticipated capacities, production schedules and entry into expanded markets are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements, based upon the current beliefs and expectations of our management, are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements, including but not limited to, the risk that: inclement weather conditions could adversely affect our operating results in particular quarters and/or fiscal years; we may experience construction, manufacturing and development delays on our projects which could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results; our limited operating history and recent entrance into new jurisdictional markets may make it difficult for you to evaluate our business and future prospects; we may not be able to successfully develop our business in new jurisdictional markets, which would have a negative impact on the results of our operations derived from such new jurisdictional markets; our customers may not be able to obtain the financing required for these projects, and thus, we may not be able to derive revenues from such agreements, as well as other relevant risks detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those set forth in our annual report filed on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. The information set forth herein should be read in light of such risks. We assume no obligation to update the information contained in this press release, except as required under applicable law.
For more information, please contact
A-Power Energy Generation Systems
John S. Lin
Chief Operating Officer
Email: john@apowerenergy.com
Pursuant to the renewed license agreement, Fuhrlander granted A-Power the right to manufacture, operate, service and sell 2.5MW wind turbines using Furhlander's F2500 technology throughout China.
"This license agreement with Fuhrlander represents a great opportunity for A-Power to bolster its position in the market of high capacity 2.5MW turbines, as the wind industry is increasingly transitioning to higher capacity turbines," Mr. Jinxiang Lu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of A-Power, commented. "Wind business is a key component of our long-term growth strategy for A-Power. We're very excited with the prospects that our partnership with Fuhrlander provides, which will allow us to continue to extend our presence in the market and to realize our goal of becoming a leading turbine manufacturer in China."
About A-Power
A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. ("A-Power") is an engineering, procurement and construction ("EPC") services company. Through its China-based operating subsidiaries, it is the largest provider of distributed power generation systems in China and is expanding into the production of alternative power generation systems. Focusing on energy-efficient and environmentally friendly projects of 25MW to 400MW, A-Power operates one of the largest wind turbine manufacturing facilities in China and in March 2009, entered into an agreement to establish a joint venture partnership with GE Drivetrain Technologies to produce wind turbine gearboxes in Shenyang, Liaoning Province. It also acquired Evatech, a designer and manufacturer of industrial equipment for amorphous-silicon (a-Si) photovoltaic (PV) panels, in 2010.
In addition to the establishment of strategic relationships with the world's leading wind energy design and engineering companies, A-Power has formed joint research programs with Tsinghua University and the China Academy of Sciences to develop and commercialize other renewable energy technologies. For more information, please visit http://www.apowerenergy.com .
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release may contain forward-looking statements. Any such statement is made within the 'safe harbor' provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as "may", "will," "expects," "anticipates," "future," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates," and other similar statements. Statements that are not historical facts, including statements relating to anticipated future earnings, margins, and other operating results, future growth, construction plans and anticipated capacities, production schedules and entry into expanded markets are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements, based upon the current beliefs and expectations of our management, are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements, including but not limited to, the risk that: inclement weather conditions could adversely affect our operating results in particular quarters and/or fiscal years; we may experience construction, manufacturing and development delays on our projects which could adversely affect our financial condition and operating results; our limited operating history and recent entrance into new jurisdictional markets may make it difficult for you to evaluate our business and future prospects; we may not be able to successfully develop our business in new jurisdictional markets, which would have a negative impact on the results of our operations derived from such new jurisdictional markets; our customers may not be able to obtain the financing required for these projects, and thus, we may not be able to derive revenues from such agreements, as well as other relevant risks detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including those set forth in our annual report filed on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009. The information set forth herein should be read in light of such risks. We assume no obligation to update the information contained in this press release, except as required under applicable law.
For more information, please contact
A-Power Energy Generation Systems
John S. Lin
Chief Operating Officer
Email: john@apowerenergy.com
How to get to a zero-carbon economy
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Steven Pearlstein's column on climate policy and energy innovation ["Can regulation beget innovation?," Economy and Business, July 16] was half-right. Tighter environmental regulations have driven innovation while cleaning up smog-causing emissions from cars and power plants. But Mr. Pearlstein was wrong to suggest that merely pricing carbon will produce the low-carbon technologies we need.
Initial carbon prices will be very modest, while most forms of advanced carbon-free energy will be expensive. Carbon prices, consequently, will drive some additional demand for wind power and efficiency improvements -- and a lot of switching from coal to natural gas.
Deeper emissions reductions, however, will require development of technologies that won't meet foreseeable carbon prices; these include sequestration of coal's carbon dioxide emissions, improved storage of renewable energy, offshore wind power and, possibly, atmospheric carbon capture.
With or without carbon pricing, more direct government actions will be needed to spur development of low-carbon technologies, such as aggressive procurement of advanced energy technologies to catalyze markets, sponsorship of first-of-kind commercial demonstration projects for new technology, and setting carbon performance standards for power plants.
Getting to a zero-carbon economic system by 2050 will be a much heavier lift than previously thought. It's time to start.
Steven Pearlstein's column on climate policy and energy innovation ["Can regulation beget innovation?," Economy and Business, July 16] was half-right. Tighter environmental regulations have driven innovation while cleaning up smog-causing emissions from cars and power plants. But Mr. Pearlstein was wrong to suggest that merely pricing carbon will produce the low-carbon technologies we need.
Initial carbon prices will be very modest, while most forms of advanced carbon-free energy will be expensive. Carbon prices, consequently, will drive some additional demand for wind power and efficiency improvements -- and a lot of switching from coal to natural gas.
Deeper emissions reductions, however, will require development of technologies that won't meet foreseeable carbon prices; these include sequestration of coal's carbon dioxide emissions, improved storage of renewable energy, offshore wind power and, possibly, atmospheric carbon capture.
With or without carbon pricing, more direct government actions will be needed to spur development of low-carbon technologies, such as aggressive procurement of advanced energy technologies to catalyze markets, sponsorship of first-of-kind commercial demonstration projects for new technology, and setting carbon performance standards for power plants.
Getting to a zero-carbon economic system by 2050 will be a much heavier lift than previously thought. It's time to start.
Met Office report: global warming evidence is 'unmistakable'
A new climate change report from the Met Office and its US equivalent has provided the "greatest evidence we have ever had" that the world is warming.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 6:00PM BST 28 Jul 2010
It is the first time a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate The report brings together the latest temperature readings from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean
Usually scientists rely on the temperature over land, taken from weather stations around the world for the last 150 years, to show global warming.
Tony Blair urges Barack Obama not to let economic crisis overshadow environmentBut climate change sceptics questioned the evidence, especially in the wake of recent scandals like "climategate".
Now for the first time, a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate. The ten indicators of climate change include measurements of sea level rise taken from ships, the temperature of the upper atmosphere taken from weather balloons and field surveys of melting glaciers.
New technology also means it is possible to measure the temperature of the oceans, which absorb 90 per cent of the world's heat.
The State of the Climate report shows “unequivocally that the world is warming and has been for more than three decades”.
And despite the cold winter in Europe and north east America, this year is set to be the hottest on record.
The annual report was compiled by the Met Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Both the NOAA and Nasa have stated that the first six months of this year were the hottest on record, while the Met Office believes it is the second hottest start to the year after 1998.
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said “variability” in different regions, such as the cold winter in Britain, does not mean the rest of the world is not warming.
And he said 'greenhouse gases are the glaringly obvious explanation' for 0.56C (1F) warming over the last 50 years.
“Despite the fact people say global warming has stopped, the new data, added onto existing data, gives us the greatest evidence we have ever had,” he said.
Sceptics claimed that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate the land surface temperatures to show global warming.
The scientists were cleared by an independent inquiry but the ‘climategate scandal’ as it became known cast a shadow over the case for man made global warming.
Dr Stott said the sceptics can no longer question the land surface temperature as other records also show global warming.
He pointed out that each indicator takes independent evidence from at least 3 different institutions in order to ensure the information is correct. Despite variations from year to year, each decade has been warmer than the last since the 1980s.
"Despite the variability caused by short term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” he said. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using different data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 6:00PM BST 28 Jul 2010
It is the first time a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate The report brings together the latest temperature readings from the top of the atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean
Usually scientists rely on the temperature over land, taken from weather stations around the world for the last 150 years, to show global warming.
Tony Blair urges Barack Obama not to let economic crisis overshadow environmentBut climate change sceptics questioned the evidence, especially in the wake of recent scandals like "climategate".
Now for the first time, a report has brought together all the different ways of measuring changes in the climate. The ten indicators of climate change include measurements of sea level rise taken from ships, the temperature of the upper atmosphere taken from weather balloons and field surveys of melting glaciers.
New technology also means it is possible to measure the temperature of the oceans, which absorb 90 per cent of the world's heat.
The State of the Climate report shows “unequivocally that the world is warming and has been for more than three decades”.
And despite the cold winter in Europe and north east America, this year is set to be the hottest on record.
The annual report was compiled by the Met Office and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Both the NOAA and Nasa have stated that the first six months of this year were the hottest on record, while the Met Office believes it is the second hottest start to the year after 1998.
Dr Peter Stott, Head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution at the Met Office, said “variability” in different regions, such as the cold winter in Britain, does not mean the rest of the world is not warming.
And he said 'greenhouse gases are the glaringly obvious explanation' for 0.56C (1F) warming over the last 50 years.
“Despite the fact people say global warming has stopped, the new data, added onto existing data, gives us the greatest evidence we have ever had,” he said.
Sceptics claimed that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia show scientists were willing to manipulate the land surface temperatures to show global warming.
The scientists were cleared by an independent inquiry but the ‘climategate scandal’ as it became known cast a shadow over the case for man made global warming.
Dr Stott said the sceptics can no longer question the land surface temperature as other records also show global warming.
He pointed out that each indicator takes independent evidence from at least 3 different institutions in order to ensure the information is correct. Despite variations from year to year, each decade has been warmer than the last since the 1980s.
"Despite the variability caused by short term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” he said. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using different data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”
Green light for electric car grants
By Peter Woodman
Thursday, 29 July 2010
A promised grant of up to £5,000 towards the cost of an electric or ultra-low carbon car has survived Government cutbacks. The Transport Secretary Philip Hammond yesterday said the funding, first announced by the Labour government, will go ahead from January 2011.
The grant will reduce the cost of new ultra-low carbon vehicles by 25 per cent, capped at £5,000. The incentive has been agreed until the end of March 2012, with the level of grant being reviewed in January 2012.
The Department for Transport said the announcement of the incentive has been made before the completion of the autumn spending review to support the early market for ultra-low carbon cars.
The grant covers electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
A promised grant of up to £5,000 towards the cost of an electric or ultra-low carbon car has survived Government cutbacks. The Transport Secretary Philip Hammond yesterday said the funding, first announced by the Labour government, will go ahead from January 2011.
The grant will reduce the cost of new ultra-low carbon vehicles by 25 per cent, capped at £5,000. The incentive has been agreed until the end of March 2012, with the level of grant being reviewed in January 2012.
The Department for Transport said the announcement of the incentive has been made before the completion of the autumn spending review to support the early market for ultra-low carbon cars.
The grant covers electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
UK electric car grant scheme 'cut by 80%'
Government commits to just £43m of the original £230m promised for programme to subsidise the uptake of electric cars
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 13.39 BST Article history
A government grant scheme to give motorists up to £5,000 off the cost of a new electric car has been cut by 80%, opposition politicians and green campaigners claimed today. The fate of a network of charging points to power such low-emission cars also hangs in the balance.
Following lobbying from electric car-makers, who argued abolishing the incentive would harm the cars' take-up and hit the creation of green jobs, transport secretary, Philip Hammond, today confirmed the grant will go ahead in January 2011.
"The coalition government is absolutely committed to low-carbon growth, tackling climate change and making our energy supply more secure," said Hammond. "This will ensure that the UK is a world leader in low-emission vehicles."
However, the government has committed only to an initial fund of £43m, to run until March 2012, which will be reviewed in January 2012. Under the original £230m scheme first announced in March 2010 by Labour, there was no plan to review the scheme annually said a spokesperson for shadow transport secretary, Sadiq Khan.
But a spokesperson for the Department for Transport (DfT) said the £43m in the first year was the same level of spending under the coalition's plans as it was under the former administration's. The first tranche of money could fund up to 8,600 cars, assuming all buyers took full advantage of the £5,000 discount.
Under the "plugged-in car grant" scheme, buyers of new electric cars will be offered up to 25% off the car's price, capped at a maximum of £5,000. All of the first generation of electric cars eligible for the grant, such as the Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Telsa Roadster sports car, cost over £20,000.
Khan said: "This announcement goes nowhere near matching the ambition of the scheme as set out by Labour – there is money here for less than a quarter of the new low-carbon vehicles we envisioned. Thanks in part to this scheme and a grant from the last government, Nissan chose to manufacture its low-carbon Leaf model in Sunderland. By making Britain one of the world's leading markets for low-carbon vehicles, we could attract more manufacturers here. But to make that happen the coalition must show greater ambition than this."
There is also still uncertainty over a related "plugged-in places" project announced under the previous government to build thousands of new charging points to top up the vehicles on public streets. Almost all of the cars have a maximum range of 100 miles or less. The government said today that a decision on the financing and number of such points would be delayed until the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.
Greenpeace transport campaigner Vicky Wyatt said: "Electric cars are one of the ways we can cut our dependence on oil and move towards a clean, green transport system. That's why it's good news that the government has announced this first chunk of funding. But if the government is serious about putting hundreds of thousands more electric cars on Britain's roads, it's vital that Phillip Hammond makes a long-term commitment and stumps up the full £230m, as promised by the previous government."
"Nissan welcomes today's announcement by the government to offer consumer incentives for electric vehicles," said a company spokesperson. "In doing so, the government has signalled that Britain is serious about supporting new low-carbon technologies and is serious about helping consumers to make more sustainable choices."
Energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, said: "Electric and low-carbon cars are fun to drive and essential to meet our climate targets. That's why we'll need a massive increase in the number of electric and clean green cars on our roads. Because this is new technology the government needs to step in to kick-start the market, which is why today's initiative is vital."
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 13.39 BST Article history
A government grant scheme to give motorists up to £5,000 off the cost of a new electric car has been cut by 80%, opposition politicians and green campaigners claimed today. The fate of a network of charging points to power such low-emission cars also hangs in the balance.
Following lobbying from electric car-makers, who argued abolishing the incentive would harm the cars' take-up and hit the creation of green jobs, transport secretary, Philip Hammond, today confirmed the grant will go ahead in January 2011.
"The coalition government is absolutely committed to low-carbon growth, tackling climate change and making our energy supply more secure," said Hammond. "This will ensure that the UK is a world leader in low-emission vehicles."
However, the government has committed only to an initial fund of £43m, to run until March 2012, which will be reviewed in January 2012. Under the original £230m scheme first announced in March 2010 by Labour, there was no plan to review the scheme annually said a spokesperson for shadow transport secretary, Sadiq Khan.
But a spokesperson for the Department for Transport (DfT) said the £43m in the first year was the same level of spending under the coalition's plans as it was under the former administration's. The first tranche of money could fund up to 8,600 cars, assuming all buyers took full advantage of the £5,000 discount.
Under the "plugged-in car grant" scheme, buyers of new electric cars will be offered up to 25% off the car's price, capped at a maximum of £5,000. All of the first generation of electric cars eligible for the grant, such as the Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Telsa Roadster sports car, cost over £20,000.
Khan said: "This announcement goes nowhere near matching the ambition of the scheme as set out by Labour – there is money here for less than a quarter of the new low-carbon vehicles we envisioned. Thanks in part to this scheme and a grant from the last government, Nissan chose to manufacture its low-carbon Leaf model in Sunderland. By making Britain one of the world's leading markets for low-carbon vehicles, we could attract more manufacturers here. But to make that happen the coalition must show greater ambition than this."
There is also still uncertainty over a related "plugged-in places" project announced under the previous government to build thousands of new charging points to top up the vehicles on public streets. Almost all of the cars have a maximum range of 100 miles or less. The government said today that a decision on the financing and number of such points would be delayed until the comprehensive spending review in the autumn.
Greenpeace transport campaigner Vicky Wyatt said: "Electric cars are one of the ways we can cut our dependence on oil and move towards a clean, green transport system. That's why it's good news that the government has announced this first chunk of funding. But if the government is serious about putting hundreds of thousands more electric cars on Britain's roads, it's vital that Phillip Hammond makes a long-term commitment and stumps up the full £230m, as promised by the previous government."
"Nissan welcomes today's announcement by the government to offer consumer incentives for electric vehicles," said a company spokesperson. "In doing so, the government has signalled that Britain is serious about supporting new low-carbon technologies and is serious about helping consumers to make more sustainable choices."
Energy and climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, said: "Electric and low-carbon cars are fun to drive and essential to meet our climate targets. That's why we'll need a massive increase in the number of electric and clean green cars on our roads. Because this is new technology the government needs to step in to kick-start the market, which is why today's initiative is vital."
Obama must take a lead on climate change – and soon
The US leader must lay out a comprehensive and costed plan to the American people showing how he will move beyond oil
• Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs
Jeffrey Sachs guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 18.04 BST
All signs suggest that the planet is still hurtling headlong toward climatic disaster. The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has issued its "State of the Climate Report" covering January-May. The first five months of this year were the warmest since records began in 1880. May was the warmest month ever. Intense heat waves are currently hitting many parts of the world, yet still we fail to act.
There are several reasons for this, and we should understand them in order to break today's deadlock. First, the economic challenge of controlling human-induced climate change is truly complex. Anthropogenic climate change is caused by two principal sources of emissions of mainly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: fossil-fuel use for energy and agriculture (including deforestation to create new farmland and pastureland).
Changing the world's energy and agricultural systems is no small matter. It is not enough to just wave our hands and declare that climate change is an emergency. We need a practical strategy for overhauling two economic sectors that stand at the centre of the global economy and involve the entire world's population.
The second major challenge in addressing climate change is the complexity of the science itself. Today's understanding of earth's climate and the human-induced component of climate change is the result of extremely difficult scientific work involving many thousands of scientists in all parts of the world. This scientific understanding is incomplete, and there remain significant uncertainties about the precise magnitudes, timing, and dangers of climate change.
The general public naturally has a hard time grappling with this complexity and uncertainty, especially since the changes in climate are occurring over a timetable of decades and centuries, rather than months and years. Moreover, year-to-year and even decade-to-decade natural variations in climate are intermixed with human-induced climate change, making it even more difficult to target damaging behaviour.
This has given rise to a third problem in addressing climate change, which stems from a combination of the economic implications of the issue and the uncertainty that surrounds it. This is reflected in the brutal, destructive campaign against climate science by powerful vested interests and ideologues, apparently aimed at creating an atmosphere of ignorance and confusion.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, America's leading business newspaper, has run an aggressive editorial campaign against climate science for decades. The individuals involved in this campaign are not only scientifically uninformed, but show absolutely no interest in becoming better informed. They have turned down repeated offers by climate scientists to meet and conduct serious discussions about the issues.
Major oil companies and other big corporate interests are also playing this game, and have financed disreputable PR campaigns against climate science. Their general approach is to exaggerate the uncertainties of climate science and to leave the impression that climate scientists are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to frighten the public. It is an absurd charge, but absurd charges can gather public support if presented in a slick, well-funded format.
If we add up these three factors – the enormous economic challenge of reducing greenhouse gases, the complexity of climate science, and deliberate campaigns to confuse the public and discredit the science – we arrive at the fourth and overarching problem: US politicians' unwillingness or inability to formulate a sensible climate-change policy.
The US bears disproportionate responsibility for inaction on climate change, because it was long the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, until last year, when China overtook it. Even today, per capita US emissions are more than four times higher than China's. Yet, despite America's central role in global emissions, the US Senate has done nothing about climate change since ratifying the UN climate change treaty 16 years ago.
When Barack Obama was elected US president, there was hope for progress. Yet, while it is clear that Obama would like to move forward on the issue, so far he has pursued a failed strategy of negotiating with senators and key industries to try to forge an agreement. Yet the special interest groups have dominated the process, and Obama has failed to make any headway.
The Obama administration should have tried – and should still try – an alternative approach. Instead of negotiating with vested interests in the back rooms of the White House and Congress, the president should present a coherent plan to the American people. He should propose a sound strategy over the next 20 years for reducing America's dependence on fossil fuels, converting to electric vehicles, and expanding non-carbon energy sources such as solar and wind power. He could then present an estimated price tag for phasing in these changes over time, and demonstrate that the costs would be modest compared to the enormous benefits.
Strangely, despite being a candidate of change, Obama has not taken the approach of presenting real plans of action for change. His administration is trapped more and more in the paralysing grip of special-interest groups. Whether this is an intended outcome, so that Obama and his party can continue to mobilise large campaign contributions, or the result of poor decision-making is difficult to determine – and may reflect a bit of both.
What is clear is that we are courting disaster as a result. Nature doesn't care about our political machinations. And nature is telling us that our current economic model is dangerous and self-defeating. Unless we find some real global leadership in the next few years, we will learn that lesson in the hardest ways possible.
• Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia university. He is also pecial adviser to UN secretary-general on the millennium development goals. There is a podcast of this commentary.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
• Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs
Jeffrey Sachs guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 July 2010 18.04 BST
All signs suggest that the planet is still hurtling headlong toward climatic disaster. The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has issued its "State of the Climate Report" covering January-May. The first five months of this year were the warmest since records began in 1880. May was the warmest month ever. Intense heat waves are currently hitting many parts of the world, yet still we fail to act.
There are several reasons for this, and we should understand them in order to break today's deadlock. First, the economic challenge of controlling human-induced climate change is truly complex. Anthropogenic climate change is caused by two principal sources of emissions of mainly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: fossil-fuel use for energy and agriculture (including deforestation to create new farmland and pastureland).
Changing the world's energy and agricultural systems is no small matter. It is not enough to just wave our hands and declare that climate change is an emergency. We need a practical strategy for overhauling two economic sectors that stand at the centre of the global economy and involve the entire world's population.
The second major challenge in addressing climate change is the complexity of the science itself. Today's understanding of earth's climate and the human-induced component of climate change is the result of extremely difficult scientific work involving many thousands of scientists in all parts of the world. This scientific understanding is incomplete, and there remain significant uncertainties about the precise magnitudes, timing, and dangers of climate change.
The general public naturally has a hard time grappling with this complexity and uncertainty, especially since the changes in climate are occurring over a timetable of decades and centuries, rather than months and years. Moreover, year-to-year and even decade-to-decade natural variations in climate are intermixed with human-induced climate change, making it even more difficult to target damaging behaviour.
This has given rise to a third problem in addressing climate change, which stems from a combination of the economic implications of the issue and the uncertainty that surrounds it. This is reflected in the brutal, destructive campaign against climate science by powerful vested interests and ideologues, apparently aimed at creating an atmosphere of ignorance and confusion.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, America's leading business newspaper, has run an aggressive editorial campaign against climate science for decades. The individuals involved in this campaign are not only scientifically uninformed, but show absolutely no interest in becoming better informed. They have turned down repeated offers by climate scientists to meet and conduct serious discussions about the issues.
Major oil companies and other big corporate interests are also playing this game, and have financed disreputable PR campaigns against climate science. Their general approach is to exaggerate the uncertainties of climate science and to leave the impression that climate scientists are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to frighten the public. It is an absurd charge, but absurd charges can gather public support if presented in a slick, well-funded format.
If we add up these three factors – the enormous economic challenge of reducing greenhouse gases, the complexity of climate science, and deliberate campaigns to confuse the public and discredit the science – we arrive at the fourth and overarching problem: US politicians' unwillingness or inability to formulate a sensible climate-change policy.
The US bears disproportionate responsibility for inaction on climate change, because it was long the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, until last year, when China overtook it. Even today, per capita US emissions are more than four times higher than China's. Yet, despite America's central role in global emissions, the US Senate has done nothing about climate change since ratifying the UN climate change treaty 16 years ago.
When Barack Obama was elected US president, there was hope for progress. Yet, while it is clear that Obama would like to move forward on the issue, so far he has pursued a failed strategy of negotiating with senators and key industries to try to forge an agreement. Yet the special interest groups have dominated the process, and Obama has failed to make any headway.
The Obama administration should have tried – and should still try – an alternative approach. Instead of negotiating with vested interests in the back rooms of the White House and Congress, the president should present a coherent plan to the American people. He should propose a sound strategy over the next 20 years for reducing America's dependence on fossil fuels, converting to electric vehicles, and expanding non-carbon energy sources such as solar and wind power. He could then present an estimated price tag for phasing in these changes over time, and demonstrate that the costs would be modest compared to the enormous benefits.
Strangely, despite being a candidate of change, Obama has not taken the approach of presenting real plans of action for change. His administration is trapped more and more in the paralysing grip of special-interest groups. Whether this is an intended outcome, so that Obama and his party can continue to mobilise large campaign contributions, or the result of poor decision-making is difficult to determine – and may reflect a bit of both.
What is clear is that we are courting disaster as a result. Nature doesn't care about our political machinations. And nature is telling us that our current economic model is dangerous and self-defeating. Unless we find some real global leadership in the next few years, we will learn that lesson in the hardest ways possible.
• Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia university. He is also pecial adviser to UN secretary-general on the millennium development goals. There is a podcast of this commentary.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
