By Fiona Harvey in London
Published: July 2 2008 03:01
Investment in renewable energy increased at a quickening pace last year in spite of the cooling in key economies.
Renewables and other forms of low-carbon energy bucked the economic slowdown, with nearly $150bn (€95bn, £75bn) invested in the technologies worldwide, according to a report from the United Nations Environment Programme.
Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP, said: “[This] is a true cause for hope that rising concerns over climate change and energy prices are leading to a fundamental change in the way we produce and use energy.”
He said: “These figures show the finance sector’s forward view may be better at seeing the disruptive change of new technology.”
Last year’s total was an increase of 60 per cent on the previous year’s $93bn. The pace of growth was slightly higher than the 57 per cent increase in investment from $59bn in 2005.
Investment in low-carbon energy has risen more than fivefold since 2004, when it stood at $33.4bn globally.
The impact of the cooling economy was felt in early 2008, with fewer new public listings and the stock prices of sustainable energy companies down by about 18 per cent, according to the report, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008.
However, investors quickly recovered their nerve, probably under the influence of rising oil prices. Investment in low-carbon energy for the first half of 2008 was greater than in the first half of last year.
The report’s authors said this showed the sector was resilient to the slowdown elsewhere in the economy.
Europe took the lion’s share of renewables investment last year, followed by the US. But China, India and Brazil also saw an increasing share of investment.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Solar industry's pain in Spain
By Bryce Elder and Neil Hume
Published: July 2 2008 03:00
Solar industry operators fell after the Spanish secretary of energy proposed a lower than expected cap on annual solar installations.
Spain is estimated to buy between a fifth and a quarter of solar panels produced this year as sun farm operators have rushed to exploit a loophole in green legislation.
If the new tariffs stick, Spanish demand could drop to 4 per cent of supply, analysts at Jeffries said. "The solar industry [may have] slain the Spanish golden goose," said the broker.
Renesola fell 7.3 per cent to 415p. PV Crystalox Solar was down 0.1 per cent from 198¾p, having hit a record high in the previous session.
Aero Inventory gained 1.2 per cent to 574p amid rumours that Bridgepoint had formally tabled an indicative cash offer. The aerospace parts supplier said last month it had received a preliminary bid proposal.
Tanfield , the electric vehicle maker, warned that sales had deteriorated and that cash reserves were down to £11m after a £17m outflow in six months.
The company, whose shares had halved inside a week, dropped a further 82.7 per cent to 5½p. "The fear in the market will be that the company will run out of cash fairly soon," Daniel Stewart analyst Mike Stoddart said.
Melorio , a vocational training business, was up 1.9 per cent to 82½p after five directors bought stock.
Magazine publisher Future was marked higher by 7.8 per cent to 27¾p after several large trades were recorded. Dealers dismissed the significance, saying a market-maker had been rearranging its holding.
Eros International gained 2.7 per cent to 290p after Citigroup added the Bollywood film maker to its "buy" list.
Richard Taylor, analyst, envisaged some "serious risks" in Eros stock, including a small free float, opaque reporting methods and a possible capital raising in India. But these worries were outweighed by the potential for 27 per cent compound annual earnings growth to 2011, he said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: July 2 2008 03:00
Solar industry operators fell after the Spanish secretary of energy proposed a lower than expected cap on annual solar installations.
Spain is estimated to buy between a fifth and a quarter of solar panels produced this year as sun farm operators have rushed to exploit a loophole in green legislation.
If the new tariffs stick, Spanish demand could drop to 4 per cent of supply, analysts at Jeffries said. "The solar industry [may have] slain the Spanish golden goose," said the broker.
Renesola fell 7.3 per cent to 415p. PV Crystalox Solar was down 0.1 per cent from 198¾p, having hit a record high in the previous session.
Aero Inventory gained 1.2 per cent to 574p amid rumours that Bridgepoint had formally tabled an indicative cash offer. The aerospace parts supplier said last month it had received a preliminary bid proposal.
Tanfield , the electric vehicle maker, warned that sales had deteriorated and that cash reserves were down to £11m after a £17m outflow in six months.
The company, whose shares had halved inside a week, dropped a further 82.7 per cent to 5½p. "The fear in the market will be that the company will run out of cash fairly soon," Daniel Stewart analyst Mike Stoddart said.
Melorio , a vocational training business, was up 1.9 per cent to 82½p after five directors bought stock.
Magazine publisher Future was marked higher by 7.8 per cent to 27¾p after several large trades were recorded. Dealers dismissed the significance, saying a market-maker had been rearranging its holding.
Eros International gained 2.7 per cent to 290p after Citigroup added the Bollywood film maker to its "buy" list.
Richard Taylor, analyst, envisaged some "serious risks" in Eros stock, including a small free float, opaque reporting methods and a possible capital raising in India. But these worries were outweighed by the potential for 27 per cent compound annual earnings growth to 2011, he said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Rebel MPs are promised changes to road tax reforms
Philip Webster and Siobhan Kennedy
The Government is expected to climb down on its controversial plans to impose retrospective charges as part of its road tax shake-up.
It is understood that promises of changes to the scheme, which is designed to penalise drivers of high-polluting vehicles, persuaded Labour MPs to back away from a revolt.
In the end only six Labour rebels voted with the Conservatives to end retrospective charge, which will affect people who bought cars after 2002, although at least 50 had voiced their concerns. But MPs have warned ministers that if Alistair Darling, in his PreBudget Report in the autumn, failed to make the changes, the plans would almost certainly be defeated later in the year.
Angela Eagle, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who had denied that the plans were retrospective, told worried MPs that she had been listening closely to their views. There were no “easy solutions”, she said.
Behind the scenes, MPs had received far stronger private assurances from the whips that the matter would be “sorted”.
The Government is expected to climb down on its controversial plans to impose retrospective charges as part of its road tax shake-up.
It is understood that promises of changes to the scheme, which is designed to penalise drivers of high-polluting vehicles, persuaded Labour MPs to back away from a revolt.
In the end only six Labour rebels voted with the Conservatives to end retrospective charge, which will affect people who bought cars after 2002, although at least 50 had voiced their concerns. But MPs have warned ministers that if Alistair Darling, in his PreBudget Report in the autumn, failed to make the changes, the plans would almost certainly be defeated later in the year.
Angela Eagle, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who had denied that the plans were retrospective, told worried MPs that she had been listening closely to their views. There were no “easy solutions”, she said.
Behind the scenes, MPs had received far stronger private assurances from the whips that the matter would be “sorted”.
"UK should call for freeze on the 75 new coal -fired power stations planned for Europe"
By Paul Eccleston
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 02/07/2008
The UK should lead the way in calling for a freeze on the building of new coal-fired power stations, according to a think-tank report.
A Europe-wide block for at least two years on coal investment is necessary if cuts in carbon emissions are to be achieved.
RWE owned Neurath coal power station near Grevenbroich, Germany
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says the target of reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector and heavy industry of 21 per cent by 2020 is threatened by plans for new coal plants.
The IPPR says there are proposals for 75 new coal plants across Europe including seven in the UK. So far only one formal application has been made, by E.On UK, to build a new plant at Kingsnorth in Kent.
The IPPR study says that even if only a proportion of the plants are built, the EU emissions reduction target would only be achievable through widespread use of the untested technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Although CCS has the potential to cut carbon emissions from coal plants by up to 90 per cent, the technology is unlikely to be ready until after 2020 according to industry experts.
advertisement
Earlier this week the Government announced that four energy companies - BP, E.ON, Peel Power and Scottish Power - have been shortlisted to build one of the first CCS plants in the world.
CCS traps carbon dioxide - the most common greenhouse gas - which is created when fossil fuels are burnt and stores it permanently underground. The project will capture CO2 from a coal-fired power plant after combustion, and show how it can be trapped, transported and stored.
Energy Secretary John Hutton said the scheme, along with a consultation on how to make new fossil fuel power stations ready to take the technology once it is available, would help meet a goal of making CCS ready for wide-scale deployment by 2020.
Matthew Lockwood, senior research fellow at IPPR and author of the report, said: "The Government says that the EU's carbon trading scheme is the central pillar of its climate policy, not only for reducing emissions but also for building a global climate change agreement.
"However, that pillar is still weak, and IPPR's report shows that the scheme would collapse in the event of a new coal rush. Europe needs to do two things urgently - freeze conventional coal investment until we get greater certainty, and accelerate the development of new carbon capture technologies."
The report says a moratorium on new coal power plants should remain in place until uncertainty about a new post-Kyoto global climate deal is resolved - at least until 2010 - and carbon markets are guiding investment more effectively. It also calls on the Government to take up the issue with Germany, the largest potential new coal market in order to agree an EU-wide moratorium.
The IPPR says speeding up the CCS timetable is essential alongside an EU Directive on CCS as part of an energy and climate package which includes finance for the EU's goal of 12 demonstration plants.
The UK should also support a second CCS demonstration project and begin planning the national infrastructure that will be needed to transport and store carbon dioxide in natural rock formations in the North Sea.
In the UK, energy companies are considering investing in up to seven new coal-fired power stations although only one formal application has so far been made.
Estimates of new coal capacity being considered across the EU range from 38 GW to 64 GW. Germany, the UK, Holland, Poland and Italy are the major potential new coal markets.
Potential new UK coal plants
Location
Company
Capacity
Status at January 2008
Kingsnorth
E.ON
1.6 GW
Approved by Medway Council, with BERR for Section 36 approval
High Marnham
E.ON
1.6 GW
N/A
Tilbury
RWE npower
1.6 GW
Scoping report submitted. S36 application imminent
Blyth
RWE npower
2.4 GW
Scoping report submitted. S36 application imminent
Ferrybridge
Scottish and Southern Energy
800 MW
Scoping studies underway. S36 application shortly
Longannet
Scottish Power
2.3 GW
Feasibility study announced
Cockenzie
Scottish Power
1.15 GW
Feasibility study announced
Section 36 refers to approval required for all large power plants from the Secretary of State
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 02/07/2008
The UK should lead the way in calling for a freeze on the building of new coal-fired power stations, according to a think-tank report.
A Europe-wide block for at least two years on coal investment is necessary if cuts in carbon emissions are to be achieved.
RWE owned Neurath coal power station near Grevenbroich, Germany
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) says the target of reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector and heavy industry of 21 per cent by 2020 is threatened by plans for new coal plants.
The IPPR says there are proposals for 75 new coal plants across Europe including seven in the UK. So far only one formal application has been made, by E.On UK, to build a new plant at Kingsnorth in Kent.
The IPPR study says that even if only a proportion of the plants are built, the EU emissions reduction target would only be achievable through widespread use of the untested technology of carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Although CCS has the potential to cut carbon emissions from coal plants by up to 90 per cent, the technology is unlikely to be ready until after 2020 according to industry experts.
advertisement
Earlier this week the Government announced that four energy companies - BP, E.ON, Peel Power and Scottish Power - have been shortlisted to build one of the first CCS plants in the world.
CCS traps carbon dioxide - the most common greenhouse gas - which is created when fossil fuels are burnt and stores it permanently underground. The project will capture CO2 from a coal-fired power plant after combustion, and show how it can be trapped, transported and stored.
Energy Secretary John Hutton said the scheme, along with a consultation on how to make new fossil fuel power stations ready to take the technology once it is available, would help meet a goal of making CCS ready for wide-scale deployment by 2020.
Matthew Lockwood, senior research fellow at IPPR and author of the report, said: "The Government says that the EU's carbon trading scheme is the central pillar of its climate policy, not only for reducing emissions but also for building a global climate change agreement.
"However, that pillar is still weak, and IPPR's report shows that the scheme would collapse in the event of a new coal rush. Europe needs to do two things urgently - freeze conventional coal investment until we get greater certainty, and accelerate the development of new carbon capture technologies."
The report says a moratorium on new coal power plants should remain in place until uncertainty about a new post-Kyoto global climate deal is resolved - at least until 2010 - and carbon markets are guiding investment more effectively. It also calls on the Government to take up the issue with Germany, the largest potential new coal market in order to agree an EU-wide moratorium.
The IPPR says speeding up the CCS timetable is essential alongside an EU Directive on CCS as part of an energy and climate package which includes finance for the EU's goal of 12 demonstration plants.
The UK should also support a second CCS demonstration project and begin planning the national infrastructure that will be needed to transport and store carbon dioxide in natural rock formations in the North Sea.
In the UK, energy companies are considering investing in up to seven new coal-fired power stations although only one formal application has so far been made.
Estimates of new coal capacity being considered across the EU range from 38 GW to 64 GW. Germany, the UK, Holland, Poland and Italy are the major potential new coal markets.
Potential new UK coal plants
Location
Company
Capacity
Status at January 2008
Kingsnorth
E.ON
1.6 GW
Approved by Medway Council, with BERR for Section 36 approval
High Marnham
E.ON
1.6 GW
N/A
Tilbury
RWE npower
1.6 GW
Scoping report submitted. S36 application imminent
Blyth
RWE npower
2.4 GW
Scoping report submitted. S36 application imminent
Ferrybridge
Scottish and Southern Energy
800 MW
Scoping studies underway. S36 application shortly
Longannet
Scottish Power
2.3 GW
Feasibility study announced
Cockenzie
Scottish Power
1.15 GW
Feasibility study announced
Section 36 refers to approval required for all large power plants from the Secretary of State
Clean tech: Green energy is the modern gold rush
Alternative power Investors are falling over themselves to put cash into the search for cleaner fuels
Terry Macalister
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 2, 2008
The "clean tech" sector has bounced back from the credit crunch with new global figures showing a resurgence of interest from investors in alternative energy - labelled a "green Klondike" that could reach $600bn annually by 2020.
New Energy Finance, a specialist consultant which has compiled the latest figures for the United Nations environment programme, says money raised and spent during 2008 should be ahead of 2007, a banner year when annual investment levels grew 60% to reach almost $150bn (£73bn).
"Just as thousands were drawn to California and the Klondike in the late 1800s, the green energy gold rush is attracting legions of modern day prospectors in all parts of the globe," said Achim Steiner, the head of the UN's environment programme.
"More than a century later, the key difference is that a higher proportion of those looking for riches today may find them. With world temperatures rising and fossil fuel prices climbing higher, it is obvious to the public and investors alike that the transition to a low-carbon society is both a global imperative and an inevitability," added Steiner as he launched the report, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008.
The UN admits that the last half-year has been a turbulent period as a result of the credit crunch which has sent shares reeling across most sectors and undermined investors' appetite for risk. The volume of new money coming into the wind, solar and biomass sector from the capital markets fell off in the first three months of 2008, with $1bn of new investment compared with a figure of $12.8bn in the last quarter of 2007. The most recent 12 weeks have seen a recovery, with $4.3bn splashed out - in line with the average quarterly figures seen in 2007, which was a bumper year for clean tech, according to London-based New Energy Finance.
"There are clear signs that the clean tech sector is proving more resilient than other sectors such as mainstream construction which is in recession in some parts of the world," said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. "We saw 60% growth in 2007 and the overall expectations for this year will be that the numbers will either move sideways or slightly up on the $148bn seen in 2007," he said.
Michael McNamara, clean tech analyst at US investment house Jefferies, is also upbeat: "The credit crunch did have some impact, but only on marginal projects and for every one cancelled there is always another one popping up. I am not seeing any shortage of calls."
The latest figures suggest the world is on track to spend $450bn per annum by 2012 and hit $600bn a year by 2020, according to the UN. New investment in all forms of energy, including oil and gas, is currently $1.3tn, meaning clean tech has already secured 10% of the new investment market. New Energy Finance points out that the amount of investment made by venture capitalists and private equity had risen strongly in the last quarter to $4.7bn, compared with $2.5bn in the first three months of the year and an average quarterly figure of between $3bn and $3.5bn during 2006 and 2007.
The figures for asset financing - the actual money being pumped into new projects such as wind farms, look less encouraging with $37bn in the fourth quarter of 2007 falling to $28bn in the first three months of 2008 and $19bn in the last 12 weeks.
The general rise in investment levels has partly been driven by new political initiatives coming from governments keen to improve energy security at a time of soaring oil prices as well as the drive to cut carbon emissions.
Last week, the British government set out a new set of ambitious policies to kickstart more investment in wind, wave and biomass.
The UN report shows wind attracting the most new money in 2007 ($50.2bn), but solar is growing at the most rapid rate year on year. The $28.6bn of new capital going into solar means that the sector has expanded annually at more than 250% since 2004.
The wind sector was given a huge boost by the $7.2bn flotation in December of the wind power development arm of the Spanish power group Iberdrola, the largest ever initial public offering in Spain.
The Chinese wind group Goldwind broke new ground when it raised $243m in December, in what was the Shenzhen stock exchange's first IPO-related solely to renewable energy.
Meanwhile Chinese solar companies raised $2.5bn on the US and European equity markets during 2007 while India became the fourth largest wind power producer in the world after attracting $2.5bn worth of asset financing for turbine projects.
Even in Africa, $1.3bn worth of asset finance was raised for a variety of sustainable energy schemes, mainly in biofuels and geothermal, reversing a gradual decline since 2004. Sub-Saharan Africa - "arguably the region that has most to gain from renewable energy" - remains largely unexploited, says the report.
Investment in energy efficiency last year reached a record of $1.8bn, an increase of 78% from 2006 with North America attracting the most funds despite the fact that its legislation lags behind that of Europe. The International Energy Agency claims that each $1 ploughed into energy efficiency on average avoids more than $2 needed to create new supply.
The report notes a change in attitudes that has taken place in the formerly conservative financial sector citing, as an example, the recent move by the top Wall Street investment banks Citi, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, to launch a set of Carbon Principles to guide the way they lend to and advise power companies in the US.
Terry Macalister
The Guardian,
Wednesday July 2, 2008
The "clean tech" sector has bounced back from the credit crunch with new global figures showing a resurgence of interest from investors in alternative energy - labelled a "green Klondike" that could reach $600bn annually by 2020.
New Energy Finance, a specialist consultant which has compiled the latest figures for the United Nations environment programme, says money raised and spent during 2008 should be ahead of 2007, a banner year when annual investment levels grew 60% to reach almost $150bn (£73bn).
"Just as thousands were drawn to California and the Klondike in the late 1800s, the green energy gold rush is attracting legions of modern day prospectors in all parts of the globe," said Achim Steiner, the head of the UN's environment programme.
"More than a century later, the key difference is that a higher proportion of those looking for riches today may find them. With world temperatures rising and fossil fuel prices climbing higher, it is obvious to the public and investors alike that the transition to a low-carbon society is both a global imperative and an inevitability," added Steiner as he launched the report, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008.
The UN admits that the last half-year has been a turbulent period as a result of the credit crunch which has sent shares reeling across most sectors and undermined investors' appetite for risk. The volume of new money coming into the wind, solar and biomass sector from the capital markets fell off in the first three months of 2008, with $1bn of new investment compared with a figure of $12.8bn in the last quarter of 2007. The most recent 12 weeks have seen a recovery, with $4.3bn splashed out - in line with the average quarterly figures seen in 2007, which was a bumper year for clean tech, according to London-based New Energy Finance.
"There are clear signs that the clean tech sector is proving more resilient than other sectors such as mainstream construction which is in recession in some parts of the world," said Michael Liebreich, chief executive of New Energy Finance. "We saw 60% growth in 2007 and the overall expectations for this year will be that the numbers will either move sideways or slightly up on the $148bn seen in 2007," he said.
Michael McNamara, clean tech analyst at US investment house Jefferies, is also upbeat: "The credit crunch did have some impact, but only on marginal projects and for every one cancelled there is always another one popping up. I am not seeing any shortage of calls."
The latest figures suggest the world is on track to spend $450bn per annum by 2012 and hit $600bn a year by 2020, according to the UN. New investment in all forms of energy, including oil and gas, is currently $1.3tn, meaning clean tech has already secured 10% of the new investment market. New Energy Finance points out that the amount of investment made by venture capitalists and private equity had risen strongly in the last quarter to $4.7bn, compared with $2.5bn in the first three months of the year and an average quarterly figure of between $3bn and $3.5bn during 2006 and 2007.
The figures for asset financing - the actual money being pumped into new projects such as wind farms, look less encouraging with $37bn in the fourth quarter of 2007 falling to $28bn in the first three months of 2008 and $19bn in the last 12 weeks.
The general rise in investment levels has partly been driven by new political initiatives coming from governments keen to improve energy security at a time of soaring oil prices as well as the drive to cut carbon emissions.
Last week, the British government set out a new set of ambitious policies to kickstart more investment in wind, wave and biomass.
The UN report shows wind attracting the most new money in 2007 ($50.2bn), but solar is growing at the most rapid rate year on year. The $28.6bn of new capital going into solar means that the sector has expanded annually at more than 250% since 2004.
The wind sector was given a huge boost by the $7.2bn flotation in December of the wind power development arm of the Spanish power group Iberdrola, the largest ever initial public offering in Spain.
The Chinese wind group Goldwind broke new ground when it raised $243m in December, in what was the Shenzhen stock exchange's first IPO-related solely to renewable energy.
Meanwhile Chinese solar companies raised $2.5bn on the US and European equity markets during 2007 while India became the fourth largest wind power producer in the world after attracting $2.5bn worth of asset financing for turbine projects.
Even in Africa, $1.3bn worth of asset finance was raised for a variety of sustainable energy schemes, mainly in biofuels and geothermal, reversing a gradual decline since 2004. Sub-Saharan Africa - "arguably the region that has most to gain from renewable energy" - remains largely unexploited, says the report.
Investment in energy efficiency last year reached a record of $1.8bn, an increase of 78% from 2006 with North America attracting the most funds despite the fact that its legislation lags behind that of Europe. The International Energy Agency claims that each $1 ploughed into energy efficiency on average avoids more than $2 needed to create new supply.
The report notes a change in attitudes that has taken place in the formerly conservative financial sector citing, as an example, the recent move by the top Wall Street investment banks Citi, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, to launch a set of Carbon Principles to guide the way they lend to and advise power companies in the US.
All the low-carbon fun of Formula One
By Jonathan Guthrie
Published: July 3 2008 03:00
It is disturbing to picture what this weekend's British Grand Prix would be like if it were environmentally friendly. Lewis Hamilton for McLaren and Felipe Massa of Ferrari would trundle grimly round the course in their 30mph hydrogen-driven go-karts. Meanwhile, a cloudy sky would leave Jenson Button stranded motionless in his solar-powered Honda. The crowd would secretly wish they had stayed at home to watch Wimbledon on television.
I make the point to illustrate the gulf between traditional grunt 'n' groan motorsport and the low-carbon racing that is largely the preserve of boffins and amateur enthusiasts. The chasm is thankfully narrowing. It will have closed entirely when Formula One cars whisper along powered by electricity in a giant version of Scalextric.
That day cannot come too soon. Motorsport is balanced on a cusp where other previously praiseworthy activities - including smoking, elephant shooting and western military imperialism - teetered before becoming uncool. The problem is that performance car racing is as friendly to the environment as napalming virgin rainforest. The typical Formula One car does a flamboyant 3.8 miles to the gallon, generating enough heat to condemn whole families of polar bears to a long swim.
Pondering the transition to a low-carbon economy, Chris Aylett, head of the UK's Motorsport Industry Association, concludes: "On the face of it, this whole industry could be wiped out." That would be a shame. Motor racing generates revenues of £5bn a year in the UK alone and is a hotbed of innovation. Moreover, it is unabashed fun.
The best solution is for motorsport to jump on the bandwagon and go green too. "As the population begins to think guiltily about fuel-extravagant activities, they will still want the excitement of motor racing," says Julia King, vice-chancellor of Aston University and author of a Treasury report on green vehicles. "[Electric racing] is the perfect solution. Otherwise it may become hard to justify motorsport."
As oil prices spike ever upward, racing teams and their sponsors have an opportunity to morph from eco criminals into apostles of low-carbon motoring. Mass-produced green cars badly need an injection of the glamour that motorsport is so adept at providing. They are, in Mr Aylett's words, "uninteresting and unattractive". He has a point. The main choice for British consumers is between the Prius, endorsed by uber-geek Bill Gates, and the G Wiz, a runabout resembling an orthopaedic boot. The 125mph Tesla sports car has only just entered production.
In its current incarnation low-carbon racing also smacks more of Professor Pat Pending and his Convert-a-Car than dashing Dick Dastardly in the Mean Machine. It boasts such esoteric contests as electric drag racing and solar-powered rallies involving cars shaped like flying saucers. As the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, motorsport's governing body, dolefully admits: "We know [these competitions] are the future, but they do not attract a massive following."
However, green technology is now crossing into the mainstream. Last year, Toyota fielded a hybrid vehicle in Japan's Tokachi 24-hour rally, a race dominated by petrol cars. It won. This year, ex-defence minister Paul Drayson is racing an Aston Martin powered by plant waste bioethanol in the American Le Mans series. Next year, an F1 rule change will allow drivers to deploy gizmos that capture energy lost during braking and release it to boost acceleration later. At least two F1 teams are expected to fit their cars with flywheels, devices associated with steam traction engines.
You may scoff. But in a few years you could be jangling your car keys à la Jeremy Clarkson and boasting about the extra poke a high-tech flywheel has given to your new ride. Motorsport spawns innovation. Tiny improvements in performance are worth striving for when race results are measured in milliseconds. The resulting technologies improve production-line cars. Motor racing has been the laboratory for breakthroughs ranging from streamlining to lightweight composites.
Ultimately, motorsport is likely to go electric to maintain its vital link with everyday motoring. Professor King's report identified vehicles powered by nuclear or renewable electricity as the lowest-emission option for road transport. The alternatives have bigger drawbacks, as illustrated by the pressure put on food prices by bioethanol production. Hydrogen technology is hampered by its lack of a fuel distribution network.
Electric vehicles, in contrast, can be topped up from a wall socket. The challenge is to develop batteries that hold more watts and recharge faster.
A problem specific to electric motor racing is that it is eerily quiet. Motorsport fans like their tyre-burning action to be accompanied by the banshee howl of high-speed piston engines. Mr Aylett admits motorsport executives have discussed whether electric cars could be fitted with loudspeakers relaying recordings of engine noise. Commentators would meanwhile face a culture shock of their own in describing electric races. Terms like "zooming", "roaring" and "screaming" would no longer suit.
Of course, one form of low-carbon racing has been with us for centuries. The vehicles burn sustainable fuel - oats - and their waste can be recycled as rose fertiliser. But expecting Messrs Hamilton, Massa and Button to gallop round Silverstone on thoroughbreds is perhaps too big an ask.
jonathan.guthrie@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: July 3 2008 03:00
It is disturbing to picture what this weekend's British Grand Prix would be like if it were environmentally friendly. Lewis Hamilton for McLaren and Felipe Massa of Ferrari would trundle grimly round the course in their 30mph hydrogen-driven go-karts. Meanwhile, a cloudy sky would leave Jenson Button stranded motionless in his solar-powered Honda. The crowd would secretly wish they had stayed at home to watch Wimbledon on television.
I make the point to illustrate the gulf between traditional grunt 'n' groan motorsport and the low-carbon racing that is largely the preserve of boffins and amateur enthusiasts. The chasm is thankfully narrowing. It will have closed entirely when Formula One cars whisper along powered by electricity in a giant version of Scalextric.
That day cannot come too soon. Motorsport is balanced on a cusp where other previously praiseworthy activities - including smoking, elephant shooting and western military imperialism - teetered before becoming uncool. The problem is that performance car racing is as friendly to the environment as napalming virgin rainforest. The typical Formula One car does a flamboyant 3.8 miles to the gallon, generating enough heat to condemn whole families of polar bears to a long swim.
Pondering the transition to a low-carbon economy, Chris Aylett, head of the UK's Motorsport Industry Association, concludes: "On the face of it, this whole industry could be wiped out." That would be a shame. Motor racing generates revenues of £5bn a year in the UK alone and is a hotbed of innovation. Moreover, it is unabashed fun.
The best solution is for motorsport to jump on the bandwagon and go green too. "As the population begins to think guiltily about fuel-extravagant activities, they will still want the excitement of motor racing," says Julia King, vice-chancellor of Aston University and author of a Treasury report on green vehicles. "[Electric racing] is the perfect solution. Otherwise it may become hard to justify motorsport."
As oil prices spike ever upward, racing teams and their sponsors have an opportunity to morph from eco criminals into apostles of low-carbon motoring. Mass-produced green cars badly need an injection of the glamour that motorsport is so adept at providing. They are, in Mr Aylett's words, "uninteresting and unattractive". He has a point. The main choice for British consumers is between the Prius, endorsed by uber-geek Bill Gates, and the G Wiz, a runabout resembling an orthopaedic boot. The 125mph Tesla sports car has only just entered production.
In its current incarnation low-carbon racing also smacks more of Professor Pat Pending and his Convert-a-Car than dashing Dick Dastardly in the Mean Machine. It boasts such esoteric contests as electric drag racing and solar-powered rallies involving cars shaped like flying saucers. As the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, motorsport's governing body, dolefully admits: "We know [these competitions] are the future, but they do not attract a massive following."
However, green technology is now crossing into the mainstream. Last year, Toyota fielded a hybrid vehicle in Japan's Tokachi 24-hour rally, a race dominated by petrol cars. It won. This year, ex-defence minister Paul Drayson is racing an Aston Martin powered by plant waste bioethanol in the American Le Mans series. Next year, an F1 rule change will allow drivers to deploy gizmos that capture energy lost during braking and release it to boost acceleration later. At least two F1 teams are expected to fit their cars with flywheels, devices associated with steam traction engines.
You may scoff. But in a few years you could be jangling your car keys à la Jeremy Clarkson and boasting about the extra poke a high-tech flywheel has given to your new ride. Motorsport spawns innovation. Tiny improvements in performance are worth striving for when race results are measured in milliseconds. The resulting technologies improve production-line cars. Motor racing has been the laboratory for breakthroughs ranging from streamlining to lightweight composites.
Ultimately, motorsport is likely to go electric to maintain its vital link with everyday motoring. Professor King's report identified vehicles powered by nuclear or renewable electricity as the lowest-emission option for road transport. The alternatives have bigger drawbacks, as illustrated by the pressure put on food prices by bioethanol production. Hydrogen technology is hampered by its lack of a fuel distribution network.
Electric vehicles, in contrast, can be topped up from a wall socket. The challenge is to develop batteries that hold more watts and recharge faster.
A problem specific to electric motor racing is that it is eerily quiet. Motorsport fans like their tyre-burning action to be accompanied by the banshee howl of high-speed piston engines. Mr Aylett admits motorsport executives have discussed whether electric cars could be fitted with loudspeakers relaying recordings of engine noise. Commentators would meanwhile face a culture shock of their own in describing electric races. Terms like "zooming", "roaring" and "screaming" would no longer suit.
Of course, one form of low-carbon racing has been with us for centuries. The vehicles burn sustainable fuel - oats - and their waste can be recycled as rose fertiliser. But expecting Messrs Hamilton, Massa and Button to gallop round Silverstone on thoroughbreds is perhaps too big an ask.
jonathan.guthrie@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
easyJet ads criticised over green claims
Mark Sweney
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday July 2, 2008
The advertising regulator has criticised a press campaign by easyJet for making the misleading environmental claim that its aircraft made 22% less emissions than rival airlines.
EasyJet's press ad, which ran with the headline "Demand a more intelligent approach to aviation", asked questions about whether air travel should be "cleaner".
One question asked "Can individuals help?", with easyJet's response: "Yes. Choose airlines with new aircraft, higher passenger loads, fewer emissions. easyJet emits 22% less CO2*."
This asterisk at the end of the copy linked to text stating that the comparison was between an easyJet aircraft and a "traditional airline" flying the same type of plane on the same route.
The Advertising Standards Authority received one complaint that the ad was misleading because the emission claim was, in fact, based on emissions per passenger rather than total CO2 output.
EasyJet admitted that the claim was based on per passenger figures, but said these were accurate because its planes carried more passengers than rivals, which reduced the CO2 emission figure.
The company said it was "confident" that its calculations backed the claim.
However, the ASA said that the figures used were not based on "emissions produced by an easyJet aircraft or emissions produced by easyJet airline overall" as the ad implied.
"We concluded that ... the ad misleadingly implied that easyJet planes were more environmentally efficient than the aircraft used by traditional airlines," the regulator added.
The ASA told easyJet to be clear that the basis for comparisons was explained in future ads.
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday July 2, 2008
The advertising regulator has criticised a press campaign by easyJet for making the misleading environmental claim that its aircraft made 22% less emissions than rival airlines.
EasyJet's press ad, which ran with the headline "Demand a more intelligent approach to aviation", asked questions about whether air travel should be "cleaner".
One question asked "Can individuals help?", with easyJet's response: "Yes. Choose airlines with new aircraft, higher passenger loads, fewer emissions. easyJet emits 22% less CO2*."
This asterisk at the end of the copy linked to text stating that the comparison was between an easyJet aircraft and a "traditional airline" flying the same type of plane on the same route.
The Advertising Standards Authority received one complaint that the ad was misleading because the emission claim was, in fact, based on emissions per passenger rather than total CO2 output.
EasyJet admitted that the claim was based on per passenger figures, but said these were accurate because its planes carried more passengers than rivals, which reduced the CO2 emission figure.
The company said it was "confident" that its calculations backed the claim.
However, the ASA said that the figures used were not based on "emissions produced by an easyJet aircraft or emissions produced by easyJet airline overall" as the ad implied.
"We concluded that ... the ad misleadingly implied that easyJet planes were more environmentally efficient than the aircraft used by traditional airlines," the regulator added.
The ASA told easyJet to be clear that the basis for comparisons was explained in future ads.
Flatscreen televisions fuel increase in global warmingBy
John Bingham - Daily Telegraph
Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 02/07/2008
The boom in flatscreen television could be fuelling global warming more than official estimates, scientists have warned.
Experts in California estimate that production of a powerful greenhouse gas used in their production has hit 4,000 tonnes a year - enough to match the annual carbon dioxide emissions of Austria.
Research published in New Scientist estimates that the industrial component - known as "NF3" - is 17,000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But it is not covered by the Kyoto protocol because it was only made in tiny amounts when the agreement was signed in 1997.
advertisement
Professor Michael Prather from the University of California at Irvine, who came up with the estimate, said that if the entire annual production of NF3 was released into the atmosphere it would have the equivalent effect on the Earth's climate as 67 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Although it is said to be accumulating in the atmosphere, its levels have not been measured. Scientists believe that it has a half-life in the atmosphere of 550 years.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "This is an issue that affects every country, and we're working with other members of EU to ensure that all new synthetic greenhouse gases, including NF3, are covered as part of any future UN climate change agreements.
"We expect to be able to deal with this issue as part of a new global climate treaty in Copenhagen next year."
Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 02/07/2008
The boom in flatscreen television could be fuelling global warming more than official estimates, scientists have warned.
Experts in California estimate that production of a powerful greenhouse gas used in their production has hit 4,000 tonnes a year - enough to match the annual carbon dioxide emissions of Austria.
Research published in New Scientist estimates that the industrial component - known as "NF3" - is 17,000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But it is not covered by the Kyoto protocol because it was only made in tiny amounts when the agreement was signed in 1997.
advertisement
Professor Michael Prather from the University of California at Irvine, who came up with the estimate, said that if the entire annual production of NF3 was released into the atmosphere it would have the equivalent effect on the Earth's climate as 67 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Although it is said to be accumulating in the atmosphere, its levels have not been measured. Scientists believe that it has a half-life in the atmosphere of 550 years.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "This is an issue that affects every country, and we're working with other members of EU to ensure that all new synthetic greenhouse gases, including NF3, are covered as part of any future UN climate change agreements.
"We expect to be able to deal with this issue as part of a new global climate treaty in Copenhagen next year."
Environment: Climate risk from flat-screen TVs
Ian Sample, science correspondent
The Guardian,
Thursday July 3, 2008
The rising demand for flat-screen televisions could have a greater impact on global warming than the world's largest coal-fired power stations, a leading environmental scientist warned yesterday.
Manufacturers use a greenhouse gas called nitrogen trifluoride to make the televisions, and as the sets have become more popular, annual production of the gas has risen to about 4,000 tonnes.
As a driver of global warming, nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yet no one knows how much of it is being released into the atmosphere by the industry, said Michael Prather, director of the environment institute at the University of California, Irvine.
Prather's research reveals that production of the gas, which remains in the atmosphere for 550 years, is "exploding" and is expected to double by next year. Unlike common greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), emissions of the gas are not restricted by the Kyoto protocol or similar agreements.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Prather and a colleague, Juno Hsu, state that this year's production of the gas is equivalent to 67m tonnes of carbon dioxide, meaning it has "a potential greenhouse impact larger than that of the industrialised nations' emissions of PFCs or SF6, or even that of the world's largest coal-fired power plants".
While concerns have led Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology to avoid using the gas, Air Products, which produces it for the electronics industry, told New Scientist that very little nitrogen trifluoride is released into the atmosphere. But Prather argues that as the gas is not controlled in the same way as other greenhouse gases, companies may be careless with it.
The Guardian,
Thursday July 3, 2008
The rising demand for flat-screen televisions could have a greater impact on global warming than the world's largest coal-fired power stations, a leading environmental scientist warned yesterday.
Manufacturers use a greenhouse gas called nitrogen trifluoride to make the televisions, and as the sets have become more popular, annual production of the gas has risen to about 4,000 tonnes.
As a driver of global warming, nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yet no one knows how much of it is being released into the atmosphere by the industry, said Michael Prather, director of the environment institute at the University of California, Irvine.
Prather's research reveals that production of the gas, which remains in the atmosphere for 550 years, is "exploding" and is expected to double by next year. Unlike common greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), emissions of the gas are not restricted by the Kyoto protocol or similar agreements.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Prather and a colleague, Juno Hsu, state that this year's production of the gas is equivalent to 67m tonnes of carbon dioxide, meaning it has "a potential greenhouse impact larger than that of the industrialised nations' emissions of PFCs or SF6, or even that of the world's largest coal-fired power plants".
While concerns have led Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology to avoid using the gas, Air Products, which produces it for the electronics industry, told New Scientist that very little nitrogen trifluoride is released into the atmosphere. But Prather argues that as the gas is not controlled in the same way as other greenhouse gases, companies may be careless with it.
I've seen the effects of climate change - and if people won't face up to it, governments must make them
All comments (22)
Tahmima Anam
The Guardian,
Thursday July 3, 2008
Two recent polls attempting to judge the public mood about climate change have revealed contradictory results. Last week's Ipsos Mori poll told us that most people doubt the human causes of climate change. Yesterday's Guardian/ICM poll told a slightly different story, one of a growing concern with climate change, with many people considering it a higher priority than the faltering economy.
The roots of scepticism can be traced to many sources. In this newspaper on Monday, Peter Wilby criticised the media for not doing its part to lend credibility to the argument. Some have pointed the finger at that fateful Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle; others at the sometimes contradictory messages from environmentalists. Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that many people still remain unsure of the causes of climate change, and the seriousness with which we need to tackle it.
The scientists and campaigners have done their best. The IPCC's latest report states that there is a 90% chance that humans are the main cause of climate change. Al Gore has gone around the world with graphs and arresting photographs of the melting Arctic ice, proving that climate change really is happening. And, of course, there is the anecdotal evidence: everyone knows someone who has witnessed an extreme storm, or had their house flooded, or watched from a balcony as the Asian tsunami leapt from the sea.
But if, after all the messages we have received about the perils of ignorance, we remain unconvinced, it must be because of a failure of imagination. To remain in doubt about our own culpability means that we are unable to imagine an era that is dramatically different from our own.
Unfortunately, as I come from Bangladesh, I do not have to envisage the horror of what is to come because climate change has already arrived in Bangladesh. I must simply describe what I see before me: the sight of fresh water turning to salt, leaving the paddy fields yellow and withered; the rivers eroding at lightning speed; the water slowly gnawing away at the land, so that people can point to the sea and say, "When I was a child, our village was over there." In a few weeks, I will be travelling to Bangladesh to stay with families who have had to build their homes on plinths to stop them being washed away. I will return to dry land and write about them, and hope to fire the imagination: to frighten people into believing that this may someday happen to them. I will attempt to perform a feat of wordsmithing that will make people suspend their disbelief once and for all.
But though I have staked much on the power of words, I know that the imagination has its limits. And when the imagination fails, it is the duty of those who govern us to set the rules. They must make us give up our cars and cheap holidays, our lightbulbs and draughty windows. I don't say this easily, because I come from a country that regularly flirts with dictatorship. I know the dangers of a heavy-handed government. But if these two surveys have anything in common, it is in the fact that people want the government to take the lead.
Last week, Gordon Brown revealed his plan for a green revolution - bold and expensive, it will mean a dramatic change in the source of our energy. This is precisely the type of commitment we need. But I hope he will forgive me for being wary: the jet lag from his trip to Saudi Arabia, where he went to beg for lower oil prices, had probably hardly passed. More importantly, his scheme, dependent as it is on private financing, relies on companies taking their own decisions on whether or not to invest in renewables.
The time has passed for subsidies and grants. The time has passed for our leaders to treat us like clients - advertising, cajoling, giving incentives and subsidies. It is time now for a leadership that does not attend to popularity ratings or re-election percentages. Climate change is happening. We, and the generations before us, have caused it. It should not matter whether we believe it or not.
· Last week I attended my friend Shelly's baby shower. In the course of talking about her plans for the birth (drugs, drugs, drugs), she told me she had signed up for a 10-week "perineal re-education" course straight after having the baby. Shelly lives in France, and according to the French, it is imperative to retrain one's birth-giving muscles. It is part of the national healthcare, she said.
I had just been reading about how NHS nurses were being persuaded to smile more so, feeling irrationally jealous, I asked her what this re-education would consist of. A woman is going to come to her house to massage her nether regions and get her to do a series of exercises to rebuild her pelvic floor muscles. Otherwise, she tells me sagely, everything is going to sink. Incontinence will follow. By now I am slack-jawed.
Then Shelly's sister, who lives in Geneva, tells us that whatever the French do, the Swiss do better. After the birth of her son, her perineal re-education included a machine to measure the strength of her pelvic floor muscles. She was told to exercise at home, and given regular progress reports. Her programme took just five weeks, half the time it will take Shelly. Either way, I thought, this must have something to do with why French women look disgustingly chic at any age - an unsqueamish response, on all fronts, to the humiliations of ageing.
· This week Tahmima read David Singh Grewal's Network Power: "A groundbreaking book that tackles globalisation's central conundrum: its ability to simultaneously enable and limit our freedoms." She watched Kung Fu Panda: "The visual effects were impressive - clearly borrowed from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. And it was hilarious."
Tahmima Anam
The Guardian,
Thursday July 3, 2008
Two recent polls attempting to judge the public mood about climate change have revealed contradictory results. Last week's Ipsos Mori poll told us that most people doubt the human causes of climate change. Yesterday's Guardian/ICM poll told a slightly different story, one of a growing concern with climate change, with many people considering it a higher priority than the faltering economy.
The roots of scepticism can be traced to many sources. In this newspaper on Monday, Peter Wilby criticised the media for not doing its part to lend credibility to the argument. Some have pointed the finger at that fateful Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle; others at the sometimes contradictory messages from environmentalists. Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that many people still remain unsure of the causes of climate change, and the seriousness with which we need to tackle it.
The scientists and campaigners have done their best. The IPCC's latest report states that there is a 90% chance that humans are the main cause of climate change. Al Gore has gone around the world with graphs and arresting photographs of the melting Arctic ice, proving that climate change really is happening. And, of course, there is the anecdotal evidence: everyone knows someone who has witnessed an extreme storm, or had their house flooded, or watched from a balcony as the Asian tsunami leapt from the sea.
But if, after all the messages we have received about the perils of ignorance, we remain unconvinced, it must be because of a failure of imagination. To remain in doubt about our own culpability means that we are unable to imagine an era that is dramatically different from our own.
Unfortunately, as I come from Bangladesh, I do not have to envisage the horror of what is to come because climate change has already arrived in Bangladesh. I must simply describe what I see before me: the sight of fresh water turning to salt, leaving the paddy fields yellow and withered; the rivers eroding at lightning speed; the water slowly gnawing away at the land, so that people can point to the sea and say, "When I was a child, our village was over there." In a few weeks, I will be travelling to Bangladesh to stay with families who have had to build their homes on plinths to stop them being washed away. I will return to dry land and write about them, and hope to fire the imagination: to frighten people into believing that this may someday happen to them. I will attempt to perform a feat of wordsmithing that will make people suspend their disbelief once and for all.
But though I have staked much on the power of words, I know that the imagination has its limits. And when the imagination fails, it is the duty of those who govern us to set the rules. They must make us give up our cars and cheap holidays, our lightbulbs and draughty windows. I don't say this easily, because I come from a country that regularly flirts with dictatorship. I know the dangers of a heavy-handed government. But if these two surveys have anything in common, it is in the fact that people want the government to take the lead.
Last week, Gordon Brown revealed his plan for a green revolution - bold and expensive, it will mean a dramatic change in the source of our energy. This is precisely the type of commitment we need. But I hope he will forgive me for being wary: the jet lag from his trip to Saudi Arabia, where he went to beg for lower oil prices, had probably hardly passed. More importantly, his scheme, dependent as it is on private financing, relies on companies taking their own decisions on whether or not to invest in renewables.
The time has passed for subsidies and grants. The time has passed for our leaders to treat us like clients - advertising, cajoling, giving incentives and subsidies. It is time now for a leadership that does not attend to popularity ratings or re-election percentages. Climate change is happening. We, and the generations before us, have caused it. It should not matter whether we believe it or not.
· Last week I attended my friend Shelly's baby shower. In the course of talking about her plans for the birth (drugs, drugs, drugs), she told me she had signed up for a 10-week "perineal re-education" course straight after having the baby. Shelly lives in France, and according to the French, it is imperative to retrain one's birth-giving muscles. It is part of the national healthcare, she said.
I had just been reading about how NHS nurses were being persuaded to smile more so, feeling irrationally jealous, I asked her what this re-education would consist of. A woman is going to come to her house to massage her nether regions and get her to do a series of exercises to rebuild her pelvic floor muscles. Otherwise, she tells me sagely, everything is going to sink. Incontinence will follow. By now I am slack-jawed.
Then Shelly's sister, who lives in Geneva, tells us that whatever the French do, the Swiss do better. After the birth of her son, her perineal re-education included a machine to measure the strength of her pelvic floor muscles. She was told to exercise at home, and given regular progress reports. Her programme took just five weeks, half the time it will take Shelly. Either way, I thought, this must have something to do with why French women look disgustingly chic at any age - an unsqueamish response, on all fronts, to the humiliations of ageing.
· This week Tahmima read David Singh Grewal's Network Power: "A groundbreaking book that tackles globalisation's central conundrum: its ability to simultaneously enable and limit our freedoms." She watched Kung Fu Panda: "The visual effects were impressive - clearly borrowed from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. And it was hilarious."
Avoiding climate change disaster is affordable , says PwC
Ashley Seager
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday July 3, 2008
Cooling towers at Eggborough coal-fired power station, near Selby. Photograph: John Giles/PA
Severe adverse effects from climate change can be avoided at a reasonable cost but only if politicians stop talking and start acting, a major report from PricewaterhouseCoopers said today.
Updating a study it first did two years ago, the accountancy firm said that inaction on reducing carbon emissions in the interim means the necessity for action has become even more urgent than before. It called on leaders of the Group of Eight leading economies, particularly the United States - the world's largest per capita polluter - to commit themselves to firm timetables for emissions reductions at next week's summit in Tokyo.
It estimated the cost of a 50% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050 at around 3% of global economic growth, at the top of the 2%-3% range it estimated in 2006. This is slightly higher than the upwardly revised figure of 2% estimated by Lord Stern recently but PwC stresses that its forecasts are broadly in line with Stern and both are affordable.
"This is broadly equivalent to sacrificing around a year of global GDP growth between now and 2050," said John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PwC. "In other words, reaching the same level of GDP in 2051 as might otherwise have happened in 2050."
PwC has raised its projections for the amount of carbon that would be released between now and 2050 because it expects stronger economic growth in China and India over the next four decades, which in turn would lead to more use of energy and more carbon emissions.
G7 countries (G8 minus Russia) would need to cut their carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 to make their contribution to the 50% cut in global emissions, it said.
It said the group of countries it calls the "E7" - China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey - can be allowed to continue increasing emissions, albeit at a slower rate, between now and 2020 and then cut them beyond that date.
But PwC said politicians need to take action very soon. "We've heard a lot of talking but we are at the point when politicians need to be specific about a number of concrete actions and hopefully something will emerge this year," said Hawksworth.
Richard Gledhill, head of climate change services at PwC, said: "Governments in all major economies must demonstrate their joint political will to establish a well-functioning global carbon market that puts a price on carbon emissions. That will send the right economic signals to private sector investors and consumers needed to deliver the new technologies and changes in behaviour required to combat global warming."
Hawksworth said that in addition to a carbon market, countries will need a combination of carbon taxes, regulation and government support to ensure that all parts of their economies are pushed towards a low carbon future.
He said the carbon price that would be needed to encourage the switch away from carbon towards cleaner energy sources was around $40 a tonne, close to where it is now.
"It does not need to go much higher than it is now in order to achieve the sort of carbon reductions we are talking about. But at the moment there is not the sort of long-term framework for this that we need."
PwC's report said that if nothing changes, global carbon emissions from energy use will double by 2050, raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 380 parts per million to 600 ppm, with disastrous consequences for future generations.
Significant carbon reductions were technologically feasible, said the report, if the world made a big move into renewable energy, increased its energy efficiency and embarked on large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) to trap emissions released by burning coal. It said a combination of measures would be affordable and necessary.
Nuclear energy would potentially play a role but was not crucial. Similarly, PwC sees a role for biofuels but warned that this would have to be balanced against the need for affordable food.
Hawksworth said record high oil prices could accelerate a move away from oil and gas but he cautioned that the change it prompted had to be towards clean alternatives such as renewables rather than dirty options like coal without CCS and the exploitation of tar sands.
He said that the costs of decarbonising economies could be lower than expected if technological advances speeded up. He pointed to previous efforts to reduce ozone depleting chemicals and acid rain from the atmosphere, both of which end up costing less than predicted.
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday July 3, 2008
Cooling towers at Eggborough coal-fired power station, near Selby. Photograph: John Giles/PA
Severe adverse effects from climate change can be avoided at a reasonable cost but only if politicians stop talking and start acting, a major report from PricewaterhouseCoopers said today.
Updating a study it first did two years ago, the accountancy firm said that inaction on reducing carbon emissions in the interim means the necessity for action has become even more urgent than before. It called on leaders of the Group of Eight leading economies, particularly the United States - the world's largest per capita polluter - to commit themselves to firm timetables for emissions reductions at next week's summit in Tokyo.
It estimated the cost of a 50% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050 at around 3% of global economic growth, at the top of the 2%-3% range it estimated in 2006. This is slightly higher than the upwardly revised figure of 2% estimated by Lord Stern recently but PwC stresses that its forecasts are broadly in line with Stern and both are affordable.
"This is broadly equivalent to sacrificing around a year of global GDP growth between now and 2050," said John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PwC. "In other words, reaching the same level of GDP in 2051 as might otherwise have happened in 2050."
PwC has raised its projections for the amount of carbon that would be released between now and 2050 because it expects stronger economic growth in China and India over the next four decades, which in turn would lead to more use of energy and more carbon emissions.
G7 countries (G8 minus Russia) would need to cut their carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 to make their contribution to the 50% cut in global emissions, it said.
It said the group of countries it calls the "E7" - China, India, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey - can be allowed to continue increasing emissions, albeit at a slower rate, between now and 2020 and then cut them beyond that date.
But PwC said politicians need to take action very soon. "We've heard a lot of talking but we are at the point when politicians need to be specific about a number of concrete actions and hopefully something will emerge this year," said Hawksworth.
Richard Gledhill, head of climate change services at PwC, said: "Governments in all major economies must demonstrate their joint political will to establish a well-functioning global carbon market that puts a price on carbon emissions. That will send the right economic signals to private sector investors and consumers needed to deliver the new technologies and changes in behaviour required to combat global warming."
Hawksworth said that in addition to a carbon market, countries will need a combination of carbon taxes, regulation and government support to ensure that all parts of their economies are pushed towards a low carbon future.
He said the carbon price that would be needed to encourage the switch away from carbon towards cleaner energy sources was around $40 a tonne, close to where it is now.
"It does not need to go much higher than it is now in order to achieve the sort of carbon reductions we are talking about. But at the moment there is not the sort of long-term framework for this that we need."
PwC's report said that if nothing changes, global carbon emissions from energy use will double by 2050, raising the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 380 parts per million to 600 ppm, with disastrous consequences for future generations.
Significant carbon reductions were technologically feasible, said the report, if the world made a big move into renewable energy, increased its energy efficiency and embarked on large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) to trap emissions released by burning coal. It said a combination of measures would be affordable and necessary.
Nuclear energy would potentially play a role but was not crucial. Similarly, PwC sees a role for biofuels but warned that this would have to be balanced against the need for affordable food.
Hawksworth said record high oil prices could accelerate a move away from oil and gas but he cautioned that the change it prompted had to be towards clean alternatives such as renewables rather than dirty options like coal without CCS and the exploitation of tar sands.
He said that the costs of decarbonising economies could be lower than expected if technological advances speeded up. He pointed to previous efforts to reduce ozone depleting chemicals and acid rain from the atmosphere, both of which end up costing less than predicted.
Climate change: Time for deeds not words to reach emissions target, PwC study warns
· CO2 fall achievable if green energy use is speeded up· Top industrial nations need 80% cut by 2050
Ashley Seager
The Guardian,
Thursday July 3, 2008
Cooling towers at Eggborough power station, near Selby. Photograph: John Giles/PA
Severe adverse effects from climate change can be avoided at reasonable cost but only if politicians stop talking and start acting, a major report from PricewaterhouseCoopers says today.
Updating a study it conducted two years ago, it calls on leaders of the Group of Eight leading economies, particularly the United States - the world's largest per capita polluter - to commit themselves to firm timetables for emissions reductions at next week's summit in Tokyo.
It now estimates the cost of a 50% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050 at around 3% of global economic growth, at the top of the 2-3% range it estimated in 2006.
"This is broadly equivalent to sacrificing around a year of global GDP growth between now and 2050," says John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PwC.
PwC has raised its projections for the amount of carbon that would be released between now and 2050 because it now expects stronger economic growth in China and India over the next four decades.
It says the G7 countries (G8 minus Russia) need to cut their carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 to make their contribution to the 50% cut in global emissions.
It says the "E7" group of countries - China, India, Brazil, Russia Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey - can be allowed to continue increasing emissions, albeit at a slower rate, between now and 2020 and cut them beyond that date.
But they say politicians need to take action very soon. Hawksworth said: "We've heard a lot of talking but we are at the point when politicians need to be specific about a number of concrete actions and hopefully something will emerge this year."
Richard Gledhill, head of climate change services at PwC, said: "Governments in all major economies must demonstrate their political will to establish a well functioning global carbon market that puts a price on carbon emissions. That will send the right economic signals to investors and consumers to deliver the new technologies and changes in behaviour required to combat global warming."
Hawksworth said the carbon price that would be needed to be set to encourage the switch away from carbon towards cleaner energy sources was around $40 (£20) a tonne, close to where it is now.
"It does not need to go much higher than it is now to achieve the sort of carbon reductions we are talking about. But at the moment there is not the sort of long-term framework for this.
Hawksworth says that in addition to a carbon market, countries will need a combination of carbon taxes, regulation and government support to ensure that all parts of their economies are pushed towards a low carbon future.
PwC's report says that if nothing changes, global carbon emissions from energy use will double by 2050, raising to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 600 parts per million (ppm) from 380 ppm now, with disastrous consequences.
PwC is nevertheless confident that significant carbon reductions are technologically feasible if the world makes a big move into renewable energy, hugely increases its energy efficiency and embarks on large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) to trap the emissions released by burning coal. It says combination of measures is affordable and necessary.
Hawksworth added that the costs of de-carbonising economies could even end up being lower than expected if technological advances speed up. He pointed to previous efforts to reduce ozone depleting chemicals and acid rain which ended up costing less than predicted.
The PwC report sees nuclear energy as potentially playing a role but does not see it as crucial. Similarly, it sees a role for biofuels but warns that this has to be balanced against the need for affordable food.
Hawksworth said high oil prices could accelerate a move away from oil and gas but he cautioned that the change it prompted had to be towards clean alternatives such as renewables rather than dirty options like coal and tar sands.
"The question is which way do you switch? There's a strategic question to answer about how you respond to this huge rise in the oil price."
Ashley Seager
The Guardian,
Thursday July 3, 2008
Cooling towers at Eggborough power station, near Selby. Photograph: John Giles/PA
Severe adverse effects from climate change can be avoided at reasonable cost but only if politicians stop talking and start acting, a major report from PricewaterhouseCoopers says today.
Updating a study it conducted two years ago, it calls on leaders of the Group of Eight leading economies, particularly the United States - the world's largest per capita polluter - to commit themselves to firm timetables for emissions reductions at next week's summit in Tokyo.
It now estimates the cost of a 50% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050 at around 3% of global economic growth, at the top of the 2-3% range it estimated in 2006.
"This is broadly equivalent to sacrificing around a year of global GDP growth between now and 2050," says John Hawksworth, head of macroeconomics at PwC.
PwC has raised its projections for the amount of carbon that would be released between now and 2050 because it now expects stronger economic growth in China and India over the next four decades.
It says the G7 countries (G8 minus Russia) need to cut their carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 to make their contribution to the 50% cut in global emissions.
It says the "E7" group of countries - China, India, Brazil, Russia Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey - can be allowed to continue increasing emissions, albeit at a slower rate, between now and 2020 and cut them beyond that date.
But they say politicians need to take action very soon. Hawksworth said: "We've heard a lot of talking but we are at the point when politicians need to be specific about a number of concrete actions and hopefully something will emerge this year."
Richard Gledhill, head of climate change services at PwC, said: "Governments in all major economies must demonstrate their political will to establish a well functioning global carbon market that puts a price on carbon emissions. That will send the right economic signals to investors and consumers to deliver the new technologies and changes in behaviour required to combat global warming."
Hawksworth said the carbon price that would be needed to be set to encourage the switch away from carbon towards cleaner energy sources was around $40 (£20) a tonne, close to where it is now.
"It does not need to go much higher than it is now to achieve the sort of carbon reductions we are talking about. But at the moment there is not the sort of long-term framework for this.
Hawksworth says that in addition to a carbon market, countries will need a combination of carbon taxes, regulation and government support to ensure that all parts of their economies are pushed towards a low carbon future.
PwC's report says that if nothing changes, global carbon emissions from energy use will double by 2050, raising to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 600 parts per million (ppm) from 380 ppm now, with disastrous consequences.
PwC is nevertheless confident that significant carbon reductions are technologically feasible if the world makes a big move into renewable energy, hugely increases its energy efficiency and embarks on large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) to trap the emissions released by burning coal. It says combination of measures is affordable and necessary.
Hawksworth added that the costs of de-carbonising economies could even end up being lower than expected if technological advances speed up. He pointed to previous efforts to reduce ozone depleting chemicals and acid rain which ended up costing less than predicted.
The PwC report sees nuclear energy as potentially playing a role but does not see it as crucial. Similarly, it sees a role for biofuels but warns that this has to be balanced against the need for affordable food.
Hawksworth said high oil prices could accelerate a move away from oil and gas but he cautioned that the change it prompted had to be towards clean alternatives such as renewables rather than dirty options like coal and tar sands.
"The question is which way do you switch? There's a strategic question to answer about how you respond to this huge rise in the oil price."
G8 could see climate deal but substance in doubt
Reuters
, Thursday July 3 2008
* G8 could reach face-saving climate deal at summit
* Numerical 2020 targets off limits, fuzzy 2050 goal possible
* More progress seen after U.S. gets new president
By Linda Sieg
TOKYO, July 3 (Reuters) - G8 leaders could well cobble together some agreement next week on goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but bolder progress in climate change talks will probably have to wait until a new U.S president takes office.
Climate change is high on the agenda for the July 7-9 summit in Hokkaido, northern Japan and is the focus of an expanded Major Economies Meeting (MEM) on July 9 that brings the G8 together with eight other countries including China, India and Brazil.
Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda wants to boost momentum for U.N.-led talks on a new framework beyond limits agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, which expire in 2012. Those negotiations are due to conclude in Copenhagen in December next year.
An agreement by 2009 would give certainty to investors wanting to switch to cleaner energy technologies, as well as to participants in growing carbon markets.
The 71-year-old Japanese leader, whose ratings are languishing at around 25 percent on doubts about his leadership, also needs a successful summit to dampen speculation that his party will dump him when the diplomatic pageantry ends.
A general election must be held by late next year.
"The worst scenario is to have no agreement of any kind that the G8 and MEM can explain to the outside world. When leaders meet, you don't do that," Koji Tsuruoka, director general for global issues at Japan's foreign ministry, told Reuters.
"If you come up with a very empty document that says nothing, this would be faulted as the chairman's lack of leadership, although it may not necessarily be the chairman's fault."
PRE-SUMMIT HAGGLING
G8 leaders agreed last year in Germany to seriously consider a global goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Climate campaigners say this year's summit should go further by endorsing that goal, compared to 1990 emissions levels, and linking it to bold and specific mid-term targets for developed countries.
But bickering among G8 members and between advanced and developing countries has raised doubts about how much the leaders can achieve next week.
"The G8 countries could certainly take a leadership stand and agree to that (a long-term goal), but I think that really depends on whether Bush is ready to take that leap or not," said Jennifer Morgan, director for climate and energy security at Berlin-based think tank E3G. "Up to this point in time, the U.S. has shown no flexibility on this point."
Europe wants the G8 to commit to a goal of halving by mid-century the emissions that cause global warming, compared with 1990 levels.
Japan is urging the leaders agree to a common vision of a 50 percent cut by mid-century, without specifying a base year.
The Bush administration, though, says it will only set targets if emerging economies such as China are on board.
Both Tokyo and Washington also insist specific interim goals for advanced countries to their reduce emissions by 2020 -- seen by European countries, developing countries and environmentalists as a vital step -- are not on the table in Hokkaido.
SEEKING SUCCESS
Despite the pre-summit haggling, world leaders' traditional tendency to seek an outcome they can pitch to the public as success means a deal could yet emerge, diplomatic experts said.
"There will be some sort of agreement on a long-term goal," said Kuniyuki Nishimura, research director at Mitsubishi Research Institute. "It will be very diplomatic language, but they will agree and present it to the outside as success."
Nishimura said he expected the G8 leaders to agree that the world should strive toward a goal of halving global emissions by 2050, while the rich countries also show their willingness to provide funds to help developing economies restrain growth in their own emissions and adapt to climate change.
Expectations of agreement on firm targets for developed countries to cut emissions by 25-40 percent by 2020 have faded since Fukuda ruled out such commitments last month, but the G8 is likely to acknowledge the need to set such targets soon.
MEM negotiators agreed last month that major developed countries should set mid-term goals while major developing countries should take steps toward curbing growth in emissions.
Still, with Washington's climate stance expected to shift under a new president, environmentalists are already looking beyond Hokkaido. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain both want to introduce cap and trade systems for greenhouse gases as part of a goal of big cuts by 2050.
"I'm hopeful there will be a big sea change," Morgan said. (Additional reporting by Chisa Fujioka and David Fogarty; Editing by Rodney Joyce)
, Thursday July 3 2008
* G8 could reach face-saving climate deal at summit
* Numerical 2020 targets off limits, fuzzy 2050 goal possible
* More progress seen after U.S. gets new president
By Linda Sieg
TOKYO, July 3 (Reuters) - G8 leaders could well cobble together some agreement next week on goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but bolder progress in climate change talks will probably have to wait until a new U.S president takes office.
Climate change is high on the agenda for the July 7-9 summit in Hokkaido, northern Japan and is the focus of an expanded Major Economies Meeting (MEM) on July 9 that brings the G8 together with eight other countries including China, India and Brazil.
Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda wants to boost momentum for U.N.-led talks on a new framework beyond limits agreed under the Kyoto Protocol, which expire in 2012. Those negotiations are due to conclude in Copenhagen in December next year.
An agreement by 2009 would give certainty to investors wanting to switch to cleaner energy technologies, as well as to participants in growing carbon markets.
The 71-year-old Japanese leader, whose ratings are languishing at around 25 percent on doubts about his leadership, also needs a successful summit to dampen speculation that his party will dump him when the diplomatic pageantry ends.
A general election must be held by late next year.
"The worst scenario is to have no agreement of any kind that the G8 and MEM can explain to the outside world. When leaders meet, you don't do that," Koji Tsuruoka, director general for global issues at Japan's foreign ministry, told Reuters.
"If you come up with a very empty document that says nothing, this would be faulted as the chairman's lack of leadership, although it may not necessarily be the chairman's fault."
PRE-SUMMIT HAGGLING
G8 leaders agreed last year in Germany to seriously consider a global goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Climate campaigners say this year's summit should go further by endorsing that goal, compared to 1990 emissions levels, and linking it to bold and specific mid-term targets for developed countries.
But bickering among G8 members and between advanced and developing countries has raised doubts about how much the leaders can achieve next week.
"The G8 countries could certainly take a leadership stand and agree to that (a long-term goal), but I think that really depends on whether Bush is ready to take that leap or not," said Jennifer Morgan, director for climate and energy security at Berlin-based think tank E3G. "Up to this point in time, the U.S. has shown no flexibility on this point."
Europe wants the G8 to commit to a goal of halving by mid-century the emissions that cause global warming, compared with 1990 levels.
Japan is urging the leaders agree to a common vision of a 50 percent cut by mid-century, without specifying a base year.
The Bush administration, though, says it will only set targets if emerging economies such as China are on board.
Both Tokyo and Washington also insist specific interim goals for advanced countries to their reduce emissions by 2020 -- seen by European countries, developing countries and environmentalists as a vital step -- are not on the table in Hokkaido.
SEEKING SUCCESS
Despite the pre-summit haggling, world leaders' traditional tendency to seek an outcome they can pitch to the public as success means a deal could yet emerge, diplomatic experts said.
"There will be some sort of agreement on a long-term goal," said Kuniyuki Nishimura, research director at Mitsubishi Research Institute. "It will be very diplomatic language, but they will agree and present it to the outside as success."
Nishimura said he expected the G8 leaders to agree that the world should strive toward a goal of halving global emissions by 2050, while the rich countries also show their willingness to provide funds to help developing economies restrain growth in their own emissions and adapt to climate change.
Expectations of agreement on firm targets for developed countries to cut emissions by 25-40 percent by 2020 have faded since Fukuda ruled out such commitments last month, but the G8 is likely to acknowledge the need to set such targets soon.
MEM negotiators agreed last month that major developed countries should set mid-term goals while major developing countries should take steps toward curbing growth in emissions.
Still, with Washington's climate stance expected to shift under a new president, environmentalists are already looking beyond Hokkaido. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain both want to introduce cap and trade systems for greenhouse gases as part of a goal of big cuts by 2050.
"I'm hopeful there will be a big sea change," Morgan said. (Additional reporting by Chisa Fujioka and David Fogarty; Editing by Rodney Joyce)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
