The Times
December 13, 2008
Green lobby cry foul as biggest polluters get more time to clean up
Summit criticised as missed opportunity for giving heavy industry concessions over carbon emissions
David Charter in Brussels and Lewis Smith
Heavy industry won extra time to go green yesterday as fears of factory closures during the economic crisis led Europe’s leaders to water down climate change proposals.
The EU stuck to its target to cut 20 per cent of greenhouse gases by 2020 and boost renewable energy, winning praise from John Kerry, Barack Obama’s envoy to a UN climate change summit in Poznan, Poland.
The goals are the world’s most ambitious and the EU hopes that Mr Obama will use them to steer the US towards a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.
But big concessions for polluting industries such as steel and cement, under pressure from the German Government, led to accusations that yesterday’s EU summit in Brussels was a missed opportunity.
Related Links
Merkel signs up to EU's economic bailout deal
Sarkozy humbled by females he can't fire
Climate change ‘hits poor hardest’
Multimedia
BLOG: save the planet - make love more
Plans to make all industries buy permits to emit pollution from 2013 onwards were deferred by EU leaders amid fears that these costs would cause job cuts and an exodus of production to countries with less stringent controls.
While electricity generators will have to buy their carbon permits the EU decided to hand free credits to key industries in a move that will reduce revenue for green measures such as developing carbon capture projects.
European industries exposed to international competition will receive free emissions permits if they face a 5 per cent increase in costs, a measure that is viewed as covering more than 90 per cent of EU industry. They will still have to reduce emissions year on year.
James Wilsdon, of the Royal Society, said that the EU climate change deal could represent “a missed opportunity” because of the way it had been watered down.
He said that too much attention had been paid to short-term economic considerations instead of the longer and more deadly problems of climate change.
“Europe must have a fully functioning Emissions Trading Scheme covering all sectors, where permits are not just given away. Those who cannot see beyond the short term must not hold sway – the consequences are too serious,” he said.
“Large-scale investment now in green technologies can reap long-term economic gains. A failure to invest in these will leave Europe dependent on others for our energy and increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.”
In the wide-ranging compromise deal struck by EU leaders, Britain won €3 billion (£2.6 billion) for extra investment in carbon capture and storage, taking the total to €9 billion. President Sarkozy of France, who chaired the EU summit, hailed the deal as seminal. “It is quite historic what has happened here. No continent has given itself such binding rules,” he said.
But Greenpeace, the WWF and other environmental groups denounced the agreement as “a dark day for European climate policy” despite the commitment to retain the headline target of 20 per cent CO2 cuts by 2020. “European heads of state and government have turned their backs on global efforts to fight climate change,” they said in a joint statement.
They accused the German, Italian and Polish leaders, plus Mr Sarkozy, of choosing “private profits of polluting industry over the will of European citizens, the future of their children and the plight of millions of people”.
Mr Kerry said that the EU’s overall agreement would serve as a blueprint for the rest of the world. He said that the deal would have an impact at talks planned for Copenhagen next December when world leaders will meet to try to seal an international accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.
Europe has been the driving force for getting a fresh pact to succeed Kyoto in 2013, but delays and disagreements on its own measures have damaged its reputation in recent weeks.
Its failure to sign off its climate change package until yesterday was one of the chief stumbling blocks at the Poznan summit, where other countries were reluctant to commit themselves to becoming low-carbon economies until wealthier nations acted. The global economic downturn has meant rich and poor nations have been less willing to spend money on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Even though it was watered down, the accord served as a catalyst to break two weeks of deadlock at Poznan. Within hours of learning of the agreement, delegates moved towards releasing hundreds of millions of dollars to help poor nations protect themselves from the impact of climate change.
Negotiators in the Polish city agreed to release cash from the Adaptation Fund to poor nations where it will be used to help them cope with global warming. Mozaharul Alam, a delegate from Bangladesh, said: “This is an important step.”
As 145 ministers and 10,000 delegates prepared to head home they were addressed by Al Gore, the former US Vice-President who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change. He urged them to work to seal an accord in Copenhagen next year on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was clear that “increased CO2 emissions anywhere are a threat to the integrity of this planet’s climate balance everywhere”, Mr Gore said.
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Green Is the New Color of Lobbying
Makers of Energy-Saving Products See Opportunities in Big Stimulus Bill
By BRODY MULLINS
WASHINGTON -- Lobbying for green energy has become a red hot business here.
From electric cars to "green" roofs, companies that produce renewable fuels and energy-efficient products have snapped up Washington lobbyists at a rapid clip to get a helping hand from the federal government.
Nearly 300 green companies and industry groups have signed up Washington lobbying firms seeking tax breaks, research grants, contracts and other government business during the current two-year session of Congress, according to disclosure forms reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. That is an eightfold increase from the previous session.
The growth in the green-lobbying business is the offshoot of converging economic and political trends: Rising energy prices and concerns about global warming have created a need to find alternative energy sources. Meanwhile, the 2006 and 2008 elections have empowered Democrats who are more inclined to use the government to boost energy efficiency and renewable fuels. That has put billions of dollars up for grabs.
Green lobbyists are watching the coming economic-stimulus bill, which President-elect Barack Obama says will include grants and tax incentives for energy-efficient products and renewable fuels. Congress is expected to take up a broader energy bill and an energy-tax bill later that will be targets for green programs.
"It's all very positive for those in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industry," says Craig Silvertooth, executive director of the Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing.
Mr. Silvertooth's trade association, which was founded earlier this year, is pressing for tax incentives to encourage commercial developers to replace their roofs with energy efficient materials.
Mr. Obama gave momentum to the green roofing group when he told NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend that the country has "an enormously inefficient building stock and we can save huge amounts of energy costs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, by simple things like weatherization and changing the lighting in major buildings." Mr. Obama said that he will include such a proposal in the economic-stimulus package that he hopes Congress will pass early next year.
Lobbyists for scores of green companies see the stimulus plan as a ripe opportunity. The American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association want to require as much as 20% of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources. The Integrated Waste Services Association wants the government to require more fuel to come from municipal solid waste. Companies that seek to harness ocean waves to make energy want some help from the government.
A coalition of renewable-fuel companies wants to upgrade the electricity grid so they can expand the marketplace for their renewable electricity. The National Association of Homebuilders wants bigger tax credits for constructing energy-efficient homes.
The growing business for green lobbying has spurred some lobbyists to shift their focus. Sam Geduldig, a financial-services lobbyist, signed up the green-roofing association a few months ago and is close to making a deal with two other clients. Mr. Geduldig says "there are no bad meetings" when he brings renewable clients to Capitol Hill. "You go into a Republican office and they love the innovation and idea of putting energy back into the grid," he says between pitches. "Democrats love the green technology angle and encouraging conservation."
One company making the rounds this week was Cincinnati-based Advanced Mechanical Products Inc., which builds electric cars. The company's president and CEO, Jack Kuntz, has been on Capitol Hill seeking funding and tax incentives needed to increase his production from a few hundred cars a year to a few thousand.
On Tuesday, the company filed an application with the Energy Department for a $20 million loan from a federal program designed to encourage advanced technology vehicles.
For the past few days, Mr. Kuntz has parked one of his electric cars, a converted Saturn, on Capitol Hill to show off for lawmakers and aides. The car has a range of 150 miles with a battery that takes 3.5 hours to fully charge at a cost of less than $5. The electric cars cost a total of about $50,000 each, including the cost of a new Saturn.
Mike Dektus, a company spokesman, says the company would like a $7,500-per-car tax credit to make it more affordable to consumers. "Everybody who is involved in automotive these days is looking for tax credits," Mr. Dektus says.—T.W. Farnam and Brad Haynes contributed to this article.
Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com
By BRODY MULLINS
WASHINGTON -- Lobbying for green energy has become a red hot business here.
From electric cars to "green" roofs, companies that produce renewable fuels and energy-efficient products have snapped up Washington lobbyists at a rapid clip to get a helping hand from the federal government.
Nearly 300 green companies and industry groups have signed up Washington lobbying firms seeking tax breaks, research grants, contracts and other government business during the current two-year session of Congress, according to disclosure forms reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. That is an eightfold increase from the previous session.
The growth in the green-lobbying business is the offshoot of converging economic and political trends: Rising energy prices and concerns about global warming have created a need to find alternative energy sources. Meanwhile, the 2006 and 2008 elections have empowered Democrats who are more inclined to use the government to boost energy efficiency and renewable fuels. That has put billions of dollars up for grabs.
Green lobbyists are watching the coming economic-stimulus bill, which President-elect Barack Obama says will include grants and tax incentives for energy-efficient products and renewable fuels. Congress is expected to take up a broader energy bill and an energy-tax bill later that will be targets for green programs.
"It's all very positive for those in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industry," says Craig Silvertooth, executive director of the Center for Environmental Innovation in Roofing.
Mr. Silvertooth's trade association, which was founded earlier this year, is pressing for tax incentives to encourage commercial developers to replace their roofs with energy efficient materials.
Mr. Obama gave momentum to the green roofing group when he told NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend that the country has "an enormously inefficient building stock and we can save huge amounts of energy costs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, by simple things like weatherization and changing the lighting in major buildings." Mr. Obama said that he will include such a proposal in the economic-stimulus package that he hopes Congress will pass early next year.
Lobbyists for scores of green companies see the stimulus plan as a ripe opportunity. The American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association want to require as much as 20% of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources. The Integrated Waste Services Association wants the government to require more fuel to come from municipal solid waste. Companies that seek to harness ocean waves to make energy want some help from the government.
A coalition of renewable-fuel companies wants to upgrade the electricity grid so they can expand the marketplace for their renewable electricity. The National Association of Homebuilders wants bigger tax credits for constructing energy-efficient homes.
The growing business for green lobbying has spurred some lobbyists to shift their focus. Sam Geduldig, a financial-services lobbyist, signed up the green-roofing association a few months ago and is close to making a deal with two other clients. Mr. Geduldig says "there are no bad meetings" when he brings renewable clients to Capitol Hill. "You go into a Republican office and they love the innovation and idea of putting energy back into the grid," he says between pitches. "Democrats love the green technology angle and encouraging conservation."
One company making the rounds this week was Cincinnati-based Advanced Mechanical Products Inc., which builds electric cars. The company's president and CEO, Jack Kuntz, has been on Capitol Hill seeking funding and tax incentives needed to increase his production from a few hundred cars a year to a few thousand.
On Tuesday, the company filed an application with the Energy Department for a $20 million loan from a federal program designed to encourage advanced technology vehicles.
For the past few days, Mr. Kuntz has parked one of his electric cars, a converted Saturn, on Capitol Hill to show off for lawmakers and aides. The car has a range of 150 miles with a battery that takes 3.5 hours to fully charge at a cost of less than $5. The electric cars cost a total of about $50,000 each, including the cost of a new Saturn.
Mike Dektus, a company spokesman, says the company would like a $7,500-per-car tax credit to make it more affordable to consumers. "Everybody who is involved in automotive these days is looking for tax credits," Mr. Dektus says.—T.W. Farnam and Brad Haynes contributed to this article.
Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com
Al Gore calls for tougher global limit on CO2 levels
David Adam in Poznan
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 December 2008 13.25 GMT
Al Gore has called for world governments to significantly strengthen their carbon emission reduction targets in the face of growing evidence that global warming will strike harder and sooner than scientists realised.
Gore, a former US vice president, told UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland that even the most ambitious existing targets would be unable to hold world temperature rise to safe levels.
He called for a new global goal of limiting carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (ppm) - current levels are already over 380ppm, up from 280ppm before the industrial revolution.
"I call on the people of the world to speak up more forcefully," he said. "We need to focus clearly and unblinkingly on this crisis rather than spending so much time on OJ Simpson, Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith."
He called for world leaders to meet several times over the next few months, to ensure a new global deal on climate change is agreed at a UN meeting in Copenhagen next year.
Gore spoke of ending the "old divide" between rich and poor countries and said the developed world needed to combine efforts to fight poverty and reduce climate emissions.
He said people across the world faced with the threat of global warming deserve better than "politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing".
His speech was a rare show of ambition at the Poznan talks, which are edging towards the low-level achievements predicted at the start by negotiators. The talks aim to set the stage for a global agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. British officials said the only likely process would be to formally launch a new negotiating phase when they conclude tonight.
Campaigners have criticised rich countries for failing to commit to new carbon reduction targets at Poznan. Insiders say no progress on that is expected until Barack Obama makes his intentions clear as new US president in the spring.
Gore admitted that progress at Poznan appeared to be "painfully slow" but said he was optimistic that Copenhagen would reach the required deal. "I say that it can be done and that it must be done."
And he described the EU effort in Brussels this week to reach a compromise between environmental and economic priorities as a "struggle between hope and fear".
Gore's call for a new global carbon target of 350ppm echoes warnings by Jim Hansen, a climate expert with Nasa, who argues that carbon levels must be brought down to prevent catastrophic warming and sea level rise over the next century.
At present, most scentists and politicians in the developed world focus on a target of 450-550ppm, which could raise temperatures at least 2C-3C.
Earlier this year, Kevin Anderson, a climate expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, said it was "improbable" that levels could be stabilised below 650ppm, because of booming carbon emissions since 2000.
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 December 2008 13.25 GMT
Al Gore has called for world governments to significantly strengthen their carbon emission reduction targets in the face of growing evidence that global warming will strike harder and sooner than scientists realised.
Gore, a former US vice president, told UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland that even the most ambitious existing targets would be unable to hold world temperature rise to safe levels.
He called for a new global goal of limiting carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (ppm) - current levels are already over 380ppm, up from 280ppm before the industrial revolution.
"I call on the people of the world to speak up more forcefully," he said. "We need to focus clearly and unblinkingly on this crisis rather than spending so much time on OJ Simpson, Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith."
He called for world leaders to meet several times over the next few months, to ensure a new global deal on climate change is agreed at a UN meeting in Copenhagen next year.
Gore spoke of ending the "old divide" between rich and poor countries and said the developed world needed to combine efforts to fight poverty and reduce climate emissions.
He said people across the world faced with the threat of global warming deserve better than "politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing".
His speech was a rare show of ambition at the Poznan talks, which are edging towards the low-level achievements predicted at the start by negotiators. The talks aim to set the stage for a global agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. British officials said the only likely process would be to formally launch a new negotiating phase when they conclude tonight.
Campaigners have criticised rich countries for failing to commit to new carbon reduction targets at Poznan. Insiders say no progress on that is expected until Barack Obama makes his intentions clear as new US president in the spring.
Gore admitted that progress at Poznan appeared to be "painfully slow" but said he was optimistic that Copenhagen would reach the required deal. "I say that it can be done and that it must be done."
And he described the EU effort in Brussels this week to reach a compromise between environmental and economic priorities as a "struggle between hope and fear".
Gore's call for a new global carbon target of 350ppm echoes warnings by Jim Hansen, a climate expert with Nasa, who argues that carbon levels must be brought down to prevent catastrophic warming and sea level rise over the next century.
At present, most scentists and politicians in the developed world focus on a target of 450-550ppm, which could raise temperatures at least 2C-3C.
Earlier this year, Kevin Anderson, a climate expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, said it was "improbable" that levels could be stabilised below 650ppm, because of booming carbon emissions since 2000.
EU leaders claim historic leap towards low-carbon future
Ambitious climate change pact makes generous concessions to the big polluters in European heavy industry
Ian Traynor and Nick Watt in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 December 2008 17.56 GMT
European leaders tonight announced they were leading the world towards a low-carbon future after sealing an ambitious climate change pact by making generous concessions to the big polluters in European heavy industry.
A two-day summit of 27 government leaders in Brussels ended a two-year effort to agree mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and came as a triumph for President Nicolas Sarkozy of France in the closing days of his six-month presidency of the EU.
Not noted for his understatement, the French leader declared: "This council will go down in the history of Europe."
The French navigated a route through conflicting claims from Poland, Hungary, Germany, and Italy to finalise a deal that keeps the EU's key carbon dioxide reduction targets intact, while easing the costs of the package for European manufacturers and heavy industry.
The climate accord orders Europe to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. This is to be achieved through national reduction targets which vary among the 27 countries and through a Europe-wide carbon trading scheme in which industries and power plants buy permits to pollute from 2013.
The rules for the emissions trading scheme (ETS), however, were relaxed under German pressure to exempt most companies in the processing industries, such as steel and cement, from paying for the permits and power stations in central Europe, mostly coal-fired, were awarded large discounts on the price of carbon.
"To address the specific concerns of some countries, we had to accept some changes," said Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission whose draft legislation on the package was much stiffer than that agreed yesterday.The decisions, to be turned into law by the European parliament next week, also cut CO2 emissions from cars by 19% by 2015, set binding national targets for renewable energy to total 20% of the European energy mix by 2020, encourage the use of "sustainable" biofuels, and order 20% greater energy efficiency by 2020.
Gordon Brown said: "This is a major advance. Europe, after these decisions, remains the leader on climate change."
But critics complained that the package was too little too late, that EU leaders had capitulated to fierce lobbying from European industry, that the loopholes in the system and the awarding of pollution permits free to most non-energy firms in the scheme would trigger a bonanza in windfall corporate profits.
"Industry has to do next to nothing," said Claude Turmes, a Green MEP from Luxembourg who helped draft part of the legislation. "If they are honest, these leaders know they haven't agreed something really ambitious."
Robin Webster, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "This could have been one of Europe's finest moments. But huge loopholes allow big energy-users to carry on polluting."
Barroso admitted that the terms of the deal could bring windfall profits for industry, reversing the logic of the polluter pays principle that is supposed to underpin the carbon trading scheme.
But he and others stressed that these concessions did not affect the overall targets. The accord was the first such agreement in the world and put Europe in a strong position to strike a broader pact with the incoming Obama administration in the US ahead of the effort to reach a worldwide global warming agreement in Copenhagen a year from now, Barroso said.
"This is a message especially to our US partners," said Barroso. "Obama is still far from what we are proposing…The idea that this has been watered down is nonsense."
"Combined with the spirit of engagement from president-elect Obama, there is now everything to play for as we put the pieces in place for a global climate deal in Copenhagen next December," said Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary.
The package also includes provision for 12 pilot projects on carbon capture and storage — using novel technology to collect CO2 emitted from power stations and bury it underground.
The projects are to be funded from the proceeds of the carbon trading which is supposed to generate tens of billions in revenue by 2020. Under pressure from the British, the summit agreed to double the funding available for these projects.
"This is a transformational funding stream for a transformational technology," said David Miliband, the foreign secretary. "Nowhere else in the world has got that."
Ian Traynor and Nick Watt in Brussels
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 December 2008 17.56 GMT
European leaders tonight announced they were leading the world towards a low-carbon future after sealing an ambitious climate change pact by making generous concessions to the big polluters in European heavy industry.
A two-day summit of 27 government leaders in Brussels ended a two-year effort to agree mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and came as a triumph for President Nicolas Sarkozy of France in the closing days of his six-month presidency of the EU.
Not noted for his understatement, the French leader declared: "This council will go down in the history of Europe."
The French navigated a route through conflicting claims from Poland, Hungary, Germany, and Italy to finalise a deal that keeps the EU's key carbon dioxide reduction targets intact, while easing the costs of the package for European manufacturers and heavy industry.
The climate accord orders Europe to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. This is to be achieved through national reduction targets which vary among the 27 countries and through a Europe-wide carbon trading scheme in which industries and power plants buy permits to pollute from 2013.
The rules for the emissions trading scheme (ETS), however, were relaxed under German pressure to exempt most companies in the processing industries, such as steel and cement, from paying for the permits and power stations in central Europe, mostly coal-fired, were awarded large discounts on the price of carbon.
"To address the specific concerns of some countries, we had to accept some changes," said Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission whose draft legislation on the package was much stiffer than that agreed yesterday.The decisions, to be turned into law by the European parliament next week, also cut CO2 emissions from cars by 19% by 2015, set binding national targets for renewable energy to total 20% of the European energy mix by 2020, encourage the use of "sustainable" biofuels, and order 20% greater energy efficiency by 2020.
Gordon Brown said: "This is a major advance. Europe, after these decisions, remains the leader on climate change."
But critics complained that the package was too little too late, that EU leaders had capitulated to fierce lobbying from European industry, that the loopholes in the system and the awarding of pollution permits free to most non-energy firms in the scheme would trigger a bonanza in windfall corporate profits.
"Industry has to do next to nothing," said Claude Turmes, a Green MEP from Luxembourg who helped draft part of the legislation. "If they are honest, these leaders know they haven't agreed something really ambitious."
Robin Webster, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "This could have been one of Europe's finest moments. But huge loopholes allow big energy-users to carry on polluting."
Barroso admitted that the terms of the deal could bring windfall profits for industry, reversing the logic of the polluter pays principle that is supposed to underpin the carbon trading scheme.
But he and others stressed that these concessions did not affect the overall targets. The accord was the first such agreement in the world and put Europe in a strong position to strike a broader pact with the incoming Obama administration in the US ahead of the effort to reach a worldwide global warming agreement in Copenhagen a year from now, Barroso said.
"This is a message especially to our US partners," said Barroso. "Obama is still far from what we are proposing…The idea that this has been watered down is nonsense."
"Combined with the spirit of engagement from president-elect Obama, there is now everything to play for as we put the pieces in place for a global climate deal in Copenhagen next December," said Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary.
The package also includes provision for 12 pilot projects on carbon capture and storage — using novel technology to collect CO2 emitted from power stations and bury it underground.
The projects are to be funded from the proceeds of the carbon trading which is supposed to generate tens of billions in revenue by 2020. Under pressure from the British, the summit agreed to double the funding available for these projects.
"This is a transformational funding stream for a transformational technology," said David Miliband, the foreign secretary. "Nowhere else in the world has got that."
EU leaders drastically weaken their emission ambition
By James Kanter and Stephen Castle
Published: December 12, 2008
BRUSSELS: European leaders agreed on Friday to binding measures to curb global warming but pushed back deadlines and granted significant concessions to smokestack industries that said they were struggling in a hard economic climate.
At the close of a two-day summit meeting, the leaders also endorsed a €200 billion, or $267 billion economic stimulus package of mostly national measures, which are devised to avert the worst effects of recession.
But most of the focus was on the climate deal amid fears that the dire economic straits would result in a watering down of the package. In the end, the leaders stuck to their ambitious targets of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020, and insisted the goal would not be jeopardized by the breaks, granted mainly for East European countries and heavy manufacturers.
They also challenged the United States, after Barack Obama becomes president, to match their ambition.
"This is historic," said the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who added that no other continent had agreed to be bound by such strict rules. He called on Obama to "join Europe and with us to lead in this global effort."
José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, echoed Obama's campaign slogan with his message, telling the EU's global partners: "Yes you can."
But analysts and representatives from the renewable energy industry criticized the concessions made to East European countries fearing sky-high energy bills and to industries facing stiff foreign competition that will continue to receive some of their pollution permits for free, rather than having to pay for them. Critics say that will only allow industries to put off making fundamental improvements in their operations to reduce emissions.
"EU governments to some extent have removed the incentive to invest in less carbon-intensive processes," said Mark Lewis, the global head of carbon research at Deutsche Bank in Paris. "We could have gone further and done so a good deal faster without this political compromise."
Under the original plan, electric utilities, which now get most of their pollution permits for free, would have had to start paying for them starting in 2013. Instead, utilities in East European countries like Poland and Hungary would not need to buy all of their required permits until 2020.
In another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their costs are increasing and that they are significantly exposed to international competition.
Manufacturers not exposed to international competition will have to pay for their permits beginning in 2013, starting with 20 percent and gradually increasing. But rather than paying for all of their permits by 2020, as under the commission's original plan, they would pay for only 70 percent by then.
Christian Kjaer, the chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association, warned that Europe was "losing credibility and leadership in the fight against climate change."
Even so, EU governments kept in place an earlier goal of capping emissions in Europe at a level significantly lower than the current level. That was "a genuine achievement in the current very difficult economic circumstances," said Lewis of Deutsche Bank.
During tense negotiations in Brussels, Sarkozy first won over Germany with concessions to its industry and then, gradually, managed to reach a deal with Eastern European nations.
"At the end of the negotiation," said Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland's Europe minister, "Hungary and Poland were the last actors on the stage," underlining their tough negotiating stance, he said.
Warsaw would gain €15 billion in the form of free emissions permits to help poorer nations, he added.
Dowgielewicz said that the package "would not have been workable" without that concession.
"It would have blown up after introduction in countries like Poland because of the economic and social effect."
Sarkozy also argued that without assistance, Polish energy prices would rise two or threefold, because of the country's heavy reliance on dirty coal.
Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, greeted cameras with a V for victory sign as he left the summit meeting.
But analysts said large windfall profits would continue for some electricity generators in Eastern Europe.
Under the accord, power companies in countries that are comparatively poor and that use significant amounts of coal still will be able to receive 70 percent of their permits for free from 2013, although that amount would gradually decline to zero by 2020. The formula devised by the EU would include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
Stig Schjolset, a senior analyst at Point Carbon, said power companies in these countries stood to make billions of euros in windfall profits in the same way that West European companies, like RWE of Germany, have been able to in recent years.
EU leaders drastically weaken their emission ambition
By James Kanter and Stephen Castle
Published: December 12, 2008
document.writeln('');
-->
E-Mail Article
Listen to Article
Printer-Friendly
3-Column Format
Translate
Share Article
Text Size
BRUSSELS: European leaders agreed on Friday to binding measures to curb global warming but pushed back deadlines and granted significant concessions to smokestack industries that said they were struggling in a hard economic climate.
At the close of a two-day summit meeting, the leaders also endorsed a €200 billion, or $267 billion economic stimulus package of mostly national measures, which are devised to avert the worst effects of recession.
But most of the focus was on the climate deal amid fears that the dire economic straits would result in a watering down of the package. In the end, the leaders stuck to their ambitious targets of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020, and insisted the goal would not be jeopardized by the breaks, granted mainly for East European countries and heavy manufacturers.
They also challenged the United States, after Barack Obama becomes president, to match their ambition.
"This is historic," said the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who added that no other continent had agreed to be bound by such strict rules. He called on Obama to "join Europe and with us to lead in this global effort."
José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, echoed Obama's campaign slogan with his message, telling the EU's global partners: "Yes you can."
But analysts and representatives from the renewable energy industry criticized the concessions made to East European countries fearing sky-high energy bills and to industries facing stiff foreign competition that will continue to receive some of their pollution permits for free, rather than having to pay for them. Critics say that will only allow industries to put off making fundamental improvements in their operations to reduce emissions.
"EU governments to some extent have removed the incentive to invest in less carbon-intensive processes," said Mark Lewis, the global head of carbon research at Deutsche Bank in Paris. "We could have gone further and done so a good deal faster without this political compromise."
Under the original plan, electric utilities, which now get most of their pollution permits for free, would have had to start paying for them starting in 2013. Instead, utilities in East European countries like Poland and Hungary would not need to buy all of their required permits until 2020.
In another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their costs are increasing and that they are significantly exposed to international competition.
Manufacturers not exposed to international competition will have to pay for their permits beginning in 2013, starting with 20 percent and gradually increasing. But rather than paying for all of their permits by 2020, as under the commission's original plan, they would pay for only 70 percent by then.
Christian Kjaer, the chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association, warned that Europe was "losing credibility and leadership in the fight against climate change."
Even so, EU governments kept in place an earlier goal of capping emissions in Europe at a level significantly lower than the current level. That was "a genuine achievement in the current very difficult economic circumstances," said Lewis of Deutsche Bank.
During tense negotiations in Brussels, Sarkozy first won over Germany with concessions to its industry and then, gradually, managed to reach a deal with Eastern European nations.
"At the end of the negotiation," said Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland's Europe minister, "Hungary and Poland were the last actors on the stage," underlining their tough negotiating stance, he said.
Warsaw would gain €15 billion in the form of free emissions permits to help poorer nations, he added.
Dowgielewicz said that the package "would not have been workable" without that concession.
"It would have blown up after introduction in countries like Poland because of the economic and social effect."
Sarkozy also argued that without assistance, Polish energy prices would rise two or threefold, because of the country's heavy reliance on dirty coal.
Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, greeted cameras with a V for victory sign as he left the summit meeting.
But analysts said large windfall profits would continue for some electricity generators in Eastern Europe.
Under the accord, power companies in countries that are comparatively poor and that use significant amounts of coal still will be able to receive 70 percent of their permits for free from 2013, although that amount would gradually decline to zero by 2020. The formula devised by the EU would include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
Stig Schjolset, a senior analyst at Point Carbon, said power companies in these countries stood to make billions of euros in windfall profits in the same way that West European companies, like RWE of Germany, have been able to in recent years.
Published: December 12, 2008
BRUSSELS: European leaders agreed on Friday to binding measures to curb global warming but pushed back deadlines and granted significant concessions to smokestack industries that said they were struggling in a hard economic climate.
At the close of a two-day summit meeting, the leaders also endorsed a €200 billion, or $267 billion economic stimulus package of mostly national measures, which are devised to avert the worst effects of recession.
But most of the focus was on the climate deal amid fears that the dire economic straits would result in a watering down of the package. In the end, the leaders stuck to their ambitious targets of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020, and insisted the goal would not be jeopardized by the breaks, granted mainly for East European countries and heavy manufacturers.
They also challenged the United States, after Barack Obama becomes president, to match their ambition.
"This is historic," said the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who added that no other continent had agreed to be bound by such strict rules. He called on Obama to "join Europe and with us to lead in this global effort."
José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, echoed Obama's campaign slogan with his message, telling the EU's global partners: "Yes you can."
But analysts and representatives from the renewable energy industry criticized the concessions made to East European countries fearing sky-high energy bills and to industries facing stiff foreign competition that will continue to receive some of their pollution permits for free, rather than having to pay for them. Critics say that will only allow industries to put off making fundamental improvements in their operations to reduce emissions.
"EU governments to some extent have removed the incentive to invest in less carbon-intensive processes," said Mark Lewis, the global head of carbon research at Deutsche Bank in Paris. "We could have gone further and done so a good deal faster without this political compromise."
Under the original plan, electric utilities, which now get most of their pollution permits for free, would have had to start paying for them starting in 2013. Instead, utilities in East European countries like Poland and Hungary would not need to buy all of their required permits until 2020.
In another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their costs are increasing and that they are significantly exposed to international competition.
Manufacturers not exposed to international competition will have to pay for their permits beginning in 2013, starting with 20 percent and gradually increasing. But rather than paying for all of their permits by 2020, as under the commission's original plan, they would pay for only 70 percent by then.
Christian Kjaer, the chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association, warned that Europe was "losing credibility and leadership in the fight against climate change."
Even so, EU governments kept in place an earlier goal of capping emissions in Europe at a level significantly lower than the current level. That was "a genuine achievement in the current very difficult economic circumstances," said Lewis of Deutsche Bank.
During tense negotiations in Brussels, Sarkozy first won over Germany with concessions to its industry and then, gradually, managed to reach a deal with Eastern European nations.
"At the end of the negotiation," said Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland's Europe minister, "Hungary and Poland were the last actors on the stage," underlining their tough negotiating stance, he said.
Warsaw would gain €15 billion in the form of free emissions permits to help poorer nations, he added.
Dowgielewicz said that the package "would not have been workable" without that concession.
"It would have blown up after introduction in countries like Poland because of the economic and social effect."
Sarkozy also argued that without assistance, Polish energy prices would rise two or threefold, because of the country's heavy reliance on dirty coal.
Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, greeted cameras with a V for victory sign as he left the summit meeting.
But analysts said large windfall profits would continue for some electricity generators in Eastern Europe.
Under the accord, power companies in countries that are comparatively poor and that use significant amounts of coal still will be able to receive 70 percent of their permits for free from 2013, although that amount would gradually decline to zero by 2020. The formula devised by the EU would include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
Stig Schjolset, a senior analyst at Point Carbon, said power companies in these countries stood to make billions of euros in windfall profits in the same way that West European companies, like RWE of Germany, have been able to in recent years.
EU leaders drastically weaken their emission ambition
By James Kanter and Stephen Castle
Published: December 12, 2008
document.writeln('');
-->
E-Mail Article
Listen to Article
Printer-Friendly
3-Column Format
Translate
Share Article
Text Size
BRUSSELS: European leaders agreed on Friday to binding measures to curb global warming but pushed back deadlines and granted significant concessions to smokestack industries that said they were struggling in a hard economic climate.
At the close of a two-day summit meeting, the leaders also endorsed a €200 billion, or $267 billion economic stimulus package of mostly national measures, which are devised to avert the worst effects of recession.
But most of the focus was on the climate deal amid fears that the dire economic straits would result in a watering down of the package. In the end, the leaders stuck to their ambitious targets of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 percent by 2020, and insisted the goal would not be jeopardized by the breaks, granted mainly for East European countries and heavy manufacturers.
They also challenged the United States, after Barack Obama becomes president, to match their ambition.
"This is historic," said the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who added that no other continent had agreed to be bound by such strict rules. He called on Obama to "join Europe and with us to lead in this global effort."
José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, echoed Obama's campaign slogan with his message, telling the EU's global partners: "Yes you can."
But analysts and representatives from the renewable energy industry criticized the concessions made to East European countries fearing sky-high energy bills and to industries facing stiff foreign competition that will continue to receive some of their pollution permits for free, rather than having to pay for them. Critics say that will only allow industries to put off making fundamental improvements in their operations to reduce emissions.
"EU governments to some extent have removed the incentive to invest in less carbon-intensive processes," said Mark Lewis, the global head of carbon research at Deutsche Bank in Paris. "We could have gone further and done so a good deal faster without this political compromise."
Under the original plan, electric utilities, which now get most of their pollution permits for free, would have had to start paying for them starting in 2013. Instead, utilities in East European countries like Poland and Hungary would not need to buy all of their required permits until 2020.
In another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their costs are increasing and that they are significantly exposed to international competition.
Manufacturers not exposed to international competition will have to pay for their permits beginning in 2013, starting with 20 percent and gradually increasing. But rather than paying for all of their permits by 2020, as under the commission's original plan, they would pay for only 70 percent by then.
Christian Kjaer, the chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association, warned that Europe was "losing credibility and leadership in the fight against climate change."
Even so, EU governments kept in place an earlier goal of capping emissions in Europe at a level significantly lower than the current level. That was "a genuine achievement in the current very difficult economic circumstances," said Lewis of Deutsche Bank.
During tense negotiations in Brussels, Sarkozy first won over Germany with concessions to its industry and then, gradually, managed to reach a deal with Eastern European nations.
"At the end of the negotiation," said Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Poland's Europe minister, "Hungary and Poland were the last actors on the stage," underlining their tough negotiating stance, he said.
Warsaw would gain €15 billion in the form of free emissions permits to help poorer nations, he added.
Dowgielewicz said that the package "would not have been workable" without that concession.
"It would have blown up after introduction in countries like Poland because of the economic and social effect."
Sarkozy also argued that without assistance, Polish energy prices would rise two or threefold, because of the country's heavy reliance on dirty coal.
Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, greeted cameras with a V for victory sign as he left the summit meeting.
But analysts said large windfall profits would continue for some electricity generators in Eastern Europe.
Under the accord, power companies in countries that are comparatively poor and that use significant amounts of coal still will be able to receive 70 percent of their permits for free from 2013, although that amount would gradually decline to zero by 2020. The formula devised by the EU would include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.
Stig Schjolset, a senior analyst at Point Carbon, said power companies in these countries stood to make billions of euros in windfall profits in the same way that West European companies, like RWE of Germany, have been able to in recent years.
Europe looks to Obama over stimulus
Reuters
Published: December 12, 2008
By Marcin Grajewski and Pete Harrison
EU leaders sealed an ambitious global warming deal and 200-billion-euro (179 billion pound) economic crisis pact on Friday, urging U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to join Europe in a "trans-atlantic recovery plan."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 as the most radical in the world, despite concessions to industry which dismayed ecology groups. Economic crisis sweeping the world should not undermine climate policy.
"Our message to our global partners is: 'Yes, you can ... especially to our American partners," EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told a news conference at the end of a two-day Brussels summit.
In a direct call to Obama before global talks next year on a successor to the Kyoto climate change pact, he added: "We are asking him to join Europe and with us to lead the world...Let us now build a trans-atlantic recovery plan and trans-atlantic climate and energy partnership."
EU leaders see in Obama a commitment to climate policy that incumbent George W. Bush lacked for most of his presidency.
Ecology groups were scathing about the EU plan, saying it had been marred by concessions to Poland to ease the shock on its heavily polluting Soviet-era coal-fired power stations, and to industry in economic powerhouse Germany.
"This is a flagship EU policy with no captain, a mutinous crew and several gaping holes in it," Sanjeev Kumar of environment pressure group WWF said as the news of the concessions emerged from the talks.
To help eastern European nations with the cost of adapting their coal-fired power sectors, they will receive extra funding from revenues from the EU's flagship emissions trading scheme, which makes industry buy permits to pollute.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk greeted cameras with a Victory "V" sign as he left the summit.
"BAD GUY"
The extra cash will mean less financial support for green projects, although a British-backed technology to capture and bury emissions from power stations underground did see its future funding rise under the pact.
Measures were agreed to reduce the risk that carbon curbs would hurt European industry and reduce its ability to compete with less regulated rivals overseas. The biggest threats are seen for steel, aluminium, cement and chemicals.
Italy fought to protect its glass, ceramics, paper and cast iron industries, but eventually dropped a threat to block the deal. "I can't use any veto ... because I can't cast myself in the bad-guy role," Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said.
The economic stimulus package, amounting to 1.5 percent of the bloc's gross domestic product, was announced on a day that brought bad news elsewhere for the global economy.
The U.S. Senate rejected a U.S. auto sector aid programme, sending a chill through world markets. Trade sources said the World Trade Organisation had decided there was not enough consensus among major economies to call ministerial talks on a global trade deal before the end of this year.
The EU stimulus pact, which pledges temporary support for sectors such as the auto and construction industry, draws largely on existing national packages and has been greeted with much scepticism by economists.
Sharp differences emerged on the first day between Britain and Germany on Berlin's refusal to pump the economy with cuts to value added tax (VAT), a core component of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's stimulus plan.
But the row was defused on the second day as Chancellor Angela Merkel signalled Germany could take more steps next year, and leaders decided to defer a noisy row with France over VAT cuts on labour-intensive services till next March.
"We need the pact," said Sarkozy. "In an exceptional situation, you need exceptional measures in a crisis."
"BRAVE BRIAN"
EU leaders also took a step towards salvaging the Lisbon Treaty of EU institutional reforms rejected by Irish voters in June by giving Dublin assurances it will not affect key policy areas such as abortion and its cherished military neutrality.
The move prompted Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen -- dubbed "brave" by Sarkozy -- to declare he would hold a potentially risky second plebiscite on the plan by end-October next year, which if successful could usher in the treaty by January 2010.
"On the basis of today's agreement ... I am prepared to go back to the Irish people next year," Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said of a potentially risky re-vote. "I am confident we will be successful."
The Irish rejection stalled a treaty hailed by supporters as streamlining the EU's unwieldy decision-making processes. The successor to the defunct EU constitution, it needs the assent of all 27 EU states before it can be implemented.
Aside from Ireland, the Czech Republic and Poland are the only two EU states yet to ratify the treaty. Prague is on its way to doing so early next year, and Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he would sign it off when the Irish said "Yes."
(Additional reporting by Paolo Biondi; Kerstin Gehmlich, Frank Prenesti, Francois Murphy, and Brussels bureau; writing by Mark John; editing by Ralph Boulton)
Published: December 12, 2008
By Marcin Grajewski and Pete Harrison
EU leaders sealed an ambitious global warming deal and 200-billion-euro (179 billion pound) economic crisis pact on Friday, urging U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to join Europe in a "trans-atlantic recovery plan."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 as the most radical in the world, despite concessions to industry which dismayed ecology groups. Economic crisis sweeping the world should not undermine climate policy.
"Our message to our global partners is: 'Yes, you can ... especially to our American partners," EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told a news conference at the end of a two-day Brussels summit.
In a direct call to Obama before global talks next year on a successor to the Kyoto climate change pact, he added: "We are asking him to join Europe and with us to lead the world...Let us now build a trans-atlantic recovery plan and trans-atlantic climate and energy partnership."
EU leaders see in Obama a commitment to climate policy that incumbent George W. Bush lacked for most of his presidency.
Ecology groups were scathing about the EU plan, saying it had been marred by concessions to Poland to ease the shock on its heavily polluting Soviet-era coal-fired power stations, and to industry in economic powerhouse Germany.
"This is a flagship EU policy with no captain, a mutinous crew and several gaping holes in it," Sanjeev Kumar of environment pressure group WWF said as the news of the concessions emerged from the talks.
To help eastern European nations with the cost of adapting their coal-fired power sectors, they will receive extra funding from revenues from the EU's flagship emissions trading scheme, which makes industry buy permits to pollute.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk greeted cameras with a Victory "V" sign as he left the summit.
"BAD GUY"
The extra cash will mean less financial support for green projects, although a British-backed technology to capture and bury emissions from power stations underground did see its future funding rise under the pact.
Measures were agreed to reduce the risk that carbon curbs would hurt European industry and reduce its ability to compete with less regulated rivals overseas. The biggest threats are seen for steel, aluminium, cement and chemicals.
Italy fought to protect its glass, ceramics, paper and cast iron industries, but eventually dropped a threat to block the deal. "I can't use any veto ... because I can't cast myself in the bad-guy role," Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said.
The economic stimulus package, amounting to 1.5 percent of the bloc's gross domestic product, was announced on a day that brought bad news elsewhere for the global economy.
The U.S. Senate rejected a U.S. auto sector aid programme, sending a chill through world markets. Trade sources said the World Trade Organisation had decided there was not enough consensus among major economies to call ministerial talks on a global trade deal before the end of this year.
The EU stimulus pact, which pledges temporary support for sectors such as the auto and construction industry, draws largely on existing national packages and has been greeted with much scepticism by economists.
Sharp differences emerged on the first day between Britain and Germany on Berlin's refusal to pump the economy with cuts to value added tax (VAT), a core component of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's stimulus plan.
But the row was defused on the second day as Chancellor Angela Merkel signalled Germany could take more steps next year, and leaders decided to defer a noisy row with France over VAT cuts on labour-intensive services till next March.
"We need the pact," said Sarkozy. "In an exceptional situation, you need exceptional measures in a crisis."
"BRAVE BRIAN"
EU leaders also took a step towards salvaging the Lisbon Treaty of EU institutional reforms rejected by Irish voters in June by giving Dublin assurances it will not affect key policy areas such as abortion and its cherished military neutrality.
The move prompted Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen -- dubbed "brave" by Sarkozy -- to declare he would hold a potentially risky second plebiscite on the plan by end-October next year, which if successful could usher in the treaty by January 2010.
"On the basis of today's agreement ... I am prepared to go back to the Irish people next year," Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said of a potentially risky re-vote. "I am confident we will be successful."
The Irish rejection stalled a treaty hailed by supporters as streamlining the EU's unwieldy decision-making processes. The successor to the defunct EU constitution, it needs the assent of all 27 EU states before it can be implemented.
Aside from Ireland, the Czech Republic and Poland are the only two EU states yet to ratify the treaty. Prague is on its way to doing so early next year, and Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he would sign it off when the Irish said "Yes."
(Additional reporting by Paolo Biondi; Kerstin Gehmlich, Frank Prenesti, Francois Murphy, and Brussels bureau; writing by Mark John; editing by Ralph Boulton)
EU Backs Emissions Proposal After Concessions to Industry
By CHARLES FORELLE and JOHN W. MILLER
BRUSSELS -- European Union leaders on Friday backed landmark proposals to cut the bloc's greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% in coming years, but gave substantial concessions to industry and to coal-burning countries in Eastern Europe.
The tension over how much to pay to fight climate change reflects the strains the global downturn is putting on the EU's agenda, as Germany and the United Kingdom square off over the wisdom of running up debt to boost growth.
Leaders from the EU's 27 nations approved on Friday a coordinated call for fiscal-stimulus packages of around 1.5% of the bloc's gross-domestic product, or about €200 billion ($267 billion). The language they used, however, was vague enough to permit countries to do more or less.
Associated Press
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, right, talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a round table meeting at an EU summit in Brussels.
Germany has proposed a stimulus package that would pump around €4 billion ($5.3 billion) into the economy over the next year. Meanwhile the U.K. plans about £20 billion ($30 billion) in stimulus by 2010, including short-term tax cuts.
"All this will do is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off," German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück said in an interview with Newsweek. U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown dismissed the comments, saying they reflected internal German politics.
Friday's EU agreement won't force Germany to expand its stimulus package. However, Chancellor Angela Merkel said she will discuss possible new stimulus measures in January.
The steel industry and other business lobbies welcomed Friday's climate-change deal, while it drew criticism from environmental groups. "Millions of poor people have been left in danger because EU leaders bowed to business-lobby pressure," said Elise Ford, head of the Brussels office of the Oxfam charity.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed the agreement as historic. It would require the EU to cut emissions by at least 20% and raise use of renewable energy to 20% of the bloc's energy mix by 2020. The package must still be approved by the European Parliament.
The European Commission had proposed that polluting power plants pay in auctions for permits to emit greenhouse gases. Under Friday's agreement, poorer EU countries that rely heavily on coal -- a description tailored to Poland and others in Central and Eastern Europe -- will be allowed to give a large number of permits to power plants for free.
In a concession to industry backed by Germany, polluters that might otherwise relocate their plants to avoid EU rules would get some free emissions permits. In addition, polluters would be able to buy a large share of their permits from a United Nations system that operates in developing countries, freeing them from the expensive task of cutting gas output at their own plants.
Polish consumers could face a doubling or more of their electricity bills, Mr. Sarkozy said, defending the compromises. "It's not a matter of environmental protection," he said. "It's simply not socially acceptable."
On another contentious issue, EU leaders agreed to concessions that open the way for Ireland to hold a new referendum on an EU institutional reform. Known as the Lisbon treaty, it would hand Brussels more authority, strengthen the bloc's foreign policy tools and give it a permanent president.
Irish voters rejected the treaty in June. The other 26 nations approved the treaty by parliamentary vote.
Ireland got assurances it would keep a seat on the commission, the EU's executive arm. The bloc had planned to cut the number of commissioners -- now one per country -- by a third. The other leaders also agreed to write guarantees protecting Ireland's low corporate-tax rates and its restrictions on abortion.
As long as the "detail work" is approved, Ireland will hold a referendum before the end of October 2009, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said.—Joe Parkinson and Nicholas Winning contributed to this article.
Write to Charles Forelle at charles.forelle@wsj.com and John W. Miller at john.miller@dowjones.com
BRUSSELS -- European Union leaders on Friday backed landmark proposals to cut the bloc's greenhouse-gas emissions by 20% in coming years, but gave substantial concessions to industry and to coal-burning countries in Eastern Europe.
The tension over how much to pay to fight climate change reflects the strains the global downturn is putting on the EU's agenda, as Germany and the United Kingdom square off over the wisdom of running up debt to boost growth.
Leaders from the EU's 27 nations approved on Friday a coordinated call for fiscal-stimulus packages of around 1.5% of the bloc's gross-domestic product, or about €200 billion ($267 billion). The language they used, however, was vague enough to permit countries to do more or less.
Associated Press
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, right, talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a round table meeting at an EU summit in Brussels.
Germany has proposed a stimulus package that would pump around €4 billion ($5.3 billion) into the economy over the next year. Meanwhile the U.K. plans about £20 billion ($30 billion) in stimulus by 2010, including short-term tax cuts.
"All this will do is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off," German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück said in an interview with Newsweek. U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown dismissed the comments, saying they reflected internal German politics.
Friday's EU agreement won't force Germany to expand its stimulus package. However, Chancellor Angela Merkel said she will discuss possible new stimulus measures in January.
The steel industry and other business lobbies welcomed Friday's climate-change deal, while it drew criticism from environmental groups. "Millions of poor people have been left in danger because EU leaders bowed to business-lobby pressure," said Elise Ford, head of the Brussels office of the Oxfam charity.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed the agreement as historic. It would require the EU to cut emissions by at least 20% and raise use of renewable energy to 20% of the bloc's energy mix by 2020. The package must still be approved by the European Parliament.
The European Commission had proposed that polluting power plants pay in auctions for permits to emit greenhouse gases. Under Friday's agreement, poorer EU countries that rely heavily on coal -- a description tailored to Poland and others in Central and Eastern Europe -- will be allowed to give a large number of permits to power plants for free.
In a concession to industry backed by Germany, polluters that might otherwise relocate their plants to avoid EU rules would get some free emissions permits. In addition, polluters would be able to buy a large share of their permits from a United Nations system that operates in developing countries, freeing them from the expensive task of cutting gas output at their own plants.
Polish consumers could face a doubling or more of their electricity bills, Mr. Sarkozy said, defending the compromises. "It's not a matter of environmental protection," he said. "It's simply not socially acceptable."
On another contentious issue, EU leaders agreed to concessions that open the way for Ireland to hold a new referendum on an EU institutional reform. Known as the Lisbon treaty, it would hand Brussels more authority, strengthen the bloc's foreign policy tools and give it a permanent president.
Irish voters rejected the treaty in June. The other 26 nations approved the treaty by parliamentary vote.
Ireland got assurances it would keep a seat on the commission, the EU's executive arm. The bloc had planned to cut the number of commissioners -- now one per country -- by a third. The other leaders also agreed to write guarantees protecting Ireland's low corporate-tax rates and its restrictions on abortion.
As long as the "detail work" is approved, Ireland will hold a referendum before the end of October 2009, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said.—Joe Parkinson and Nicholas Winning contributed to this article.
Write to Charles Forelle at charles.forelle@wsj.com and John W. Miller at john.miller@dowjones.com
'Cow Tax' Uproar Underscores Greenhouse-Gas Divide
By STEPHEN POWER
Is the Environmental Protection Agency preparing to slap a "cow tax" on bovines for their contribution to global warming?
The agency says no. But in recent weeks, farmers and livestock ranchers have flooded the EPA with letters warning of catastrophic consequences if such a tax was imposed.
"If President-elect [Barack] Obama tries to include farmers in some kind of livestock assessment based on greenhouse-gas emissions, I want my Iowans to know that I'm going to stand beside the producers and fight," Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) said this week.
Farmers and livestock ranchers have launched a vociferous campaign against a 'cow tax,' but the EPA says no such levy is in the works.
The idea of a so-called cow tax might seem far-fetched. But the uproar highlights a serious policy decision awaiting Mr. Obama's administration: whether to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions -- effectively branding as harmful pollutants carbon dioxide and other gases generated both by industry, as well as by the digestive processes of livestock.
Many environmental groups want the Clean Air Act used to control greenhouses gases. But business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are resisting. They argue such use of the Clean Air Act would lead to a cascade of unintended regulatory consequences, with regulations covering schools, hospitals, breweries, bakeries and farms.
At the core of the battle is a Supreme Court ruling last year that the 1970 Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions if it concludes they endanger public health or welfare. In response, the EPA published a 570-page notice in July that drew no conclusion on that question, but instead solicited comment on options for controlling emissions of heat-trapping gases.
The EPA document only briefly suggested that livestock could be subject to regulation. But the document went too far for the Bush administration, which -- in an unusual step -- published comments from four federal agencies slamming the EPA's work. The Agriculture Department said regulating emissions from agriculture could subject "numerous farming operations" -- including "dairy facilities with over 25 cows" -- to the "costly and time-consuming process" of getting permits to operate. The American Farm Bureau Federation alerted its members that the EPA was on course to saddle them with "costly and burdensome permits," costing as much as $175 per cow per year for dairy cattle, enough "to force many producers to go out of business."
Local chambers of commerce, meanwhile, began disseminating estimates of what such fees would mean for farmers at the state level -- arriving at a figure of $24,995 a year for the average dairy farmer in North Dakota.
"This can be considered the most outrageous proposal in regards to the environment and animal agriculture that has been brought forth," Ron Sparks, commissioner of Alabama's Department of Agriculture and Industries, said in a letter to the EPA dated Nov. 26. "I An EPA spokeswoman says the agency "is not proposing a cow tax," and notes that the document published in July states that the Clean Air Act "does not include a broad grant of authority for EPA to impose taxes, fees or other monetary charges specifically for" greenhouse-gas emissions. David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club, says the idea of a cow tax is "a fantasy designed to whip up opposition to regulation," and that the EPA has the discretion to choose not to regulate small emitters, such as dairy farmers.
But the idea that Mr. Obama's administration might try to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions isn't far-fetched. Environmental groups such as Mr. Bookbinder's group are pressing him to do so, on the grounds that the U.S. cannot credibly participate in climate talks with other nations aimed at forcing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change until it passes climate legislation or begins regulating such emissions.
Talks aimed at forging such an agreement are scheduled to begin in December 2009 in Copenhagen, and it isn't clear Congress will be able to pass climate legislation by then. Mr. Obama's administration could move to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions without waiting for comprehensive legislation. Many Democrats expect one of the new administration's first acts will be granting California's request for a waiver from the law, so it can regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles -- an authority it was denied under the Bush administration.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama's transition team said the president-elect "believes a comprehensive federal approach" to regulating greenhouse-gas emissions is "far preferable" to using the Clean Air Act to regulating, but that he "intends to follow the law."
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Is the Environmental Protection Agency preparing to slap a "cow tax" on bovines for their contribution to global warming?
The agency says no. But in recent weeks, farmers and livestock ranchers have flooded the EPA with letters warning of catastrophic consequences if such a tax was imposed.
"If President-elect [Barack] Obama tries to include farmers in some kind of livestock assessment based on greenhouse-gas emissions, I want my Iowans to know that I'm going to stand beside the producers and fight," Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) said this week.
Farmers and livestock ranchers have launched a vociferous campaign against a 'cow tax,' but the EPA says no such levy is in the works.
The idea of a so-called cow tax might seem far-fetched. But the uproar highlights a serious policy decision awaiting Mr. Obama's administration: whether to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions -- effectively branding as harmful pollutants carbon dioxide and other gases generated both by industry, as well as by the digestive processes of livestock.
Many environmental groups want the Clean Air Act used to control greenhouses gases. But business groups, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are resisting. They argue such use of the Clean Air Act would lead to a cascade of unintended regulatory consequences, with regulations covering schools, hospitals, breweries, bakeries and farms.
At the core of the battle is a Supreme Court ruling last year that the 1970 Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions if it concludes they endanger public health or welfare. In response, the EPA published a 570-page notice in July that drew no conclusion on that question, but instead solicited comment on options for controlling emissions of heat-trapping gases.
The EPA document only briefly suggested that livestock could be subject to regulation. But the document went too far for the Bush administration, which -- in an unusual step -- published comments from four federal agencies slamming the EPA's work. The Agriculture Department said regulating emissions from agriculture could subject "numerous farming operations" -- including "dairy facilities with over 25 cows" -- to the "costly and time-consuming process" of getting permits to operate. The American Farm Bureau Federation alerted its members that the EPA was on course to saddle them with "costly and burdensome permits," costing as much as $175 per cow per year for dairy cattle, enough "to force many producers to go out of business."
Local chambers of commerce, meanwhile, began disseminating estimates of what such fees would mean for farmers at the state level -- arriving at a figure of $24,995 a year for the average dairy farmer in North Dakota.
"This can be considered the most outrageous proposal in regards to the environment and animal agriculture that has been brought forth," Ron Sparks, commissioner of Alabama's Department of Agriculture and Industries, said in a letter to the EPA dated Nov. 26. "I An EPA spokeswoman says the agency "is not proposing a cow tax," and notes that the document published in July states that the Clean Air Act "does not include a broad grant of authority for EPA to impose taxes, fees or other monetary charges specifically for" greenhouse-gas emissions. David Bookbinder, an attorney for the Sierra Club, says the idea of a cow tax is "a fantasy designed to whip up opposition to regulation," and that the EPA has the discretion to choose not to regulate small emitters, such as dairy farmers.
But the idea that Mr. Obama's administration might try to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions isn't far-fetched. Environmental groups such as Mr. Bookbinder's group are pressing him to do so, on the grounds that the U.S. cannot credibly participate in climate talks with other nations aimed at forcing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change until it passes climate legislation or begins regulating such emissions.
Talks aimed at forging such an agreement are scheduled to begin in December 2009 in Copenhagen, and it isn't clear Congress will be able to pass climate legislation by then. Mr. Obama's administration could move to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions without waiting for comprehensive legislation. Many Democrats expect one of the new administration's first acts will be granting California's request for a waiver from the law, so it can regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles -- an authority it was denied under the Bush administration.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama's transition team said the president-elect "believes a comprehensive federal approach" to regulating greenhouse-gas emissions is "far preferable" to using the Clean Air Act to regulating, but that he "intends to follow the law."
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Britain to give tropical countries £100m to protect rainforest
Investment in Brazil and Papua New Guinea directly benefits British by tackling climate change, says Ed Miliband
David Adam in Poznan
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 December 2008 00.01 GMT
Britain is to channel £100m to tropical countries such as Brazil and Papua New Guinea to help protect vulnerable forests and tackle climate change, ministers will announce today.
The investment could help developing nations access billions of pounds of funding under a new UN scheme to extend carbon trading to forests.
The UN scheme, the so-called Redd initiative, will reward tropical countries that slow deforestation with lucrative carbon credits. The credits would be bought by rich nations that need to meet targets on cuts in emissions. It is expected to form part of a new global treaty on fighting climate change to be agreed next year at a key meeting in Copenhagen.
One obstacle is the lack of accurate measurements from tropical nations on how much carbon is locked in the trees.. Another difficulty is how the promised reductions in emissions could be verified. The British move aims to help develop systems to accurately measure, verify and report such savings.
Speaking at UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Ed Miliband, energy and climate change secretary, said: "The money we're putting forward is to hasten action with regards to deforestation, and looking at how the global carbon market can be used to help give an incentive to forest countries to reduce their rates of deforestation."
Land use change and deforestation produce 17% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting forests was identified in the Stern review as a relatively cheap way to tackle global warming.
Miliband said it was a good move for Britain to hand over the money, despite the current economic problems.
"If we don't do something on global deforestation, then events that I saw in my constituency [Doncaster] a year ago, with terrible flooding, will happen more often," he said. "There is a direct social and economic interest in this for people in Britain as well as the moral interest in saving the planet."
Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general also told the conference economic gloom was no excuse for inaction: "There can be no backsliding on our commitments to a future of low-carbon emissions. Yes, the economic crisis is serious. Yet when it comes to climate change, the stakes are far higher. The climate crisis affects our potential prosperity and peoples' lives, both now and far into the future."
The pledged £100m is part of an overall £800m funding package for international environmental projects announced last year. The money, together with donations from other developed countries including France Germany and Norway, will be held and allocated by the World Bank. Britain already funds similar efforts in the Congo basin.
Douglas Alexander, international development secretary, said: "The funding we have announced today will support activities in developing countries such as enabling farmers to make a living in ways that mean they don't have to cut down more forests. Our funding will back the vital steps we hope to see in these talks towards achieving a climate change agreement that's fair for all."
The Poznan talks, which aim to set the stage for agreeing in Copenhagen a successor to the Kyoto deal, have made little progress on deciding how the Redd scheme could be introduced. Discussions are continuing, for example, on whether the carbon credit rewards should be based on national forestry levels, or on a project-by-project basis.
Campaigners are lobbying ministers to restore a reference to the rights of indigenous forest peoples in the scheme, which was removed by a group of countries including the US and Australia.
There has also been little progress on unlocking £150m in a separate World Bank fund intended to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change. Insiders say the talks are bogged down in legal issues over how countries would access the money. Making this fund operational had been one of the few concrete decisions expected at Poznan.
British officials say the conference must now shift the search for a new global climate deal from idea sharing to a formal negotiating mode. That switch is expected to be confirmed tonight. Negotiators are reluctant to discuss detailed goals until Barack Obama signals his intentions on climate change next year.
David Adam in Poznan
guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 December 2008 00.01 GMT
Britain is to channel £100m to tropical countries such as Brazil and Papua New Guinea to help protect vulnerable forests and tackle climate change, ministers will announce today.
The investment could help developing nations access billions of pounds of funding under a new UN scheme to extend carbon trading to forests.
The UN scheme, the so-called Redd initiative, will reward tropical countries that slow deforestation with lucrative carbon credits. The credits would be bought by rich nations that need to meet targets on cuts in emissions. It is expected to form part of a new global treaty on fighting climate change to be agreed next year at a key meeting in Copenhagen.
One obstacle is the lack of accurate measurements from tropical nations on how much carbon is locked in the trees.. Another difficulty is how the promised reductions in emissions could be verified. The British move aims to help develop systems to accurately measure, verify and report such savings.
Speaking at UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Ed Miliband, energy and climate change secretary, said: "The money we're putting forward is to hasten action with regards to deforestation, and looking at how the global carbon market can be used to help give an incentive to forest countries to reduce their rates of deforestation."
Land use change and deforestation produce 17% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting forests was identified in the Stern review as a relatively cheap way to tackle global warming.
Miliband said it was a good move for Britain to hand over the money, despite the current economic problems.
"If we don't do something on global deforestation, then events that I saw in my constituency [Doncaster] a year ago, with terrible flooding, will happen more often," he said. "There is a direct social and economic interest in this for people in Britain as well as the moral interest in saving the planet."
Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general also told the conference economic gloom was no excuse for inaction: "There can be no backsliding on our commitments to a future of low-carbon emissions. Yes, the economic crisis is serious. Yet when it comes to climate change, the stakes are far higher. The climate crisis affects our potential prosperity and peoples' lives, both now and far into the future."
The pledged £100m is part of an overall £800m funding package for international environmental projects announced last year. The money, together with donations from other developed countries including France Germany and Norway, will be held and allocated by the World Bank. Britain already funds similar efforts in the Congo basin.
Douglas Alexander, international development secretary, said: "The funding we have announced today will support activities in developing countries such as enabling farmers to make a living in ways that mean they don't have to cut down more forests. Our funding will back the vital steps we hope to see in these talks towards achieving a climate change agreement that's fair for all."
The Poznan talks, which aim to set the stage for agreeing in Copenhagen a successor to the Kyoto deal, have made little progress on deciding how the Redd scheme could be introduced. Discussions are continuing, for example, on whether the carbon credit rewards should be based on national forestry levels, or on a project-by-project basis.
Campaigners are lobbying ministers to restore a reference to the rights of indigenous forest peoples in the scheme, which was removed by a group of countries including the US and Australia.
There has also been little progress on unlocking £150m in a separate World Bank fund intended to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change. Insiders say the talks are bogged down in legal issues over how countries would access the money. Making this fund operational had been one of the few concrete decisions expected at Poznan.
British officials say the conference must now shift the search for a new global climate deal from idea sharing to a formal negotiating mode. That switch is expected to be confirmed tonight. Negotiators are reluctant to discuss detailed goals until Barack Obama signals his intentions on climate change next year.
Offshore wind farm plans in jeopardy without support
Government's target for renewable energy will not be met, suppliers warn
By Sarah ArnottFriday, 12 December 2008
Plans to build the world's biggest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary are under threat unless the Government boosts incentives for renewable energy investment, it is claimed.
The London Array project is not the only one in jeopardy. Without an overhaul of the rewards system, the offshore installations vital to meeting ambitious EU environmental targets will simply not get built, energy suppliers are warning.
Once up and running, the London Array's 341 massive turbines, covering 90 square miles, will produce one gigawatt (GW) of electricity, enough to power 750,000 homes. But construction costs for offshore wind farms have shot up by more than a third in the past year. One high-profile backer, Shell, has already walked away because the economics of the investment could not be made to work. Even the involvement of Masdar, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund which bought into the consortium in October, cannot guarantee the project's future, according to E.on, a partner in the scheme.
"We are coming to the crunch point with London Array and it is not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination because we still don't know if the project is going to be economic or not," said a spokesman for E.on. "Clearly, getting a third party in helps because it spreads the risk, but if the sums don't add up then either the project gets put off or we just can't build it."
E.on is not the only power supplier pushing for reform. Centrica submitted a planning application for the 500MW Docking Shoal development off the coast off Wells, Norfolk, this week. Plans for another 500MW installation, Race Bank, will be submitted in January. But although it is pushing ahead with the lengthy planning process, Centrica is not convinced it makes sense to build the proposed farms. Its 250MW Lincs scheme off Skegness received planning consent in October, but the group is re-assessing its costs before deciding whether to build it. "The costs of building offshore wind farms are very high," said a spokesman for a Centrica. "We are therefore running through all our construction and other costs before we give them the go-ahead."
The pressure on ministers centres on Renewables Obligation Certificates (Rocs). The law requires power firms to derive a growing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Certificates are issued to generators on a 1 Roc per megawatt-hour (MWh) basis, to be sold on to power suppliers so they can prove their obligation has been fulfilled. By providing an extra revenue stream, on top of the price of electricity, Rocs help to justify the investment in infrastructure. Offshore installations are so much more costly than onshore farms that their power is eligible for 1.5 Rocs per MWh – but it is not enough.
Big offshore projects like the London Array are crucial to meeting Britain's commitment to ensuring that 15 per cent of its energy is from renewable sources by 2020. But the boom in demand is putting such pressure on the industry's meagre supply chain that prices have gone through the roof.
Offshore wind farms currently come in at about £3bn per gigawatt, compared with about £2bn a year ago and just £600m for a gas-fired power station. Even nuclear power – at about £1.8bn per GW, looks a lot cheaper by comparison.
By Sarah ArnottFriday, 12 December 2008
Plans to build the world's biggest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary are under threat unless the Government boosts incentives for renewable energy investment, it is claimed.
The London Array project is not the only one in jeopardy. Without an overhaul of the rewards system, the offshore installations vital to meeting ambitious EU environmental targets will simply not get built, energy suppliers are warning.
Once up and running, the London Array's 341 massive turbines, covering 90 square miles, will produce one gigawatt (GW) of electricity, enough to power 750,000 homes. But construction costs for offshore wind farms have shot up by more than a third in the past year. One high-profile backer, Shell, has already walked away because the economics of the investment could not be made to work. Even the involvement of Masdar, the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund which bought into the consortium in October, cannot guarantee the project's future, according to E.on, a partner in the scheme.
"We are coming to the crunch point with London Array and it is not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination because we still don't know if the project is going to be economic or not," said a spokesman for E.on. "Clearly, getting a third party in helps because it spreads the risk, but if the sums don't add up then either the project gets put off or we just can't build it."
E.on is not the only power supplier pushing for reform. Centrica submitted a planning application for the 500MW Docking Shoal development off the coast off Wells, Norfolk, this week. Plans for another 500MW installation, Race Bank, will be submitted in January. But although it is pushing ahead with the lengthy planning process, Centrica is not convinced it makes sense to build the proposed farms. Its 250MW Lincs scheme off Skegness received planning consent in October, but the group is re-assessing its costs before deciding whether to build it. "The costs of building offshore wind farms are very high," said a spokesman for a Centrica. "We are therefore running through all our construction and other costs before we give them the go-ahead."
The pressure on ministers centres on Renewables Obligation Certificates (Rocs). The law requires power firms to derive a growing proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Certificates are issued to generators on a 1 Roc per megawatt-hour (MWh) basis, to be sold on to power suppliers so they can prove their obligation has been fulfilled. By providing an extra revenue stream, on top of the price of electricity, Rocs help to justify the investment in infrastructure. Offshore installations are so much more costly than onshore farms that their power is eligible for 1.5 Rocs per MWh – but it is not enough.
Big offshore projects like the London Array are crucial to meeting Britain's commitment to ensuring that 15 per cent of its energy is from renewable sources by 2020. But the boom in demand is putting such pressure on the industry's meagre supply chain that prices have gone through the roof.
Offshore wind farms currently come in at about £3bn per gigawatt, compared with about £2bn a year ago and just £600m for a gas-fired power station. Even nuclear power – at about £1.8bn per GW, looks a lot cheaper by comparison.
Formula one should ditch the internal combustion engine
Honda's withdrawal from the hugely expensive world of Formula 1 motor racing is another illustration of the pressures on the world's car-makers, writes Chris Goodall from Carbon Commentary, a member of the Guardian Environment Network
Chris Goodall
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 12.42 GMT
Now might be a good time for reflection. Does it make sense to use the petrol engine as the power source for the cars on the track. Isn't it time to switch to electric cars?
The internal combustion engine is dying. Although small improvements in efficiency are still being made, Formula 1 cars only convert about a third of the energy in the petrol into motion. This is better than the typical suburban saloon, but not by much. An electric car is much better, turning most of the energy in a battery into usable motive power. The elders of the motor racing industry know that Formula 1, exciting and innovative as it is, is doomed by the coming obsolescence of the petrol car. The yearly global circus is coming to be seen as unsustainable, both financially and environmentally. By cutting its Formula 1 presence, Honda expects to save $500m a year, an illustration of the extraordinary cost of participating in this extraordinary sport.
Are electric Formula 1 cars a possibility? Yes. Electric cars can have extraordinary acceleration, very high top speeds and a range that is only dependent on the weight of the battery. The new Tesla, designed and partly built at Lotus in Norfolk, UK has a top speed of 130 mph (and it could be more if it weren't speed limited) and an acceleration of 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds. Its driving range is over 200 miles. Unlike a supercar of the same specifications, its fuel cost is a penny or so a mile.
Battery technology is improving all the time. The scope for continued advances is enormous. This is one of the fields where nanotechnology will make a huge difference. We need reductions in cost, charging time and weight. (However, any particular battery chemistry has an irreducible minimum weight per unit of charge – so advances will partly come from finding new chemistries that improve on the various lithium ion technologies.)
My suggestion is this: Formula 1 should establish a separate competition at each Grand Prix from 2010 onwards. Only pure electric cars could be entered. The distance should be more than 200 miles, with manufacturers allowed to replace batteries if needed. World governments should provide a prize of $20m a race. This prize is enough to get manufacturers small and large working to improve the characteristics of their cars and the batteries. This would produce very rapid innovation in power sources and drive systems.
The world needs electric cars. Even if the electricity in a car battery comes from dirty coal power stations, the emissions per mile are much less than from petrol. Renewably generated electricity can be carbon-free.
Eventually we can hope that the petrol Formula 1 races give way to all-electric contests. We'd lose the ghastly noise and the swarms of engineers in their fire-proof clothing (because electric cars aren't a fire risk) but we'd gain a cheaper, more environmentally friendly sport that would really push the evolution of low-carbon propulsion. And, of course, we could add the horrible noise back by installing loudspeakers on the back of the cars if the fans demanded it.
• This article was shared by our content partner Carbon Commentary, a member of the Guardian Environment Network
Chris Goodall
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 12.42 GMT
Now might be a good time for reflection. Does it make sense to use the petrol engine as the power source for the cars on the track. Isn't it time to switch to electric cars?
The internal combustion engine is dying. Although small improvements in efficiency are still being made, Formula 1 cars only convert about a third of the energy in the petrol into motion. This is better than the typical suburban saloon, but not by much. An electric car is much better, turning most of the energy in a battery into usable motive power. The elders of the motor racing industry know that Formula 1, exciting and innovative as it is, is doomed by the coming obsolescence of the petrol car. The yearly global circus is coming to be seen as unsustainable, both financially and environmentally. By cutting its Formula 1 presence, Honda expects to save $500m a year, an illustration of the extraordinary cost of participating in this extraordinary sport.
Are electric Formula 1 cars a possibility? Yes. Electric cars can have extraordinary acceleration, very high top speeds and a range that is only dependent on the weight of the battery. The new Tesla, designed and partly built at Lotus in Norfolk, UK has a top speed of 130 mph (and it could be more if it weren't speed limited) and an acceleration of 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds. Its driving range is over 200 miles. Unlike a supercar of the same specifications, its fuel cost is a penny or so a mile.
Battery technology is improving all the time. The scope for continued advances is enormous. This is one of the fields where nanotechnology will make a huge difference. We need reductions in cost, charging time and weight. (However, any particular battery chemistry has an irreducible minimum weight per unit of charge – so advances will partly come from finding new chemistries that improve on the various lithium ion technologies.)
My suggestion is this: Formula 1 should establish a separate competition at each Grand Prix from 2010 onwards. Only pure electric cars could be entered. The distance should be more than 200 miles, with manufacturers allowed to replace batteries if needed. World governments should provide a prize of $20m a race. This prize is enough to get manufacturers small and large working to improve the characteristics of their cars and the batteries. This would produce very rapid innovation in power sources and drive systems.
The world needs electric cars. Even if the electricity in a car battery comes from dirty coal power stations, the emissions per mile are much less than from petrol. Renewably generated electricity can be carbon-free.
Eventually we can hope that the petrol Formula 1 races give way to all-electric contests. We'd lose the ghastly noise and the swarms of engineers in their fire-proof clothing (because electric cars aren't a fire risk) but we'd gain a cheaper, more environmentally friendly sport that would really push the evolution of low-carbon propulsion. And, of course, we could add the horrible noise back by installing loudspeakers on the back of the cars if the fans demanded it.
• This article was shared by our content partner Carbon Commentary, a member of the Guardian Environment Network
Obama's new team raises hope for US environment
Roll-back of George Bush's environmental polices expected
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 17.48 GMT
Barack Obama's choice of a Nobel laureate in physics to head his energy team, revealed on Wednesday evening, has raised expectations of a strong drive to roll back George Bush's policies on climate change and environmental protection.
The choice of those with strong science and regulatory backgrounds was broadly welcomed in the environmental community. It was seen as a repudiation of the last eight years when Bush dismissed the science on global warming, and weakened environmental protections.
The effort will be led by Steve Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, who is Obama's pick for energy secretary.
Chu, 60, won the Nobel for his work on atom manipulation using lasers, but he began to focus on climate change and energy several years ago.
His website says he has a mission to make the Berkeley Labs "the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy".
The other members of the team come with strong regulatory backgrounds. Lisa Jackson, who until recently headed the commission on environmental protection in New Jersey, is to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
Jackson, 46, who holds a masters degree in chemical engineering, spent 16 years at the EPA as an enforcement officer.
Obama has also chosen to create a new position of White House energy czar.
Carol Browner, 52, a lawyer by training, has worked on environmental protection in Florida and headed the EPA under the Clinton administration. She has also worked closely with Al Gore.
Browner will be charged with co-ordinating the different government departments that deal with climate and energy, and with serving as a liaison between the White House and Congress. She is expected to focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency policies.
One of Browner's first priorities could be to press the EPA to reconsider the decision by the Bush administration to bar California from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner has publicly called for letting the EPA get involved with regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act.
She is expected to work closely with Nancy Sutley, a former colleague from her days at the EPA who will head the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Now deputy mayor of Los Angeles for energy and environmental, Sutley is seen as one of the forces behind California's environmental agenda. She has expertise on water quality issues.
Obama is expected to formally announce his environmental and energy team this week.
The choices were seen as further evidence that Obama is placing great store in qualifications and experience, and wanted to push ahead on dealing with climate change.
"This is a team with a keen interest in addressing climate change, and the talent and skills to get the job done," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Centre on Climate Change.
"President-elect Obama's administration will be well-equipped to tackle the challenge of building a new clean energy future that preserves the climate while revitalising our economy."Obama has put the creation of green jobs at the centre of his economic rescue package that is expected to be the first order of business of his new administration.
He is also expected to move in parallel to reinstate controls on heavily polluting industries that were loosened under the Bush administration.
However, Claussen and others believe that a national cap and trade programme is not likely to be an immediate priority.
But despite the broad support for his cabinet choices, there were some caveats from observers. Unlike Obama's choices for other cabinet positions Chu has no political background. That could prove a handicap when it comes to the delicate negotiations ahead in building support in Congress for Obama's legislative agenda.
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 17.48 GMT
Barack Obama's choice of a Nobel laureate in physics to head his energy team, revealed on Wednesday evening, has raised expectations of a strong drive to roll back George Bush's policies on climate change and environmental protection.
The choice of those with strong science and regulatory backgrounds was broadly welcomed in the environmental community. It was seen as a repudiation of the last eight years when Bush dismissed the science on global warming, and weakened environmental protections.
The effort will be led by Steve Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, who is Obama's pick for energy secretary.
Chu, 60, won the Nobel for his work on atom manipulation using lasers, but he began to focus on climate change and energy several years ago.
His website says he has a mission to make the Berkeley Labs "the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy".
The other members of the team come with strong regulatory backgrounds. Lisa Jackson, who until recently headed the commission on environmental protection in New Jersey, is to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
Jackson, 46, who holds a masters degree in chemical engineering, spent 16 years at the EPA as an enforcement officer.
Obama has also chosen to create a new position of White House energy czar.
Carol Browner, 52, a lawyer by training, has worked on environmental protection in Florida and headed the EPA under the Clinton administration. She has also worked closely with Al Gore.
Browner will be charged with co-ordinating the different government departments that deal with climate and energy, and with serving as a liaison between the White House and Congress. She is expected to focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency policies.
One of Browner's first priorities could be to press the EPA to reconsider the decision by the Bush administration to bar California from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner has publicly called for letting the EPA get involved with regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act.
She is expected to work closely with Nancy Sutley, a former colleague from her days at the EPA who will head the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Now deputy mayor of Los Angeles for energy and environmental, Sutley is seen as one of the forces behind California's environmental agenda. She has expertise on water quality issues.
Obama is expected to formally announce his environmental and energy team this week.
The choices were seen as further evidence that Obama is placing great store in qualifications and experience, and wanted to push ahead on dealing with climate change.
"This is a team with a keen interest in addressing climate change, and the talent and skills to get the job done," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Centre on Climate Change.
"President-elect Obama's administration will be well-equipped to tackle the challenge of building a new clean energy future that preserves the climate while revitalising our economy."Obama has put the creation of green jobs at the centre of his economic rescue package that is expected to be the first order of business of his new administration.
He is also expected to move in parallel to reinstate controls on heavily polluting industries that were loosened under the Bush administration.
However, Claussen and others believe that a national cap and trade programme is not likely to be an immediate priority.
But despite the broad support for his cabinet choices, there were some caveats from observers. Unlike Obama's choices for other cabinet positions Chu has no political background. That could prove a handicap when it comes to the delicate negotiations ahead in building support in Congress for Obama's legislative agenda.
No friends of the earth
The UN convention in Poznan won't achieve progress on climate change. Why are environmental groups supporting it?
Muhammad Cohen
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 21.30 GMT
Delegates from nearly 200 countries are gathered in Poznan, Poland this week to craft a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Last year, the mass meeting – officially known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – took place in Bali and gave the climate change issue incredible momentum. But there are no guarantees that the UNFCCC will benefit the environment, since its approach puts no limits on developing countries, including some of the world's top greenhouse gas producers.
Developed countries that signed the Kyoto agreement were required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels. However, only 40 out of 192 countries participating in the UN climate change process are categorised as developed and therefore subject to restrictions. Two of the top four greenhouse gas emitting nations – China and India – remain in the developing category and exempt from any emission controls. (By some counts, Indonesia makes it three of the top five emitters allowed unrestricted emissions under the UN regime.) The UN considers developing countries' exemption a matter of "climate justice" to ensure every nation has its equal opportunity to poison the earth.
Giving developing countries unrestricted rights to spew carbon may or may not be the best way to fight global warming, but the UN has closed debate on the matter. Developing countries cannot be subject to emission controls, according to the UNFCC, and that position is non-negotiable. That position also guarantees that the US won't join Kyoto or its successor. So the UNFCCC mechanism fails to cover at least three of the top four greenhouse gas emitting countries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the World Meteorological Organisation's latest figures show that carbon dioxide and methane soared to record levels in 2007. Rather than the Kyoto mandate of a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas levels from 1990, there's been a 20.7% increase under the UNFCCC regime.
Despite the UNFCCC's failures, environmental NGOs remain nearly unanimous that it is the only legitimate global mechanism to combat climate change. Few challenge the UN orthodoxy, perhaps because George Bush did. Under Bush, the US tried to find an alternative to the UNFCCC that would put controls on all major emitters. While the top 16 emitters showed up for the Major Economies Meeting (also known as the Major Emitters Meeting or MEM) in Washington last year, Greenpeace dismissed it (pdf) as "absurd theatre". If they really want to save the earth, however, they might question following the UN's lead.
The Nature Conservancy's director of international government relations, Andrew Deutz, thinks that the ultimate solution to cut emissions will come from a variety of processes, including UNFCCC, MEM, G20 and bilateral talks between key players, such as regular high-level economic meetings between the US and China. But he understands why many green groups see the UNFCCC as the only legitimate forum for climate negotiations.
"There's an ideological issue among environmental groups that the UNFCCC is the only legitimate forum for negotiations," Deutz explains. "It's a matter of simple democracy. These rules are for the whole planet. Why should the G8 or G20 decide for everyone? The UN is legitimate because everyone has a vote."
Still, it's hard to understand why some many environmental NGOs remain exclusively committed to a process that isn't working. Sure, the UN lets them set up booths and soapboxes at these annual climate change confabs, demonstrating that the UN is running an inclusive process. Along with their place near the table, the green groups get a shot at funding now, and more down the road. Perhaps more important in practical terms, environmental groups get publicity while providing comic relief and appealing visuals at otherwise deadly dull meetings. You don't see pictures of the (overwhelmingly hardworking and dedicated) UNFCCC delegates debating carbon sequestration methodology because the NGOs supply officially sanctioned protestors in penguin or polar bear suits that make much better video for news shows.
Whatever their reasons, backing a losing side fits into the green group's losing streak stretching back to the first Earth Day in 1970. The issues are the same now as they were nearly 40 years ago, even if terminology has changed from, say, air pollution to greenhouse gas emissions, and meaningful progress remains just as elusive. Despite their ineffectiveness, some of these NGOs rank among the best known brands on earth. The current global economic slump has governments and voters debating the merits of saving some of most famous industrial and banking names or letting them get swept away in capitalism's wave of creative destruction. Let's have the same debate about our environmental stewards that have repeatedly succeeded in proving themselves to be no friends of the earth.
Muhammad Cohen
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 21.30 GMT
Delegates from nearly 200 countries are gathered in Poznan, Poland this week to craft a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Last year, the mass meeting – officially known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – took place in Bali and gave the climate change issue incredible momentum. But there are no guarantees that the UNFCCC will benefit the environment, since its approach puts no limits on developing countries, including some of the world's top greenhouse gas producers.
Developed countries that signed the Kyoto agreement were required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels. However, only 40 out of 192 countries participating in the UN climate change process are categorised as developed and therefore subject to restrictions. Two of the top four greenhouse gas emitting nations – China and India – remain in the developing category and exempt from any emission controls. (By some counts, Indonesia makes it three of the top five emitters allowed unrestricted emissions under the UN regime.) The UN considers developing countries' exemption a matter of "climate justice" to ensure every nation has its equal opportunity to poison the earth.
Giving developing countries unrestricted rights to spew carbon may or may not be the best way to fight global warming, but the UN has closed debate on the matter. Developing countries cannot be subject to emission controls, according to the UNFCC, and that position is non-negotiable. That position also guarantees that the US won't join Kyoto or its successor. So the UNFCCC mechanism fails to cover at least three of the top four greenhouse gas emitting countries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the World Meteorological Organisation's latest figures show that carbon dioxide and methane soared to record levels in 2007. Rather than the Kyoto mandate of a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas levels from 1990, there's been a 20.7% increase under the UNFCCC regime.
Despite the UNFCCC's failures, environmental NGOs remain nearly unanimous that it is the only legitimate global mechanism to combat climate change. Few challenge the UN orthodoxy, perhaps because George Bush did. Under Bush, the US tried to find an alternative to the UNFCCC that would put controls on all major emitters. While the top 16 emitters showed up for the Major Economies Meeting (also known as the Major Emitters Meeting or MEM) in Washington last year, Greenpeace dismissed it (pdf) as "absurd theatre". If they really want to save the earth, however, they might question following the UN's lead.
The Nature Conservancy's director of international government relations, Andrew Deutz, thinks that the ultimate solution to cut emissions will come from a variety of processes, including UNFCCC, MEM, G20 and bilateral talks between key players, such as regular high-level economic meetings between the US and China. But he understands why many green groups see the UNFCCC as the only legitimate forum for climate negotiations.
"There's an ideological issue among environmental groups that the UNFCCC is the only legitimate forum for negotiations," Deutz explains. "It's a matter of simple democracy. These rules are for the whole planet. Why should the G8 or G20 decide for everyone? The UN is legitimate because everyone has a vote."
Still, it's hard to understand why some many environmental NGOs remain exclusively committed to a process that isn't working. Sure, the UN lets them set up booths and soapboxes at these annual climate change confabs, demonstrating that the UN is running an inclusive process. Along with their place near the table, the green groups get a shot at funding now, and more down the road. Perhaps more important in practical terms, environmental groups get publicity while providing comic relief and appealing visuals at otherwise deadly dull meetings. You don't see pictures of the (overwhelmingly hardworking and dedicated) UNFCCC delegates debating carbon sequestration methodology because the NGOs supply officially sanctioned protestors in penguin or polar bear suits that make much better video for news shows.
Whatever their reasons, backing a losing side fits into the green group's losing streak stretching back to the first Earth Day in 1970. The issues are the same now as they were nearly 40 years ago, even if terminology has changed from, say, air pollution to greenhouse gas emissions, and meaningful progress remains just as elusive. Despite their ineffectiveness, some of these NGOs rank among the best known brands on earth. The current global economic slump has governments and voters debating the merits of saving some of most famous industrial and banking names or letting them get swept away in capitalism's wave of creative destruction. Let's have the same debate about our environmental stewards that have repeatedly succeeded in proving themselves to be no friends of the earth.
Don't be defeatist: all new homes can be zero carbon by 2016
Prototype buildings may be expensive, but costs will come down substantially
Gareth Walton
The Guardian, Friday 12 December 2008
Chris Goodall is wrong to claim that there are "two problems" with the government's plan for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016 (The 10 big energy myths, November 27).
The first problem, according to Goodall, is that "only about 1% of the housing stock is newly built each year [and] tighter building regulations have no effect on the remaining 99%". However, this doesn't mean that we should reduce the targets for new homes, as Goodall argues, but rather that we also need a meaningful policy to reduce emissions from existing homes.
Secondly, Goodall claims that "making a building zero carbon is extremely expensive", saying "the few prototype UK homes that have recently reached this standard have cost twice as much as conventional houses".
It is a mistake to assume, as Goodall does, that the cost of these prototypes will be representative of the cost of zero-carbon homes in 2016. It's like saying that mobile phones would always be the size and weight of a brick because the first ones were. Prototypes are by their very nature more expensive - the ones Goodall refers to include significant one-off costs for initial design work.
Recent research found the cost of a zero-carbon home to be significantly cheaper than he quoted, with further cost reductions of up to 26% by the time zero-carbon standards are mandatory for new homes.
In addition, the prototypes Goodall mentions had to use the most expensive renewable energy technology - solar pv - because their site wasn't suitable for wind power, which can be much cheaper. They were also single dwellings, which is usually the most expensive scale in which to achieve zero carbon. Another recent study put the cost of achieving zero carbon using site-wide combined heat and power in a larger development at £6,800 per house, a far cry from Goodall's doubling in build costs.
He also fails to consider the savings from energy bills, savings which will become increasingly significant if energy costs rise. Nor does he include the societal benefits of the reductions in carbon emissions from new homes, costed at £70/tonne by the government, which should not be ignored.
This homes policy is not perfect (how often do you see a government policy that is?) but, as a rare example of a government taking a longer view than just the next electoral cycle and setting a target that actually reflects the scale of the problem, it deserves to be supported. It doesn't require us to achieve zero-carbon homes right now, but takes a stepped approach to achieving its aim, with lower interim targets for 2010 and 2013 - we should be focusing our energy on achieving these.
Inaccurate criticism runs the risk of creating a false belief that we can't achieve zero-carbon homes by 2016. The more we say it can't be done, the greater the risk that it won't. These homes may cost more, but the cost of not achieving them is even greater.
• Gareth Walton is director of the Devon Sustainable Building Initiative, an independent not-for-profit organisationgareth.walton@dsbi.org.uk
Gareth Walton
The Guardian, Friday 12 December 2008
Chris Goodall is wrong to claim that there are "two problems" with the government's plan for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016 (The 10 big energy myths, November 27).
The first problem, according to Goodall, is that "only about 1% of the housing stock is newly built each year [and] tighter building regulations have no effect on the remaining 99%". However, this doesn't mean that we should reduce the targets for new homes, as Goodall argues, but rather that we also need a meaningful policy to reduce emissions from existing homes.
Secondly, Goodall claims that "making a building zero carbon is extremely expensive", saying "the few prototype UK homes that have recently reached this standard have cost twice as much as conventional houses".
It is a mistake to assume, as Goodall does, that the cost of these prototypes will be representative of the cost of zero-carbon homes in 2016. It's like saying that mobile phones would always be the size and weight of a brick because the first ones were. Prototypes are by their very nature more expensive - the ones Goodall refers to include significant one-off costs for initial design work.
Recent research found the cost of a zero-carbon home to be significantly cheaper than he quoted, with further cost reductions of up to 26% by the time zero-carbon standards are mandatory for new homes.
In addition, the prototypes Goodall mentions had to use the most expensive renewable energy technology - solar pv - because their site wasn't suitable for wind power, which can be much cheaper. They were also single dwellings, which is usually the most expensive scale in which to achieve zero carbon. Another recent study put the cost of achieving zero carbon using site-wide combined heat and power in a larger development at £6,800 per house, a far cry from Goodall's doubling in build costs.
He also fails to consider the savings from energy bills, savings which will become increasingly significant if energy costs rise. Nor does he include the societal benefits of the reductions in carbon emissions from new homes, costed at £70/tonne by the government, which should not be ignored.
This homes policy is not perfect (how often do you see a government policy that is?) but, as a rare example of a government taking a longer view than just the next electoral cycle and setting a target that actually reflects the scale of the problem, it deserves to be supported. It doesn't require us to achieve zero-carbon homes right now, but takes a stepped approach to achieving its aim, with lower interim targets for 2010 and 2013 - we should be focusing our energy on achieving these.
Inaccurate criticism runs the risk of creating a false belief that we can't achieve zero-carbon homes by 2016. The more we say it can't be done, the greater the risk that it won't. These homes may cost more, but the cost of not achieving them is even greater.
• Gareth Walton is director of the Devon Sustainable Building Initiative, an independent not-for-profit organisationgareth.walton@dsbi.org.uk
Hard times mean charity begins at home
Lizzy Davies in Berlin
The Guardian, Friday 12 December 2008
Collars turned up to ward off the cold, puffing morosely on cigarettes, the group of factory workers standing in the chill of a bleak industrial suburb of west Berlin yesterday did not have much to say about the intricacies of the EU's policies. But they knew enough to be unhappy. "Frankly, they can go screw themselves," was the verdict of one. "We've got enough on our plates."
When Angela Merkel raised the ire of environmental campaigners this week by vowing not to agree to any new Brussels regulations that "endanger jobs or investment in Germany", these were the people she had in mind. The EU's powerhouse economy is fired by a heavy industrial sector which is bigger than France and Britain's combined - and which is fearful of the future.
By promising to reject several important climate-change measures that she would previously have been expected to endorse, the increasingly trenchant chancellor has reassured those who feared the green proposals would lead to mass unemployment and the relocation of staple domestic industries.
And by adopting a reticent position on an EU-wide economic stimulus package, she has reflected a growing feeling of resentment in Germany - a feeling that, for once, Berlin should not have to pick up the tab.
"Germany has always been at the heart of Europe, always participated fully," said one senior employee at Siemens. "And when everything's going well, of course we've got money for everyone else. But things aren't going that well at the moment."
Siemens itself announced 5,250 job losses in Germany this year. A respected thinktank has said the country faces its worst recession in postwar history, with joblessness likely to rise fast next year.
"We have seen the US standing for itself, Britain for itself, the French too of course, and now the time has come for us to fight for our own interests as well," said the Siemens employee, who wanted to remain anonymous.
Another Berliner, taxi driver Franck Drescher, said: "We put in the most and we get out the least. At some point you have to say enough is enough. There is money, of course, but it's got to go to the Germans who need it, before other countries. And when you're working 14 hours a day just to make ends meet, and you hardly ever see your family - you need it."
While her newly assertive stance has been broadly welcomed by Germans long used to living in a country which for historical reasons has been reluctant to push itself forward on the European stage, there is a desire for Merkel to choose her battles carefully.
Her U-turn on climate change policy, for instance, may have placated a restive industrial sector before next September's general election, but it has enraged the powerful green community.
They are furious at what they see as an unforgivable betrayal by the woman they once called "the climate chancellor" for her commitment to cutting carbon emissions.
"What she is doing is really dangerous," said Andre Boehling, of Greenpeace Germany. "She is doing the opposite of what she wanted a year ago ... behaving like countries such as Italy and Poland, which say whatever is to the benefit of their own industry."
On the economy, too, Merkel faces an increasingly vociferous opposition: economists, business leaders and even members of her own CDU party are urging a round of tax cuts and government spending; the headline on this week's Spiegel called her Timid Angela.
"I think it was Sarkozy who said France was acting while Germany was pondering," said Ralph Brueckner, who works in the technology industry.
"He is right. She says she's fighting for us, but she's not doing anything."
The Guardian, Friday 12 December 2008
Collars turned up to ward off the cold, puffing morosely on cigarettes, the group of factory workers standing in the chill of a bleak industrial suburb of west Berlin yesterday did not have much to say about the intricacies of the EU's policies. But they knew enough to be unhappy. "Frankly, they can go screw themselves," was the verdict of one. "We've got enough on our plates."
When Angela Merkel raised the ire of environmental campaigners this week by vowing not to agree to any new Brussels regulations that "endanger jobs or investment in Germany", these were the people she had in mind. The EU's powerhouse economy is fired by a heavy industrial sector which is bigger than France and Britain's combined - and which is fearful of the future.
By promising to reject several important climate-change measures that she would previously have been expected to endorse, the increasingly trenchant chancellor has reassured those who feared the green proposals would lead to mass unemployment and the relocation of staple domestic industries.
And by adopting a reticent position on an EU-wide economic stimulus package, she has reflected a growing feeling of resentment in Germany - a feeling that, for once, Berlin should not have to pick up the tab.
"Germany has always been at the heart of Europe, always participated fully," said one senior employee at Siemens. "And when everything's going well, of course we've got money for everyone else. But things aren't going that well at the moment."
Siemens itself announced 5,250 job losses in Germany this year. A respected thinktank has said the country faces its worst recession in postwar history, with joblessness likely to rise fast next year.
"We have seen the US standing for itself, Britain for itself, the French too of course, and now the time has come for us to fight for our own interests as well," said the Siemens employee, who wanted to remain anonymous.
Another Berliner, taxi driver Franck Drescher, said: "We put in the most and we get out the least. At some point you have to say enough is enough. There is money, of course, but it's got to go to the Germans who need it, before other countries. And when you're working 14 hours a day just to make ends meet, and you hardly ever see your family - you need it."
While her newly assertive stance has been broadly welcomed by Germans long used to living in a country which for historical reasons has been reluctant to push itself forward on the European stage, there is a desire for Merkel to choose her battles carefully.
Her U-turn on climate change policy, for instance, may have placated a restive industrial sector before next September's general election, but it has enraged the powerful green community.
They are furious at what they see as an unforgivable betrayal by the woman they once called "the climate chancellor" for her commitment to cutting carbon emissions.
"What she is doing is really dangerous," said Andre Boehling, of Greenpeace Germany. "She is doing the opposite of what she wanted a year ago ... behaving like countries such as Italy and Poland, which say whatever is to the benefit of their own industry."
On the economy, too, Merkel faces an increasingly vociferous opposition: economists, business leaders and even members of her own CDU party are urging a round of tax cuts and government spending; the headline on this week's Spiegel called her Timid Angela.
"I think it was Sarkozy who said France was acting while Germany was pondering," said Ralph Brueckner, who works in the technology industry.
"He is right. She says she's fighting for us, but she's not doing anything."
No new coal - the calling card of the 'green Banksy' who breached fortress Kingsnorth
• Saboteur breezes in to shut 500MW turbine • Act single-handedly cuts UK carbon output by 2%
John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, Thursday 11 December 2008
The £12m defences of the most heavily guarded power station in Britain have been breached by a single person who, under the eyes of CCTV cameras, climbed two three-metre (10ft) razor-wired, electrified security fences, walked into the station and crashed a giant 500MW turbine before leaving a calling card reading "no new coal". He walked out the same way and hopped back over the fence.
All power from the coal and oil-powered Kingsnorth station in Kent was halted for four hours, in which time it is thought the mystery saboteur's actions reduced UK climate change emissions by 2%. Enough electricity to power a city the size of Bristol was lost.
Yesterday the hunt was on for the man dubbed "climate man" or the "green Banksy". Climate activists responsible for hijacking coal trains and breaking on to runways said they knew nothing about the incident.
Even veterans of some of the most audacious direct actions, such as the scaling of the Kingsnorth chimney, are mystified. The station operator E.On professed astonishment that a lone activist would be daring enough to try to do something so potentially dangerous. Medway police said they had no suspects but were still investigating the incident, which took place on November 28.
"It was extremely odd indeed, quite creepy. We have never known anything like this at all, but it shows that if people want to do something badly enough they will find a way," said Emily Highmore, a spokeswoman for E.On.
Should "climate man" ever show up, he will be feted for what activists say was the most daring individual action of the year. "We have no idea who he is - but we really want to know. Everybody's asking 'where were you on Friday November 28'," said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace, one of six people arrested for climbing the 76 metre (250ft) chimney of the Kingsnorth station early last year but found not guilty of criminal damage in November. "We would never act anonymously," he added.
Yesterday the full story emerged of what happened. "It was about 10pm, very dark indeed," said Highmore. "It looks from the CCTV like he came in via a very remote part of the site by the sea wall and got over the double layer of fences."
The intruder then crossed a car park and walked to an unlocked door. But instead of going to the power station's main control room, where about eight people would have been working, he headed for its main turbine hall, where no one would have been working at that time.
Within minutes, says E.On, "he had tampered with some equipment" - believed to be a computer at a control panel - "and tripped unit 2, one of the station's giant 500MW turbines".
"This caused the unit to go offline," she added. "It was running at full 500MW load and the noise it would have made as it shut itself down is just incredible. CCTV shows that he then just walked out, and went back over the fence.
"It could be that no one has taken responsibility because they were so frightened by the noise it would have made. It's probably taken them a week just to get over the shock."
E.On, which wants to demolish the station and replace it with Britain's first new coal-fired power station in 34 years, said it was reviewing security, but doubted it was an inside job or the work of a big environment group. The intruder may have had some experience at one of Britain's other major power stations, insiders say.
"He left a banner but it was a real DIY job. It was really scrappy. This was an old bedsheet with writing done out of gaffer tape. It was very crude," said Highmore
"People at the station are gobsmacked," she added. "This is a different league to protesters chaining themselves to equipment. It's someone treating a power station as an adventure playground. You have to be trained to work here. People do not just wander about on their own. He could have killed himself. We do not have a problem with public protest but this was reckless. Whoever it was has crossed a line they should not have gone over. Power stations are dangerous places."
Kingsnorth was the site of a week-long activist camp in August which saw about 1,000 climate change activists try but fail to get into the station.
Notorious, but nameless
The Kingsnorth intruder joins a select group of "caped crusaders" who do their work without their names becoming widely known
Banksy: The graffiti artist whose work has attracted worldwide attention has taken his subversive style from urban Britain to the West Bank. He was recently unmasked by a Sunday paper, but after years of arresting images he has almost been elevated to status of national treasure.
Captain Gatso: The controversial leader of protest group Mad (Motorists Against Detection) has stoned, superglued, sprayed and ringed with burning tyres more than 1,000 roadside speed cameras in an eight-year campaign.
Superbarrio: Billed by his supporters as "faster than a speeding turtle and able to leap small speed bumps in a single bound", the flabby caped crusader in cherry red tights traverses the streets of Mexico City, defending the working class, the poor and the homeless. "I can't stop a plane or a train single-handed, but I can keep a family from being evicted," he said.
The Biotic Baking Brigade: A loosely connected group of leftwing activists, famous for throwing pies in the faces of such figures as the Microsoft's Bill Gates, the San Francisco mayors Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom and the Swedish King Carl Gustaf. The group's members have been active on animal rights and ecology issues as well as in feminist movements.
John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, Thursday 11 December 2008
The £12m defences of the most heavily guarded power station in Britain have been breached by a single person who, under the eyes of CCTV cameras, climbed two three-metre (10ft) razor-wired, electrified security fences, walked into the station and crashed a giant 500MW turbine before leaving a calling card reading "no new coal". He walked out the same way and hopped back over the fence.
All power from the coal and oil-powered Kingsnorth station in Kent was halted for four hours, in which time it is thought the mystery saboteur's actions reduced UK climate change emissions by 2%. Enough electricity to power a city the size of Bristol was lost.
Yesterday the hunt was on for the man dubbed "climate man" or the "green Banksy". Climate activists responsible for hijacking coal trains and breaking on to runways said they knew nothing about the incident.
Even veterans of some of the most audacious direct actions, such as the scaling of the Kingsnorth chimney, are mystified. The station operator E.On professed astonishment that a lone activist would be daring enough to try to do something so potentially dangerous. Medway police said they had no suspects but were still investigating the incident, which took place on November 28.
"It was extremely odd indeed, quite creepy. We have never known anything like this at all, but it shows that if people want to do something badly enough they will find a way," said Emily Highmore, a spokeswoman for E.On.
Should "climate man" ever show up, he will be feted for what activists say was the most daring individual action of the year. "We have no idea who he is - but we really want to know. Everybody's asking 'where were you on Friday November 28'," said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace, one of six people arrested for climbing the 76 metre (250ft) chimney of the Kingsnorth station early last year but found not guilty of criminal damage in November. "We would never act anonymously," he added.
Yesterday the full story emerged of what happened. "It was about 10pm, very dark indeed," said Highmore. "It looks from the CCTV like he came in via a very remote part of the site by the sea wall and got over the double layer of fences."
The intruder then crossed a car park and walked to an unlocked door. But instead of going to the power station's main control room, where about eight people would have been working, he headed for its main turbine hall, where no one would have been working at that time.
Within minutes, says E.On, "he had tampered with some equipment" - believed to be a computer at a control panel - "and tripped unit 2, one of the station's giant 500MW turbines".
"This caused the unit to go offline," she added. "It was running at full 500MW load and the noise it would have made as it shut itself down is just incredible. CCTV shows that he then just walked out, and went back over the fence.
"It could be that no one has taken responsibility because they were so frightened by the noise it would have made. It's probably taken them a week just to get over the shock."
E.On, which wants to demolish the station and replace it with Britain's first new coal-fired power station in 34 years, said it was reviewing security, but doubted it was an inside job or the work of a big environment group. The intruder may have had some experience at one of Britain's other major power stations, insiders say.
"He left a banner but it was a real DIY job. It was really scrappy. This was an old bedsheet with writing done out of gaffer tape. It was very crude," said Highmore
"People at the station are gobsmacked," she added. "This is a different league to protesters chaining themselves to equipment. It's someone treating a power station as an adventure playground. You have to be trained to work here. People do not just wander about on their own. He could have killed himself. We do not have a problem with public protest but this was reckless. Whoever it was has crossed a line they should not have gone over. Power stations are dangerous places."
Kingsnorth was the site of a week-long activist camp in August which saw about 1,000 climate change activists try but fail to get into the station.
Notorious, but nameless
The Kingsnorth intruder joins a select group of "caped crusaders" who do their work without their names becoming widely known
Banksy: The graffiti artist whose work has attracted worldwide attention has taken his subversive style from urban Britain to the West Bank. He was recently unmasked by a Sunday paper, but after years of arresting images he has almost been elevated to status of national treasure.
Captain Gatso: The controversial leader of protest group Mad (Motorists Against Detection) has stoned, superglued, sprayed and ringed with burning tyres more than 1,000 roadside speed cameras in an eight-year campaign.
Superbarrio: Billed by his supporters as "faster than a speeding turtle and able to leap small speed bumps in a single bound", the flabby caped crusader in cherry red tights traverses the streets of Mexico City, defending the working class, the poor and the homeless. "I can't stop a plane or a train single-handed, but I can keep a family from being evicted," he said.
The Biotic Baking Brigade: A loosely connected group of leftwing activists, famous for throwing pies in the faces of such figures as the Microsoft's Bill Gates, the San Francisco mayors Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom and the Swedish King Carl Gustaf. The group's members have been active on animal rights and ecology issues as well as in feminist movements.
No new coal - the calling card of the 'green Banksy' who breached fortress Kingsnorth
• Saboteur breezes in to shut 500MW turbine • Act single-handedly cuts UK carbon output by 2%
John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, Thursday 11 December 2008
The £12m defences of the most heavily guarded power station in Britain have been breached by a single person who, under the eyes of CCTV cameras, climbed two three-metre (10ft) razor-wired, electrified security fences, walked into the station and crashed a giant 500MW turbine before leaving a calling card reading "no new coal". He walked out the same way and hopped back over the fence.
All power from the coal and oil-powered Kingsnorth station in Kent was halted for four hours, in which time it is thought the mystery saboteur's actions reduced UK climate change emissions by 2%. Enough electricity to power a city the size of Bristol was lost.
Yesterday the hunt was on for the man dubbed "climate man" or the "green Banksy". Climate activists responsible for hijacking coal trains and breaking on to runways said they knew nothing about the incident.
Even veterans of some of the most audacious direct actions, such as the scaling of the Kingsnorth chimney, are mystified. The station operator E.On professed astonishment that a lone activist would be daring enough to try to do something so potentially dangerous. Medway police said they had no suspects but were still investigating the incident, which took place on November 28.
"It was extremely odd indeed, quite creepy. We have never known anything like this at all, but it shows that if people want to do something badly enough they will find a way," said Emily Highmore, a spokeswoman for E.On.
Should "climate man" ever show up, he will be feted for what activists say was the most daring individual action of the year. "We have no idea who he is - but we really want to know. Everybody's asking 'where were you on Friday November 28'," said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace, one of six people arrested for climbing the 76 metre (250ft) chimney of the Kingsnorth station early last year but found not guilty of criminal damage in November. "We would never act anonymously," he added.
Yesterday the full story emerged of what happened. "It was about 10pm, very dark indeed," said Highmore. "It looks from the CCTV like he came in via a very remote part of the site by the sea wall and got over the double layer of fences."
The intruder then crossed a car park and walked to an unlocked door. But instead of going to the power station's main control room, where about eight people would have been working, he headed for its main turbine hall, where no one would have been working at that time.
Within minutes, says E.On, "he had tampered with some equipment" - believed to be a computer at a control panel - "and tripped unit 2, one of the station's giant 500MW turbines".
"This caused the unit to go offline," she added. "It was running at full 500MW load and the noise it would have made as it shut itself down is just incredible. CCTV shows that he then just walked out, and went back over the fence.
"It could be that no one has taken responsibility because they were so frightened by the noise it would have made. It's probably taken them a week just to get over the shock."
E.On, which wants to demolish the station and replace it with Britain's first new coal-fired power station in 34 years, said it was reviewing security, but doubted it was an inside job or the work of a big environment group. The intruder may have had some experience at one of Britain's other major power stations, insiders say.
"He left a banner but it was a real DIY job. It was really scrappy. This was an old bedsheet with writing done out of gaffer tape. It was very crude," said Highmore
"People at the station are gobsmacked," she added. "This is a different league to protesters chaining themselves to equipment. It's someone treating a power station as an adventure playground. You have to be trained to work here. People do not just wander about on their own. He could have killed himself. We do not have a problem with public protest but this was reckless. Whoever it was has crossed a line they should not have gone over. Power stations are dangerous places."
Kingsnorth was the site of a week-long activist camp in August which saw about 1,000 climate change activists try but fail to get into the station.
Notorious, but nameless
The Kingsnorth intruder joins a select group of "caped crusaders" who do their work without their names becoming widely known
Banksy: The graffiti artist whose work has attracted worldwide attention has taken his subversive style from urban Britain to the West Bank. He was recently unmasked by a Sunday paper, but after years of arresting images he has almost been elevated to status of national treasure.
Captain Gatso: The controversial leader of protest group Mad (Motorists Against Detection) has stoned, superglued, sprayed and ringed with burning tyres more than 1,000 roadside speed cameras in an eight-year campaign.
Superbarrio: Billed by his supporters as "faster than a speeding turtle and able to leap small speed bumps in a single bound", the flabby caped crusader in cherry red tights traverses the streets of Mexico City, defending the working class, the poor and the homeless. "I can't stop a plane or a train single-handed, but I can keep a family from being evicted," he said.
The Biotic Baking Brigade: A loosely connected group of leftwing activists, famous for throwing pies in the faces of such figures as the Microsoft's Bill Gates, the San Francisco mayors Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom and the Swedish King Carl Gustaf. The group's members have been active on animal rights and ecology issues as well as in feminist movements.
John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, Thursday 11 December 2008
The £12m defences of the most heavily guarded power station in Britain have been breached by a single person who, under the eyes of CCTV cameras, climbed two three-metre (10ft) razor-wired, electrified security fences, walked into the station and crashed a giant 500MW turbine before leaving a calling card reading "no new coal". He walked out the same way and hopped back over the fence.
All power from the coal and oil-powered Kingsnorth station in Kent was halted for four hours, in which time it is thought the mystery saboteur's actions reduced UK climate change emissions by 2%. Enough electricity to power a city the size of Bristol was lost.
Yesterday the hunt was on for the man dubbed "climate man" or the "green Banksy". Climate activists responsible for hijacking coal trains and breaking on to runways said they knew nothing about the incident.
Even veterans of some of the most audacious direct actions, such as the scaling of the Kingsnorth chimney, are mystified. The station operator E.On professed astonishment that a lone activist would be daring enough to try to do something so potentially dangerous. Medway police said they had no suspects but were still investigating the incident, which took place on November 28.
"It was extremely odd indeed, quite creepy. We have never known anything like this at all, but it shows that if people want to do something badly enough they will find a way," said Emily Highmore, a spokeswoman for E.On.
Should "climate man" ever show up, he will be feted for what activists say was the most daring individual action of the year. "We have no idea who he is - but we really want to know. Everybody's asking 'where were you on Friday November 28'," said Ben Stewart of Greenpeace, one of six people arrested for climbing the 76 metre (250ft) chimney of the Kingsnorth station early last year but found not guilty of criminal damage in November. "We would never act anonymously," he added.
Yesterday the full story emerged of what happened. "It was about 10pm, very dark indeed," said Highmore. "It looks from the CCTV like he came in via a very remote part of the site by the sea wall and got over the double layer of fences."
The intruder then crossed a car park and walked to an unlocked door. But instead of going to the power station's main control room, where about eight people would have been working, he headed for its main turbine hall, where no one would have been working at that time.
Within minutes, says E.On, "he had tampered with some equipment" - believed to be a computer at a control panel - "and tripped unit 2, one of the station's giant 500MW turbines".
"This caused the unit to go offline," she added. "It was running at full 500MW load and the noise it would have made as it shut itself down is just incredible. CCTV shows that he then just walked out, and went back over the fence.
"It could be that no one has taken responsibility because they were so frightened by the noise it would have made. It's probably taken them a week just to get over the shock."
E.On, which wants to demolish the station and replace it with Britain's first new coal-fired power station in 34 years, said it was reviewing security, but doubted it was an inside job or the work of a big environment group. The intruder may have had some experience at one of Britain's other major power stations, insiders say.
"He left a banner but it was a real DIY job. It was really scrappy. This was an old bedsheet with writing done out of gaffer tape. It was very crude," said Highmore
"People at the station are gobsmacked," she added. "This is a different league to protesters chaining themselves to equipment. It's someone treating a power station as an adventure playground. You have to be trained to work here. People do not just wander about on their own. He could have killed himself. We do not have a problem with public protest but this was reckless. Whoever it was has crossed a line they should not have gone over. Power stations are dangerous places."
Kingsnorth was the site of a week-long activist camp in August which saw about 1,000 climate change activists try but fail to get into the station.
Notorious, but nameless
The Kingsnorth intruder joins a select group of "caped crusaders" who do their work without their names becoming widely known
Banksy: The graffiti artist whose work has attracted worldwide attention has taken his subversive style from urban Britain to the West Bank. He was recently unmasked by a Sunday paper, but after years of arresting images he has almost been elevated to status of national treasure.
Captain Gatso: The controversial leader of protest group Mad (Motorists Against Detection) has stoned, superglued, sprayed and ringed with burning tyres more than 1,000 roadside speed cameras in an eight-year campaign.
Superbarrio: Billed by his supporters as "faster than a speeding turtle and able to leap small speed bumps in a single bound", the flabby caped crusader in cherry red tights traverses the streets of Mexico City, defending the working class, the poor and the homeless. "I can't stop a plane or a train single-handed, but I can keep a family from being evicted," he said.
The Biotic Baking Brigade: A loosely connected group of leftwing activists, famous for throwing pies in the faces of such figures as the Microsoft's Bill Gates, the San Francisco mayors Willie Brown and Gavin Newsom and the Swedish King Carl Gustaf. The group's members have been active on animal rights and ecology issues as well as in feminist movements.
Are carbon offsetters taking us for a ride?
The carbon offset industry cannot agree on how much to charge for CO2 emissions, nor how much you produce when you fly, writes Fred Pearce
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 12.00 GMT
Flying somewhere this Christmas, or planning a ski trip? Arguably, given the carbon emissions involved, you just shouldn't.
But if you do, will you offset those flight emissions? Some people fuss that the offset companies are a green con. How do we know the trees we pay for won't die? Are we just subsidising renewable energy projects that were going to happen anyway?
Fair questions. But questions for another day. I have another problem. Why does the price of offsetting vary so much? Are we being ripped off?
Spend even a few minutes searching the internet offsetters and you will find two things. First, the prices charged for offsetting every tonne of CO2 you emit vary hugely. Second, the offsetters can't even agree on how great your emissions are for any particular flight.
Let's start with ClimateCare, based in Oxford. I have offset with them before, because I like the people and the projects. For a return economy flight from Heathrow to JFK in New York, they reckon my emissions are 1.53 tonnes. Earlier this week they wanted to charge me nearly £9 a tonne, making a total of £13.22. Type in your credit card details and it's done. Your money goes to fund some cooking stoves in Cambodia or wind turbines in Inner Mongolia.
But a more or less random sample of other offsetters this week provided me with some very different offers. The London-based CarbonNeutral company and Carbonpassport in Glasgow both say my New York return journey emits just over 1.3 tonnes. Terrapass in San Francisco puts it at just 0.84 tonnes. While Atmosfair in Berlin suggests I will be responsible for 3.48 tonnes. All are measuring the CO2 the same way; all are assuming a regular economy flight. The differences are baffling.
Then there is the price charged per tonne, which ranges from £17.50 at Carbonpassport to only half that with CarbonNeutral.
Put it all together, and Terrapass swears that I can offset my transatlantic hop with them for a measly $11.90 or £8.00. CarbonNeutral sound competitive at £11.90. But Atmosfairs wants €81, or £69.85.
And my spot survey didn't find the full range. A couple of weeks ago, Paul Hooper of Manchester Metropolitan University's centre for air transport and the environment published his own study, conducted last winter, of more than 42 online offsetters. He found a sixfold difference in the price charged per tonne of carbon emitted. And, taking in the higher charges that some offsetting companies make for a bigger, business- or first-class seat, discovered price tags for a return trip from London to Sydney that ranged from £9.48 to a staggering £643.39, almost a 70-fold difference.
Now, if I was buying a laptop or something similar and got offered such a range of prices, I'd probably just pay the least and send it back if it didn't work. But with offsets, there is nothing to take out of the box. At the end of the day, I have no real idea what exactly it is that I have bought. And maybe it is ethically better to pay more. The offsetters are all supposed to be good guys, doing their bit for the planet, after all. The more money they get, the more they can help. But maybe not.
So what's going on? I'm still not quite sure why some companies reckon they can absorb a tonne of carbon so much more cheaply than others. I'd welcome inside information on this from any companies not delivering.
But after a bit of pestering, I have established why they can't agree on the mileage. There are a few technical things like how full you assume the plane is. And maybe the odd discrepancy over flight routes and aircraft type. New planes generally emit less. But the big difference is a scientific disagreement.
It turns out that the companies with low emission estimates simply calculate how much carbon dioxide planes kick out of their engines per passenger-kilometre. But the rest try to factor in other emissions from the engines that also add to the global warming. Things like the contrails and the nitrous oxide emissions that do a bunch of different things to atmospheric chemistry that I won't go into here.
The problem is that factoring these in is complicated. There is no single answer. Some companies reckon these emissions double the global warming effect. Some triple it. Some go even higher.
This is because the answer depends on timescales. If you mostly care about the short-term effects over the next decade or so, then these other gases are big players. But if you have your ambitions set on protecting the climate for your grandchildren, then they will have long since gone, while the CO2 will still be hanging round in the atmosphere. You would have thought the offsetting companies might have come up with some agreed rules about how to measure the overall global warming impact of greenhouse gases. But they haven't. Instead confusion reigns.
Once, we might have shaken our heads indulgently, thinking that at least they are encouraging us to cough up our cash for good projects that somewhere along the line will help clean up the atmosphere. Maybe the details don't matter too much.
After all, you wouldn't insist on personally checking the health of an Oxfam goat before giving that to your nearest and dearest for Christmas.
But in recent months, there has been a shake-down in the carbon offsetting business. The start-ups are being taken over. The enthusiasts in cardigans and riding bicycles are giving way to money men in sharp suits driving limos. A few months ago my own favourite, ClimateCare, got gobbled up by Wall Street investment bank JPMorgan. Call me prejudiced, but suddenly I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt any more.
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 12.00 GMT
Flying somewhere this Christmas, or planning a ski trip? Arguably, given the carbon emissions involved, you just shouldn't.
But if you do, will you offset those flight emissions? Some people fuss that the offset companies are a green con. How do we know the trees we pay for won't die? Are we just subsidising renewable energy projects that were going to happen anyway?
Fair questions. But questions for another day. I have another problem. Why does the price of offsetting vary so much? Are we being ripped off?
Spend even a few minutes searching the internet offsetters and you will find two things. First, the prices charged for offsetting every tonne of CO2 you emit vary hugely. Second, the offsetters can't even agree on how great your emissions are for any particular flight.
Let's start with ClimateCare, based in Oxford. I have offset with them before, because I like the people and the projects. For a return economy flight from Heathrow to JFK in New York, they reckon my emissions are 1.53 tonnes. Earlier this week they wanted to charge me nearly £9 a tonne, making a total of £13.22. Type in your credit card details and it's done. Your money goes to fund some cooking stoves in Cambodia or wind turbines in Inner Mongolia.
But a more or less random sample of other offsetters this week provided me with some very different offers. The London-based CarbonNeutral company and Carbonpassport in Glasgow both say my New York return journey emits just over 1.3 tonnes. Terrapass in San Francisco puts it at just 0.84 tonnes. While Atmosfair in Berlin suggests I will be responsible for 3.48 tonnes. All are measuring the CO2 the same way; all are assuming a regular economy flight. The differences are baffling.
Then there is the price charged per tonne, which ranges from £17.50 at Carbonpassport to only half that with CarbonNeutral.
Put it all together, and Terrapass swears that I can offset my transatlantic hop with them for a measly $11.90 or £8.00. CarbonNeutral sound competitive at £11.90. But Atmosfairs wants €81, or £69.85.
And my spot survey didn't find the full range. A couple of weeks ago, Paul Hooper of Manchester Metropolitan University's centre for air transport and the environment published his own study, conducted last winter, of more than 42 online offsetters. He found a sixfold difference in the price charged per tonne of carbon emitted. And, taking in the higher charges that some offsetting companies make for a bigger, business- or first-class seat, discovered price tags for a return trip from London to Sydney that ranged from £9.48 to a staggering £643.39, almost a 70-fold difference.
Now, if I was buying a laptop or something similar and got offered such a range of prices, I'd probably just pay the least and send it back if it didn't work. But with offsets, there is nothing to take out of the box. At the end of the day, I have no real idea what exactly it is that I have bought. And maybe it is ethically better to pay more. The offsetters are all supposed to be good guys, doing their bit for the planet, after all. The more money they get, the more they can help. But maybe not.
So what's going on? I'm still not quite sure why some companies reckon they can absorb a tonne of carbon so much more cheaply than others. I'd welcome inside information on this from any companies not delivering.
But after a bit of pestering, I have established why they can't agree on the mileage. There are a few technical things like how full you assume the plane is. And maybe the odd discrepancy over flight routes and aircraft type. New planes generally emit less. But the big difference is a scientific disagreement.
It turns out that the companies with low emission estimates simply calculate how much carbon dioxide planes kick out of their engines per passenger-kilometre. But the rest try to factor in other emissions from the engines that also add to the global warming. Things like the contrails and the nitrous oxide emissions that do a bunch of different things to atmospheric chemistry that I won't go into here.
The problem is that factoring these in is complicated. There is no single answer. Some companies reckon these emissions double the global warming effect. Some triple it. Some go even higher.
This is because the answer depends on timescales. If you mostly care about the short-term effects over the next decade or so, then these other gases are big players. But if you have your ambitions set on protecting the climate for your grandchildren, then they will have long since gone, while the CO2 will still be hanging round in the atmosphere. You would have thought the offsetting companies might have come up with some agreed rules about how to measure the overall global warming impact of greenhouse gases. But they haven't. Instead confusion reigns.
Once, we might have shaken our heads indulgently, thinking that at least they are encouraging us to cough up our cash for good projects that somewhere along the line will help clean up the atmosphere. Maybe the details don't matter too much.
After all, you wouldn't insist on personally checking the health of an Oxfam goat before giving that to your nearest and dearest for Christmas.
But in recent months, there has been a shake-down in the carbon offsetting business. The start-ups are being taken over. The enthusiasts in cardigans and riding bicycles are giving way to money men in sharp suits driving limos. A few months ago my own favourite, ClimateCare, got gobbled up by Wall Street investment bank JPMorgan. Call me prejudiced, but suddenly I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt any more.
Mexico leads the way with carbon reduction pledge
David Adam, environment correspondent in Poznan, and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 18.48 GMT
Mexico has become one of the first developing countries to set a specific carbon reduction target, with a pledge to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Juan Rafael Elvira, Mexico's environment secretary, told UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland that the target was intended to challenge other countries to take action.
The pledge is on 2002 levels. Mexico produced more than 430m tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2006, making it the 13th largest emitter in the world.
Elvira said the target would be met with clean and efficient technologies, such as wind and solar power.
Mexico also plans a domestic cap-and-trade system by 2012 to cut emissions from certain sectors, such as cement and oil refining.
Fernando Tudela, the country's deputy environment secretary, said: "This is a very aggressive goal for our country, but we are confident we can achieve it with international assistance." He hoped it would spark "similar action by other developing countries."
Costa Rica has pledged to go carbon neutral by 2021 under a UN scheme.
Environmentalists at the talks have strongly criticised some of the world's richest countries, saying they have done too little to battle global warming.
But many developing countries have been praised for specific plans to fight climate change.
Keith Allott, the World Wildlife Fund's head of climate change, said: "This move by Mexico confirms a trend we have been seeing all through these talks, with the developing world coming up with the innovative ideas on how to move to a low carbon pathway. Unfortunately, the developed world has its fingers in its ears and is sitting on its hands."
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 December 2008 18.48 GMT
Mexico has become one of the first developing countries to set a specific carbon reduction target, with a pledge to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Juan Rafael Elvira, Mexico's environment secretary, told UN climate talks in Poznan, Poland that the target was intended to challenge other countries to take action.
The pledge is on 2002 levels. Mexico produced more than 430m tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2006, making it the 13th largest emitter in the world.
Elvira said the target would be met with clean and efficient technologies, such as wind and solar power.
Mexico also plans a domestic cap-and-trade system by 2012 to cut emissions from certain sectors, such as cement and oil refining.
Fernando Tudela, the country's deputy environment secretary, said: "This is a very aggressive goal for our country, but we are confident we can achieve it with international assistance." He hoped it would spark "similar action by other developing countries."
Costa Rica has pledged to go carbon neutral by 2021 under a UN scheme.
Environmentalists at the talks have strongly criticised some of the world's richest countries, saying they have done too little to battle global warming.
But many developing countries have been praised for specific plans to fight climate change.
Keith Allott, the World Wildlife Fund's head of climate change, said: "This move by Mexico confirms a trend we have been seeing all through these talks, with the developing world coming up with the innovative ideas on how to move to a low carbon pathway. Unfortunately, the developed world has its fingers in its ears and is sitting on its hands."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
