Last Updated: 7:01am BST 12/08/2008
The US is sending a scientific expedition to explore the Arctic seabed, allowing it to gather data to build a claim to the region's natural resources.
A Coast Guard cutter will seek to determine the extent of the continental shelf north of Alaska and gather information on oil and gas deposits.
advertisement
The three-week voyage will create a three-dimensional map of the Arctic Ocean floor in a relatively unexplored area known as the Chukchi borderland.
A second expedition is also planned when the Coast Guard cutter Healy will be joined by Canadian scientists aboard an icebreaker, who will help collect data to determine the thickness of sediment in the region.
That is one factor a country can use to define its extended continental shelf. With oil at $114 a barrel, after hitting a record $147 in July, and sea ice melting fast, countries like Russia and the US are looking north for possible energy riches.
"These are places nobody's gone before, in essence, so this is a first step," said Margaret Hays, the director of the oceanic affairs office at the U.S. State Department. She said the data collected may provide information to the public about future oil and natural gas sources for the United States.
This will be the fourth year that the US has collected data to define the limits of its continental shelf in the Arctic.
Russia, which has claimed 460,000 square miles (1.19 million sq km) of Arctic waters, last summer planted its flag on the ocean floor of the North Pole.
Larry Mayer, a university scientist, said melting sea ice, presumably from global warming, helped last year's mission. "It was bad for the Arctic, but very very good for mapping."
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
Prince Charles warns GM crops risk causing the biggest-ever environmental disaster
By Jeff Randall
Last Updated: 2:01pm BST 12/08/2008
The mass development of genetically modified crops risks causing the world's worst environmental disaster, The Prince of Wales has warned.
In his most outspoken intervention on the issue of GM food, the Prince said that multi-national companies were conducting an experiment with nature which had gone "seriously wrong". The Prince, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph, also expressed the fear that food would run out because of the damage being wreaked on the earth's soil by scientists' research. He accused firms of conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong". "Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?".
The Prince of Wales: 'If that is the future, count me out'
Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food, he said, would result in "absolute disaster".
"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future," he said.
advertisement
"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.
"And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."
Small farmers, in particular, would be the victims of "gigantic corporations" taking over the mass production of food.
"I think it's heading for real disaster," he said.
"If they think this is the way to go....we [will] end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness."
The Prince of Wales's forthright comments will reopen the whole debate about GM food.
They will put him on a collision course with the international scientific community and Downing Street - which has allowed 54 GM crop trials in Britain since 2000.
His intervention comes at a critical time. There is intense pressure for more GM products, not fewer, because of soaring food costs and widespread shortages.
Many scientists believe GM research is the only way to guarantee food for the world's growing population as the planet is affected by climate change.
They will be dismayed by such a high profile and controversial contribution from the Prince of Wales at such a sensitive time.
The Prince will be braced for the biggest outpouring of criticism from scientists since he accused genetic engineers of taking us into "realms that belong to God and God alone" in an article in the Daily Telegraph in 1998.
In the interview the Prince, who has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate, held out the hope of the British agricultural system encouraging more and more family run co-operative farms.
When challenged over whether he was trying to turn back the clock, he said: "I think not. I'm terribly sorry. It's not going backwards. It is actually recognising that we are with nature, not against it. We have gone working against nature for too long."
The Prince of Wales cited the widespread environmental damage in India caused by the rush to mass produce GM food.
"Look at India's Green Revolution. It worked for a short time but now the price is being paid.
"I have been to the Punjab where you have seen the disasters that have taken place as result of the over demand on irrigation because of the hybrid seeds and grains that have been produced which demand huge amounts of water.
"[The] water table has disappeared. They have huge problems with water level, with pesticide problems, and complications which are now coming home to roost.
"Look at western Australia. Huge salinisation problems. I have been there. Seen it. Some of the excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture."
He said that the scientists were putting too much pressure on nature.
"If you are not working with natural assistance you cause untold problems. which become very expensive and very difficult to undo.
It places impossible burdens on nature and leads to accumulating problems which become more difficult to sort out."
In a keynote speech last year the Prince of Wales warned that the world faces a series of natural disasters within 18 months unless a £15 billion action plan is agreed to save the world's rain forests.
He has set up his own rain forest project with 15 of the world's largest companies, environmental and economic experts, to try to find ways to stop their destruction.
Only two weeks ago British GM researchers lobbied ministers for their crops to be kept in high-security facilities or in fields at secret locations across the country to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed.
They spoke out after protesters ripped up crops in one of only two GM trials to be approved in Britain this year.
Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming and whether they will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.
Last Updated: 2:01pm BST 12/08/2008
The mass development of genetically modified crops risks causing the world's worst environmental disaster, The Prince of Wales has warned.
In his most outspoken intervention on the issue of GM food, the Prince said that multi-national companies were conducting an experiment with nature which had gone "seriously wrong". The Prince, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph, also expressed the fear that food would run out because of the damage being wreaked on the earth's soil by scientists' research. He accused firms of conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong". "Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?".
The Prince of Wales: 'If that is the future, count me out'
Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food, he said, would result in "absolute disaster".
"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future," he said.
advertisement
"What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.
"And if they think its somehow going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."
Small farmers, in particular, would be the victims of "gigantic corporations" taking over the mass production of food.
"I think it's heading for real disaster," he said.
"If they think this is the way to go....we [will] end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness."
The Prince of Wales's forthright comments will reopen the whole debate about GM food.
They will put him on a collision course with the international scientific community and Downing Street - which has allowed 54 GM crop trials in Britain since 2000.
His intervention comes at a critical time. There is intense pressure for more GM products, not fewer, because of soaring food costs and widespread shortages.
Many scientists believe GM research is the only way to guarantee food for the world's growing population as the planet is affected by climate change.
They will be dismayed by such a high profile and controversial contribution from the Prince of Wales at such a sensitive time.
The Prince will be braced for the biggest outpouring of criticism from scientists since he accused genetic engineers of taking us into "realms that belong to God and God alone" in an article in the Daily Telegraph in 1998.
In the interview the Prince, who has an organic farm on his Highgrove estate, held out the hope of the British agricultural system encouraging more and more family run co-operative farms.
When challenged over whether he was trying to turn back the clock, he said: "I think not. I'm terribly sorry. It's not going backwards. It is actually recognising that we are with nature, not against it. We have gone working against nature for too long."
The Prince of Wales cited the widespread environmental damage in India caused by the rush to mass produce GM food.
"Look at India's Green Revolution. It worked for a short time but now the price is being paid.
"I have been to the Punjab where you have seen the disasters that have taken place as result of the over demand on irrigation because of the hybrid seeds and grains that have been produced which demand huge amounts of water.
"[The] water table has disappeared. They have huge problems with water level, with pesticide problems, and complications which are now coming home to roost.
"Look at western Australia. Huge salinisation problems. I have been there. Seen it. Some of the excessive approaches to modern forms of agriculture."
He said that the scientists were putting too much pressure on nature.
"If you are not working with natural assistance you cause untold problems. which become very expensive and very difficult to undo.
It places impossible burdens on nature and leads to accumulating problems which become more difficult to sort out."
In a keynote speech last year the Prince of Wales warned that the world faces a series of natural disasters within 18 months unless a £15 billion action plan is agreed to save the world's rain forests.
He has set up his own rain forest project with 15 of the world's largest companies, environmental and economic experts, to try to find ways to stop their destruction.
Only two weeks ago British GM researchers lobbied ministers for their crops to be kept in high-security facilities or in fields at secret locations across the country to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed.
They spoke out after protesters ripped up crops in one of only two GM trials to be approved in Britain this year.
Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming and whether they will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.
Amazon rainforest threatened by new wave of oil and gas exploration
With over 35 multinational companies racing to tap into oil and gas reserves situated in peak biodiversity spots, conservationists urge an environmental impact assessment
Ian Sample
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday August 13 2008 00:01 BST
Vast swathes of the western Amazon are to be opened up for oil and gas exploration, putting some of the planet's most pristine and biodiverse forests at risk, conservationists have warned.
A survey of land earmarked for exploration by energy companies revealed a steep rise in recent years, to around 180 zones, which together cover an area of 688,000 sq km, almost equivalent to the size of Texas.
Detailed mapping of the region shows the majority of planned oil and gas projects, which are operated by at least 35 multinational companies, are in the most species-rich areas of the Amazon for mammals, birds and amphibians.
Researchers used government information on land that has been leased to state or multinational energy companies over the past four years to create oil and gas exploration maps for western Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia. The maps showed that in Peru and Ecuador, regions designated for oil and gas projects already cover more than two thirds of the Amazon. Of 64 oil and gas regions that cover 72% of the Peruvian Amazon, all but eight were approved since 2003. Major increases in activity are expected in Bolivia and western Brazil.
"We've been following oil and gas development in the Amazon since 2004 and the picture has changed before our eyes," said Matt Finer of Save America's Forests, a US-based environment group. "When you look at where the oil and gas blocks are, they overlap perfectly on top of the peak biodiversity spots, almost as if by design, and this is in one of the most, if not the most, biodiverse place on Earth."
Some regions have established oil and gas reserves, but in others, companies will need to cut into the forest to conduct speculative tests, including explosive seismic investigations and test drilling. Typically, companies have seven years to explore a region before deciding whether to go into full production.
"The real concern is when exploration is successful and a zone moves into the development phase, because that's when the roads, drilling and pipelines come in," said Finer.
Writing in the journal PLoS One, Finer and others from Duke university in North Carolina and Land is Life, a Massachusetts-based environment group, call for governments to rethink how energy reserves in the Amazon are exploited.
One issue, the authors argue, is that while companies must submit an environmental impact assessment for their project, these are often considered individually instead of collectively. "They're not looking at the bigger picture of what happens if there are lots of projects going on at the same time.
"You could have each individual company thinking they're being relatively responsible and keeping their own road networks under control and so on, but what happens when you have 15 other projects around you? All of a sudden, when you look at the bigger picture, you have a sprawling road network," said Finer.
The creation of widespread road networks will put previously inaccessible forest at risk of deforestation, illegal hunting and logging, the authors argue.
The researchers urge companies to adopt a moratorium on new road building, and instead use helicopters to ferry personnel and machinery to and from the sites, as has been done in some locations. They also call for governments to take a broader view of the environmental impacts of new projects, by assessing them as a group rather than individually.
Further research by the team found that many of the planned exploration and extraction projects were on land that is home to indigenous people, who whilst being consulted, have no say in whether a project goes ahead or not. At least 58 of the 64 regions in Peru are on land where isolated communities live, with a further 17 infringing areas that have existing or proposed reserves for indigenous groups.
"The way that oil development is being pursued in the western Amazon is a gross violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples of the region," said Brain Keane of Land is Life. "International agreements and inter-American human rights law recognise indigenous peoples have rights to their lands, and explicitly prohibit the granting of concessions to exploit natural resources in their territories without their free, prior and informed consent," he added.
The report adds that the international community should pay countries in the Amazon to leave forest lands untouched. Ecuador has said it will not develop its largest untapped oil reserve if it receives compensation by the end of the year, an offer that countries have yet to take them up on.
Ian Sample
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday August 13 2008 00:01 BST
Vast swathes of the western Amazon are to be opened up for oil and gas exploration, putting some of the planet's most pristine and biodiverse forests at risk, conservationists have warned.
A survey of land earmarked for exploration by energy companies revealed a steep rise in recent years, to around 180 zones, which together cover an area of 688,000 sq km, almost equivalent to the size of Texas.
Detailed mapping of the region shows the majority of planned oil and gas projects, which are operated by at least 35 multinational companies, are in the most species-rich areas of the Amazon for mammals, birds and amphibians.
Researchers used government information on land that has been leased to state or multinational energy companies over the past four years to create oil and gas exploration maps for western Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia. The maps showed that in Peru and Ecuador, regions designated for oil and gas projects already cover more than two thirds of the Amazon. Of 64 oil and gas regions that cover 72% of the Peruvian Amazon, all but eight were approved since 2003. Major increases in activity are expected in Bolivia and western Brazil.
"We've been following oil and gas development in the Amazon since 2004 and the picture has changed before our eyes," said Matt Finer of Save America's Forests, a US-based environment group. "When you look at where the oil and gas blocks are, they overlap perfectly on top of the peak biodiversity spots, almost as if by design, and this is in one of the most, if not the most, biodiverse place on Earth."
Some regions have established oil and gas reserves, but in others, companies will need to cut into the forest to conduct speculative tests, including explosive seismic investigations and test drilling. Typically, companies have seven years to explore a region before deciding whether to go into full production.
"The real concern is when exploration is successful and a zone moves into the development phase, because that's when the roads, drilling and pipelines come in," said Finer.
Writing in the journal PLoS One, Finer and others from Duke university in North Carolina and Land is Life, a Massachusetts-based environment group, call for governments to rethink how energy reserves in the Amazon are exploited.
One issue, the authors argue, is that while companies must submit an environmental impact assessment for their project, these are often considered individually instead of collectively. "They're not looking at the bigger picture of what happens if there are lots of projects going on at the same time.
"You could have each individual company thinking they're being relatively responsible and keeping their own road networks under control and so on, but what happens when you have 15 other projects around you? All of a sudden, when you look at the bigger picture, you have a sprawling road network," said Finer.
The creation of widespread road networks will put previously inaccessible forest at risk of deforestation, illegal hunting and logging, the authors argue.
The researchers urge companies to adopt a moratorium on new road building, and instead use helicopters to ferry personnel and machinery to and from the sites, as has been done in some locations. They also call for governments to take a broader view of the environmental impacts of new projects, by assessing them as a group rather than individually.
Further research by the team found that many of the planned exploration and extraction projects were on land that is home to indigenous people, who whilst being consulted, have no say in whether a project goes ahead or not. At least 58 of the 64 regions in Peru are on land where isolated communities live, with a further 17 infringing areas that have existing or proposed reserves for indigenous groups.
"The way that oil development is being pursued in the western Amazon is a gross violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples of the region," said Brain Keane of Land is Life. "International agreements and inter-American human rights law recognise indigenous peoples have rights to their lands, and explicitly prohibit the granting of concessions to exploit natural resources in their territories without their free, prior and informed consent," he added.
The report adds that the international community should pay countries in the Amazon to leave forest lands untouched. Ecuador has said it will not develop its largest untapped oil reserve if it receives compensation by the end of the year, an offer that countries have yet to take them up on.
Weir ready to cash in on UK's new generation of nuclear power plants
Mark Selway: When the UK government’s nuclear power programme goes ahead, Weir will be a beneficiary
Published Date: 13 August 2008
By Erikka Askeland
Business correspondent
GOVERNMENT plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations could provide a further boost to the fortunes of Weir Group, which has revealed a big rise in half-year turnover and operating profits.
Revenues at the group's growing power generation division were up 10 per cent to £100 million, the interim results showed yesterday.Already boosted by growth in China and North America , the generation arm of the Glasgow-based firm is set to gain further as the government presses ahead with building more nuclear stations.Yesterday Weir chief executive Mark Selway predicted that, when the UK government's nuclear power programme went ahead, Weir would be a beneficiary.Selway said: "A number of governments are recognising they either need to upgrade (nuclear] facilities, or build new facilities. "Our customers are people like Areva and GE and we tend to be specified because of specialist nature of the product we produce."Weir has already produced nuclear safety valves for a newly built factory in Massachusetts in the US as well as in China.It provides the devices through supplying key nuclear build sub-contractors, including French business Areva, a partner of British Energy suitor EDF, and General Electric."Weir is picking up business outside UK and one day, presumably, there will be business in the UK as well, if the government gets its act together," said Michael Blogg, engineering analyst with Arbuthnot Securities.Yesterday was the first time Weir Group reported under its new divisional structure. Power and industrials is one division. Minerals is another and oil and gas makes the third.Overall group revenue was up 46 per cent to £632m while operating profits, before amortisation and tax, nearly doubled to £84.7m. However, profits after tax were down to £108.5m from £117.9 million a year earlier, affected by the group's active disposal and acquisitions programme. Revenues in the group's largest division, minerals, was up 29 per cent to £340m while operating profits increased 45 per cent to £53.4m.Turnover in the division was boosted almost £20m by CH Warman, the African pumps company it acquired at the end of last year. Operating profits for the oil and gas division were £27.8m, up an impressive 266 per cent thanks to the "high margin" Texas pumps business it bought last year, SPM. With its new RBS-backed debt facilities hoisted from £475m to £550m, Weir has anywhere from £250m to £300m for further acquisitions. Selway said he did not expect a deal the size of SPM, which cost them £328m, although he said he will acquire new businesses in the form of some "lumpy bolt-ons".
Published Date: 13 August 2008
By Erikka Askeland
Business correspondent
GOVERNMENT plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations could provide a further boost to the fortunes of Weir Group, which has revealed a big rise in half-year turnover and operating profits.
Revenues at the group's growing power generation division were up 10 per cent to £100 million, the interim results showed yesterday.Already boosted by growth in China and North America , the generation arm of the Glasgow-based firm is set to gain further as the government presses ahead with building more nuclear stations.Yesterday Weir chief executive Mark Selway predicted that, when the UK government's nuclear power programme went ahead, Weir would be a beneficiary.Selway said: "A number of governments are recognising they either need to upgrade (nuclear] facilities, or build new facilities. "Our customers are people like Areva and GE and we tend to be specified because of specialist nature of the product we produce."Weir has already produced nuclear safety valves for a newly built factory in Massachusetts in the US as well as in China.It provides the devices through supplying key nuclear build sub-contractors, including French business Areva, a partner of British Energy suitor EDF, and General Electric."Weir is picking up business outside UK and one day, presumably, there will be business in the UK as well, if the government gets its act together," said Michael Blogg, engineering analyst with Arbuthnot Securities.Yesterday was the first time Weir Group reported under its new divisional structure. Power and industrials is one division. Minerals is another and oil and gas makes the third.Overall group revenue was up 46 per cent to £632m while operating profits, before amortisation and tax, nearly doubled to £84.7m. However, profits after tax were down to £108.5m from £117.9 million a year earlier, affected by the group's active disposal and acquisitions programme. Revenues in the group's largest division, minerals, was up 29 per cent to £340m while operating profits increased 45 per cent to £53.4m.Turnover in the division was boosted almost £20m by CH Warman, the African pumps company it acquired at the end of last year. Operating profits for the oil and gas division were £27.8m, up an impressive 266 per cent thanks to the "high margin" Texas pumps business it bought last year, SPM. With its new RBS-backed debt facilities hoisted from £475m to £550m, Weir has anywhere from £250m to £300m for further acquisitions. Selway said he did not expect a deal the size of SPM, which cost them £328m, although he said he will acquire new businesses in the form of some "lumpy bolt-ons".
Wind farms are not only beautiful, they're absolutely necessary
Turbines are vital in the fight against climate change. That is why I've applied for four of them, says Simon Gourlay
Simon Gourlay
The Guardian,
Tuesday August 12 2008
Michael Berkeley is clearly a man with a mission - to save beautiful British countryside from desecration by wind turbines. Hence his article asserts that "we owe it to our children's children to preserve it" (A blot of turbines, July 28).
Because I have on many occasions publicly acknowledged that I live in beautiful countryside, the fact that I have "put together a new application to Herefordshire for four turbines" in the Welsh Marches makes me, in Berkeley's eyes, the ultimate vandal.
He has other problems with wind energy - "the incomprehensibly vast subsidies available". Berkeley is, like me, a farmer and thus will know a great deal about generous direct government subsidy. But for wind turbines there is no equivalent. There is only the same support as for all renewables, which is in the form of renewables obligation certificates that are funded by a small surcharge on everyone's energy bills - currently around 0.35p/kWh.
Another problem is "the near negligible gain" from wind turbines. Unlike some of his fellow travellers, Berkeley is no climate change denier. Indeed he now drives a hybrid car and has a wood-burning stove: both very laudable actions. It is absolutely crucial that we all do what we can. And in my case one thing I can do is to combine with other local farmers to produce the electricity to supply around 6,000 homes.
But visual impact is clearly Berkeley's main concern. For some, wherever turbines are built will always be inappropriate. The fact that since I first saw them in Cornwall some 15 years ago I have found them beautiful is neither here nor there - but it is relevant that repeated opinion surveys have shown that more than 70% of people in this country either like or do not mind the visual impact (though I am aware that some of the minority dislike them intensely).
When an application for 12 turbines overlooking Ardrossan, a small seaside town on the west coast of Scotland, was submitted, understandably there was considerable concern. Yet a year after it was commissioned, one of the town's councillors wrote: "The Ardrossan wind farm has been overwhelmingly accepted by local people - instead of spoiling the landscape, we believe it has been enhanced. The turbines are impressive looking, bring a calming effect to the town and, contrary to the belief that they would be noisy, we have found them to be silent workhorses."
The legacy we leave our children's children is something I care about passionately, but my priorities are at variance with Berkeley's. I believe that unless humankind does all it possibly can, as soon as it possibly can, the tipping point will be passed and climate change - probably within the lifetime of our children's children - will be catastrophic. But if humankind mends its ways and finds other forms of renewable energy, at the end of the 25-year life of a wind farm the turbines can be taken down and the countryside will be indistinguishable from how it is now.
· Simon Gourlay runs a family farm on the Welsh border and was president of the National Farmers Union, 1986-91 simon@maryvalefarms.co.uk
Simon Gourlay
The Guardian,
Tuesday August 12 2008
Michael Berkeley is clearly a man with a mission - to save beautiful British countryside from desecration by wind turbines. Hence his article asserts that "we owe it to our children's children to preserve it" (A blot of turbines, July 28).
Because I have on many occasions publicly acknowledged that I live in beautiful countryside, the fact that I have "put together a new application to Herefordshire for four turbines" in the Welsh Marches makes me, in Berkeley's eyes, the ultimate vandal.
He has other problems with wind energy - "the incomprehensibly vast subsidies available". Berkeley is, like me, a farmer and thus will know a great deal about generous direct government subsidy. But for wind turbines there is no equivalent. There is only the same support as for all renewables, which is in the form of renewables obligation certificates that are funded by a small surcharge on everyone's energy bills - currently around 0.35p/kWh.
Another problem is "the near negligible gain" from wind turbines. Unlike some of his fellow travellers, Berkeley is no climate change denier. Indeed he now drives a hybrid car and has a wood-burning stove: both very laudable actions. It is absolutely crucial that we all do what we can. And in my case one thing I can do is to combine with other local farmers to produce the electricity to supply around 6,000 homes.
But visual impact is clearly Berkeley's main concern. For some, wherever turbines are built will always be inappropriate. The fact that since I first saw them in Cornwall some 15 years ago I have found them beautiful is neither here nor there - but it is relevant that repeated opinion surveys have shown that more than 70% of people in this country either like or do not mind the visual impact (though I am aware that some of the minority dislike them intensely).
When an application for 12 turbines overlooking Ardrossan, a small seaside town on the west coast of Scotland, was submitted, understandably there was considerable concern. Yet a year after it was commissioned, one of the town's councillors wrote: "The Ardrossan wind farm has been overwhelmingly accepted by local people - instead of spoiling the landscape, we believe it has been enhanced. The turbines are impressive looking, bring a calming effect to the town and, contrary to the belief that they would be noisy, we have found them to be silent workhorses."
The legacy we leave our children's children is something I care about passionately, but my priorities are at variance with Berkeley's. I believe that unless humankind does all it possibly can, as soon as it possibly can, the tipping point will be passed and climate change - probably within the lifetime of our children's children - will be catastrophic. But if humankind mends its ways and finds other forms of renewable energy, at the end of the 25-year life of a wind farm the turbines can be taken down and the countryside will be indistinguishable from how it is now.
· Simon Gourlay runs a family farm on the Welsh border and was president of the National Farmers Union, 1986-91 simon@maryvalefarms.co.uk
Biofuel Energy shares fall 60%
By Kevin Allison in San Francisco
Published: August 12 2008 23:31
Plunging commodity prices claimed a casualty on Tuesday after Biofuel Energy, one of the biggest independent US ethanol producers, said millions of dollars of losses on hedges designed to protect against the rising cost of corn and natural gas had left it short of cash.
Biofuel’s shares plunged more than 60 per cent after it warned that it lacked short-term liquidity to cover a combined $46m in realised and mark-to-market losses on its hedging contracts.
Biofuel, which uses corn and natural gas to make ethanol for use in petrol, said it had hedged about 40 per cent of its short-term corn requirements as of June 30. At the time, corn was trading at more than $7 a bushel but it has since fallen by more than a third to $4.84, resulting in steep losses for the company.
The cash squeeze could present an opportunity for Cargill, the agricultural processing giant that was counterparty to the group’s hedging contracts.
Biofuel said it was in discussions with Cargill over a payment schedule that would allow it to meet its short-term obligations. Cargill is a shareholder in Biofuel and the two companies have struck long-term supply and marketing agreements.
“We are fully engaged [with Biofuel] as they work their way through this,” Cargill said.
Biofuel did not return calls for a comment.
Ethanol producers have been battered in recent years by a collapse in ethanol prices and a sharp spike in the cost of corn and natural gas required to make the fuel.
Many ethanol companies engage in hedging to limit the impact of swings in commodity prices, but it was not clear on Tuesday whether other ethanol producers were facing similar exposure.
The Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry lobby group, said most ethanol producers had locked-in corn prices to the end of August.
Biofuel said it had realised $10.1m in gains on its futures and options con- tracts as of the e nd of June.
But those gains quickly turned to losses following the steep fall in corn prices, according to the company.
Biofuel’s shares dropped 63.1 per cent on Tuesday to 93 cents, adding to a slide of more than 80 per cent this year.
Additional reporting by Stephanie Kirchgaessner
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: August 12 2008 23:31
Plunging commodity prices claimed a casualty on Tuesday after Biofuel Energy, one of the biggest independent US ethanol producers, said millions of dollars of losses on hedges designed to protect against the rising cost of corn and natural gas had left it short of cash.
Biofuel’s shares plunged more than 60 per cent after it warned that it lacked short-term liquidity to cover a combined $46m in realised and mark-to-market losses on its hedging contracts.
Biofuel, which uses corn and natural gas to make ethanol for use in petrol, said it had hedged about 40 per cent of its short-term corn requirements as of June 30. At the time, corn was trading at more than $7 a bushel but it has since fallen by more than a third to $4.84, resulting in steep losses for the company.
The cash squeeze could present an opportunity for Cargill, the agricultural processing giant that was counterparty to the group’s hedging contracts.
Biofuel said it was in discussions with Cargill over a payment schedule that would allow it to meet its short-term obligations. Cargill is a shareholder in Biofuel and the two companies have struck long-term supply and marketing agreements.
“We are fully engaged [with Biofuel] as they work their way through this,” Cargill said.
Biofuel did not return calls for a comment.
Ethanol producers have been battered in recent years by a collapse in ethanol prices and a sharp spike in the cost of corn and natural gas required to make the fuel.
Many ethanol companies engage in hedging to limit the impact of swings in commodity prices, but it was not clear on Tuesday whether other ethanol producers were facing similar exposure.
The Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol industry lobby group, said most ethanol producers had locked-in corn prices to the end of August.
Biofuel said it had realised $10.1m in gains on its futures and options con- tracts as of the e nd of June.
But those gains quickly turned to losses following the steep fall in corn prices, according to the company.
Biofuel’s shares dropped 63.1 per cent on Tuesday to 93 cents, adding to a slide of more than 80 per cent this year.
Additional reporting by Stephanie Kirchgaessner
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Sky's the limit for green pioneers
By Jonathan Guthrie
Published: August 13 2008 03:00
Standing next to an array of mirrors that are turning scorching sunshine into steam and electricity, Graham Ford forecasts a future for clean technology entrepreneurs that is as limitless as the Fenland sky above. "We are still at a very early stage in the development of clean technology," he says. "Most of the businesses will fail. But scaleable solutions will also come to the fore that have not even been invented yet."
It is by pure chance the Financial Times is visiting Mr Ford's company Helio-dynamics on one of those rare British summer days unpunctuated by sheeting rain. Our more normal lousy weather might make his claims appear hyperbolic. However, the proof of Heliodynamics' commercial concept is that Mr Ford and his co-founders recently sold the business to Energymixx for £5m. The Swiss company plans to market mirror arrays designed near Cambridge to industrial clients in sunny Italy.
Clean technology has been a hot area for entrepreneurship, driven by growing general nervousness about climate change. Backing from external investors rose from £103m to £227m in the UK last year, a healthy amount by the modest standards of British venture capital.
A fair proportion of that figure was absorbed by businesses in and around Cambridge, reflecting the strength of the physical sciences cluster spawned by the university. Across Europe, investment jumped from €317m (£248m) to €712m, according to Library House, a data company that researches technology start-ups.
Doug Richard, Library House chairman and a venture investor himself, describes clean technology as "a collection of sectors pursuing a common goal". The focus of the entrepreneurs is pioneering technologies that reduce global warming and waste. These include renewable energy, energy efficiency, emissions reduction and recycling.
Talking at the headquarters of Library House in Cambridge, which resembles a college-cum-trading floor, the ex- Dragons' Den panellist is keen to counter those who adhere to the 19th century political economist Thomas Malthus's dire predictions for population outstripping resources. Neo-Malthusian detractors of clean technology argue that only much lower population growth and consumption can save the planet; clean technology, in that context, is merely a vain search for ways to sanction continued human overindulgence.
"The problem with that argument is deciding who has access to existing energy sources and who lives or dies," says Mr Richard, with appropriate libertarian irritation. "I believe our efforts should be focused on solving this annoying problem [of sustainability]. We should consume less energy, but not by sacrificing economic growth." Malthus's conclusion was proved wrong as technologists increased the productivity of farmland in step with a rising population. Besides, as Mr Richard notes, rising living standards usually reduce birth rates.
Clean technology investment dipped in the second quarter of this year, in line with a downturn in venture capital that reflected jitters about the world economy. Mr Richard nevertheless asserts that clean technology is "non-cyclical", saying: "The front-page news [on climate change] and the huge issues facing the planet do not change."
But nor does the difficulty of garnering start-up capital. Tim Haynes, founder of Nujira, an energy-saving business, says that a £500,000 seed capital round in 2002 was the hardest part of raising the £10m it has banked so far.
The company, whose technology promises to halve electricity consumption by energy-hungry mobile phone masts, is finding an additional "substantial" financing much easier. It helps that Nujira has contracts to supply its Coolteq device to 12 out of 18 mast manufacturers.
"If you look inside a mobile phone base station, you find that a large proportion of the operating cost is from taking small signals for transmission to phone users and amplifying them," Mr Haynes says.
The solution he and his team came up with was "envelope tracking" - modulating the energy used to amplify a signal in tandem with its peaks and troughs. Previously, a constant amount of energy was used, which was big enough to cover peaks but most was wasted during troughs.
Mr Haynes, looking very much the technology entrepreneur with his open-necked shirt and stubble, believes the market for Coolteq in mobile base stations and TV transmitters is worth $350m (£184m) a year. Adapting the technology for use in mobile handsets to extend their battery life could generate sales of $800m.
Mr Haynes started the business in time-honoured fashion in a garage, progressed to a converted farm building and now works from offices and labs in Cambourne, Cambridge that accommodate 50 staff. He says: "In the next year to 18 months we will know whether we have listing potential, or whether another kind of exit would be appropriate."
In the short term, investors in Nujira such as Amadeus, the Cambridge-based technology specialist, are likely to hold on to their shares. Secondary market volatility has closed the new-issues market, with consequent damage to trade sale exit multiples. Andrea Traversone, a partner at Amadeus, says declining liquidity for venture-backed companies is a serious worry. Meanwhile, too few clean-technology companies have been sold to establish a returns profile to guide would-be investors.
However, Mr Traversone re-mains upbeat about Nujira, which he views as unusual in having disruptive technology that is highly defensible and that could unlock a big market opportunity. He says envelope tracking is, in fact, an old idea "the whole industry had failed to crack" until Nujira came along.
Earlier this year, Arvind Sodhani, president of Intel Capital, an important venture capital investor, warned of a speculative bubble in clean technology start-ups. It is an inevitable concern in the wake of the dotbomb and the less-thanimpressive performance of many social networking websites. But echoing the words of solar power entrepreneur Mr Ford, Mr Traversone ripostes: "This is not a fad, this is a secular trend in investment."
Refrigeration scientists warming to an old technology
Higher oil and gas prices increase the value of energy-saving technology of the kind developed by Camfridge, a green refrigeration business based in Cambridge.
Brandishing a test chilling unit intended for a domestic fridge, founder Neil Wilson enthuses: "This is energy-efficient, gas-free, and for the consumer it will be very low-cost. It does everything better and is competitively priced."
Like Nujira, Camfridge aims to harness rising energy costs and concern about climate change to make an old technological idea a market reality. The concept deployed by Camfridge - magnetic refrigeration, in which a fluctuating electro-magnetic field reduces the temperature of a coolant - dates back to the 1920s.
Mr Wilson, a Cambridge physics PhD previously involved in US software start-ups, says the technology pioneered by Camfridge uses half the energy of conventional refrigeration and dispenses with coolants that are based on global warming gases.
Camfridge is the fruit of a collaboration between Mr Wilson, co-founder Alessandro Pastore and two Cambridge University physics professors. Its small staff is crammed along with its equipment into a room in the St John's Innovation Centre. A fridge shrouded in a sheet hides the brand name of a manufacturer collaborating with Camfridge.
The Carbon Trust, the government-backed eco-advocate, has endorsed Camfridge with match funding. The company's main difficulty is persuading venture capitalists to contribute £1m to the £3m it hopes to raise within a year. Camfridge wants to commercialise its technology in time for the 2012 London Olympics, when a lucrative tie-in with a cold drinks business may materialise.
But few venture capitalists are excited by such a small investment opportunity. As ever in research and development, it is a case of science for science's sake, money for God's sake.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: August 13 2008 03:00
Standing next to an array of mirrors that are turning scorching sunshine into steam and electricity, Graham Ford forecasts a future for clean technology entrepreneurs that is as limitless as the Fenland sky above. "We are still at a very early stage in the development of clean technology," he says. "Most of the businesses will fail. But scaleable solutions will also come to the fore that have not even been invented yet."
It is by pure chance the Financial Times is visiting Mr Ford's company Helio-dynamics on one of those rare British summer days unpunctuated by sheeting rain. Our more normal lousy weather might make his claims appear hyperbolic. However, the proof of Heliodynamics' commercial concept is that Mr Ford and his co-founders recently sold the business to Energymixx for £5m. The Swiss company plans to market mirror arrays designed near Cambridge to industrial clients in sunny Italy.
Clean technology has been a hot area for entrepreneurship, driven by growing general nervousness about climate change. Backing from external investors rose from £103m to £227m in the UK last year, a healthy amount by the modest standards of British venture capital.
A fair proportion of that figure was absorbed by businesses in and around Cambridge, reflecting the strength of the physical sciences cluster spawned by the university. Across Europe, investment jumped from €317m (£248m) to €712m, according to Library House, a data company that researches technology start-ups.
Doug Richard, Library House chairman and a venture investor himself, describes clean technology as "a collection of sectors pursuing a common goal". The focus of the entrepreneurs is pioneering technologies that reduce global warming and waste. These include renewable energy, energy efficiency, emissions reduction and recycling.
Talking at the headquarters of Library House in Cambridge, which resembles a college-cum-trading floor, the ex- Dragons' Den panellist is keen to counter those who adhere to the 19th century political economist Thomas Malthus's dire predictions for population outstripping resources. Neo-Malthusian detractors of clean technology argue that only much lower population growth and consumption can save the planet; clean technology, in that context, is merely a vain search for ways to sanction continued human overindulgence.
"The problem with that argument is deciding who has access to existing energy sources and who lives or dies," says Mr Richard, with appropriate libertarian irritation. "I believe our efforts should be focused on solving this annoying problem [of sustainability]. We should consume less energy, but not by sacrificing economic growth." Malthus's conclusion was proved wrong as technologists increased the productivity of farmland in step with a rising population. Besides, as Mr Richard notes, rising living standards usually reduce birth rates.
Clean technology investment dipped in the second quarter of this year, in line with a downturn in venture capital that reflected jitters about the world economy. Mr Richard nevertheless asserts that clean technology is "non-cyclical", saying: "The front-page news [on climate change] and the huge issues facing the planet do not change."
But nor does the difficulty of garnering start-up capital. Tim Haynes, founder of Nujira, an energy-saving business, says that a £500,000 seed capital round in 2002 was the hardest part of raising the £10m it has banked so far.
The company, whose technology promises to halve electricity consumption by energy-hungry mobile phone masts, is finding an additional "substantial" financing much easier. It helps that Nujira has contracts to supply its Coolteq device to 12 out of 18 mast manufacturers.
"If you look inside a mobile phone base station, you find that a large proportion of the operating cost is from taking small signals for transmission to phone users and amplifying them," Mr Haynes says.
The solution he and his team came up with was "envelope tracking" - modulating the energy used to amplify a signal in tandem with its peaks and troughs. Previously, a constant amount of energy was used, which was big enough to cover peaks but most was wasted during troughs.
Mr Haynes, looking very much the technology entrepreneur with his open-necked shirt and stubble, believes the market for Coolteq in mobile base stations and TV transmitters is worth $350m (£184m) a year. Adapting the technology for use in mobile handsets to extend their battery life could generate sales of $800m.
Mr Haynes started the business in time-honoured fashion in a garage, progressed to a converted farm building and now works from offices and labs in Cambourne, Cambridge that accommodate 50 staff. He says: "In the next year to 18 months we will know whether we have listing potential, or whether another kind of exit would be appropriate."
In the short term, investors in Nujira such as Amadeus, the Cambridge-based technology specialist, are likely to hold on to their shares. Secondary market volatility has closed the new-issues market, with consequent damage to trade sale exit multiples. Andrea Traversone, a partner at Amadeus, says declining liquidity for venture-backed companies is a serious worry. Meanwhile, too few clean-technology companies have been sold to establish a returns profile to guide would-be investors.
However, Mr Traversone re-mains upbeat about Nujira, which he views as unusual in having disruptive technology that is highly defensible and that could unlock a big market opportunity. He says envelope tracking is, in fact, an old idea "the whole industry had failed to crack" until Nujira came along.
Earlier this year, Arvind Sodhani, president of Intel Capital, an important venture capital investor, warned of a speculative bubble in clean technology start-ups. It is an inevitable concern in the wake of the dotbomb and the less-thanimpressive performance of many social networking websites. But echoing the words of solar power entrepreneur Mr Ford, Mr Traversone ripostes: "This is not a fad, this is a secular trend in investment."
Refrigeration scientists warming to an old technology
Higher oil and gas prices increase the value of energy-saving technology of the kind developed by Camfridge, a green refrigeration business based in Cambridge.
Brandishing a test chilling unit intended for a domestic fridge, founder Neil Wilson enthuses: "This is energy-efficient, gas-free, and for the consumer it will be very low-cost. It does everything better and is competitively priced."
Like Nujira, Camfridge aims to harness rising energy costs and concern about climate change to make an old technological idea a market reality. The concept deployed by Camfridge - magnetic refrigeration, in which a fluctuating electro-magnetic field reduces the temperature of a coolant - dates back to the 1920s.
Mr Wilson, a Cambridge physics PhD previously involved in US software start-ups, says the technology pioneered by Camfridge uses half the energy of conventional refrigeration and dispenses with coolants that are based on global warming gases.
Camfridge is the fruit of a collaboration between Mr Wilson, co-founder Alessandro Pastore and two Cambridge University physics professors. Its small staff is crammed along with its equipment into a room in the St John's Innovation Centre. A fridge shrouded in a sheet hides the brand name of a manufacturer collaborating with Camfridge.
The Carbon Trust, the government-backed eco-advocate, has endorsed Camfridge with match funding. The company's main difficulty is persuading venture capitalists to contribute £1m to the £3m it hopes to raise within a year. Camfridge wants to commercialise its technology in time for the 2012 London Olympics, when a lucrative tie-in with a cold drinks business may materialise.
But few venture capitalists are excited by such a small investment opportunity. As ever in research and development, it is a case of science for science's sake, money for God's sake.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Shell rapped by ASA for 'greenwash' advert
Oil company's claim that its work in Alberta's tar sands was 'sustainable' is branded 'misleading' by Advertising Standards Authority
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday August 13 2008 00:01 BST
Part of Shell's advert which the ASA deemed to be guilty of greenwash
Oil giant Shell misled the public when it claimed in an advertisement that its giant $10bn oil sands project in northern Canada was a "sustainable energy source", according to the Advertising Standards Authority.
The tar sands cover over 140,000 square kilometres of Alberta and contain nearly 173bn barrels of oil in the form of bitumen. This is strip-mined from vast open pits and the bitumen is then heated, using far larger amounts of energy than in normal oil operations, therefore causing greater carbon dioxide emissions. A recent report suggested that the production of oil from tar sands can create up to eight times as many emissions as producing conventional oil.
In one of the most significant "greenwash" rulings in some years, the independent body responsible for regulating UK advertising upheld a complaint from green campaign group WWF that Shell's advert in the Financial Times was "misleading".
"We considered that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' (Defra) best practice guidance on environmental claims stated that green claims should not 'be vague or ambiguous, for instance by simply trying to give a good impression about general concern for the environment. Claims should always avoid the vague use of terms such as 'sustainable', 'green', 'non-polluting' and so on", said the ASA.
"Defra had made that recommendation because, although 'sustainable' was a widely used term, the lack of a universally agreed definition meant that it was likely to be ambiguous and unclear to consumers. Because we had not seen data that showed how Shell was effectively managing carbon emissions from its oil sands projects in order to limit climate change, we concluded that the ad was misleading", said the ruling.
WWF argued that Shell was not helping provide a sustainable future by exploiting the oil sands. WWF said the oil sands were one of the world's dirtiest sources of fuel and had a major impact on the environment. "Their extraction cannot be described as a sustainable process and for Shell to claim otherwise was wholly misleading," said David Norman, Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK.
Shell had responded to the challenge that the accepted definition of the phrase "sustainable development" was "development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". It argued that this definition supported strong economic and social development over time, and recognised the importance of affordable and convenient energy in achieving that, whilst underlining the importance of protecting the environment.
Contributing towards "sustainable development", said the company, "meant helping to meet the world's growing energy needs in economic, social and environmentally responsible ways, and that in all their operations they integrated economic, environmental and social considerations into their business decision making".
"The ASA's decision to uphold WWF's complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that 'greenwash' is unacceptable," said Norman. "If Shell were serious about sourcing sustainable energy, then they would be far better placed investing in renewable energy, such as wind, tidal or solar power".
The ASA also ruled that Shell's construction of the world's largest refinery in Texas, also mentioned in the advertisement, was not helping sustainable energy production.
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday August 13 2008 00:01 BST
Part of Shell's advert which the ASA deemed to be guilty of greenwash
Oil giant Shell misled the public when it claimed in an advertisement that its giant $10bn oil sands project in northern Canada was a "sustainable energy source", according to the Advertising Standards Authority.
The tar sands cover over 140,000 square kilometres of Alberta and contain nearly 173bn barrels of oil in the form of bitumen. This is strip-mined from vast open pits and the bitumen is then heated, using far larger amounts of energy than in normal oil operations, therefore causing greater carbon dioxide emissions. A recent report suggested that the production of oil from tar sands can create up to eight times as many emissions as producing conventional oil.
In one of the most significant "greenwash" rulings in some years, the independent body responsible for regulating UK advertising upheld a complaint from green campaign group WWF that Shell's advert in the Financial Times was "misleading".
"We considered that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' (Defra) best practice guidance on environmental claims stated that green claims should not 'be vague or ambiguous, for instance by simply trying to give a good impression about general concern for the environment. Claims should always avoid the vague use of terms such as 'sustainable', 'green', 'non-polluting' and so on", said the ASA.
"Defra had made that recommendation because, although 'sustainable' was a widely used term, the lack of a universally agreed definition meant that it was likely to be ambiguous and unclear to consumers. Because we had not seen data that showed how Shell was effectively managing carbon emissions from its oil sands projects in order to limit climate change, we concluded that the ad was misleading", said the ruling.
WWF argued that Shell was not helping provide a sustainable future by exploiting the oil sands. WWF said the oil sands were one of the world's dirtiest sources of fuel and had a major impact on the environment. "Their extraction cannot be described as a sustainable process and for Shell to claim otherwise was wholly misleading," said David Norman, Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK.
Shell had responded to the challenge that the accepted definition of the phrase "sustainable development" was "development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". It argued that this definition supported strong economic and social development over time, and recognised the importance of affordable and convenient energy in achieving that, whilst underlining the importance of protecting the environment.
Contributing towards "sustainable development", said the company, "meant helping to meet the world's growing energy needs in economic, social and environmentally responsible ways, and that in all their operations they integrated economic, environmental and social considerations into their business decision making".
"The ASA's decision to uphold WWF's complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that 'greenwash' is unacceptable," said Norman. "If Shell were serious about sourcing sustainable energy, then they would be far better placed investing in renewable energy, such as wind, tidal or solar power".
The ASA also ruled that Shell's construction of the world's largest refinery in Texas, also mentioned in the advertisement, was not helping sustainable energy production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
