Saturday, 2 August 2008
Last Ice Age happened in less than year say scientists
Published Date: 02 August 2008
By angus howarth
THE last ice age 13,000 years ago took hold in just one year, more than ten times quicker than previously believed, scientists have warned.
Rather than a gradual cooling over a decade, the ice age plunged Europe into the deep freeze, German Research Centre for Geosciences at Potsdam said.Cold, stormy conditions caused by an abrupt shift in atmospheric circulation froze the continent almost instantly during the Younger Dryas less than 13,000 years ago – a very recent period on a geological scale. The new findings will add to fears of a serious risk of this happening again in the UK and western Europe – and soon.Dr Achim Brauer, of the GFZ (GeoForschungs Zentrum) German Research Centre for Geosciences at Potsdam, and colleagues analysed annual layers of sediments, called "varves", from a German crater lake.Each varve records a single year, allowing annual climate records from the region to be reconstructed.
Green taxes on air travel exceed carbon costs
By David Millward, Transport Editor
Last Updated: 10:30pm BST 01/08/2008
Airline passengers now pay more in green taxes than is needed to cover the cost of environmental damage they cause, the Government has admitted.
The disclosure emerged in the Emissions Cost Assessment which was quietly released before MPs departed for the summer recess.
According to the Department for Transport, aviation now pays £100m more than its environmental costs a year as a result of the doubling of Air Passenger Duty in February last year.
This equates to about £1.50 a ticket. But it will make it politically difficult for the Government to press ahead with further tax rises.
Last year Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, used his Pre-Budget report to announce plans to replace a per passenger tax with a per flight tax, called Aviation Duty, from Nov 1 2009.
The Government is also looking to raise an additional £500m from airline passengers in the first year. In this year's Budget, Mr Darling announced a further 10pc rise in the new Aviation Duty.
According to experts the changes mean that the aviation industry will be paying £3.6bn in tax by 2012.
Then the European Union is planning to enforce its Emissions Trading System, which would force airlines to pay for the greenhouse gases they emit through a complex licensing scheme - known as "carbon permits".
It is estimated that the EU scheme would add £11.10 to an individual return ticket.
Passenger groups and airlines have protested that domestic and European climate levies could make air travel unaffordable for many.
"We have always said that it is entirely reasonable to expect passengers to pay the environmental costs of their travel," said Simon Evans, chief executive of the Air Transport Users Council (AUC). "It now looks that we have been paying more than our fair share for some time.
"Fuel surcharges over the last few years have pushed up costs for ordinary travellers."
There was an equally angry reaction from the British Air Transport Association, representing UK airlines.
"The Government now admits that UK air travel more than covers its climate change costs. But they still seem intent on increasing the environmental taxes that air travellers are forced to pay," a spokesman said.
A spokesman for low-cost carrier easyJet said: "The Government's admission that aviation more than covers its environmental costs is a nail in the coffin of those who hysterically lay the blame for global warming at the door of aviation."
But Richard Dyer, aviation campaigner with Friends of the Earth, believed aviation taxes should continue to rise.
"The cost of carbon used by the Government in this assessment is less than that used by its own climate change adviser, Nicholas Stern," he said.
Last Updated: 10:30pm BST 01/08/2008
Airline passengers now pay more in green taxes than is needed to cover the cost of environmental damage they cause, the Government has admitted.
The disclosure emerged in the Emissions Cost Assessment which was quietly released before MPs departed for the summer recess.
According to the Department for Transport, aviation now pays £100m more than its environmental costs a year as a result of the doubling of Air Passenger Duty in February last year.
This equates to about £1.50 a ticket. But it will make it politically difficult for the Government to press ahead with further tax rises.
Last year Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, used his Pre-Budget report to announce plans to replace a per passenger tax with a per flight tax, called Aviation Duty, from Nov 1 2009.
The Government is also looking to raise an additional £500m from airline passengers in the first year. In this year's Budget, Mr Darling announced a further 10pc rise in the new Aviation Duty.
According to experts the changes mean that the aviation industry will be paying £3.6bn in tax by 2012.
Then the European Union is planning to enforce its Emissions Trading System, which would force airlines to pay for the greenhouse gases they emit through a complex licensing scheme - known as "carbon permits".
It is estimated that the EU scheme would add £11.10 to an individual return ticket.
Passenger groups and airlines have protested that domestic and European climate levies could make air travel unaffordable for many.
"We have always said that it is entirely reasonable to expect passengers to pay the environmental costs of their travel," said Simon Evans, chief executive of the Air Transport Users Council (AUC). "It now looks that we have been paying more than our fair share for some time.
"Fuel surcharges over the last few years have pushed up costs for ordinary travellers."
There was an equally angry reaction from the British Air Transport Association, representing UK airlines.
"The Government now admits that UK air travel more than covers its climate change costs. But they still seem intent on increasing the environmental taxes that air travellers are forced to pay," a spokesman said.
A spokesman for low-cost carrier easyJet said: "The Government's admission that aviation more than covers its environmental costs is a nail in the coffin of those who hysterically lay the blame for global warming at the door of aviation."
But Richard Dyer, aviation campaigner with Friends of the Earth, believed aviation taxes should continue to rise.
"The cost of carbon used by the Government in this assessment is less than that used by its own climate change adviser, Nicholas Stern," he said.
Argent pulls plug on plans for New Zealand biodiesel plant
Published Date: 02 August 2008
By Hamish Rutherford
ARGENT Energy has abandoned plans to build a NZ£100 million (£36.8m) biodiesel plant in New Zealand, claiming subsidies to competing products made the plan uneconomic.
The Motherwell-based company had spent two years investigating the viability of a New Zealand operation, attracted by the plentiful supply of tallow – waste animal fat – created by the country’s sheep industry, and indications from the government there that it would encourage domestic sources of fuel.But yesterday Argent New Zealand managing director Dickon Posnett blamed a government subsidy for ethanol, which amounted to around NZ42c (15.5p) a litre, which would compete with biodiesel, for a decision not to proceed with its investment.“Oil companies are being incentivised to import ethanol. That makes it utterly uneconomic to invest in the domestic biodiesel plant we were proposing to build,” Posnett said.He also questioned why the government was overlooking a plentiful local supply of raw products for biofuel.Argent Energy would consider proceeding with the plans if the New Zealand government worked toward making all bio-fuel equal in terms of tax and subsidies, he added. While New Zealand has some gas fields, almost all of its vehicle fuel is imported. The government wants at least 3.4 per cent of fuel sold to be biofuel by 2012. Argent produces around 50 million litres of biodiesel from its Motherwell plant a year, supplying fuel companies throughout Britain for biodiesel blends.Last July, Argent abandoned plans to float on London’s AIM market, after earlier indicating that it planned a listing which would have valued it at around £70m.
By Hamish Rutherford
ARGENT Energy has abandoned plans to build a NZ£100 million (£36.8m) biodiesel plant in New Zealand, claiming subsidies to competing products made the plan uneconomic.
The Motherwell-based company had spent two years investigating the viability of a New Zealand operation, attracted by the plentiful supply of tallow – waste animal fat – created by the country’s sheep industry, and indications from the government there that it would encourage domestic sources of fuel.But yesterday Argent New Zealand managing director Dickon Posnett blamed a government subsidy for ethanol, which amounted to around NZ42c (15.5p) a litre, which would compete with biodiesel, for a decision not to proceed with its investment.“Oil companies are being incentivised to import ethanol. That makes it utterly uneconomic to invest in the domestic biodiesel plant we were proposing to build,” Posnett said.He also questioned why the government was overlooking a plentiful local supply of raw products for biofuel.Argent Energy would consider proceeding with the plans if the New Zealand government worked toward making all bio-fuel equal in terms of tax and subsidies, he added. While New Zealand has some gas fields, almost all of its vehicle fuel is imported. The government wants at least 3.4 per cent of fuel sold to be biofuel by 2012. Argent produces around 50 million litres of biodiesel from its Motherwell plant a year, supplying fuel companies throughout Britain for biodiesel blends.Last July, Argent abandoned plans to float on London’s AIM market, after earlier indicating that it planned a listing which would have valued it at around £70m.
Coal rush questioned as bridge for energy gap
By Fiona Harvey and Jean Eaglesham
Published: August 1 2008 04:10
Environmental groups will on Friday mount a fresh attack on the government’s rationale for supporting more coal, publishing a study that suggests no new stations will be needed to bridge the looming “energy gap”, provided the UK’s energy efficiency and renewables targets are met.
The research will intensify the pressure on Gordon Brown, prime minister, to rescind his backing for Eon’s proposed new £1.5bn ($3bn) Kingsnorth plant in Kent, either by referring it to a public inquiry and so delaying development by years or rejecting it altogether.
The government to date shows no sign of wavering, arguing there is a compelling case for starting a new “coal rush”. One of the central planks of ministers’ arguments rests on the forecast energy gap – the shortfall of electricity supply compared with peak demand – that will be created by existing coal-fired and nuclear power stations shutting down. Experts fear this gap could exceed 20GW, equivalent to almost a third of current generation, by 2020.
But Greenpeace and WWF will on Friday publish a study that directly contradicts ministerial assertions that new coal-fired power stations are needed to ensure the UK does not suffer black-outs. The research by Poyry, the consultancy, states that the energy gap can be bridged by renewable energy. The proviso is that the UK must improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020, as required by the European Union, and meet government targets of generating about 35 to 40 per cent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind farms.
Even taking into account the need for back-up generation in case the wind does not blow, the Poyry study found there will be no call for new fossil fuel power stations until after 2020, largely because of assumed reductions in demand.
The government faces a dilemma – it cannot counter the biggest weakness in the new study without admitting to its own fallibilities. Keeping the lights on without sanctioning an increase in fossil fuels may not be possible if the UK fails to meet the EU target of generating 15 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020. All sides agree that meeting this target – which translates into between 30 and 40 per cent of electricity – will be a struggle. The UK generates less than 5 per cent of electricity from renewables at present.
The Financial Times’ interview on Friday with Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, suggests that the government is widening its argument for new coal beyond the confines of energy statistics. Tackling the climate change issue head on, Mr Wicks argued that taking the global moral high ground by banning coal stations could prove counter-productive.
Technology to curb emissions can best be developed if the country has a thriving coal-fired sector, Mr Wicks suggested. “If we said ‘no, we’ll have a moratorium because decent people have said we should’, it’s difficult for us to develop that technology.” The assertion is likely to infuriate critics, who claim the government is in danger of locking the country into a high carbon future on the promise of the eventual deployment of a technology that may not work or prove cost-effective.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: August 1 2008 04:10
Environmental groups will on Friday mount a fresh attack on the government’s rationale for supporting more coal, publishing a study that suggests no new stations will be needed to bridge the looming “energy gap”, provided the UK’s energy efficiency and renewables targets are met.
The research will intensify the pressure on Gordon Brown, prime minister, to rescind his backing for Eon’s proposed new £1.5bn ($3bn) Kingsnorth plant in Kent, either by referring it to a public inquiry and so delaying development by years or rejecting it altogether.
The government to date shows no sign of wavering, arguing there is a compelling case for starting a new “coal rush”. One of the central planks of ministers’ arguments rests on the forecast energy gap – the shortfall of electricity supply compared with peak demand – that will be created by existing coal-fired and nuclear power stations shutting down. Experts fear this gap could exceed 20GW, equivalent to almost a third of current generation, by 2020.
But Greenpeace and WWF will on Friday publish a study that directly contradicts ministerial assertions that new coal-fired power stations are needed to ensure the UK does not suffer black-outs. The research by Poyry, the consultancy, states that the energy gap can be bridged by renewable energy. The proviso is that the UK must improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020, as required by the European Union, and meet government targets of generating about 35 to 40 per cent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind farms.
Even taking into account the need for back-up generation in case the wind does not blow, the Poyry study found there will be no call for new fossil fuel power stations until after 2020, largely because of assumed reductions in demand.
The government faces a dilemma – it cannot counter the biggest weakness in the new study without admitting to its own fallibilities. Keeping the lights on without sanctioning an increase in fossil fuels may not be possible if the UK fails to meet the EU target of generating 15 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020. All sides agree that meeting this target – which translates into between 30 and 40 per cent of electricity – will be a struggle. The UK generates less than 5 per cent of electricity from renewables at present.
The Financial Times’ interview on Friday with Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, suggests that the government is widening its argument for new coal beyond the confines of energy statistics. Tackling the climate change issue head on, Mr Wicks argued that taking the global moral high ground by banning coal stations could prove counter-productive.
Technology to curb emissions can best be developed if the country has a thriving coal-fired sector, Mr Wicks suggested. “If we said ‘no, we’ll have a moratorium because decent people have said we should’, it’s difficult for us to develop that technology.” The assertion is likely to infuriate critics, who claim the government is in danger of locking the country into a high carbon future on the promise of the eventual deployment of a technology that may not work or prove cost-effective.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Coal rush questioned as bridge for energy gap
By Fiona Harvey and Jean Eaglesham
Published: August 1 2008 04:10
Environmental groups will on Friday mount a fresh attack on the government’s rationale for supporting more coal, publishing a study that suggests no new stations will be needed to bridge the looming “energy gap”, provided the UK’s energy efficiency and renewables targets are met.
The research will intensify the pressure on Gordon Brown, prime minister, to rescind his backing for Eon’s proposed new £1.5bn ($3bn) Kingsnorth plant in Kent, either by referring it to a public inquiry and so delaying development by years or rejecting it altogether.
The government to date shows no sign of wavering, arguing there is a compelling case for starting a new “coal rush”. One of the central planks of ministers’ arguments rests on the forecast energy gap – the shortfall of electricity supply compared with peak demand – that will be created by existing coal-fired and nuclear power stations shutting down. Experts fear this gap could exceed 20GW, equivalent to almost a third of current generation, by 2020.
But Greenpeace and WWF will on Friday publish a study that directly contradicts ministerial assertions that new coal-fired power stations are needed to ensure the UK does not suffer black-outs. The research by Poyry, the consultancy, states that the energy gap can be bridged by renewable energy. The proviso is that the UK must improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020, as required by the European Union, and meet government targets of generating about 35 to 40 per cent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind farms.
Even taking into account the need for back-up generation in case the wind does not blow, the Poyry study found there will be no call for new fossil fuel power stations until after 2020, largely because of assumed reductions in demand.
The government faces a dilemma – it cannot counter the biggest weakness in the new study without admitting to its own fallibilities. Keeping the lights on without sanctioning an increase in fossil fuels may not be possible if the UK fails to meet the EU target of generating 15 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020. All sides agree that meeting this target – which translates into between 30 and 40 per cent of electricity – will be a struggle. The UK generates less than 5 per cent of electricity from renewables at present.
The Financial Times’ interview on Friday with Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, suggests that the government is widening its argument for new coal beyond the confines of energy statistics. Tackling the climate change issue head on, Mr Wicks argued that taking the global moral high ground by banning coal stations could prove counter-productive.
Technology to curb emissions can best be developed if the country has a thriving coal-fired sector, Mr Wicks suggested. “If we said ‘no, we’ll have a moratorium because decent people have said we should’, it’s difficult for us to develop that technology.” The assertion is likely to infuriate critics, who claim the government is in danger of locking the country into a high carbon future on the promise of the eventual deployment of a technology that may not work or prove cost-effective.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: August 1 2008 04:10
Environmental groups will on Friday mount a fresh attack on the government’s rationale for supporting more coal, publishing a study that suggests no new stations will be needed to bridge the looming “energy gap”, provided the UK’s energy efficiency and renewables targets are met.
The research will intensify the pressure on Gordon Brown, prime minister, to rescind his backing for Eon’s proposed new £1.5bn ($3bn) Kingsnorth plant in Kent, either by referring it to a public inquiry and so delaying development by years or rejecting it altogether.
The government to date shows no sign of wavering, arguing there is a compelling case for starting a new “coal rush”. One of the central planks of ministers’ arguments rests on the forecast energy gap – the shortfall of electricity supply compared with peak demand – that will be created by existing coal-fired and nuclear power stations shutting down. Experts fear this gap could exceed 20GW, equivalent to almost a third of current generation, by 2020.
But Greenpeace and WWF will on Friday publish a study that directly contradicts ministerial assertions that new coal-fired power stations are needed to ensure the UK does not suffer black-outs. The research by Poyry, the consultancy, states that the energy gap can be bridged by renewable energy. The proviso is that the UK must improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020, as required by the European Union, and meet government targets of generating about 35 to 40 per cent of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind farms.
Even taking into account the need for back-up generation in case the wind does not blow, the Poyry study found there will be no call for new fossil fuel power stations until after 2020, largely because of assumed reductions in demand.
The government faces a dilemma – it cannot counter the biggest weakness in the new study without admitting to its own fallibilities. Keeping the lights on without sanctioning an increase in fossil fuels may not be possible if the UK fails to meet the EU target of generating 15 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2020. All sides agree that meeting this target – which translates into between 30 and 40 per cent of electricity – will be a struggle. The UK generates less than 5 per cent of electricity from renewables at present.
The Financial Times’ interview on Friday with Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, suggests that the government is widening its argument for new coal beyond the confines of energy statistics. Tackling the climate change issue head on, Mr Wicks argued that taking the global moral high ground by banning coal stations could prove counter-productive.
Technology to curb emissions can best be developed if the country has a thriving coal-fired sector, Mr Wicks suggested. “If we said ‘no, we’ll have a moratorium because decent people have said we should’, it’s difficult for us to develop that technology.” The assertion is likely to infuriate critics, who claim the government is in danger of locking the country into a high carbon future on the promise of the eventual deployment of a technology that may not work or prove cost-effective.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
India nuclear inspection plan backed
By Stephen Fidler in London and Amy Kazmin in New Delhi
Published: August 1 2008 12:25
The United Nations atomic watchdog has approved a controversial agreement that would increase the number of Indian nuclear reactors it inspects in a move that should ease the way for a nuclear co-operation deal between the US and India.
The unanimous approval by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna will expand from six to 14 the numbers of reactors under IAEA safeguards, leaving eight others not under the agency’s remit.
The approval is the first of two international steps required before the US-India pact, which allows the sales of civil nuclear technology and materials to India, can be finalised.
The second step – where the agreement could face greater resistance – is approval from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which has hitherto barred transfers of nuclear related equipment to India. An NSG meeting that will begin discussions of the India deal will start on August 21 and could seek to set further conditions before allowing the agreement to go ahead.
Critics have argued that the deal undermines the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which India is one of three countries never to have been a signatory.
Most international nuclear co-operation with India ceased after India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974 using plutonium produced from nuclear reactors in contravention of understandings with the US and Canada. This test also led to the formation of the NSG.
A handful of countries raised objections about the agreement, which some see as establishing a double standard for friends and adversaries of the US.
The countries raising objections included, diplomats said, Iraq, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Brazil and Japan. Some raised concerns that India had not joined the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty barring nuclear weapons testing.
Some critics had also argued that the agreement contained loopholes that would allow India – in the words of analysts from the Arms Control Association, a non-profit group based in Washington – “to legally and unilaterally withdraw safeguarded nuclear materials or facilities from safeguards”.
One diplomat said the IAEA was satisfied that withdrawal of any facilities “would be something like North Korea”, which was condemned internationally after it unilaterally announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003.
Supporters of the agreement said it brought India closer to the international nuclear fold.
Even if the NSG grants India a quick waiver and Washington is able to send the relevant legislation to Congress in the first days of September, it could be an uphill struggle to get the deal approved before November elections, and the end of the Bush administration. While both the Democrat and Republican candidates for the US presidency are thought to broadly support the deal, it is unlikely to be a big priority for a new administration.
India, which depends on imported fuel for 70 per cent of its energy needs, is looking to nuclear energy – developed with the help of foreign fuel and technology – to help it fill its current power shortfall, and the power demand of its rapidly growing economy.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: August 1 2008 12:25
The United Nations atomic watchdog has approved a controversial agreement that would increase the number of Indian nuclear reactors it inspects in a move that should ease the way for a nuclear co-operation deal between the US and India.
The unanimous approval by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna will expand from six to 14 the numbers of reactors under IAEA safeguards, leaving eight others not under the agency’s remit.
The approval is the first of two international steps required before the US-India pact, which allows the sales of civil nuclear technology and materials to India, can be finalised.
The second step – where the agreement could face greater resistance – is approval from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which has hitherto barred transfers of nuclear related equipment to India. An NSG meeting that will begin discussions of the India deal will start on August 21 and could seek to set further conditions before allowing the agreement to go ahead.
Critics have argued that the deal undermines the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which India is one of three countries never to have been a signatory.
Most international nuclear co-operation with India ceased after India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974 using plutonium produced from nuclear reactors in contravention of understandings with the US and Canada. This test also led to the formation of the NSG.
A handful of countries raised objections about the agreement, which some see as establishing a double standard for friends and adversaries of the US.
The countries raising objections included, diplomats said, Iraq, Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, Brazil and Japan. Some raised concerns that India had not joined the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty barring nuclear weapons testing.
Some critics had also argued that the agreement contained loopholes that would allow India – in the words of analysts from the Arms Control Association, a non-profit group based in Washington – “to legally and unilaterally withdraw safeguarded nuclear materials or facilities from safeguards”.
One diplomat said the IAEA was satisfied that withdrawal of any facilities “would be something like North Korea”, which was condemned internationally after it unilaterally announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003.
Supporters of the agreement said it brought India closer to the international nuclear fold.
Even if the NSG grants India a quick waiver and Washington is able to send the relevant legislation to Congress in the first days of September, it could be an uphill struggle to get the deal approved before November elections, and the end of the Bush administration. While both the Democrat and Republican candidates for the US presidency are thought to broadly support the deal, it is unlikely to be a big priority for a new administration.
India, which depends on imported fuel for 70 per cent of its energy needs, is looking to nuclear energy – developed with the help of foreign fuel and technology – to help it fill its current power shortfall, and the power demand of its rapidly growing economy.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
