Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Kiwi Carbon Race
The global warming religion runs so deep today that most politicians figure it's best enact some sort of green policy, regardless of whether or not that policy actually reduces global warming. Exhibit number one is New Zealand.
The National Party-led government announced last week amendments to the country's existing emissions-trading scheme, fulfilling a campaign pledge. Some sectors will now enter the scheme earlier than planned, while the country's largest export industry, agriculture, will get a two-year reprieve. Wellington's bureaucrats will also measure businesses' "emissions intensity" rather than set hard emissions targets, so that firms aren't penalized for their expansion plans.
The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith, said the changes take "a responsible approach to the climate-change problem caused by greenhouse gas emissions while being realistic about how much a small country like New Zealand can contribute." The Nationals are nominally conservative and keen to appear pro-business.
What Mr. Smith didn't say is that from an environmental perspective, it doesn't really matter what New Zealand does. The island nation contributes 0.2% of total global emissions. The amended scheme isn't expected to reduce even that already-miniscule figure much.
The economic cost to business is also hard to estimate, given that the new bill contains carveouts for certain industries and provisions to amend the legislation in future. The government says by 2030, the fiscal cost could reach 2.2 billion New Zealand dollars ($1.6 billion). Independent economists put that figure much higher because Kiwi businesses will become less competitive internationally as their costs rise.
The Nationals are pushing to pass the bill before the December United Nations climate-change meeting. "This emissions-trading scheme will be the first of any country outside of Europe and, as of 1 July 2010, will be the most comprehensive," Mr.Smith enthused. But to what end?
Senators to Unveil Draft Climate Bill
By IAN TALLEY and STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON -- Top Senate Democrats plan Wednesday to unveil a draft climate bill calling for greater reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions than a House bill would require.
But the proposal is expected to defer tough decisions on other major issues, underscoring the challenges lawmakers face in seeking a consensus.
The proposal calls for cutting U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 20% from 2005 levels by 2020, according to a copy of a draft, as well as people close to the matter.
The House bill, which passed in June, calls for cutting emissions 17% over the same period.
California Democrat Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hope the draft legislation will give new momentum to climate change, an Obama administration priority that appears to have slid down Washington's to-do list.
The House in June approved legislation that would require companies to hold permits to emit greenhouse gases. In the initial years, the government would give away most of the permits to industries, while allowing companies to trade permits among themselves. Over time, the government would issue fewer permits, bringing overall emissions down.
The Senate proposal isn't expected to specify how the government would allocate billions of dollars worth of the permits.
Associated Press
Sen. Barbara Boxer, seen in July, seeks to return the focus to climate change.
By remaining silent on that and other issues, the proposal effectively postpones for weeks many of the toughest questions associated with climate legislation, as senators wade deeper into the debate over health-care legislation.
Administration officials have said they would like to get a climate bill signed into law before an international summit on climate change in December. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has said any chamber vote may wait until next year.
The Senate measure has already raised some worries. Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said his group was "concerned" about the direction of Ms. Boxer's proposal, but is withholding judgment.
Republicans on Tuesday warned Ms. Boxer against publishing her proposal without specifying how emissions permits would be allocated. Without such details, they said, it would be impossible to gauge the bill's economic impact.
"It is imperative that we have a complete bill well in advance of legislative hearings and markup," the seven Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said in a letter to Ms. Boxer on Tuesday. "Otherwise the legislative process will not paint a full and accurate picture of your legislation to the American people."
Spokespersons for Ms. Boxer and Mr. Kerry didn't respond to calls seeking comment. People familiar with Ms. Boxer's thinking said she planned to flesh out details of her proposal in coming weeks, with a goal of bringing the legislation before her committee for a vote by the end of October.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate's draft bill would preserve the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Because that law generally gives the EPA limited flexibility to consider costs when setting regulations, some business groups and many lawmakers fear the agency's regulation of greenhouse gases could lead to onerous, new rules on business.
In a bid to gain support from moderates within the Democratic Party and potential Republican votes, the Boxer-Kerry draft also includes provisions to fund training of workers in the nuclear industry and development of technology that could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
WASHINGTON -- Top Senate Democrats plan Wednesday to unveil a draft climate bill calling for greater reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions than a House bill would require.
But the proposal is expected to defer tough decisions on other major issues, underscoring the challenges lawmakers face in seeking a consensus.
The proposal calls for cutting U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 20% from 2005 levels by 2020, according to a copy of a draft, as well as people close to the matter.
The House bill, which passed in June, calls for cutting emissions 17% over the same period.
California Democrat Barbara Boxer, who heads the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hope the draft legislation will give new momentum to climate change, an Obama administration priority that appears to have slid down Washington's to-do list.
The House in June approved legislation that would require companies to hold permits to emit greenhouse gases. In the initial years, the government would give away most of the permits to industries, while allowing companies to trade permits among themselves. Over time, the government would issue fewer permits, bringing overall emissions down.
The Senate proposal isn't expected to specify how the government would allocate billions of dollars worth of the permits.
Associated Press
Sen. Barbara Boxer, seen in July, seeks to return the focus to climate change.
By remaining silent on that and other issues, the proposal effectively postpones for weeks many of the toughest questions associated with climate legislation, as senators wade deeper into the debate over health-care legislation.
Administration officials have said they would like to get a climate bill signed into law before an international summit on climate change in December. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has said any chamber vote may wait until next year.
The Senate measure has already raised some worries. Keith McCoy, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said his group was "concerned" about the direction of Ms. Boxer's proposal, but is withholding judgment.
Republicans on Tuesday warned Ms. Boxer against publishing her proposal without specifying how emissions permits would be allocated. Without such details, they said, it would be impossible to gauge the bill's economic impact.
"It is imperative that we have a complete bill well in advance of legislative hearings and markup," the seven Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said in a letter to Ms. Boxer on Tuesday. "Otherwise the legislative process will not paint a full and accurate picture of your legislation to the American people."
Spokespersons for Ms. Boxer and Mr. Kerry didn't respond to calls seeking comment. People familiar with Ms. Boxer's thinking said she planned to flesh out details of her proposal in coming weeks, with a goal of bringing the legislation before her committee for a vote by the end of October.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate's draft bill would preserve the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Because that law generally gives the EPA limited flexibility to consider costs when setting regulations, some business groups and many lawmakers fear the agency's regulation of greenhouse gases could lead to onerous, new rules on business.
In a bid to gain support from moderates within the Democratic Party and potential Republican votes, the Boxer-Kerry draft also includes provisions to fund training of workers in the nuclear industry and development of technology that could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
It's too late to seal a global climate deal. But we need action, not Kyoto II
Climate is too complex an issue to get in one gulp. If Copenhagen can pave the way for practical steps, an agreement can wait
Jeffrey Sachs
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 23.20 BST
The Copenhagen climate-change negotiations are 10 weeks off, and time has run out to reach a detailed international agreement. Yet failure to reach a comprehensive agreement need not be a cataclysm, if the US, Europe, China, India and a few others take some important practical steps while a new protocol continues to be negotiated.
The UN summit on climate change last week, followed by the Pittsburgh G20, made clear the broad global consensus on the seriousness of the climate crisis, and the need to act. UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon skilfully brought the parties together to acknowledge their shared responsibilities. There was enough practical talk to give shape to a meaningful partial accord in Copenhagen, with substantive content to move the world forward.
The climate issue is too complicated to swallow in one gulp, as was tried in Kyoto in 1997. This invites a toothless agreement that could be more posturing than progress. We should think about the component parts of real progress, and then insist on practical policies by all major players, even as the legal framework is hammered out for later signature. There is still time for a three-part package: a political framework, a financing package, and a series of practical steps announced by all major regions to tilt the trajectory on emissions.
The political framework would lay out the basics: that all countries have "common but differentiated responsibilities"; the world needs to cut emissions sharply to stay under a 2C rise; that rich countries will have to pay poor ones to bear the expense of clean technologies; and the rich must help the poor to adapt, especially since the majority of poor populations reside in tropical regions vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
To these points should be added a basic developmental point. The climate issue should in no way stop developing countries from raising living standards, and fast enough to narrow the gap with the richest countries. Emissions targets and financing should be set to protect the right of the poor to economic development, with development based on cleaner, sustainable technologies for power, transport, buildings and industry. The rich world will benefit as the poor world goes green, and will have to pay much of the cost to bring that about.
The final component of the political agreement involves sharing clean technology between rich and poor countries. There are three ways to do this. First, rich countries should include the poorer countries in publicly financed research and development efforts, such as carbon capture and sequestration, or electric vehicles. Second, they should allow the least developed countries to freely license proprietary technologies for local use, as they do with Aids drugs and other essential medicines. Third, they should establish a fund to pay down the royalties on privately owned intellectual property so that developing countries other than the least developed can use IP at subsidised rates, but without eliminating the incentives for private-sector innovation under the patent law.
This brings us to financing. The rich world should make clear that their financial commitments for economic development – made in the UN summit in 2002 in Monterrey, Mexico, and at the G8 summit in 2005 in Gleneagles, Scotland – will still be met, and that the extra costs of climate-change mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer will be additional to the promised development aid. The poor world will absolutely balk on climate change if they believe climate financing is just a shell game with already committed development aid. Gordon Brown recently suggested a sum of $100bn per year for climate financing by 2020. The real needs are likely to be much greater and come much earlier. No doubt this figure was an opening gambit.
These agreements are within reach, at least as a general framework without specific numbers attached. Unlike the world trade negotiations, in which "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", climate negotiations should aim for an interim agreement on general principles, financing and technology transfer even before the final deal is signed and sealed. But something more must be added. In addition to all the talk, governments should announce a meaningful set of practical programmes to reduce emissions on a large scale. These should include: testing carbon capture and sequestration at coal-fired plants in the US, Europe, China, India and Australia; tightening global supervision to support a rapid expansion of safe nuclear power; increasing global projects in renewable power, such as India's large-scale solar initiatives; establishing a global network of scientific and engineering institutions to help each government to understand the costs, benefits and trade-offs of clean-tech options; increasing the donor financing of clean energy in low-income Africa; raising energy efficiency through rapid adoption of specific improved technologies; and a global effort on the new generation of electric-powered vehicles.
Let's arrive in Copenhagen prepared not only to sign a political statement but to launch a range of real actions that can begin to tackle the global threat of catastrophe. Taking the problem in steps and committing to practical actions in each area would set a path towards bold emissions reductions, and would help to inspire the world to do more. The world is confused. A practical approach of the US, China, Europe and others on specific technologies and avoided deforestation can help to break the log-jam.
Jeffrey Sachs
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 23.20 BST
The Copenhagen climate-change negotiations are 10 weeks off, and time has run out to reach a detailed international agreement. Yet failure to reach a comprehensive agreement need not be a cataclysm, if the US, Europe, China, India and a few others take some important practical steps while a new protocol continues to be negotiated.
The UN summit on climate change last week, followed by the Pittsburgh G20, made clear the broad global consensus on the seriousness of the climate crisis, and the need to act. UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon skilfully brought the parties together to acknowledge their shared responsibilities. There was enough practical talk to give shape to a meaningful partial accord in Copenhagen, with substantive content to move the world forward.
The climate issue is too complicated to swallow in one gulp, as was tried in Kyoto in 1997. This invites a toothless agreement that could be more posturing than progress. We should think about the component parts of real progress, and then insist on practical policies by all major players, even as the legal framework is hammered out for later signature. There is still time for a three-part package: a political framework, a financing package, and a series of practical steps announced by all major regions to tilt the trajectory on emissions.
The political framework would lay out the basics: that all countries have "common but differentiated responsibilities"; the world needs to cut emissions sharply to stay under a 2C rise; that rich countries will have to pay poor ones to bear the expense of clean technologies; and the rich must help the poor to adapt, especially since the majority of poor populations reside in tropical regions vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
To these points should be added a basic developmental point. The climate issue should in no way stop developing countries from raising living standards, and fast enough to narrow the gap with the richest countries. Emissions targets and financing should be set to protect the right of the poor to economic development, with development based on cleaner, sustainable technologies for power, transport, buildings and industry. The rich world will benefit as the poor world goes green, and will have to pay much of the cost to bring that about.
The final component of the political agreement involves sharing clean technology between rich and poor countries. There are three ways to do this. First, rich countries should include the poorer countries in publicly financed research and development efforts, such as carbon capture and sequestration, or electric vehicles. Second, they should allow the least developed countries to freely license proprietary technologies for local use, as they do with Aids drugs and other essential medicines. Third, they should establish a fund to pay down the royalties on privately owned intellectual property so that developing countries other than the least developed can use IP at subsidised rates, but without eliminating the incentives for private-sector innovation under the patent law.
This brings us to financing. The rich world should make clear that their financial commitments for economic development – made in the UN summit in 2002 in Monterrey, Mexico, and at the G8 summit in 2005 in Gleneagles, Scotland – will still be met, and that the extra costs of climate-change mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer will be additional to the promised development aid. The poor world will absolutely balk on climate change if they believe climate financing is just a shell game with already committed development aid. Gordon Brown recently suggested a sum of $100bn per year for climate financing by 2020. The real needs are likely to be much greater and come much earlier. No doubt this figure was an opening gambit.
These agreements are within reach, at least as a general framework without specific numbers attached. Unlike the world trade negotiations, in which "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", climate negotiations should aim for an interim agreement on general principles, financing and technology transfer even before the final deal is signed and sealed. But something more must be added. In addition to all the talk, governments should announce a meaningful set of practical programmes to reduce emissions on a large scale. These should include: testing carbon capture and sequestration at coal-fired plants in the US, Europe, China, India and Australia; tightening global supervision to support a rapid expansion of safe nuclear power; increasing global projects in renewable power, such as India's large-scale solar initiatives; establishing a global network of scientific and engineering institutions to help each government to understand the costs, benefits and trade-offs of clean-tech options; increasing the donor financing of clean energy in low-income Africa; raising energy efficiency through rapid adoption of specific improved technologies; and a global effort on the new generation of electric-powered vehicles.
Let's arrive in Copenhagen prepared not only to sign a political statement but to launch a range of real actions that can begin to tackle the global threat of catastrophe. Taking the problem in steps and committing to practical actions in each area would set a path towards bold emissions reductions, and would help to inspire the world to do more. The world is confused. A practical approach of the US, China, Europe and others on specific technologies and avoided deforestation can help to break the log-jam.
Brussels targets carbon trading fraud ahead of Copenhagen summit
The EU is desperate to get its house in order ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit in December
Ashley Seager
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 21.08 BST
The European commission announced an overhaul of the EU's VAT system today in its latest attempt to prevent its much-vaunted carbon trading system being riddled by multimillion-pound fraud.
Criminals who for years had been ripping off VAT from finance ministries around the EU on the trade of items such as mobile phones and computer chips have recently moved in on Europe's €90bn (£81bn) carbon market.
Last month Revenue & Customs raided 27 businesses and private addresses across London in relation to a suspected £38m VAT fraud on carbon credits. It has since released nine suspects on bail but the investigation is continuing.
With just two months to go before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the EU is desperate to get its house in order as it tries to get its form of "cap-and-trade" carbon trading scheme adopted around the world as a key weapon against carbon emissions.
Officials know that a carbon market leaking millions to VAT "carousel" fraudsters would be difficult to sell on the international stage so it has moved quickly in response to a surge in VAT fraud on carbon this summer.
Brussels said it would harmonise policy between EU states and introduce a so-called "reverse charge" mechanism, which would remove the need for VAT to change hands between carbon traders every time carbon credits are sold.
Surge
This was the method adopted by the Dutch government in July as carbon traders noticed a surge in trading volumes that could only be attributed to fraud. The French government simply removed VAT from carbon markets, while the British made carbon trading zero-rated for VAT purposes.
The three countries are home to the bloc's main carbon exchanges: Climex in Amsterdam, BlueNext in Paris and London's Climate Spot Exchange and European Climate Exchange.
László Kovács, the European commissioner for taxation and customs, said: "VAT carousel fraud is against member states' finances and they should have the means to combat it efficiently. However, actions taken against this fraud should be taken in a consistent manner across the EU and clear evaluation criteria should be established.
"Very recently, several member states have been confronted with carousel fraud related to greenhouse-gas emission allowances … the very high mobility of these allowances and the very high amounts at stake are an important element."
A Treasury spokesman said: "The UK government took decisive action in July to protect taxpayer revenue from the threat of VAT fraud on carbon credits.
"We support the commission in seeking an EU-wide solution and will consider any proposal carefully."
Missing trader
In its simplest form, the fraud occurs when a trader of credits in, say, Britain, buys some from another country free of VAT, then sells them on within Britain, charging the VAT to the buyer. The seller then disappears without handing the VAT over to the taxman. This is known as "missing trader" fraud.
Some criminals re-export the credits, reclaiming VAT as they do so, then re-import them again. They can do this repeatedly, reclaiming VAT many times, hence the term "carousel" fraud.
Britain lost billions of pounds to carousel fraud, mainly on mobile phones, in 2006 and 2007 before the government changed the mobile trade to "reverse charge" VAT, meaning the tax was only levied on the final buyer and removed from the supply chain.
The European Union's carbon market is now worth about €90bn a year. It is a combination of futures and spot trading and it is the largely unregulated spot market that has been targeted this summer by the fraudsters.
Sophisticated
The European police agency, Europol, has said it is convinced many other carbon credit VAT frauds have been committed across Europe but the total losses to national governments are largely unknown, although probably run in to the hundreds of millions of euros.
"This represents a considerable degree of sophistication on the part of the fraudsters," said Andrew Roycroft, a tax lawyer with Norton Rose.
He noted that the commission had also empowered member states to bring in a reverse charge on other items where fraud is suspected, including trade in perfume and in precious metals such as platinum – widely used in jewellery and catalytic converters in cars.
"There is clearly a problem in more than one member state and not just in the markets for mobile phones and carbon credits," he said.
Richard Ainsworth, professor of VAT policy at Boston University, applauded the commission's move as a short-term fix. But longer term, he said, countries could fix their VAT systems and make them fraud-proof by introducing a system of certified tax compliance software that firms would have to use to prove their legitimacy.
Ashley Seager
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 21.08 BST
The European commission announced an overhaul of the EU's VAT system today in its latest attempt to prevent its much-vaunted carbon trading system being riddled by multimillion-pound fraud.
Criminals who for years had been ripping off VAT from finance ministries around the EU on the trade of items such as mobile phones and computer chips have recently moved in on Europe's €90bn (£81bn) carbon market.
Last month Revenue & Customs raided 27 businesses and private addresses across London in relation to a suspected £38m VAT fraud on carbon credits. It has since released nine suspects on bail but the investigation is continuing.
With just two months to go before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the EU is desperate to get its house in order as it tries to get its form of "cap-and-trade" carbon trading scheme adopted around the world as a key weapon against carbon emissions.
Officials know that a carbon market leaking millions to VAT "carousel" fraudsters would be difficult to sell on the international stage so it has moved quickly in response to a surge in VAT fraud on carbon this summer.
Brussels said it would harmonise policy between EU states and introduce a so-called "reverse charge" mechanism, which would remove the need for VAT to change hands between carbon traders every time carbon credits are sold.
Surge
This was the method adopted by the Dutch government in July as carbon traders noticed a surge in trading volumes that could only be attributed to fraud. The French government simply removed VAT from carbon markets, while the British made carbon trading zero-rated for VAT purposes.
The three countries are home to the bloc's main carbon exchanges: Climex in Amsterdam, BlueNext in Paris and London's Climate Spot Exchange and European Climate Exchange.
László Kovács, the European commissioner for taxation and customs, said: "VAT carousel fraud is against member states' finances and they should have the means to combat it efficiently. However, actions taken against this fraud should be taken in a consistent manner across the EU and clear evaluation criteria should be established.
"Very recently, several member states have been confronted with carousel fraud related to greenhouse-gas emission allowances … the very high mobility of these allowances and the very high amounts at stake are an important element."
A Treasury spokesman said: "The UK government took decisive action in July to protect taxpayer revenue from the threat of VAT fraud on carbon credits.
"We support the commission in seeking an EU-wide solution and will consider any proposal carefully."
Missing trader
In its simplest form, the fraud occurs when a trader of credits in, say, Britain, buys some from another country free of VAT, then sells them on within Britain, charging the VAT to the buyer. The seller then disappears without handing the VAT over to the taxman. This is known as "missing trader" fraud.
Some criminals re-export the credits, reclaiming VAT as they do so, then re-import them again. They can do this repeatedly, reclaiming VAT many times, hence the term "carousel" fraud.
Britain lost billions of pounds to carousel fraud, mainly on mobile phones, in 2006 and 2007 before the government changed the mobile trade to "reverse charge" VAT, meaning the tax was only levied on the final buyer and removed from the supply chain.
The European Union's carbon market is now worth about €90bn a year. It is a combination of futures and spot trading and it is the largely unregulated spot market that has been targeted this summer by the fraudsters.
Sophisticated
The European police agency, Europol, has said it is convinced many other carbon credit VAT frauds have been committed across Europe but the total losses to national governments are largely unknown, although probably run in to the hundreds of millions of euros.
"This represents a considerable degree of sophistication on the part of the fraudsters," said Andrew Roycroft, a tax lawyer with Norton Rose.
He noted that the commission had also empowered member states to bring in a reverse charge on other items where fraud is suspected, including trade in perfume and in precious metals such as platinum – widely used in jewellery and catalytic converters in cars.
"There is clearly a problem in more than one member state and not just in the markets for mobile phones and carbon credits," he said.
Richard Ainsworth, professor of VAT policy at Boston University, applauded the commission's move as a short-term fix. But longer term, he said, countries could fix their VAT systems and make them fraud-proof by introducing a system of certified tax compliance software that firms would have to use to prove their legitimacy.
It's the climate, stupid
A deal at Copenhagen must have equality and social justice at its heart, or our time may be seen in future as the Age of Stupid
John Prescott
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 14.30 BST
We know today that climate change is a global challenge that involves every nation on our planet. As a negotiator for the EU at the Kyoto 1997 conference on climate change, I can confidently say that these negotiations will be 10 times more difficult. The Copenhagen negotiations are Kyoto Part 2; an agreement will apply to 187 countries, not 47.
Not all developed countries delivered as promised on their Kyoto target. Only four did, out of the 15 countries in Europe that signed up so far; while the US, under President Bush, refused to accept it.
Nevertheless, as our report shows, there have been some good signs in the last 12 years. The science has finally been accepted, thanks to the sterling work by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC determined that carbon emissions do increase the incidence of extreme weather events, such as the 2003 European heatwave, which killed 50,000 people across the continent, and floods, like those caused this weekend by tropical storm Ketsana, which has already displaced half a million people in the Philippines.
The IPCC has also reinforced the fact that developed nations must recognise their role in polluting the world and that polluters should pay, but also that technical and technological solutions can be market-based and can play their part in the solution.
But the devil is in the detail of any agreement at Copenhagen. It is not enough simply to develop the rich nations' plan, as in the EU deal, whereby its emissions cuts are between 20% and 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and which only proposes "unspecified" funds to boost the economic growth needed in developing countries to reduce their mass poverty and increase prosperity.
Any Copenhagen agreement must have at its heart equity and social justice. The division of north and south is a division of a global population of 6.7 billion: 1.3 billion in the rich developed nations, fuelled by high-carbon economic growth, and more than 5 billion with the greater share of poverty and deprivation, living on less than $2 a day. This is totally unacceptable.
If emissions rationing is at the heart of the Copenhagen agreement, then we must address certain factors.
The EU plan does not address the per capita principle: the US emits 20 tonnes of CO2 per person a year, compared to 10 tonnes for EU countries, five tonnes in China, two in India and less than one in some parts of Africa. A simple equation of population and equity demands that we go down from an average of four tonnes to two tonnes per person, globally.
Failure is not an option, as the consequences are too horrific to contemplate. It's the 80% of the world's population who are in poverty who are far more likely to suffer, compared to the richer 20% who are responsible for the pollution and the climactic consequences yet live in comparative luxury.
The Age of Stupid looks back from 2050 to show what will have happened to the planet if we fail to secure a deal at Copenhagen. If we fail to agree that deal in December, our time will be seen historically as the Age of Stupid.
This Council of Europe has a great opportunity to prevent that and face up to the world's greatest challenges, that of securing a reduction in mass poverty and managing climate change. We must galvanise public opinion: to marshal support and put pressure on our governments to accept our New Earth Deal. We have a moral obligation to pass on this planet to future generations in better shape than we found it.
This is an edited extract of a speech by John Prescott given to the Council of Europe on 29 September 2009
John Prescott
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 14.30 BST
We know today that climate change is a global challenge that involves every nation on our planet. As a negotiator for the EU at the Kyoto 1997 conference on climate change, I can confidently say that these negotiations will be 10 times more difficult. The Copenhagen negotiations are Kyoto Part 2; an agreement will apply to 187 countries, not 47.
Not all developed countries delivered as promised on their Kyoto target. Only four did, out of the 15 countries in Europe that signed up so far; while the US, under President Bush, refused to accept it.
Nevertheless, as our report shows, there have been some good signs in the last 12 years. The science has finally been accepted, thanks to the sterling work by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC determined that carbon emissions do increase the incidence of extreme weather events, such as the 2003 European heatwave, which killed 50,000 people across the continent, and floods, like those caused this weekend by tropical storm Ketsana, which has already displaced half a million people in the Philippines.
The IPCC has also reinforced the fact that developed nations must recognise their role in polluting the world and that polluters should pay, but also that technical and technological solutions can be market-based and can play their part in the solution.
But the devil is in the detail of any agreement at Copenhagen. It is not enough simply to develop the rich nations' plan, as in the EU deal, whereby its emissions cuts are between 20% and 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and which only proposes "unspecified" funds to boost the economic growth needed in developing countries to reduce their mass poverty and increase prosperity.
Any Copenhagen agreement must have at its heart equity and social justice. The division of north and south is a division of a global population of 6.7 billion: 1.3 billion in the rich developed nations, fuelled by high-carbon economic growth, and more than 5 billion with the greater share of poverty and deprivation, living on less than $2 a day. This is totally unacceptable.
If emissions rationing is at the heart of the Copenhagen agreement, then we must address certain factors.
The EU plan does not address the per capita principle: the US emits 20 tonnes of CO2 per person a year, compared to 10 tonnes for EU countries, five tonnes in China, two in India and less than one in some parts of Africa. A simple equation of population and equity demands that we go down from an average of four tonnes to two tonnes per person, globally.
Failure is not an option, as the consequences are too horrific to contemplate. It's the 80% of the world's population who are in poverty who are far more likely to suffer, compared to the richer 20% who are responsible for the pollution and the climactic consequences yet live in comparative luxury.
The Age of Stupid looks back from 2050 to show what will have happened to the planet if we fail to secure a deal at Copenhagen. If we fail to agree that deal in December, our time will be seen historically as the Age of Stupid.
This Council of Europe has a great opportunity to prevent that and face up to the world's greatest challenges, that of securing a reduction in mass poverty and managing climate change. We must galvanise public opinion: to marshal support and put pressure on our governments to accept our New Earth Deal. We have a moral obligation to pass on this planet to future generations in better shape than we found it.
This is an edited extract of a speech by John Prescott given to the Council of Europe on 29 September 2009
The UN is united again
On climate change, nuclear weapons and poverty, the world's nations are showing a new spirit of multilateralism
Ban Ki-moon
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 07.00 BST
Every September, the world's leaders gather at the United Nations to reaffirm our founding charter – our faith in fundamental principles of peace, justice, human rights, and equal opportunity for all. We assess the state of the world, engage key issues of the day, and lay out our vision for the way ahead.
But this year is different. The 64th opening of the general assembly asks us to rise to an exceptional moment. We are facing many crises – food, energy, recession, and pandemic flu – occurring all at once. If ever there were a time to act in a spirit of renewed multilateralism, a time to put the "united" back into the United Nations, it is now.
And that is what we are doing, as action on three issues of historic consequence demonstrates.
First, world leaders are uniting to address the greatest challenge we face as a human family – the threat of catastrophic climate change. Last week, 101 leaders from 163 countries met to chart the next steps toward December's all-important UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. They recognised the need for an agreement that all nations can embrace – in line with their capabilities, consistent with what science requires, and grounded in "green jobs" and "green growth," the lifeline of a 21st century global economy.
We at the UN have prepared carefully for this moment. For two and a half years, ever since I became secretary general, we have worked to put climate change at the top of the global agenda. Today we have entered a new phase. Last week's summit sharply defined the issue and focused attention in capitals the world over. To be sure, the issues are complex and difficult, especially those of financing adaptation and mitigation efforts in poorer countries. Yet leaders left New York committed to clear and firm instructions for their negotiators: seal a deal in Copenhagen.
Japan issued a challenge, agreeing to cut CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020 if other nations follow. China's president Hu Jintao spoke about all that his country is already doing to reduce energy intensity and invest in green alternatives. He emphasised that China is prepared to do more under an international agreement, as did US president Barack Obama.
Negotiators are now gathering in Bangkok for another round of UN talks, and we are considering a smaller meeting of major emitting and most vulnerable nations in November. We need a breakthrough in this make-or-break year.
We saw another turning point on a second issue of existential importance: nuclear disarmament. Finally, the assumption that such weapons are needed to keep the peace is crumbling. At a special summit called by President Obama, the security council unanimously adopted a resolution that opens a new chapter in the UN's efforts to address nuclear proliferation and disarmament.
That resolution improves prospects for expanding the nuclear non-proliferation treaty next May, and offers hope for bringing the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty into force. It also establishes the contours of a legal framework for action against misuse of civilian nuclear technology for military purposes and reflects an emerging consensus, seen in meeting after meeting, that the time has come to increase pressure on countries that fail to respect these principles.
The world is united on a third front, as well. Though some may speak of "turning the corner to recovery," we see a new crisis emerging. According to our recent report, Voices of the Vulnerable, the near-poor are becoming the new poor.
An estimated 100 million people could fall below the poverty line this year. Markets may be bouncing back, but jobs and incomes are not. That is why, earlier this year, the UN put forward a Global Jobs Pact for balanced and sustainable growth. It is also why we are creating a new Global Impact Vulnerability Alert System, giving us real-time data and analysis on socio-economic conditions around the world. We need to know precisely who is being hurt by the financial crisis, and where, so that we can best respond.
That is also why, next year at this time, we will convene a special summit on the Millennium Development Goals. We have only five years to meet the targets for health, education, and human security that we set for 2015. At the various G20 summits over the past year, including the latest in Pittsburgh, the UN has stood firm to speak and act for all those being left behind.
Rhetoric has always been abundant at the general assembly, action sometimes less so. Yet listening to the world's leaders speak last week, I was struck by their passion, commitment, and collective determination to turn a page from a past of countries divided by narrow interests to nations united in the cause of a global common good.
From confronting climate change to creating a world without nuclear weapons to building a more equitable and sustainable global economy, I saw a spirit of renewed multilateralism, with the UN at the fore. No country can deal with any of these challenges by itself. But as nations united, the United Nations can.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
Ban Ki-moon
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 07.00 BST
Every September, the world's leaders gather at the United Nations to reaffirm our founding charter – our faith in fundamental principles of peace, justice, human rights, and equal opportunity for all. We assess the state of the world, engage key issues of the day, and lay out our vision for the way ahead.
But this year is different. The 64th opening of the general assembly asks us to rise to an exceptional moment. We are facing many crises – food, energy, recession, and pandemic flu – occurring all at once. If ever there were a time to act in a spirit of renewed multilateralism, a time to put the "united" back into the United Nations, it is now.
And that is what we are doing, as action on three issues of historic consequence demonstrates.
First, world leaders are uniting to address the greatest challenge we face as a human family – the threat of catastrophic climate change. Last week, 101 leaders from 163 countries met to chart the next steps toward December's all-important UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. They recognised the need for an agreement that all nations can embrace – in line with their capabilities, consistent with what science requires, and grounded in "green jobs" and "green growth," the lifeline of a 21st century global economy.
We at the UN have prepared carefully for this moment. For two and a half years, ever since I became secretary general, we have worked to put climate change at the top of the global agenda. Today we have entered a new phase. Last week's summit sharply defined the issue and focused attention in capitals the world over. To be sure, the issues are complex and difficult, especially those of financing adaptation and mitigation efforts in poorer countries. Yet leaders left New York committed to clear and firm instructions for their negotiators: seal a deal in Copenhagen.
Japan issued a challenge, agreeing to cut CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020 if other nations follow. China's president Hu Jintao spoke about all that his country is already doing to reduce energy intensity and invest in green alternatives. He emphasised that China is prepared to do more under an international agreement, as did US president Barack Obama.
Negotiators are now gathering in Bangkok for another round of UN talks, and we are considering a smaller meeting of major emitting and most vulnerable nations in November. We need a breakthrough in this make-or-break year.
We saw another turning point on a second issue of existential importance: nuclear disarmament. Finally, the assumption that such weapons are needed to keep the peace is crumbling. At a special summit called by President Obama, the security council unanimously adopted a resolution that opens a new chapter in the UN's efforts to address nuclear proliferation and disarmament.
That resolution improves prospects for expanding the nuclear non-proliferation treaty next May, and offers hope for bringing the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty into force. It also establishes the contours of a legal framework for action against misuse of civilian nuclear technology for military purposes and reflects an emerging consensus, seen in meeting after meeting, that the time has come to increase pressure on countries that fail to respect these principles.
The world is united on a third front, as well. Though some may speak of "turning the corner to recovery," we see a new crisis emerging. According to our recent report, Voices of the Vulnerable, the near-poor are becoming the new poor.
An estimated 100 million people could fall below the poverty line this year. Markets may be bouncing back, but jobs and incomes are not. That is why, earlier this year, the UN put forward a Global Jobs Pact for balanced and sustainable growth. It is also why we are creating a new Global Impact Vulnerability Alert System, giving us real-time data and analysis on socio-economic conditions around the world. We need to know precisely who is being hurt by the financial crisis, and where, so that we can best respond.
That is also why, next year at this time, we will convene a special summit on the Millennium Development Goals. We have only five years to meet the targets for health, education, and human security that we set for 2015. At the various G20 summits over the past year, including the latest in Pittsburgh, the UN has stood firm to speak and act for all those being left behind.
Rhetoric has always been abundant at the general assembly, action sometimes less so. Yet listening to the world's leaders speak last week, I was struck by their passion, commitment, and collective determination to turn a page from a past of countries divided by narrow interests to nations united in the cause of a global common good.
From confronting climate change to creating a world without nuclear weapons to building a more equitable and sustainable global economy, I saw a spirit of renewed multilateralism, with the UN at the fore. No country can deal with any of these challenges by itself. But as nations united, the United Nations can.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
US firms quit Chamber of Commerce over climate change position
Nike and Johnson & Johnson among corporations criticising business organisation over chamber's resistance to 'cap-and-trade' legislation
Andrew Clark in New York
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 18.09 BST
The largest American business federation, the US Chamber of Commerce, has suffered a rash of high-profile walkouts as multinational companies become uncomfortable with the organisation's hard-line opposition to measures tackling climate change.
In a sign of mounting acceptance in the business community of a need for action on carbon emissions, big names including the sportswear manufacturer Nike and the household products empire Johnson & Johnson have attacked the chamber for its refusal to back "cap-and-trade" legislation supported by the Obama administration.
This week, the largest US nuclear power generator, Exelon, resigned from the chamber over its environmental policy, following two fellow utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources.
In a speech to an environmental energy group in Chicago, Exelon's chief executive, John Rowe, told his audience that "the rat must smell the cheese" through incentives for green energy. He said he regretted that congressional Republicans and business organisations failed to "recognise the reality" that carbon controls were inevitable and that some were using greenhouse gas legislation as a "cudgel" against the president.
"Because of their stridency against carbon legislation, Exelon has decided not to renew its membership in the US chamber this year," said Rowe.
With three million members and roots stretching back a century, the chamber describes itself as the world's largest business organisation. It operates from premises directly opposite the White House in Washington. But discomfort about its policies came to a head last month when a senior chamber official proposed a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" to evaluate global warming, comparing such a move to a famed 1925 courtroom confrontation in Tennessee in which a teacher was convicted for teaching evolution, rather than the Bible's version of creation.
"It would be evolution versus creationism," William Kovacs, the chamber's vice-president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the Los Angeles Times. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."
The chamber has since clarified its position, saying it wants public hearings on the degree of public danger caused by greenhouse gases, rather than on climate science in general. And it says it would welcome legislation, providing it fulfils several conditions – including preserving US jobs and adopting an international, rather than merely US-wide, stance.
Many US companies fear that unless they support "cap-and-trade" proposals in Congress, they could face much more severe measures. The US environmental protection agency could invoke powers to regulate carbon as a harmful emission under an existing law, the clean air act.
Responding both to public opinion and to the long-term economic implications of inaction, more than 30 large US corporations have joined an alliance called the US Climate Action Partnership, which presses for swift legislation on emissions.
Critics feel that the US Chamber of Commerce is out of step with this trend. Earlier this year, Johnson & Johnson asked the chamber to stop making public pronouncements on climate change that failed to "reflect the full range of views" of members. Pacific Gas & Electric accused the body of "extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics". Nike, which faces shareholder pressure on the controversy, said it "fundamentally disagrees" with the chamber's position, describing climate change as an "urgent" issue: "It is not a time for debate but instead a time for action."
Andrew Clark in New York
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 18.09 BST
The largest American business federation, the US Chamber of Commerce, has suffered a rash of high-profile walkouts as multinational companies become uncomfortable with the organisation's hard-line opposition to measures tackling climate change.
In a sign of mounting acceptance in the business community of a need for action on carbon emissions, big names including the sportswear manufacturer Nike and the household products empire Johnson & Johnson have attacked the chamber for its refusal to back "cap-and-trade" legislation supported by the Obama administration.
This week, the largest US nuclear power generator, Exelon, resigned from the chamber over its environmental policy, following two fellow utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources.
In a speech to an environmental energy group in Chicago, Exelon's chief executive, John Rowe, told his audience that "the rat must smell the cheese" through incentives for green energy. He said he regretted that congressional Republicans and business organisations failed to "recognise the reality" that carbon controls were inevitable and that some were using greenhouse gas legislation as a "cudgel" against the president.
"Because of their stridency against carbon legislation, Exelon has decided not to renew its membership in the US chamber this year," said Rowe.
With three million members and roots stretching back a century, the chamber describes itself as the world's largest business organisation. It operates from premises directly opposite the White House in Washington. But discomfort about its policies came to a head last month when a senior chamber official proposed a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" to evaluate global warming, comparing such a move to a famed 1925 courtroom confrontation in Tennessee in which a teacher was convicted for teaching evolution, rather than the Bible's version of creation.
"It would be evolution versus creationism," William Kovacs, the chamber's vice-president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, told the Los Angeles Times. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."
The chamber has since clarified its position, saying it wants public hearings on the degree of public danger caused by greenhouse gases, rather than on climate science in general. And it says it would welcome legislation, providing it fulfils several conditions – including preserving US jobs and adopting an international, rather than merely US-wide, stance.
Many US companies fear that unless they support "cap-and-trade" proposals in Congress, they could face much more severe measures. The US environmental protection agency could invoke powers to regulate carbon as a harmful emission under an existing law, the clean air act.
Responding both to public opinion and to the long-term economic implications of inaction, more than 30 large US corporations have joined an alliance called the US Climate Action Partnership, which presses for swift legislation on emissions.
Critics feel that the US Chamber of Commerce is out of step with this trend. Earlier this year, Johnson & Johnson asked the chamber to stop making public pronouncements on climate change that failed to "reflect the full range of views" of members. Pacific Gas & Electric accused the body of "extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics". Nike, which faces shareholder pressure on the controversy, said it "fundamentally disagrees" with the chamber's position, describing climate change as an "urgent" issue: "It is not a time for debate but instead a time for action."
Applied Materials Sees Solar Growth in China
By JERRY A. DICOLO
China represents the largest opportunity for solar panel makers, based on its government's commitment to establishing solar manufacturing and spurring demand, said Mark Pinto, head of Applied Materials Inc.'s solar unit.
With the help of government stimulus and a push by all levels of government, from local mayors to the Central Committee, the China market is developing rapidly from an area devoted primarily to manufacturing solar panels to one of the world's largest buyers, he said in an interview.
Despite making about 40% of the world's solar panels last year,China consumed nearly nothing. But in the next two years, he said, China will pass market leader Germany and the still-nascent U.S. market to become the largest consumer of solar in the world.
Applied Materials makes equipment for producing computer chips and solar panels. Its solar business sells individual products to solar panel makers as well as a full manufacturing line -- called SunFab -- for making thin-film panels, which are cheaper but less efficient than traditional solar cells.
While its individual equipment sales to solar makers are profitable, its SunFab lines have continued to post losses. In the last quarter, the company's energy and environmental solutions unit, which contains both product lines, had an operating loss of $53 million.
SunFab is considered a "turnkey" manufacturing line because the product is sold in a ready-to-use state. Applied Materials sells the complete line to customers, trains the operators on how to make panels and negotiates the pricing of raw materials. Panel makers can also purchase service and maintenance contracts from Applied.
Currently, six of Applied Materials' 14 deployed SunFab lines are in production, Mr. Pinto said.
Demand in some of the largest solar markets, such as Spain and Germany, have been hurt by tight credit conditions and reduced government subsidies. Meanwhile, a supply glut of panels has pushed down prices, hurting many European manufacturers and leading to allegations that Chinese makers are dumping panels or selling them below production costs.—Martin Rapp contributed to this article.
Write to Jerry A. DiColo at jerry.dicolo@dowjones.com
China represents the largest opportunity for solar panel makers, based on its government's commitment to establishing solar manufacturing and spurring demand, said Mark Pinto, head of Applied Materials Inc.'s solar unit.
With the help of government stimulus and a push by all levels of government, from local mayors to the Central Committee, the China market is developing rapidly from an area devoted primarily to manufacturing solar panels to one of the world's largest buyers, he said in an interview.
Despite making about 40% of the world's solar panels last year,China consumed nearly nothing. But in the next two years, he said, China will pass market leader Germany and the still-nascent U.S. market to become the largest consumer of solar in the world.
Applied Materials makes equipment for producing computer chips and solar panels. Its solar business sells individual products to solar panel makers as well as a full manufacturing line -- called SunFab -- for making thin-film panels, which are cheaper but less efficient than traditional solar cells.
While its individual equipment sales to solar makers are profitable, its SunFab lines have continued to post losses. In the last quarter, the company's energy and environmental solutions unit, which contains both product lines, had an operating loss of $53 million.
SunFab is considered a "turnkey" manufacturing line because the product is sold in a ready-to-use state. Applied Materials sells the complete line to customers, trains the operators on how to make panels and negotiates the pricing of raw materials. Panel makers can also purchase service and maintenance contracts from Applied.
Currently, six of Applied Materials' 14 deployed SunFab lines are in production, Mr. Pinto said.
Demand in some of the largest solar markets, such as Spain and Germany, have been hurt by tight credit conditions and reduced government subsidies. Meanwhile, a supply glut of panels has pushed down prices, hurting many European manufacturers and leading to allegations that Chinese makers are dumping panels or selling them below production costs.—Martin Rapp contributed to this article.
Write to Jerry A. DiColo at jerry.dicolo@dowjones.com
India plans to cut carbon and fuel poverty with untested nuclear power
Prime minister Manmohan Singh announces 100-fold increase in nuclear energy output by 2050 with thorium technology
Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 13.29 BST
India's prime minister today signalled a huge push in nuclear power over the coming decades, using an untested technology based on nuclear waste and the radioactive element thorium.
Manmohan Singh, speaking at a conference of atomic scientists in Delhi, announced that 470,000MW of energy could come from Indian nuclear power stations by 2050 — more than 100 times the current output from India's current 17 reactors.
"This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change," he said, adding that Asia was now seeing a huge spurt in nuclear plant building. The Indian plan, which relies on untested technology, was criticised by anti-nuclear campaigners as "a nightmare disguised as a dream".
The prime minister said a breakthrough deal with the US, sanctioned by the international community, had opened the door for the country to "think big" and meet the demands of its billion-strong population. He did not say how much the plans would cost, or how they would be paid for.
The intervention comes as talks in Bangkok aimed at resolving the impasse between developing and developed countries over a new climate change deal to replace the Kyoto protocol have stalled. India, one of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, has been dismayed that its pledges of action – including a dramatic expansion of nuclear power - have been met with inaction from richer nations.
The prime minister's statement also brings Delhi alongside Beijing which has long promoted atomic energy. India's plan would see it leapfrog its northern neighbour. At present China has 11 reactors in operation producing 8,000MW but has proposed that by 2020 this output be increased 10-fold. The UK, by contrast, has an installed capacity of around 12,000MW, much of which is due to go offline and be replaced by a new fleet of reactors in the next decade.
Nuclear power has been a contentious issue in India. Although the country has had a decades-old atomic programme, it was effectively blacklisted from global civilian nuclear trade after testing a nuclear device in 1974. That embargo was lifted in 2008 after negotations with Washington.
The result has been a rush to sign deals – both to supply uranium and to build reactors. France, Russia and the United States have all sought access to the booming Indian market.
India has an ambitious three-stage nuclear programme which it sees as a "silver bullet" to its dire energy shortage. At present 400m people cannot light their homes and the country imports 70% of its oil.
Delhi says that it will be able to surmount these considerable problems and generate clean green power with an atomic programme that "virtuously recycles" the plutonium waste that reactors produce. This radioactive isotope takes thousands of years to be rendered safe and dealing with it is the greatest challenge facing nuclear energy's proponents.
The Indian plan turns this waste into fuel. Using thorium, which is abundant in the country, combined with plutonium, the country aims to produce power and "breed" stockpiles of uranium.
It is a technology that no other country has mastered – and many have dropped – but India still has more than 2,000 scientists working on the technical problems.
Singh said the country had entered "stage two" of the programme and had completed a prototype breeder reactor in southern India.
However campaigners said "if climate change is the problem, nuclear power is not the answer". SP Udayakumar, convenor of India's Alliance for Anti-Nuclear Movements, questioned whether the technology India was pushing would ever be ready.
"The nuclear technology the prime minister talks about is not proven. If we start going ahead then the issue is the amount of carbon emitted by building, maintaining, operating and decommissioning nuclear plants means that (nuclear power) is a hugely polluting technology. If it does not work then we are left with waste that takes 24,000 years to become safe. It is a gamble we will pay for generations to come."
Randeep Ramesh in Delhi
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 13.29 BST
India's prime minister today signalled a huge push in nuclear power over the coming decades, using an untested technology based on nuclear waste and the radioactive element thorium.
Manmohan Singh, speaking at a conference of atomic scientists in Delhi, announced that 470,000MW of energy could come from Indian nuclear power stations by 2050 — more than 100 times the current output from India's current 17 reactors.
"This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change," he said, adding that Asia was now seeing a huge spurt in nuclear plant building. The Indian plan, which relies on untested technology, was criticised by anti-nuclear campaigners as "a nightmare disguised as a dream".
The prime minister said a breakthrough deal with the US, sanctioned by the international community, had opened the door for the country to "think big" and meet the demands of its billion-strong population. He did not say how much the plans would cost, or how they would be paid for.
The intervention comes as talks in Bangkok aimed at resolving the impasse between developing and developed countries over a new climate change deal to replace the Kyoto protocol have stalled. India, one of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, has been dismayed that its pledges of action – including a dramatic expansion of nuclear power - have been met with inaction from richer nations.
The prime minister's statement also brings Delhi alongside Beijing which has long promoted atomic energy. India's plan would see it leapfrog its northern neighbour. At present China has 11 reactors in operation producing 8,000MW but has proposed that by 2020 this output be increased 10-fold. The UK, by contrast, has an installed capacity of around 12,000MW, much of which is due to go offline and be replaced by a new fleet of reactors in the next decade.
Nuclear power has been a contentious issue in India. Although the country has had a decades-old atomic programme, it was effectively blacklisted from global civilian nuclear trade after testing a nuclear device in 1974. That embargo was lifted in 2008 after negotations with Washington.
The result has been a rush to sign deals – both to supply uranium and to build reactors. France, Russia and the United States have all sought access to the booming Indian market.
India has an ambitious three-stage nuclear programme which it sees as a "silver bullet" to its dire energy shortage. At present 400m people cannot light their homes and the country imports 70% of its oil.
Delhi says that it will be able to surmount these considerable problems and generate clean green power with an atomic programme that "virtuously recycles" the plutonium waste that reactors produce. This radioactive isotope takes thousands of years to be rendered safe and dealing with it is the greatest challenge facing nuclear energy's proponents.
The Indian plan turns this waste into fuel. Using thorium, which is abundant in the country, combined with plutonium, the country aims to produce power and "breed" stockpiles of uranium.
It is a technology that no other country has mastered – and many have dropped – but India still has more than 2,000 scientists working on the technical problems.
Singh said the country had entered "stage two" of the programme and had completed a prototype breeder reactor in southern India.
However campaigners said "if climate change is the problem, nuclear power is not the answer". SP Udayakumar, convenor of India's Alliance for Anti-Nuclear Movements, questioned whether the technology India was pushing would ever be ready.
"The nuclear technology the prime minister talks about is not proven. If we start going ahead then the issue is the amount of carbon emitted by building, maintaining, operating and decommissioning nuclear plants means that (nuclear power) is a hugely polluting technology. If it does not work then we are left with waste that takes 24,000 years to become safe. It is a gamble we will pay for generations to come."
Brighton & Hove aims to become UK's most electric car-friendly city
Street chargers installed to motivate drivers to switch to electric
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 17.49 BST
Not content with trying become self-sufficient in food, possibly electing the first Green party MP and weaning itself off oil as a Transition Town, Brighton & Hove is launching a bid to become UK's most friendly city for electric cars.
This week the city sees a major investment in electric car charging infrastructure, with the installation of four street-side charging stations and a further 16 completed by the end of 2010. The charging stations, which are vital to create a viable charging network for electric cars that mostly have a range of less than 100 miles, will reportedly be the first street-side points outside London.
The capital currently has more than 100 on-street charging stations, and in April mayor Boris Johnson said he wanted London to become the electric car capital of Europe with 25,000 stations and 100,000 electric vehicles. Other cities such as Bristol and Gateshead have existing public charging points but only in car parks.
Brighton-based charging company Elektromotive has already completed installation of the first four Brighton & Hove pilot sites. The first 10 stations will be paid for by £130,000 from clean transport initiative Civitas, which is part-funded by the EU.
Calvey Taylor-Haw, managing director of Elektromotive, said: "By encouraging drivers to switch to electric, Brighton will benefit hugely. There will be less air pollution and local residents will appreciate the quiet of electric vehicles. The installation of the bays will take place over a short period of time, providing electric vehicle users with rapid access to charging facilities."
The bays work with a standard mains plug and wireless key fobs that open the charging stations, which recharge cars within four to eight hours. Electric car owners will pay an annual fee to Brighton & Hove council for a registration scheme to access the network, pricing for which is unconfirmed but is expected to be in the region of £75-100 to join and £30-50 annually.
The scheme has come in for some criticism on The Argus local newspaper website, with users commenting on the fact that there are only three electric cars in the city. A fact confirmed by Taylor-Haw. Electric car owners, who already enjoy a 50% discount on parking permits for the city, will be able to use the bays from November when the council registration scheme opens.
Yesterday the secretary of state for energy and climate change, Ed Miliband, announced a £10m fund for local carbon-cutting initiatives such as charging stations, and earlier this summer the government said it would offer electric car buyers grants up to £5,000 to encourage take-up of the new technology.
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 17.49 BST
Not content with trying become self-sufficient in food, possibly electing the first Green party MP and weaning itself off oil as a Transition Town, Brighton & Hove is launching a bid to become UK's most friendly city for electric cars.
This week the city sees a major investment in electric car charging infrastructure, with the installation of four street-side charging stations and a further 16 completed by the end of 2010. The charging stations, which are vital to create a viable charging network for electric cars that mostly have a range of less than 100 miles, will reportedly be the first street-side points outside London.
The capital currently has more than 100 on-street charging stations, and in April mayor Boris Johnson said he wanted London to become the electric car capital of Europe with 25,000 stations and 100,000 electric vehicles. Other cities such as Bristol and Gateshead have existing public charging points but only in car parks.
Brighton-based charging company Elektromotive has already completed installation of the first four Brighton & Hove pilot sites. The first 10 stations will be paid for by £130,000 from clean transport initiative Civitas, which is part-funded by the EU.
Calvey Taylor-Haw, managing director of Elektromotive, said: "By encouraging drivers to switch to electric, Brighton will benefit hugely. There will be less air pollution and local residents will appreciate the quiet of electric vehicles. The installation of the bays will take place over a short period of time, providing electric vehicle users with rapid access to charging facilities."
The bays work with a standard mains plug and wireless key fobs that open the charging stations, which recharge cars within four to eight hours. Electric car owners will pay an annual fee to Brighton & Hove council for a registration scheme to access the network, pricing for which is unconfirmed but is expected to be in the region of £75-100 to join and £30-50 annually.
The scheme has come in for some criticism on The Argus local newspaper website, with users commenting on the fact that there are only three electric cars in the city. A fact confirmed by Taylor-Haw. Electric car owners, who already enjoy a 50% discount on parking permits for the city, will be able to use the bays from November when the council registration scheme opens.
Yesterday the secretary of state for energy and climate change, Ed Miliband, announced a £10m fund for local carbon-cutting initiatives such as charging stations, and earlier this summer the government said it would offer electric car buyers grants up to £5,000 to encourage take-up of the new technology.
Finally, a bid to save our soil
Hilary Benn's recognition that we need to look after our soil is long overdue – a fixation with chemistry threatens our civilisation
Graham Harvey
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 10.30 BST
It's good to know the government has realised we need to take rather better care of our soil if we're to stand a chance of surviving on this planet.
Announcing a new soil protection strategy, the rural affairs secretary, Hilary Benn, declared: "Good quality soils are essential for a thriving farming industry, a sustainable food supply and a healthy environment."
Quite so, Mr Benn. But what took you so long? For an old farming hack like me it has been obvious for years that the way we've been treating our soils is bad for our health as well as for our environment.
In a nutshell, the constant pounding we've given our farmland, both with chemicals and with giant machines, has seriously compromised its ability to go on feeding us. If we go on treating it in such a cavalier way our civilisation is likely to go the way of all the others who wrecked their soils – starting with Mesopotamia.
The roots of our own particular form of soil abuse lie in the ideas of an influential 19th century chemist called Justus von Liebig. He propounded the theory that soil fertility was principally a matter of chemistry. You simply totted up the amounts of plant nutrients taken off in a crop and replaced them in the form of fertiliser.
In this way the land could be induced to go on producing crops indefinitely, Von Liebig reasoned. It's this 19th century paradigm that has underpinned our food system ever since. Around the world farmers have thrown a few major chemical elements onto their fields – principally nitrogen, phosphate and potash. And that's about it.
The idea that you might also need to apply some organic fertiliser such as animal manure has disappeared on many lowland farms.
Judged solely on the basis of crop yields the system would appear to have worked reasonably well. But serious drawbacks have begun to appear with real implications for human health. Many everyday foods are now depleted in health-protecting nutrients. And the soil itself – the only guarantor that we can go on feeding ourselves in the future – is losing its structure and eroding away.
Prof Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), sounded the alarm bells last year when he reported on a World Bank-funded investigation into global farming technology. He said: "We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it is food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological diversity on which all our futures depend."
The fatal flaw in our food system is that it is fixated on chemistry while taking little account of the life forms in soil which are the true builders of fertility. Von Liebig became known as the founder of agricultural chemistry. Unfortunately there was no one around to make the case for agricultural biology, which, if anything, was more important.
Commerce has been happy to perpetuate this myopic view of soil fertility. A handful of large corporations have made handsome returns from peddling chemical fertilisers to farmers. Why would they be worried about soils becoming damaged and breaking down?
One of the consequences of soil damage is that crops are unable to take up the nutrients they need. As a result they become unhealthy and vulnerable to attack by pests and diseases. This hands another revenue stream to the chemical companies, who are then able to cash in with the sale of pesticides.
It appears from Benn's pronouncement that the proverbial penny has finally dropped. Farmers are being encouraged to abandon damaging techniques such as ploughing and substitute techniques like "minimal tillage", a less brutal and invasive way of preparing soil to receive a new crop.
The aim of the strategy is to increase the level of soil "organic matter", an all-encompassing term for life below ground. It includes living organisms from microbes to earthworms, by way of nematodes and fungi. It also includes the dead and decaying remnants of animals and plants. It's these myriad life forms, together with the materials they work on, that supply nutrients for crop plants, for grazing animals and ultimately for us human beings.
Thankfully the government has recognised that soil fertility is not simply – or even principally – a matter of chemistry. The challenge for farmers is to create the conditions that allow life below ground to flourish. When soils are genuinely healthy and fertile, the future of our food supply – and its quality – is assured. So is the future of the planet.
Fertile soils represent a far greater store of carbon than damaged ones. Even as farmers begin to rebuild levels of organic matter in their soils, they'll be removing carbon dioxide from the air and locking it up safely below ground.
Soil represents the largest terrestrial carbon sink. It contains three times more than all the world's vegetation. That's why Benn's new protection strategy is good news for all of us. Unless, of course, you happen to have shares in the farm chemical industry.
Graham Harvey
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 29 September 2009 10.30 BST
It's good to know the government has realised we need to take rather better care of our soil if we're to stand a chance of surviving on this planet.
Announcing a new soil protection strategy, the rural affairs secretary, Hilary Benn, declared: "Good quality soils are essential for a thriving farming industry, a sustainable food supply and a healthy environment."
Quite so, Mr Benn. But what took you so long? For an old farming hack like me it has been obvious for years that the way we've been treating our soils is bad for our health as well as for our environment.
In a nutshell, the constant pounding we've given our farmland, both with chemicals and with giant machines, has seriously compromised its ability to go on feeding us. If we go on treating it in such a cavalier way our civilisation is likely to go the way of all the others who wrecked their soils – starting with Mesopotamia.
The roots of our own particular form of soil abuse lie in the ideas of an influential 19th century chemist called Justus von Liebig. He propounded the theory that soil fertility was principally a matter of chemistry. You simply totted up the amounts of plant nutrients taken off in a crop and replaced them in the form of fertiliser.
In this way the land could be induced to go on producing crops indefinitely, Von Liebig reasoned. It's this 19th century paradigm that has underpinned our food system ever since. Around the world farmers have thrown a few major chemical elements onto their fields – principally nitrogen, phosphate and potash. And that's about it.
The idea that you might also need to apply some organic fertiliser such as animal manure has disappeared on many lowland farms.
Judged solely on the basis of crop yields the system would appear to have worked reasonably well. But serious drawbacks have begun to appear with real implications for human health. Many everyday foods are now depleted in health-protecting nutrients. And the soil itself – the only guarantor that we can go on feeding ourselves in the future – is losing its structure and eroding away.
Prof Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), sounded the alarm bells last year when he reported on a World Bank-funded investigation into global farming technology. He said: "We are putting food that appears cheap on our tables; but it is food that is not always healthy and that costs us dearly in terms of water, soil and the biological diversity on which all our futures depend."
The fatal flaw in our food system is that it is fixated on chemistry while taking little account of the life forms in soil which are the true builders of fertility. Von Liebig became known as the founder of agricultural chemistry. Unfortunately there was no one around to make the case for agricultural biology, which, if anything, was more important.
Commerce has been happy to perpetuate this myopic view of soil fertility. A handful of large corporations have made handsome returns from peddling chemical fertilisers to farmers. Why would they be worried about soils becoming damaged and breaking down?
One of the consequences of soil damage is that crops are unable to take up the nutrients they need. As a result they become unhealthy and vulnerable to attack by pests and diseases. This hands another revenue stream to the chemical companies, who are then able to cash in with the sale of pesticides.
It appears from Benn's pronouncement that the proverbial penny has finally dropped. Farmers are being encouraged to abandon damaging techniques such as ploughing and substitute techniques like "minimal tillage", a less brutal and invasive way of preparing soil to receive a new crop.
The aim of the strategy is to increase the level of soil "organic matter", an all-encompassing term for life below ground. It includes living organisms from microbes to earthworms, by way of nematodes and fungi. It also includes the dead and decaying remnants of animals and plants. It's these myriad life forms, together with the materials they work on, that supply nutrients for crop plants, for grazing animals and ultimately for us human beings.
Thankfully the government has recognised that soil fertility is not simply – or even principally – a matter of chemistry. The challenge for farmers is to create the conditions that allow life below ground to flourish. When soils are genuinely healthy and fertile, the future of our food supply – and its quality – is assured. So is the future of the planet.
Fertile soils represent a far greater store of carbon than damaged ones. Even as farmers begin to rebuild levels of organic matter in their soils, they'll be removing carbon dioxide from the air and locking it up safely below ground.
Soil represents the largest terrestrial carbon sink. It contains three times more than all the world's vegetation. That's why Benn's new protection strategy is good news for all of us. Unless, of course, you happen to have shares in the farm chemical industry.
David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt challenged on population growth
Third World population booms will have a negligible effect on global emissions and climate change, a new study claims
Ben Webster Environment Editor
The population explosion in poor countries will contribute little to climate change and is a dangerous distraction from the main problem of over-consumption in rich nations, a study has found.
It challenges claims by leading environmentalists, including Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt, that strict birth control is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The study concludes that spending billions of pounds of aid on contraception in the developing world will not benefit the climate because poor countries have such low emissions. It says that Britain and other Western countries should instead focus on reducing consumption of goods, services and energy among their own populations.
David Satterthwaite, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, a think-tank based in London, analysed changes in population and greenhouse gas emissions for all countries between 1980 and 2005.
He found that sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5 per cent of the world’s population growth and only 2.4 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. The United States had 3.4 per cent of the world’s population growth but 12.6 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
China’s one-child rule had resulted in a sharp decline in population growth but its CO2 emissions had risen very rapidly — 44.5 per cent of the growth in global emissions — largely because of the increasing number of Chinese enjoying Western levels of consumption.
Dr Satterthwaite, whose study is published in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization, said: “A child born into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do. A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and who enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more — thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
The world’s population has risen from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion. It is growing by 75 million a year and is almost certain to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Nine of the ten countries with the highest predicted growth rates up to 2050 are in Africa. Uganda’s population is expected to treble from 33 million to 91 million.
The populations of developed countries, including Japan and Russia, are expected to decline over the same period.
A separate study by the Princeton Environmental Institute found that the world’s richest half billion people accounted for 7 per cent of the world’s population but 50 per cent of emissions. The difference in emissions levels between a rich Westerner and a poor African was illustrated in a study this month by the New Economics Foundation.
It found that by 7pm on January 4, a typical person in Britain would have generated the same amount of carbon emissions that someone in Tanzania would be responsible for in the whole year. A US citizen would reach the same point by 4am on January 2.
Last month the Optimum Population Trust called for population restraint policies to be adopted by every world state to combat climate change. The call was endorsed by Sir David Attenborough, James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt.
Ben Webster Environment Editor
The population explosion in poor countries will contribute little to climate change and is a dangerous distraction from the main problem of over-consumption in rich nations, a study has found.
It challenges claims by leading environmentalists, including Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt, that strict birth control is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The study concludes that spending billions of pounds of aid on contraception in the developing world will not benefit the climate because poor countries have such low emissions. It says that Britain and other Western countries should instead focus on reducing consumption of goods, services and energy among their own populations.
David Satterthwaite, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, a think-tank based in London, analysed changes in population and greenhouse gas emissions for all countries between 1980 and 2005.
He found that sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5 per cent of the world’s population growth and only 2.4 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. The United States had 3.4 per cent of the world’s population growth but 12.6 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
China’s one-child rule had resulted in a sharp decline in population growth but its CO2 emissions had risen very rapidly — 44.5 per cent of the growth in global emissions — largely because of the increasing number of Chinese enjoying Western levels of consumption.
Dr Satterthwaite, whose study is published in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization, said: “A child born into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do. A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and who enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more — thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
The world’s population has risen from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion. It is growing by 75 million a year and is almost certain to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Nine of the ten countries with the highest predicted growth rates up to 2050 are in Africa. Uganda’s population is expected to treble from 33 million to 91 million.
The populations of developed countries, including Japan and Russia, are expected to decline over the same period.
A separate study by the Princeton Environmental Institute found that the world’s richest half billion people accounted for 7 per cent of the world’s population but 50 per cent of emissions. The difference in emissions levels between a rich Westerner and a poor African was illustrated in a study this month by the New Economics Foundation.
It found that by 7pm on January 4, a typical person in Britain would have generated the same amount of carbon emissions that someone in Tanzania would be responsible for in the whole year. A US citizen would reach the same point by 4am on January 2.
Last month the Optimum Population Trust called for population restraint policies to be adopted by every world state to combat climate change. The call was endorsed by Sir David Attenborough, James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt.
How a rubbish idea could save the planet
In the first of his new columns, Roger Highfield gives readers the chance to take part in a 'truly rubbish experiment'.
Published: 7:00AM BST 29 Sep 2009
THE Massachusetts Institute of Technology is one of my favourite places on the planet. Its sprawling campus runs at a thousand ideas an hour, and it's there that I recently found out an absolute humdinger of an invention. It aims to show that when it comes to throwing stuff away, there's no such thing as "away" .
The project emerged from the SENSEable City Laboratory, run by Carlo Ratti, which harnesses sensors and hand-held electronics to help describe cities in a new way. As urban environments become ever more complicated and interconnected, they present us with new opportunities to study how they work – and to make them better places to live in.
On my visit to the lab, I stared at a computer screen as a map of Rome exploded with movement and flickering colour, showing the ebb and flow of Italian football fans as they surged into squares and bars after their team won the World Cup. The secret was to use mobile calls made by the fans to monitor their antics: when the game heated up, so did the call rate.
Now the professor wants to use the same simple mobile-phone technology to reveal the journeys taken by familiar everyday objects after we throw them out. The hope is that it will help to deal with one of the most pressing urban problems, both in practical and aesthetic terms: rubbish.
We are all used to the idea of separating different kinds of rubbish: a bin for this, a skip for that, a box for the other. But how do you know that all your diligent efforts paid off in the end?
This is where Ratti's Trash Track project comes in. His team have developed tags consisting of a battery-powered Sim card and motion sensor, encased in resin, which updates them about the location of a piece of rubbish every 15 minutes for up to eight weeks.
Lewis Girod, who designed the tags, says they can use the mobile phone network to pinpoint an object to within 100 metres or so in the city, and around half a mile in the country.
Ratti likens the use of these tags to injecting a radioactive substance into a patient in order to find blockages that might be causing health problems.
In this case, the blockages are problems with a city's waste-disposal system: by tracking the final resting place of pieces of waste, from coffee cups to fluorescent bulbs, they can discover whether stuff that can be recycled ends up in a landfill. That applies not just to glass and plastics, but valuable (or toxic) substances such as gold, aluminium, nickel, copper, zinc, lead, cadmium and mercury, too.
As soon as he had spelt out the potential, I asked Carlo if I could get hold of some tags for a pilot project. A few months later, I was able to sit in London and watch a similar screen, tracking 60 pieces of rubbish in Seattle. Each one had a story to tell.
On July 12, Musstanser Tinauli, an MIT project leader, threw a digital camera into a roadside rubbish bin in south Seattle. Two days later, it turned up in a residential area to the south, presumably adopted by a new owner. A clapped-out Dell laptop belonging to Ewen Callaway was donated to the Computer Recycling Service store in the suburb of Green Lakes, north of the city. Within a few days it, too, seemed to have found a new home.
Detective work by a colleague of mine, Catherine Brahic, revealed how 11 pieces, including a Spiderman shoe, a keyboard and a laptop battery, ended up near two recycling facilities. Three items ended up in shipping yards. A toy tossed into a recycling bin in western Seattle turned up five days later on a hill south of the city, near Maple Valley.
Overall, only two pieces of garbage found their way to Seattle's main landfill in Oregon: the city's waste-sorting appeared to be working.
"Trash Track has the potential to encourage people to make more sustainable decisions," says Assaf Biderman, director of the lab. He believes it will help us move closer to a garbage utopia where we recycle or reuse everything we can, with the help of far tinier, and far cheaper, versions of the tags.
Next month, the project will go large-scale, as 3,000 more pieces of garbage are tagged in New York and Seattle. But we are also offering 10 British residents the chance to tag their own property for an experiment over here. Nominations close tomorrow, so visit newscientist.com/projects/forms/trash to submit your ideas for what I reckon is the best rubbish experiment ever.
* Roger Highfield is the editor of 'New Scientist', and will be writing a regular column for 'The Daily Telegraph'
Published: 7:00AM BST 29 Sep 2009
THE Massachusetts Institute of Technology is one of my favourite places on the planet. Its sprawling campus runs at a thousand ideas an hour, and it's there that I recently found out an absolute humdinger of an invention. It aims to show that when it comes to throwing stuff away, there's no such thing as "away" .
The project emerged from the SENSEable City Laboratory, run by Carlo Ratti, which harnesses sensors and hand-held electronics to help describe cities in a new way. As urban environments become ever more complicated and interconnected, they present us with new opportunities to study how they work – and to make them better places to live in.
On my visit to the lab, I stared at a computer screen as a map of Rome exploded with movement and flickering colour, showing the ebb and flow of Italian football fans as they surged into squares and bars after their team won the World Cup. The secret was to use mobile calls made by the fans to monitor their antics: when the game heated up, so did the call rate.
Now the professor wants to use the same simple mobile-phone technology to reveal the journeys taken by familiar everyday objects after we throw them out. The hope is that it will help to deal with one of the most pressing urban problems, both in practical and aesthetic terms: rubbish.
We are all used to the idea of separating different kinds of rubbish: a bin for this, a skip for that, a box for the other. But how do you know that all your diligent efforts paid off in the end?
This is where Ratti's Trash Track project comes in. His team have developed tags consisting of a battery-powered Sim card and motion sensor, encased in resin, which updates them about the location of a piece of rubbish every 15 minutes for up to eight weeks.
Lewis Girod, who designed the tags, says they can use the mobile phone network to pinpoint an object to within 100 metres or so in the city, and around half a mile in the country.
Ratti likens the use of these tags to injecting a radioactive substance into a patient in order to find blockages that might be causing health problems.
In this case, the blockages are problems with a city's waste-disposal system: by tracking the final resting place of pieces of waste, from coffee cups to fluorescent bulbs, they can discover whether stuff that can be recycled ends up in a landfill. That applies not just to glass and plastics, but valuable (or toxic) substances such as gold, aluminium, nickel, copper, zinc, lead, cadmium and mercury, too.
As soon as he had spelt out the potential, I asked Carlo if I could get hold of some tags for a pilot project. A few months later, I was able to sit in London and watch a similar screen, tracking 60 pieces of rubbish in Seattle. Each one had a story to tell.
On July 12, Musstanser Tinauli, an MIT project leader, threw a digital camera into a roadside rubbish bin in south Seattle. Two days later, it turned up in a residential area to the south, presumably adopted by a new owner. A clapped-out Dell laptop belonging to Ewen Callaway was donated to the Computer Recycling Service store in the suburb of Green Lakes, north of the city. Within a few days it, too, seemed to have found a new home.
Detective work by a colleague of mine, Catherine Brahic, revealed how 11 pieces, including a Spiderman shoe, a keyboard and a laptop battery, ended up near two recycling facilities. Three items ended up in shipping yards. A toy tossed into a recycling bin in western Seattle turned up five days later on a hill south of the city, near Maple Valley.
Overall, only two pieces of garbage found their way to Seattle's main landfill in Oregon: the city's waste-sorting appeared to be working.
"Trash Track has the potential to encourage people to make more sustainable decisions," says Assaf Biderman, director of the lab. He believes it will help us move closer to a garbage utopia where we recycle or reuse everything we can, with the help of far tinier, and far cheaper, versions of the tags.
Next month, the project will go large-scale, as 3,000 more pieces of garbage are tagged in New York and Seattle. But we are also offering 10 British residents the chance to tag their own property for an experiment over here. Nominations close tomorrow, so visit newscientist.com/projects/forms/trash to submit your ideas for what I reckon is the best rubbish experiment ever.
* Roger Highfield is the editor of 'New Scientist', and will be writing a regular column for 'The Daily Telegraph'
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Third World population controls won't save climate, study claims
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
The population explosion in poor countries will contribute little to climate change and is a dangerous distraction from the main problem of over-consumption in rich nations, a study has found.
It challenges claims by leading environmentalists, including Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt, that strict birth control is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The study concludes that spending billions of pounds of aid on contraception in the developing world will not benefit the climate because poor countries have such low emissions. It says that Britain and other Western countries should instead focus on reducing consumption of goods, services and energy among their own populations.
David Satterthwaite, of the International Institute for Environment and Development , a think-tank based in London, analysed changes in population and greenhouse gas emissions for all countries between 1980 and 2005.
He found that sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5 per cent of the world’s population growth and only 2.4 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. The United States had 3.4 per cent of the world’s population growth but 12.6 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
China’s one-child rule had resulted in a sharp decline in population growth but its CO2 emissions had risen very rapidly — 44.5 per cent of the growth in global emissions — largely because of the increasing number of Chinese enjoying Western levels of consumption.
Dr Satterthwaite, whose study is published in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization, said: “A child born into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do. A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and who enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more — thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
The world’s population has risen from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion. It is growing by 75 million a year and is almost certain to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Nine of the ten countries with the highest predicted growth rates up to 2050 are in Africa. Uganda’s population is expected to treble from 33 million to 91 million.
The populations of developed countries, including Japan and Russia, are expected to decline over the same period.
A separate study by the Princeton Environmental Institute found that the world’s richest half billion people accounted for 7 per cent of the world’s population but 50 per cent of emissions. The difference in emissions levels between a rich Westerner and a poor African was illustrated in a study this month by the New Economics Foundation.
It found that by 7pm on January 4, a typical person in Britain would have generated the same amount of carbon emissions that someone in Tanzania would be responsible for in the whole year. A US citizen would reach the same point by 4am on January 2.
Last month the Optimum Population Trust called for population restraint policies to be adopted by every world state to combat climate change. The call was endorsed by Sir David Attenborough, James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt.
The population explosion in poor countries will contribute little to climate change and is a dangerous distraction from the main problem of over-consumption in rich nations, a study has found.
It challenges claims by leading environmentalists, including Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt, that strict birth control is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The study concludes that spending billions of pounds of aid on contraception in the developing world will not benefit the climate because poor countries have such low emissions. It says that Britain and other Western countries should instead focus on reducing consumption of goods, services and energy among their own populations.
David Satterthwaite, of the International Institute for Environment and Development , a think-tank based in London, analysed changes in population and greenhouse gas emissions for all countries between 1980 and 2005.
He found that sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5 per cent of the world’s population growth and only 2.4 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. The United States had 3.4 per cent of the world’s population growth but 12.6 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
China’s one-child rule had resulted in a sharp decline in population growth but its CO2 emissions had risen very rapidly — 44.5 per cent of the growth in global emissions — largely because of the increasing number of Chinese enjoying Western levels of consumption.
Dr Satterthwaite, whose study is published in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization, said: “A child born into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do. A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and who enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more — thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
The world’s population has risen from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion. It is growing by 75 million a year and is almost certain to exceed 9 billion by 2050. Nine of the ten countries with the highest predicted growth rates up to 2050 are in Africa. Uganda’s population is expected to treble from 33 million to 91 million.
The populations of developed countries, including Japan and Russia, are expected to decline over the same period.
A separate study by the Princeton Environmental Institute found that the world’s richest half billion people accounted for 7 per cent of the world’s population but 50 per cent of emissions. The difference in emissions levels between a rich Westerner and a poor African was illustrated in a study this month by the New Economics Foundation.
It found that by 7pm on January 4, a typical person in Britain would have generated the same amount of carbon emissions that someone in Tanzania would be responsible for in the whole year. A US citizen would reach the same point by 4am on January 2.
Last month the Optimum Population Trust called for population restraint policies to be adopted by every world state to combat climate change. The call was endorsed by Sir David Attenborough, James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt.
Fate of US climate bill casts shadow over Bangkok talks
Evidence of 'clear movement' on domestic front would lend weight to UN climate talks in Bangkok, says US chief negotiator
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 September 2009 11.41 BST
The fate of US carbon emission cap and trade legislation weighed heavily on delegates at United Nations climate talks which started today in Bangkok, with the Americans saying delays in passing the bill could deter commitments from other nations.
Negotiations on a new UN climate pact have been hindered by a general unwillingness to commit to firm emissions targets, and a refusal by developing countries to sign a deal until the west guarantees tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance – something the richer nations have so far refused to do.
"The more specific we can be, the easier it is to press others to be equally specific," said Jonathan Pershing, the chief US negotiator at the talks. "We have a lot of things we want from countries ... The less we can put on the table, the harder it is to achieve that outcome."
The two-week conference in the Thai capital is drawing some 1,500 delegates from 180 countries to boil down a 200-page draft agreement to something more manageable, in the hope of finalising a new international climate pact this year.
In June, the US House of Representatives passed its first bill to cap carbon emissions. The Senate, currently embroiled in debates over healthcare, is expected to take up the legislation as early as this week.
However, Pershing said he doubted that there's enough time to pass an emissions bill in Congress before December's crucial climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, which aim to reach a deal to replace the outgoing Kyoto protocol, due to expire in 2012.
He said it wouldn't prevent a global deal as long as "we have clear movement, clear intent and a signal from the Senate that is it is moving" towards passing the legislation.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer warned that the US should not repeat what happened with the 1997 Kyoto agreement – when it signed on to the deal, only to have Congress reject it a few years later over concerns that it would hurt the economy and fail to require China and India to curb their emissions.
President Barack Obama and the Chinese president, Hu Jintao – whose countries are the world's two biggest emitters, each accounting for about 20% of greenhouse gas pollution – vowed tough measures to combat climate change at UN talks in New York last week.
Hu said China would generate 15% of its energy from renewable sources within a decade, and for the first time pledged to reduce the rate by which its carbon emissions rise. He did not provide specific targets.
There will be one more meeting in Spain in November before negotiators head to Copenhagen. De Boer said progress was slower than it should be, but remained confident a deal would be reached in Copenhagen.
David Victor, a political scientist who has written about climate negotiations since 1990, said it is unlikely a comprehensive treaty can be finalised this year.
"The world economic recession has made most governments acutely aware of policies that could affect economic growth," he said. "And the range of issues on the table in Copenhagen is so large and complex and the time available to sort them out is very short."
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 September 2009 11.41 BST
The fate of US carbon emission cap and trade legislation weighed heavily on delegates at United Nations climate talks which started today in Bangkok, with the Americans saying delays in passing the bill could deter commitments from other nations.
Negotiations on a new UN climate pact have been hindered by a general unwillingness to commit to firm emissions targets, and a refusal by developing countries to sign a deal until the west guarantees tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance – something the richer nations have so far refused to do.
"The more specific we can be, the easier it is to press others to be equally specific," said Jonathan Pershing, the chief US negotiator at the talks. "We have a lot of things we want from countries ... The less we can put on the table, the harder it is to achieve that outcome."
The two-week conference in the Thai capital is drawing some 1,500 delegates from 180 countries to boil down a 200-page draft agreement to something more manageable, in the hope of finalising a new international climate pact this year.
In June, the US House of Representatives passed its first bill to cap carbon emissions. The Senate, currently embroiled in debates over healthcare, is expected to take up the legislation as early as this week.
However, Pershing said he doubted that there's enough time to pass an emissions bill in Congress before December's crucial climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, which aim to reach a deal to replace the outgoing Kyoto protocol, due to expire in 2012.
He said it wouldn't prevent a global deal as long as "we have clear movement, clear intent and a signal from the Senate that is it is moving" towards passing the legislation.
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer warned that the US should not repeat what happened with the 1997 Kyoto agreement – when it signed on to the deal, only to have Congress reject it a few years later over concerns that it would hurt the economy and fail to require China and India to curb their emissions.
President Barack Obama and the Chinese president, Hu Jintao – whose countries are the world's two biggest emitters, each accounting for about 20% of greenhouse gas pollution – vowed tough measures to combat climate change at UN talks in New York last week.
Hu said China would generate 15% of its energy from renewable sources within a decade, and for the first time pledged to reduce the rate by which its carbon emissions rise. He did not provide specific targets.
There will be one more meeting in Spain in November before negotiators head to Copenhagen. De Boer said progress was slower than it should be, but remained confident a deal would be reached in Copenhagen.
David Victor, a political scientist who has written about climate negotiations since 1990, said it is unlikely a comprehensive treaty can be finalised this year.
"The world economic recession has made most governments acutely aware of policies that could affect economic growth," he said. "And the range of issues on the table in Copenhagen is so large and complex and the time available to sort them out is very short."
CO2 is green: the TV advert making viewers choke
A TV advert paid for by an oil industry lobbyist telling Americans "more CO2 results in a greener earth" would be almost funny if it weren't so depressing
"Is this a joke?" splutters one of the comments underneath the YouTube video of a new 30-second TV advert that has started being aired in a handful of US states over the past few days telling viewers that "CO2 is green". Sadly not, it seems.
In a slick attempt to undermine the US Environmental Protection Agency's recent ruling that CO2 should now be classified as a pollutant because rising levels of the gas in the atmosphere will "endanger public health or welfare", a former oil industry executive has stumped up some of his cash to pay for these adverts to be shown in Montana and New Mexico. The ultimate aim of the advert, though, is to derail the forthcoming vote in the Senate on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which now appears as if it might even impact on vital UN climate talks in Copenhagen this December.
So who's behind "CO2 is green" and this advert? One of its founders is H Leighton Steward who, until his retirement in 2000, was the vice chairman of Burlington Resources, a Houston-based oil and gas company bought by ConocoPhillips in 2006. Steward received the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 2001 and remains an honorary director of the oil industry lobby group. In other words, we can conclude that this man boasts a particular pedigree within the oil industry.
The Washington Post (which admits it has taken a half-page advert from the "CO2 is green" group) is reporting that Steward, along with some associates, is now trying to establish the group as a charity:
Steward has joined forces with Corbin J Robertson Jr, chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a Houston-based owner of coal resources that lets other companies mine in return for royalties. Its revenues were $291m [£184m] in 2008. They have formed two groups – CO2 Is Green designated for advocacy and Plants Need CO2 for education – with about $1m. Plants Need CO2 has applied for 501(c)(3) tax status, so that contributions would qualify as charitable donations, said Natural Resource Partners general counsel Wyatt L Hogan, who also serves on the group's board.
The advert (which varies slightly depending on the state) is really something to behold. Here's a transcript:
Congress is considering a law that would classify carbon dioxide as pollution. This will cost us jobs. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the earth's ecosystems and would support more plant and animal life. Please take action. Contact your senator and congressman today and remind them CO2 is not pollution and more CO2 results in a greener earth. Go to CO2isgreen.com, because we all need CO2.
The advert is ripe for spoofing. It's certainly tempting to laugh it off. (For extra merriment, visit the "CO2 is green" website and read the "Why do people believe these myths?" section: "They have been misinformed by people that benefit financially from propagating the myth." Oh, the irony.)
But the advert is also a juddering reminder there are still powerful, influential forces straining every last sinew and dollar they possess to deny that rising CO2 levels are a problem. That such efforts should so easily be traced back to oil industry operatives is not wholly surprising, but sobering nonetheless.
Far more depressing, though, is the fact that they have produced this "Plants need CO2" website to better inform the public about the "positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2".
A word of caution before you click on the link: prepare yourself to be "educated".
"Is this a joke?" splutters one of the comments underneath the YouTube video of a new 30-second TV advert that has started being aired in a handful of US states over the past few days telling viewers that "CO2 is green". Sadly not, it seems.
In a slick attempt to undermine the US Environmental Protection Agency's recent ruling that CO2 should now be classified as a pollutant because rising levels of the gas in the atmosphere will "endanger public health or welfare", a former oil industry executive has stumped up some of his cash to pay for these adverts to be shown in Montana and New Mexico. The ultimate aim of the advert, though, is to derail the forthcoming vote in the Senate on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which now appears as if it might even impact on vital UN climate talks in Copenhagen this December.
So who's behind "CO2 is green" and this advert? One of its founders is H Leighton Steward who, until his retirement in 2000, was the vice chairman of Burlington Resources, a Houston-based oil and gas company bought by ConocoPhillips in 2006. Steward received the American Petroleum Institute's Gold Medal for Distinguished Achievement in 2001 and remains an honorary director of the oil industry lobby group. In other words, we can conclude that this man boasts a particular pedigree within the oil industry.
The Washington Post (which admits it has taken a half-page advert from the "CO2 is green" group) is reporting that Steward, along with some associates, is now trying to establish the group as a charity:
Steward has joined forces with Corbin J Robertson Jr, chief executive of and leading shareholder in Natural Resource Partners, a Houston-based owner of coal resources that lets other companies mine in return for royalties. Its revenues were $291m [£184m] in 2008. They have formed two groups – CO2 Is Green designated for advocacy and Plants Need CO2 for education – with about $1m. Plants Need CO2 has applied for 501(c)(3) tax status, so that contributions would qualify as charitable donations, said Natural Resource Partners general counsel Wyatt L Hogan, who also serves on the group's board.
The advert (which varies slightly depending on the state) is really something to behold. Here's a transcript:
Congress is considering a law that would classify carbon dioxide as pollution. This will cost us jobs. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, higher CO2 levels than we have today would help the earth's ecosystems and would support more plant and animal life. Please take action. Contact your senator and congressman today and remind them CO2 is not pollution and more CO2 results in a greener earth. Go to CO2isgreen.com, because we all need CO2.
The advert is ripe for spoofing. It's certainly tempting to laugh it off. (For extra merriment, visit the "CO2 is green" website and read the "Why do people believe these myths?" section: "They have been misinformed by people that benefit financially from propagating the myth." Oh, the irony.)
But the advert is also a juddering reminder there are still powerful, influential forces straining every last sinew and dollar they possess to deny that rising CO2 levels are a problem. That such efforts should so easily be traced back to oil industry operatives is not wholly surprising, but sobering nonetheless.
Far more depressing, though, is the fact that they have produced this "Plants need CO2" website to better inform the public about the "positive effects of additional atmospheric CO2 and help prevent the inadvertent negative impact to human, plant and animal life if we reduce CO2".
A word of caution before you click on the link: prepare yourself to be "educated".
Copenhagen negotiating text: 200 pages to save the world?
Draft agreement being discussed ahead of December's crucial Copenhagen summit is long, confusing and contradictoryInteractive: Beginner's guide to the negotiating text
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 September 2009 16.37 BST
It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new global agreement on climate change, which is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming.
Running to some 200 pages, the draft agreement is being discussed for the first time this week as officials from 190 countries gather in Bangkok for the latest round of UN talks. There is only one short meeting after this before they meet in Copenhagen aiming to hammer out a final version.
The draft text consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to an unmanageable 300 pages. It has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle it down. Here, we present key, edited sections from the text and attempt to decipher what the words mean.
The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer.
• How much are rich countries willing to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and by when?
• Will large developing nations such as China make an effort to put at least a dent in their soaring levels of pollution?
• How much money must flow from the developed world to developing countries to grease the wheels and secure their approval? How much to compensate for the impact of past emissions, and how much to help prevent future emissions?
According to the UN rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country must sign up – a challenging requirement. The new treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol, the world's existing treaty to regulate greenhouse gases, the first phase of which expires in 2012. Because the US did not ratify Kyoto, the climate talks have been forced on to awkward parallel tracks, with one set of negotiations, from which the US is excluded, debating how the treaty could be extended past 2012. This new text comes from the second track, which lays out a plan to include all countries in long-term co-operative action.
Behind the scenes, pessimism about the Copenhagen talks is rising. Despite references in the text to a global goal and collective emission cuts of 25-40% by 2020 for rich countries, many observers believe there is little chance such an approach will succeed.
Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "Copenhagen is more likely to be a way station to a final agreement, where each country posts the best that it can do... The key thing is let's not go into Copenhagen with all the same kind of guns blazing like we did in Kyoto."
A top European official told the Guardian: "We've moved on from the idea that we can negotiate on targets. That's naive and just not the way the deal will be done. The best we can get is that countries will put in what they want to commit to."
Once all the carbon offsets – buying pollution credits instead of cutting emissions – and "fudges" are taken into account, the outcome is likely to be that emissions in 2020 from rich countries will be broadly similar to those in 1990, he said. "That's really scary stuff."
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 September 2009 16.37 BST
It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new global agreement on climate change, which is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming.
Running to some 200 pages, the draft agreement is being discussed for the first time this week as officials from 190 countries gather in Bangkok for the latest round of UN talks. There is only one short meeting after this before they meet in Copenhagen aiming to hammer out a final version.
The draft text consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to an unmanageable 300 pages. It has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle it down. Here, we present key, edited sections from the text and attempt to decipher what the words mean.
The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer.
• How much are rich countries willing to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and by when?
• Will large developing nations such as China make an effort to put at least a dent in their soaring levels of pollution?
• How much money must flow from the developed world to developing countries to grease the wheels and secure their approval? How much to compensate for the impact of past emissions, and how much to help prevent future emissions?
According to the UN rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country must sign up – a challenging requirement. The new treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol, the world's existing treaty to regulate greenhouse gases, the first phase of which expires in 2012. Because the US did not ratify Kyoto, the climate talks have been forced on to awkward parallel tracks, with one set of negotiations, from which the US is excluded, debating how the treaty could be extended past 2012. This new text comes from the second track, which lays out a plan to include all countries in long-term co-operative action.
Behind the scenes, pessimism about the Copenhagen talks is rising. Despite references in the text to a global goal and collective emission cuts of 25-40% by 2020 for rich countries, many observers believe there is little chance such an approach will succeed.
Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "Copenhagen is more likely to be a way station to a final agreement, where each country posts the best that it can do... The key thing is let's not go into Copenhagen with all the same kind of guns blazing like we did in Kyoto."
A top European official told the Guardian: "We've moved on from the idea that we can negotiate on targets. That's naive and just not the way the deal will be done. The best we can get is that countries will put in what they want to commit to."
Once all the carbon offsets – buying pollution credits instead of cutting emissions – and "fudges" are taken into account, the outcome is likely to be that emissions in 2020 from rich countries will be broadly similar to those in 1990, he said. "That's really scary stuff."
US inertia could scupper world climate deal in Copenhagen, says expert
Leading climate scientist criticises Bush administration and points to general ignorance of global warming in US public polls
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 September 2009 18.06 BST
US ignorance about the risks and reality of global warming could sink hopes of a new global deal to control greenhouse gas emissions at December's climate talks in Copenhagen, an advisor to the German government has said.
Professor John Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said the US was "climate illiterate" and that the rest of the world may be forced to agree a new deal without it.
"Nobody should dream of the possibility that numbers and targets for countries will be sealed in Copenhagen," said Schellnhuber, one of the world's foremost climate scientists. "If the US doesn't move then nothing will happen."
He added: "The US in a sense is climate illiterate. It is a deeper problem in the US, if you look at global polls about what the public knows about climate change. Even in Brazil and China, you have more people who know the problem, who think that deep cuts in emissions are needed."
He predicted that it could be several years before the US would be willing to take on carbon cuts that were ambitious enough to persuade countries such as China to set targets of their own. At UN talks last week, China and India made small steps forward on this issue, but Obama was unable to do the same.
"The political chances seem very slim that something will happen in Copenhagen and even in the years after," he said. "Maybe in the conferences following Copenhagen some countries – including China and the EU – whatever the US does, will say: we go ahead now. Why can't we save the world without the US? Why should that not happen?"
The US has by some distance the largest carbon emissions per capita in the world, and any deal without it would be significantly less effective at curbing global temperature rise.
Speaking on the fringes of a climate science conference at Oxford University today, Schellnhuber said the former US president, George Bush, was to blame for a decade of inaction on climate change, and that many in the Republican party and the wider US population still did not understand the need to act. European nations and others have been waiting for President Obama to engage with the issue in a way that Bush refused to.
Schellnhuber said: "Obama is aware of the problem and he personally wants to do something. The problem is: can he provide the leadership to overcome the system? Every top politician gets to do two or three unpopular things, and the right politicians choose the right things."
To convert a global deal on climate change into US law would require a two-thirds majority vote in the US Senate, something that many in Europe believe is unrealistic given Obama's ongoing troubles with healthcare reform. "It just may not be possible to overcome the American inertia," Scellnhuber said.
Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said: "It's vital for the climate that we get the Americans on board, but if we can't, then we can't just do nothing – we still need to make the biggest emission cuts that we can. If that means China and Europe and others going on without the Americans, then that may be the price we need to pay."
Schellnhuber's comments come as UN talks on a possible Copenhagen deal continue in Bangkok. Negotiators from 190 countries are wrestling with a draft treaty text, which runs to 200 pages and is riddled with alternate options and provisional text in square brackets.
His words reflect growing suspicion in Europe that the talks are crawling towards a unsatisfactory outcome, and that little progress is being made in the US. Earlier this month, the Guardian revealed a growing rift between Europe and the US over the latter's approach to how carbon targets could be set and met.
The Oxford conference is centred around the implications of a 4C rise in global average temperature, which scientists believe could be a possibility if serious carbon cuts are not agreed in Copenhagen.
Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, presented a study demonstrating that the world could see a 4C rise as soon as 2060-2070 – within the lifetime of many people alive today.
Nigel Arnell, a climate expert at the University of Reading, said a temperature rise on this scale would bring about colossal changes in weather conditions, affecting billions of people. Some 15% of land worldwide that is currently suitable for agriculture would become useless, he said. Available land would shift north, to regions such as Siberia, which is currently covered in forest.
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 September 2009 18.06 BST
US ignorance about the risks and reality of global warming could sink hopes of a new global deal to control greenhouse gas emissions at December's climate talks in Copenhagen, an advisor to the German government has said.
Professor John Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said the US was "climate illiterate" and that the rest of the world may be forced to agree a new deal without it.
"Nobody should dream of the possibility that numbers and targets for countries will be sealed in Copenhagen," said Schellnhuber, one of the world's foremost climate scientists. "If the US doesn't move then nothing will happen."
He added: "The US in a sense is climate illiterate. It is a deeper problem in the US, if you look at global polls about what the public knows about climate change. Even in Brazil and China, you have more people who know the problem, who think that deep cuts in emissions are needed."
He predicted that it could be several years before the US would be willing to take on carbon cuts that were ambitious enough to persuade countries such as China to set targets of their own. At UN talks last week, China and India made small steps forward on this issue, but Obama was unable to do the same.
"The political chances seem very slim that something will happen in Copenhagen and even in the years after," he said. "Maybe in the conferences following Copenhagen some countries – including China and the EU – whatever the US does, will say: we go ahead now. Why can't we save the world without the US? Why should that not happen?"
The US has by some distance the largest carbon emissions per capita in the world, and any deal without it would be significantly less effective at curbing global temperature rise.
Speaking on the fringes of a climate science conference at Oxford University today, Schellnhuber said the former US president, George Bush, was to blame for a decade of inaction on climate change, and that many in the Republican party and the wider US population still did not understand the need to act. European nations and others have been waiting for President Obama to engage with the issue in a way that Bush refused to.
Schellnhuber said: "Obama is aware of the problem and he personally wants to do something. The problem is: can he provide the leadership to overcome the system? Every top politician gets to do two or three unpopular things, and the right politicians choose the right things."
To convert a global deal on climate change into US law would require a two-thirds majority vote in the US Senate, something that many in Europe believe is unrealistic given Obama's ongoing troubles with healthcare reform. "It just may not be possible to overcome the American inertia," Scellnhuber said.
Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said: "It's vital for the climate that we get the Americans on board, but if we can't, then we can't just do nothing – we still need to make the biggest emission cuts that we can. If that means China and Europe and others going on without the Americans, then that may be the price we need to pay."
Schellnhuber's comments come as UN talks on a possible Copenhagen deal continue in Bangkok. Negotiators from 190 countries are wrestling with a draft treaty text, which runs to 200 pages and is riddled with alternate options and provisional text in square brackets.
His words reflect growing suspicion in Europe that the talks are crawling towards a unsatisfactory outcome, and that little progress is being made in the US. Earlier this month, the Guardian revealed a growing rift between Europe and the US over the latter's approach to how carbon targets could be set and met.
The Oxford conference is centred around the implications of a 4C rise in global average temperature, which scientists believe could be a possibility if serious carbon cuts are not agreed in Copenhagen.
Richard Betts, head of climate impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre, presented a study demonstrating that the world could see a 4C rise as soon as 2060-2070 – within the lifetime of many people alive today.
Nigel Arnell, a climate expert at the University of Reading, said a temperature rise on this scale would bring about colossal changes in weather conditions, affecting billions of people. Some 15% of land worldwide that is currently suitable for agriculture would become useless, he said. Available land would shift north, to regions such as Siberia, which is currently covered in forest.
Americans are 'illiterate' about climate change, claims expert
America's lack of knowledge on climate change could prevent the world from reaching an agreement to stop catastrophic global warming, scientists said in an attack on the country's environmental policy.
Published: 10:16PM BST 28 Sep 2009
Professor John Schellnhuber, one of the world's leading global warming experts, described the US as "climate illiterate"
He said Americans have a lower understanding of the problems of climate change than people in Brazil or China..
More than 100 scientists are meeting at Oxford University to discuss the dangers of climate change causing droughts, floods and mass extinctions around the world.
The conference is designed to put pressure on world leaders coming together at the end of the year for the "most important meeting in the history of the human species".
The UN Climate Change Conference in December will try to reach an international deal on cutting carbon emissions so global warming stays below an increase of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.
Prof Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change, said the chance of getting such a deal was "pie in the sky" because rich countries like America are unwilling to sign up to ambitious enough targets.
"In a sense the US is climate illiterate. If you look at global polls about what the public knows about climate change even in Brazil, China you have more people who know about the problem and think deep cuts in emissions are needed," he said.
His comments come as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, made renewed calls for rich countries to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 while also paying poor countries to reduce greenhouse gases.
Prof Schellnhuber said rich countries have to cut emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2020 on 1990 levels to stand a chance of stopping catastrophic climate change.
However President Obama is already struggling to get legislation through the Senate that will commit the US to cutting emissions to 1990 levels and will face an even greater public backlash trying to meet more ambitious targets.
Prof Schellnhuber, who has played a key role in waking the world up to climate change through his work advising the German government, described the Copenhagen conference as "the most important meeting in the history of the human species".
He said even if the US, which is second only to China in the amount of greenhouse gases it produces, refuses to sign up to targets the rest of the world should make cuts.
"Not in Copenhagen but maybe in the conferences following Copenhagen, some countries including China and EU, will simply say whatever the US does we will go ahead. It is not only responsible but will be good for us economically.
"Why can't we save the world without the US?"
Published: 10:16PM BST 28 Sep 2009
Professor John Schellnhuber, one of the world's leading global warming experts, described the US as "climate illiterate"
He said Americans have a lower understanding of the problems of climate change than people in Brazil or China..
More than 100 scientists are meeting at Oxford University to discuss the dangers of climate change causing droughts, floods and mass extinctions around the world.
The conference is designed to put pressure on world leaders coming together at the end of the year for the "most important meeting in the history of the human species".
The UN Climate Change Conference in December will try to reach an international deal on cutting carbon emissions so global warming stays below an increase of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.
Prof Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change, said the chance of getting such a deal was "pie in the sky" because rich countries like America are unwilling to sign up to ambitious enough targets.
"In a sense the US is climate illiterate. If you look at global polls about what the public knows about climate change even in Brazil, China you have more people who know about the problem and think deep cuts in emissions are needed," he said.
His comments come as Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, made renewed calls for rich countries to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 while also paying poor countries to reduce greenhouse gases.
Prof Schellnhuber said rich countries have to cut emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2020 on 1990 levels to stand a chance of stopping catastrophic climate change.
However President Obama is already struggling to get legislation through the Senate that will commit the US to cutting emissions to 1990 levels and will face an even greater public backlash trying to meet more ambitious targets.
Prof Schellnhuber, who has played a key role in waking the world up to climate change through his work advising the German government, described the Copenhagen conference as "the most important meeting in the history of the human species".
He said even if the US, which is second only to China in the amount of greenhouse gases it produces, refuses to sign up to targets the rest of the world should make cuts.
"Not in Copenhagen but maybe in the conferences following Copenhagen, some countries including China and EU, will simply say whatever the US does we will go ahead. It is not only responsible but will be good for us economically.
"Why can't we save the world without the US?"
Taxpayers foot MPs junket to South Pacific 'to investigate climate change'
A group of politicians spent tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money flying to the South Pacific to investigate the impact of climate change, it has been disclosed.
By Andrew HoughPublished: 7:00AM BST 28 Sep 2009
The six members of parliament and two peers spent 16 days in the South Pacific last month as part of a “fact finding” mission.
The estimated cost to taxpayers to send the group, who flew business class to Fiji via Australia, was at least £68,200, the Channel 4 Dispatches programme said.
Critics labelled the junket “inappropriate and unnecessary” with the long-haul flights and local travel leaving a hefty carbon footprint.
Those who took the trip were Labour MPs Jim Sheridan, Betty Williams, Neil Turner, Meg Munn and Colin Challen, who were joined by Tory MP Andrew Rosindell, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Roper of Thorney Island and the Labour peer Lord Lea of Crondall.
Two staff members from the Commonwealth Paliamentary Association UK Two CPA staff members also travelled with the group.
According to the programme, which airs on Monday night, the flights cost £6,300 each and hotel bills for Fiji alone – where the group stayed in a five-star resort were expected to be at least £5,200.
During their time in the South Pacific the group also embarked on whale watching, enjoyed a £1000 dinner in Tonga and lunched on a paradise island where the Channel 4 reality series Shipwrecked was filmed.
The group also visited Tonga, Vanuatu, Kiribati and Tuvalu as part of their mission, with the Third World Countries picking up part of the cost.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance pressure group said: “People back home are struggling to pay the bills, never mind being able to travel around the world and it sticks in people's throats when they see politicians jetting off at taxpayers' expense.”
The trip was one of several identified by the programme, which said it had spent months investigating MPs trips.
It said over the past two months alone, around 100 MPs have travelled to 15 countries at an estimated cost to the public purse of £750,000.
The CPA told the programme the trip was “probably the most effective way of discussing these important issues” and insisted the trips were “extremely hard work”.
A CPA UK spokesman added: “Ask our hosts if this was an important visit in the context of the challenges they face in mitigating the effects of climate change.
“You can only really help if you go out there.”
By Andrew HoughPublished: 7:00AM BST 28 Sep 2009
The six members of parliament and two peers spent 16 days in the South Pacific last month as part of a “fact finding” mission.
The estimated cost to taxpayers to send the group, who flew business class to Fiji via Australia, was at least £68,200, the Channel 4 Dispatches programme said.
Critics labelled the junket “inappropriate and unnecessary” with the long-haul flights and local travel leaving a hefty carbon footprint.
Those who took the trip were Labour MPs Jim Sheridan, Betty Williams, Neil Turner, Meg Munn and Colin Challen, who were joined by Tory MP Andrew Rosindell, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Roper of Thorney Island and the Labour peer Lord Lea of Crondall.
Two staff members from the Commonwealth Paliamentary Association UK Two CPA staff members also travelled with the group.
According to the programme, which airs on Monday night, the flights cost £6,300 each and hotel bills for Fiji alone – where the group stayed in a five-star resort were expected to be at least £5,200.
During their time in the South Pacific the group also embarked on whale watching, enjoyed a £1000 dinner in Tonga and lunched on a paradise island where the Channel 4 reality series Shipwrecked was filmed.
The group also visited Tonga, Vanuatu, Kiribati and Tuvalu as part of their mission, with the Third World Countries picking up part of the cost.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance pressure group said: “People back home are struggling to pay the bills, never mind being able to travel around the world and it sticks in people's throats when they see politicians jetting off at taxpayers' expense.”
The trip was one of several identified by the programme, which said it had spent months investigating MPs trips.
It said over the past two months alone, around 100 MPs have travelled to 15 countries at an estimated cost to the public purse of £750,000.
The CPA told the programme the trip was “probably the most effective way of discussing these important issues” and insisted the trips were “extremely hard work”.
A CPA UK spokesman added: “Ask our hosts if this was an important visit in the context of the challenges they face in mitigating the effects of climate change.
“You can only really help if you go out there.”
Gordon Brown: 'We can make the difference'
Gordon Brown is seeking an ambitious, effective and fair plan, and he asserts that it is in the best interests of everyone to warm to it
Monday, 28 September 2009
In 71 days, the international community will gather in Copenhagen to determine a new global agreement on climate change. At stake is the future of every child on this planet. There is no higher priority for me, or for this government, than forging an agreement in Copenhagen that sets the world on a path to avoiding dangerous warming – to keep the global average temperature increase to two degrees celsius.
As set out in our document The Road to Copenhagen (www.actoncopenhagen.gov.uk), we want an agreement that is ambitious, effective, and fair. Ambitious: it must set a trajectory for reducing global emissions by at least 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. Effective: it must establish a legally binding regime, and a global carbon market. And fair: it must provide developing countries with financial and technological support to help them adapt to climate change and to embark on low-carbon development paths themselves.
With UN negotiations proceeding too slowly, the UK government has been leading efforts to unblock the deal. In June, I was the first developed-country leader to table a concrete proposition for climate finance for developing countries, suggesting a working figure of £61bn ($100bn) a year from private and public sources by 2020. At the UN and G20 summits this week, I have been talking directly to other global leaders about this, and next month I will be working to agree the EU's position. And let no one be in any doubt – we can do this because of our strong engagement in Europe. No party which detaches itself from the EU mainstream can claim to be committed to acting on climate change.
And at home we are implementing a radical set of climate policies. Our Climate Change Act makes the UK the first country to put our emissions cuts into law – by 34 per cent by 2020, and by 80 per cent by 2050. And the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan we published in July (www.decc.gov.uk) is the first in the world to give every department responsibility for its own "carbon budget".
The Transition Plan represents a revolution in energy policy that will not just reduce emissions but increase our energy security and create jobs in the new green economy. Our Great British Refurb campaign will insulate every loft and cavity wall by 2015, and fit every home with a smart meter by 2020. From next year, feed-in tariffs will give cash back to households and communities installing decentralised energy. We are increasing renewable-energy production sevenfold in the next decade. We are forging ahead with a programme of new nuclear build. We will only approve new coal-fired power stations that are fitted with carbon capture and storage, with the world's largest demonstration programme for this vital new technology. And we have a £400m programme of investment in the new generation of electric vehicles.
Meeting these plans will create around 400,000 jobs in green manufacturing, low-carbon energy and environmental services over the next eight years. Through our Low Carbon Industrial Strategy and £400m investment fund, we will reap the economic benefits for Britain of the global shift to low carbon.
So we are leading the way on climate action – but we need more than just government to do this. As with Make Poverty History, we will get the agreement we need at Copenhagen only if governments can show they have public support. So I would urge as many people as possible to go to Ed Miliband's new campaign website, www.edspledge.com, and sign up their backing for an ambitious deal. Together, we can make the difference.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 386 parts per million. In 1958, it stood at 315ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution, it was 280ppm
Monday, 28 September 2009
In 71 days, the international community will gather in Copenhagen to determine a new global agreement on climate change. At stake is the future of every child on this planet. There is no higher priority for me, or for this government, than forging an agreement in Copenhagen that sets the world on a path to avoiding dangerous warming – to keep the global average temperature increase to two degrees celsius.
As set out in our document The Road to Copenhagen (www.actoncopenhagen.gov.uk), we want an agreement that is ambitious, effective, and fair. Ambitious: it must set a trajectory for reducing global emissions by at least 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. Effective: it must establish a legally binding regime, and a global carbon market. And fair: it must provide developing countries with financial and technological support to help them adapt to climate change and to embark on low-carbon development paths themselves.
With UN negotiations proceeding too slowly, the UK government has been leading efforts to unblock the deal. In June, I was the first developed-country leader to table a concrete proposition for climate finance for developing countries, suggesting a working figure of £61bn ($100bn) a year from private and public sources by 2020. At the UN and G20 summits this week, I have been talking directly to other global leaders about this, and next month I will be working to agree the EU's position. And let no one be in any doubt – we can do this because of our strong engagement in Europe. No party which detaches itself from the EU mainstream can claim to be committed to acting on climate change.
And at home we are implementing a radical set of climate policies. Our Climate Change Act makes the UK the first country to put our emissions cuts into law – by 34 per cent by 2020, and by 80 per cent by 2050. And the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan we published in July (www.decc.gov.uk) is the first in the world to give every department responsibility for its own "carbon budget".
The Transition Plan represents a revolution in energy policy that will not just reduce emissions but increase our energy security and create jobs in the new green economy. Our Great British Refurb campaign will insulate every loft and cavity wall by 2015, and fit every home with a smart meter by 2020. From next year, feed-in tariffs will give cash back to households and communities installing decentralised energy. We are increasing renewable-energy production sevenfold in the next decade. We are forging ahead with a programme of new nuclear build. We will only approve new coal-fired power stations that are fitted with carbon capture and storage, with the world's largest demonstration programme for this vital new technology. And we have a £400m programme of investment in the new generation of electric vehicles.
Meeting these plans will create around 400,000 jobs in green manufacturing, low-carbon energy and environmental services over the next eight years. Through our Low Carbon Industrial Strategy and £400m investment fund, we will reap the economic benefits for Britain of the global shift to low carbon.
So we are leading the way on climate action – but we need more than just government to do this. As with Make Poverty History, we will get the agreement we need at Copenhagen only if governments can show they have public support. So I would urge as many people as possible to go to Ed Miliband's new campaign website, www.edspledge.com, and sign up their backing for an ambitious deal. Together, we can make the difference.
The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 386 parts per million. In 1958, it stood at 315ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution, it was 280ppm
Utility Quits U.S. Chamber Over Rift on Climate Bill
By CASSANDRA SWEET
Exelon Corp. on Monday became the third big utility in the past week to quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the influential business group's stance against federal climate-change legislation.
The decision by Exelon, one of the nation's biggest nuclear power-plant operators, to quit the Chamber follows similar moves by PG&E Corp. and PNM Resources Inc. and highlights a growing rift between the nation's power sector and other industries over climate policy.
Chicago-based Exelon said the U.S. government needs to set climate-change policy promptly, in part to allow energy markets to attach a price to cutting a ton of carbon-dioxide emissions. The House in June passed a bill that would require the U.S. to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and create a market-based program called "cap and trade" in which companies could buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide.
"The carbon-based free lunch is over," Exelon Chairman and Chief Executive John W. Rowe said in a statement. "But while we can't fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible."
Exelon, PG&E and PNM all operate nuclear power plants and emit far less carbon dioxide than some of their peers, particularly companies that operate large fleets of coal-fired power plants. Coal plants produce roughly twice the greenhouse-gas emissions of similarly sized natural-gas-fired plants. Nuclear power plants emit almost no greenhouse-gas emissions, and so stand to benefit from legislation that would cap emissions.
The companies' departures are unlikely to change the Chamber's position on climate-change policy, said David Chavern, the group's chief operating officer. He added that although the Chamber opposed a House bill to cap greenhouse-gas emissions and disagrees with plans by the Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating emissions, it isn't opposed to some form of U.S. climate-change legislation.
"Congress should do everything it can to promote and incentivize technology development and other policies that allow us to control carbon in ways that don't trash the economy," Mr. Chavern said.
The climate debate was overshadowed in Washington most of the summer by the battle over proposals to overhaul the health-care system. But later this week, the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), is expected to introduce a Senate proposal to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Whether the Senate will act on a proposal before an international climate summit in Copenhagen in December is unclear.
Despite their differences, U.S. power companies, represented by the lobbying group Edison Electric Institute, have banded together in support of the climate-change legislation that passed the House.
The U.S. Chamber opposed that bill, by Reps. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) and Edward Markey (D., Mass.). And it recently suggested that the U.S. come up with a forum to debate evidence that climate change is man-made, in response to a proposed finding by the EPA that global warming poses a danger to public health.
"We are not debating the science behind global warming," William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, said at the time. "We are unconvinced that EPA has demonstrated, as a matter of law, that greenhouse-gas emissions from motor vehicles in the U.S. endanger public health or welfare."
Write to Cassandra Sweet at cassandra.sweet@dowjones.com
Exelon Corp. on Monday became the third big utility in the past week to quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the influential business group's stance against federal climate-change legislation.
The decision by Exelon, one of the nation's biggest nuclear power-plant operators, to quit the Chamber follows similar moves by PG&E Corp. and PNM Resources Inc. and highlights a growing rift between the nation's power sector and other industries over climate policy.
Chicago-based Exelon said the U.S. government needs to set climate-change policy promptly, in part to allow energy markets to attach a price to cutting a ton of carbon-dioxide emissions. The House in June passed a bill that would require the U.S. to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and create a market-based program called "cap and trade" in which companies could buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide.
"The carbon-based free lunch is over," Exelon Chairman and Chief Executive John W. Rowe said in a statement. "But while we can't fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible."
Exelon, PG&E and PNM all operate nuclear power plants and emit far less carbon dioxide than some of their peers, particularly companies that operate large fleets of coal-fired power plants. Coal plants produce roughly twice the greenhouse-gas emissions of similarly sized natural-gas-fired plants. Nuclear power plants emit almost no greenhouse-gas emissions, and so stand to benefit from legislation that would cap emissions.
The companies' departures are unlikely to change the Chamber's position on climate-change policy, said David Chavern, the group's chief operating officer. He added that although the Chamber opposed a House bill to cap greenhouse-gas emissions and disagrees with plans by the Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating emissions, it isn't opposed to some form of U.S. climate-change legislation.
"Congress should do everything it can to promote and incentivize technology development and other policies that allow us to control carbon in ways that don't trash the economy," Mr. Chavern said.
The climate debate was overshadowed in Washington most of the summer by the battle over proposals to overhaul the health-care system. But later this week, the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), is expected to introduce a Senate proposal to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Whether the Senate will act on a proposal before an international climate summit in Copenhagen in December is unclear.
Despite their differences, U.S. power companies, represented by the lobbying group Edison Electric Institute, have banded together in support of the climate-change legislation that passed the House.
The U.S. Chamber opposed that bill, by Reps. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) and Edward Markey (D., Mass.). And it recently suggested that the U.S. come up with a forum to debate evidence that climate change is man-made, in response to a proposed finding by the EPA that global warming poses a danger to public health.
"We are not debating the science behind global warming," William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs, said at the time. "We are unconvinced that EPA has demonstrated, as a matter of law, that greenhouse-gas emissions from motor vehicles in the U.S. endanger public health or welfare."
Write to Cassandra Sweet at cassandra.sweet@dowjones.com
Volvo plans plug-in diesel hybrids for 2012
By David Wilkins
Monday, 28 September 2009
Volvo has said it wants to introduce plug-in hybrid cars from 2012.
Standard hybrid cars have both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine. Energy that would normally be lost under braking is directed towards recharging batteries which are then used to power the electric motor, which kicks in to support the combustion engine under acceleration. Some hybrids are able to run for very short distances at low speeds on battery power alone.
Plug-in hybrids, which as their name suggests, can be charged from the mains while the car is stationary, are able to spend a much greater proportion of a given journey running on electric power; Volvo says that its plug-in hybrids will be able to run for up to about 30 miles on batteries alone. Only beyond that distance, which, according to Volvo, covers the daily needs of about 75% of European drivers, does the combustion engine – in this case, a diesel – play a part.
A diesel plug-in hybrid can be an exceptionally economical and ecologically friendly car but the precise advantages depend on a number of factors, in particular, which fuel is used to generate electricity at the power station, but Volvo thinks its cars will achieve a range of 745 miles while emitting as little as 50g/km of CO2 and consuming as little as 148.6mpg.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Volvo has said it wants to introduce plug-in hybrid cars from 2012.
Standard hybrid cars have both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine. Energy that would normally be lost under braking is directed towards recharging batteries which are then used to power the electric motor, which kicks in to support the combustion engine under acceleration. Some hybrids are able to run for very short distances at low speeds on battery power alone.
Plug-in hybrids, which as their name suggests, can be charged from the mains while the car is stationary, are able to spend a much greater proportion of a given journey running on electric power; Volvo says that its plug-in hybrids will be able to run for up to about 30 miles on batteries alone. Only beyond that distance, which, according to Volvo, covers the daily needs of about 75% of European drivers, does the combustion engine – in this case, a diesel – play a part.
A diesel plug-in hybrid can be an exceptionally economical and ecologically friendly car but the precise advantages depend on a number of factors, in particular, which fuel is used to generate electricity at the power station, but Volvo thinks its cars will achieve a range of 745 miles while emitting as little as 50g/km of CO2 and consuming as little as 148.6mpg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
