Dongtan in Shanghai was to be a model for the world by 2010, but after lots of grand promises, the old entrenched ways mean little has happened
Fred Pearce
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 April 2009 14.59 BST
Three years ago, I crossed the world to see it: the site for the world's first eco-city. Shanghai, one of the fastest growing megacities on the planet, was setting aside a giant island in the Yangtze river to create an eco-city for half a million people.
British eco-engineers and green-minded architects and town planners were designing the renewably powered, car-free, water-recycling city of Dongtan as a model for the world. And its first 25,000 citizens would be living the good life there in time for the Shanghai World Expo in 2010, at which it would be by far the largest exhibit, reached by a new tunnel and bridge.
Well, it is now exactly a year until the start of the Expo. The tunnel and bridge are about to open. But of the eco-city there is nothing except half a dozen wind turbines and an organic farm. No houses, no water taxis, no sewage-recycling plant, no energy park. Nothing. And all mentioned of it has disappeared from the Expo website (slogan: "Better city; better life").
This week, Peter Head, the man behind the project at the London-based consulting engineers Arup, who drew up the master plan, told me his clients at the city's Shanghai Industrial Investment Company had "gone quiet. We just don't know if anything will happen or when. The project office is shut."
There is a persistent rumour that the project has been a casualty of the political fallout from the conviction of the city boss Chen Liangyu, jailed last year for corruption. Not so, says Head. The problems are more fundamental.
"China does everything by the rules handed down from the top. There is a rule for everything. The width of roads, everything. That is how they have developed so fast, by being totally prescriptive. We wanted to change the rules in Dongtan, to do everything different. But when it comes to it, China cannot deliver that."
It's a bit like greening the planet. Lots of grand promises, but in the end the old entrenched ways mean little happens. Greenwash, in other words.
Shanghai milked the media well during the heyday of the planning. Searching for Dongtan on Google, there are around 177,000 hits. Almost all of them are built on a fiction: that the city fathers in Shanghai actually intended to do things differently on Chongming Island. That they really saw Arup's expensively produced Dongtan masterplan as a blueprint for a more sustainable future. They didn't. Not when it came to it.
Tony Blair signed the deal to design and build Dongtan with Chinese president Hu Jin-tao. His deputy, John Prescott, went there twice. So did Britain's top urban planner, Peter Hall, and the London mayor Ken Livingstone, who wanted ideas for greening his urban landscape.
British academics carried out energy audits aimed at giving Dongtan's future citizens an ecological footprint a quarter that of other Shanghai citizens.
But they and Arup were hoodwinked as much as anyone. People like Head, whose commitment to the project was total, could have been planning other things that might have got off the drawing board. Their time was wasted.
The SIIC director, Ma Cheng Liang, the man in charge of the project, told me in early 2006: "We need to reduce our ecological footprint. Dongtan is very significant for Shanghai and the nation." He explained how, the Dongtan blueprint would prevent urban sprawling taking over the 100-kilometre long Chongming Island after the bridge was finished. "We want to skip traditional industrialisation in favour of ecological modernism. Dongtan is a chance to develop new ways of living."
Did he ever mean it? I don't know. Is it all over? Probably. With the new bridge providing easy access to Shanghai's Pudong business district, the island's western end, where Dongtan was planned, will soon be taken over by high-rise, high-footprint apartments. The first are already under construction.
We all wasted our time; burned carbon flying to Shanghai to relay a false prospectus to the world. If I sound bitter, I am. This time, I was a personal victim of greenwash.
• Do you know of any green claims that deserve closer examination? Email your examples to greenwash@guardian.co.uk or add your comments below
Friday, 24 April 2009
A Look Into Future Oceans for Shellfish Reasons
Carbon Dioxide, Absorbed by the Seas, Changes the Chemistry of Water and the Growth of Marine Life
By ROBERT LEE HOTZ
In the living laboratory of a submerged volcano, marine biologist Verena Tunnicliffe glimpsed sea creatures trying to survive in acidic oceans.
Carbon dioxide that bubbles up in the sulfur chimneys of the undersea Eifuku volcano near the Pacific's Mariana Islands has turned the water into an acidic broth, with striking effects on sea life. Scientists say the corrosive conditions there offer clues to how rising levels of man-made CO2 in the air could unbalance oceans world-wide.
To her surprise, Dr. Tunnicliffe found that mussel shells she collected at Eifuku were so thin that she and her colleagues could see right through them. The water chemistry made it impossible for the mussels to extract enough calcium carbonate to form a proper covering. Compared with shells of the same species collected in more normal waters, "they were half the thickness and half the weight," she said.
Known as the rain forests of the sea, coral reefs teem with life. Now, scientists say these important habitats are under threat. WSJ's Science Journal columnist Robert Lee Hotz reports.
Recommended Reading
Exploration of life on the undersea volcano Eifuku was reported in "Survival of mussels in extremely acidic waters on a submarine volcano," published in Nature Geoscience.
A team of Australian researchers documented the effects of ocean acidity on plankton shells in "Reduced calcification in modern Southern Ocean planktonic foraminifera."
University of Chicago researchers measured increasing coastal ocean acidity in the Pacific Northwest in The Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences.
In January, researchers at the Australian Institute of Marine Science measured the impact of ocean acidity on the Great Barrier Reef in "Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef," published in Science.
An international research team calculated the effects on coral reefs of rising CO2 emissions in "Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles," in Geophysical Research Letters.
An international research effort assessed the impact of CO2 on oceans in "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms," in Nature.
Researchers systematically calculated the amount of man-made CO2 absorbed by oceans since 1800 in "The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2," published in Science.
To live in these inhospitable conditions, the mollusks cannibalized their own shells, leaching from them the carbonate needed to maintain their internal muscle chemistry. "They are dissolving whatever shell they do have," says Dr. Tunnicliffe at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. They manage to survive despite their weakened shells, the scientists speculated, because the water's harsh chemistry is too much for the hard-shell crabs that prey on these mussels elsewhere.
When the mussels die, their wafer-thin shells disintegrate even faster than their soft tissues can decay.
To be sure, the sea chemistry of Eifuku is unusual by any measure. Located on the volcanic rim of the Mariana Trench near the island of Guam, the mollusks live in water pressure 44 times that at the surface, at one of only two spots in the world where CO2 rises from the seabed as a liquid. Dr. Tunnicliffe and her colleagues explored the beds of exotic vent mussels during a 2006 expedition via the sensors of a sturdy deep-sea robotic explorer called Jason-II. They reported their findings last week in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Conditions on the volcanic slopes of Eifuku have been this acidic for millennia, giving these creatures more than enough time to acclimate. But many oceanographers worry that increased CO2 -- likely created by burning fossil fuel -- is changing sea chemistry world-wide more quickly than most marine life can adapt. A host of experiments are underway to assess just how the increased CO2 levels are changing ocean life.
From the rocky inlets of Tatoosh Island in the Pacific Northwest to Australia's Great Barrier Reef, seawater is turning acidic. Mounting evidence suggests plankton, sea urchins, squid, coral and other marine life already find it harder to grow, reproduce and survive. If acidification intensifies, it could ultimately threaten the marine food chain, including commercial fisheries.
Pfister, University of Chicago
Dead mussels along Tatoosh Island in the Pacific Northwest, where seawater acidity has risen faster than expected.
All told, the oceans have absorbed 118 billion tons of carbon in the 200 years since the beginning of the industrial revolution, an international research team led by oceanographer Christopher Sabine at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle has calculated. Every second of the day, the oceans absorb an additional 300 tons of CO2 emissions.
In seawater, CO2 forms carbonic acid, steadily lowering the ocean's pH value on a scale used to gauge a liquid's acidity or alkalinity. The number gets lower as a liquid gets more acidic. Fresh milk has a pH of about 6.7; lemon juice has a pH of 2.4 or so. The concern is that quickly falling pH levels could overwhelm a species' chemical stability.
"If CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, then the oceans become more acidic," says marine ecologist Jon Havenhand of Sweden's University of Gothenburg. "The chemistry is unavoidable."
For at least 600,000 years, the oceans maintained a steady pH of about 8.2, according to levels measured in ancient ice cores that preserve an annual chemical record of times past in the same way that tree rings do. Since 1800, however, the pH of seawater has dropped to 8.1. "The number is small but the change is substantial," says marine biologist Donald Potts at the University of California, Santa Cruz. By the end of this century, the pH of seawater is expected to drop to 7.8 or so.
The change in sea chemistry affects how easily marine creatures can form the calcium carbonate materials for shells and skeletons. "As it gets more acid, they lay down skeletons more slowly and they make a softer skeleton, with less strength," he says.
Last month, President Barack Obama signed a new wilderness law that calls for federal agencies to assess the impact of rising ocean acidity. The measure also authorizes an ocean acidification research program led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time began weighing the possibility of revising pH standards under the federal Clean Water Act to prevent ocean acidification.
ROV RoPOS, NOAA Exploration Program
High acidity surrounding the undersea Eifuku volcano offers a model of how carbon dioxide might affect marine life elsewhere.
Jacqueline Savitz, a senior scientist at the conservation group Oceana, says regulators should move quickly. Already, coral growth across the Great Barrier Reef has slowed, researchers at the Australian Institute of Marine Science reported in Science earlier this year. The rate at which the corals at 69 reefs across the formation absorb calcium from seawater has declined precipitously in the last 20 years.
In a computer study made public last month, researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem analyzed conditions at 9,733 reefs around the world and then calculated the impact of CO2 emissions. The scientists found that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere threaten the reefs' ability to replenish themselves. "If you double the CO2, it's twice as hard for them to build their skeletons," says Carnegie oceanographer Ken Caldeira.
The changing carbon chemistry already is affecting some marine organisms, several new scientific studies show.
Off the coast of Washington state, for example, mussels and barnacles were edged out of traditional beds by more acid-tolerant algae as pH levels plummeted over the past eight years, University of Chicago researchers found. "The acidity was dropping to levels that haven't been expected at all," says Chicago ecologist Timothy Wooten. "We are scrambling to understand what is going on there."
At Gothenburg University, researchers found that more acidic seawater cut fertilization rates among sea urchins by 25%. Some species of shellfish, though, were indifferent to lower pH changes, their tests showed. One mollusk species thrived. So far, there are no other known benefits from the changes.
"It's unpredictable," Dr. Havenhand says.
Australian researchers recently analyzed shells of modern plankton, called foraminifera, which teem by the billions in the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. The scientists compared shells today with those from cores of sea-floor sediments dating back 50,000 years. The modern plankton made shells 30% to 35% lighter than their ancestors, suggesting today's plankton can't get enough calcium carbonate.
Indeed, the plankton now can't build shells as large as those of even a century ago. The change, scientists say, is not part of any natural ocean cycle but due to CO2 from burning fossil fuels over the last 100 years.
"We can actually detect the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels in the ocean and in the shells of these organisms," says marine geologist William Howard at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre in Hobart, Tasmania, who led the study. "For good or ill, this is where the CO2 is coming from."
Robert Lee Hotz also shares recommended reading on this topic and responds to reader comments at WSJ.com/Currents. Email him at sciencejournal@wsj.com.
Democrats Weigh Break for Utilities in Climate-Change Bill
By GREG HITT and STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are weighing a plan to give some of the nation's biggest polluters a 10-year cushion from the impact of greenhouse-gas regulations to get a cap-and-trade system in place now.
Under the proposal, electric utilities would get free permits to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for as long as ten years, after which they would gradually begin paying. In exchange, utilities would be required to shield consumers and businesses from higher electricity rates during that time. They would also make investments in conservation and renewable energy to lessen the industry's reliance on coal.
"We're going to have some of the money allocated to ratepayers," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) "How much and what percentage, I don't know."
Under the proposal, which is still being negotiated, electric utilities would receive about 40% of the permits allotted under a cap-and-trade program designed to gradually cut carbon-dioxide emissions. That is roughly equivalent to the utility industry's share of such emissions.
Negotiations over free emissions permits reflect the pivotal role centrist business-minded Democrats are playing in the evolving legislation to combat climate change.
Republicans are attacking the House climate bill as a job-killing tax. In response, the bill's main sponsors, Mr. Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), are working to shore up support among committee Democrats from the South and industrial Midwest who are worried about hurting their states' economies.
To court the centrists, Mr. Waxman has already added a provision to commit $10 billion over ten years for development of technologies that would allow coal to be burned cleanly. That's important to Virginia Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents a coal-producing region and now a key figure in the debate.
Mr. Waxman also agreed to protect such trade-sensitive industries as cement and steel by granting them some permits without cost, the better to compete with rivals in other countries with less stringent rules. The measure is a priority of Rep. Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat.
By showing flexibility with House moderates, Mr. Waxman could make his bill more palatable in the Senate, where strong concerns also exist among Democratic centrists. Still, he has by no means locked down the votes of House moderates.
Some economists say giving away permits to electric utilities will artificially suppress price increases in electric bills and undercut incentives for consumers to reduce electricity.
The Waxman-Markey bill aims to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The proposal would put a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by businesses across the economy and allow individual companies to buy and sell permits giving them the right to pollute.
Crucial questions remain, such as which industries will have to pay for pollution permits and how the revenue they generate will be distributed. The bill Mr. Waxman made public a few weeks ago is largely silent on these issues.
Top House Democrats are also considering a proposal to create a second consumer rebate to help lower- and middle-income families offset the higher energy costs of the cap-and-trade program.
"There should be no cost to the consumer," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Wednesday. She vowed the legislation would "make good on that" pledge.—Ian Talley contributed to this article.
Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are weighing a plan to give some of the nation's biggest polluters a 10-year cushion from the impact of greenhouse-gas regulations to get a cap-and-trade system in place now.
Under the proposal, electric utilities would get free permits to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for as long as ten years, after which they would gradually begin paying. In exchange, utilities would be required to shield consumers and businesses from higher electricity rates during that time. They would also make investments in conservation and renewable energy to lessen the industry's reliance on coal.
"We're going to have some of the money allocated to ratepayers," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) "How much and what percentage, I don't know."
Under the proposal, which is still being negotiated, electric utilities would receive about 40% of the permits allotted under a cap-and-trade program designed to gradually cut carbon-dioxide emissions. That is roughly equivalent to the utility industry's share of such emissions.
Negotiations over free emissions permits reflect the pivotal role centrist business-minded Democrats are playing in the evolving legislation to combat climate change.
Republicans are attacking the House climate bill as a job-killing tax. In response, the bill's main sponsors, Mr. Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), are working to shore up support among committee Democrats from the South and industrial Midwest who are worried about hurting their states' economies.
To court the centrists, Mr. Waxman has already added a provision to commit $10 billion over ten years for development of technologies that would allow coal to be burned cleanly. That's important to Virginia Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat who represents a coal-producing region and now a key figure in the debate.
Mr. Waxman also agreed to protect such trade-sensitive industries as cement and steel by granting them some permits without cost, the better to compete with rivals in other countries with less stringent rules. The measure is a priority of Rep. Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat.
By showing flexibility with House moderates, Mr. Waxman could make his bill more palatable in the Senate, where strong concerns also exist among Democratic centrists. Still, he has by no means locked down the votes of House moderates.
Some economists say giving away permits to electric utilities will artificially suppress price increases in electric bills and undercut incentives for consumers to reduce electricity.
The Waxman-Markey bill aims to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The proposal would put a cap on the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by businesses across the economy and allow individual companies to buy and sell permits giving them the right to pollute.
Crucial questions remain, such as which industries will have to pay for pollution permits and how the revenue they generate will be distributed. The bill Mr. Waxman made public a few weeks ago is largely silent on these issues.
Top House Democrats are also considering a proposal to create a second consumer rebate to help lower- and middle-income families offset the higher energy costs of the cap-and-trade program.
"There should be no cost to the consumer," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Wednesday. She vowed the legislation would "make good on that" pledge.—Ian Talley contributed to this article.
Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Reckless 'Endangerment'
The Obama EPA plays 'Dirty Harry' on cap and trade.
President Obama's global warming agenda has been losing support in Congress, but why let an irritant like democratic consent interfere with saving the world? So last Friday the Environmental Protection Agency decided to put a gun to the head of Congress and play cap-and-trade roulette with the U.S. economy.
The pistol comes in the form of a ruling that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act. This so-called "endangerment finding" sets the clock ticking on a vast array of taxes and regulation that EPA will have the power to impose across the economy, and all with little or no political debate.
This is a momentous decision that has the potential to affect the daily life of every American, yet most of the media barely noticed, and those that did largely applauded. When America's Founders revolted against "taxation without representation," this is precisely the kind of kingly diktat they had in mind.
Michigan Democrat John Dingell helped to write the Clean Air Act, as well as its 1990 revision, and he says neither was meant to apply to carbon. But in 2007 five members of the Supreme Court followed the environmental polls and ordered the EPA to determine if CO2 qualified as a "pollutant." The Bush Administration prudently slow-walked the decision. As Peter Glaser, an environmental lawyer at Troutman Sanders, told Congress in 2008, "The country will experience years, if not decades, of regulatory agony, as EPA will be required to undertake numerous, controversial, time-consuming, expensive and difficult regulatory proceedings, all of which ultimately will be litigated."
The Obama EPA has now opened this Pandora's box. The centerpiece of the Clean Air Act is something called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, under which the EPA decides the appropriate atmospheric concentration of a given air pollutant. Under this law the states must adopt measures to meet a NAAQS goal, and the costs cannot be considered. For global warming, this is going to be a hugely expensive futility parade.
Greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, and it doesn't matter where they come from. A ton of emissions from Ohio has the same effect on global CO2 as a ton emitted in China; and even if Ohio figured out a way to reduce its emissions to zero, it would still have no control over the carbon content in its ambient air. But under the law, EPA would be required to severely punish Ohio -- and every state -- for not complying with NAAQS.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA also must regulate all "major" sources of emissions that emit more than 250 tons of an air pollutant in a year. That includes "any building, structure, facility or installation." This might be a reasonable threshold for conventional pollutants such as SOX or NOX, but it's extremely low for carbon. Hundreds of thousands of currently unregulated sources will suddenly be subject to the EPA's preconstruction permitting and review, including schools, hospitals, malls, restaurants, farms and colleges. According to EPA, the average permit today takes 866 hours for a source to prepare, and 301 hours for EPA to process. So this regulatory burden will increase by several orders of magnitude.
The EPA took the highly unusual step of not accompanying its endangerment finding with actual proposed regulations. For now, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims her agency will only target cars and trucks. That is bad enough. It probably means, for example, that California's mileage fleet burdens will seep out to every other state. So even as taxpayers are now paying tens of billions of dollars to prop up GM and Chrysler, Ms. Jackson will be able to tell the entire auto industry it must make even more small cars that consumers don't want to buy.
Still, why confine the rule only to cars and trucks? By the EPA's own logic, it shouldn't matter where carbon emissions come from. Carbon from a car's tailpipe is the same as carbon from a coal-fired power plant. And transportation is responsible for only 28% of U.S. emissions, versus 34% for electricity generation. Ms. Jackson is clearly trying to limit the immediate economic impact of her ruling, so as not to ignite too great a business or consumer backlash.
But her half-measure is also too clever by half. By finding carbon a public danger, she is inviting lawsuits from environmental lobbies demanding that EPA regulate all carbon sources. Massachusetts and two other states have already sued in federal court to force the EPA to create a NAAQS for CO2.
Which brings us back to the Obama Administration's political roulette. Democrats know that their cap-and-tax agenda is losing ground, notably among Midwestern Senators. The EPA "endangerment" is intended to threaten businesses and state and local governments until they surrender and support the Obama agenda. The car industry is merely the first target, meant to be the object lesson.
Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey put it this way at MIT recently: "Do you want the EPA to make the decision or would you like your Congressman or Senator to be in the room and drafting legislation? . . . Industries across the country will just have to gauge for themselves how lucky they feel if they kill legislation in terms of how the EPA process will include them."
This "Dirty Harry" theory of governance -- Do you feel lucky? -- is as cynical as it is destructive. And contra Mr. Markey, if cap and tax is killed this year, it will be done in by Democrats, many of whom are starting to realize the economic harm it would inflict. In March, the Senate voted 89 to 8 on a resolution vowing to pass a climate bill only if "such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices."
That's called democracy, but for the Obama Administration such debate is an inconvenient truth. If they can't get Congress to pass their agenda, they'll use EPA and the courts to impose it. How lucky do you feel?
President Obama's global warming agenda has been losing support in Congress, but why let an irritant like democratic consent interfere with saving the world? So last Friday the Environmental Protection Agency decided to put a gun to the head of Congress and play cap-and-trade roulette with the U.S. economy.
The pistol comes in the form of a ruling that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant that threatens the public and therefore must be regulated under the 1970 Clean Air Act. This so-called "endangerment finding" sets the clock ticking on a vast array of taxes and regulation that EPA will have the power to impose across the economy, and all with little or no political debate.
This is a momentous decision that has the potential to affect the daily life of every American, yet most of the media barely noticed, and those that did largely applauded. When America's Founders revolted against "taxation without representation," this is precisely the kind of kingly diktat they had in mind.
Michigan Democrat John Dingell helped to write the Clean Air Act, as well as its 1990 revision, and he says neither was meant to apply to carbon. But in 2007 five members of the Supreme Court followed the environmental polls and ordered the EPA to determine if CO2 qualified as a "pollutant." The Bush Administration prudently slow-walked the decision. As Peter Glaser, an environmental lawyer at Troutman Sanders, told Congress in 2008, "The country will experience years, if not decades, of regulatory agony, as EPA will be required to undertake numerous, controversial, time-consuming, expensive and difficult regulatory proceedings, all of which ultimately will be litigated."
The Obama EPA has now opened this Pandora's box. The centerpiece of the Clean Air Act is something called the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS, under which the EPA decides the appropriate atmospheric concentration of a given air pollutant. Under this law the states must adopt measures to meet a NAAQS goal, and the costs cannot be considered. For global warming, this is going to be a hugely expensive futility parade.
Greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, and it doesn't matter where they come from. A ton of emissions from Ohio has the same effect on global CO2 as a ton emitted in China; and even if Ohio figured out a way to reduce its emissions to zero, it would still have no control over the carbon content in its ambient air. But under the law, EPA would be required to severely punish Ohio -- and every state -- for not complying with NAAQS.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA also must regulate all "major" sources of emissions that emit more than 250 tons of an air pollutant in a year. That includes "any building, structure, facility or installation." This might be a reasonable threshold for conventional pollutants such as SOX or NOX, but it's extremely low for carbon. Hundreds of thousands of currently unregulated sources will suddenly be subject to the EPA's preconstruction permitting and review, including schools, hospitals, malls, restaurants, farms and colleges. According to EPA, the average permit today takes 866 hours for a source to prepare, and 301 hours for EPA to process. So this regulatory burden will increase by several orders of magnitude.
The EPA took the highly unusual step of not accompanying its endangerment finding with actual proposed regulations. For now, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims her agency will only target cars and trucks. That is bad enough. It probably means, for example, that California's mileage fleet burdens will seep out to every other state. So even as taxpayers are now paying tens of billions of dollars to prop up GM and Chrysler, Ms. Jackson will be able to tell the entire auto industry it must make even more small cars that consumers don't want to buy.
Still, why confine the rule only to cars and trucks? By the EPA's own logic, it shouldn't matter where carbon emissions come from. Carbon from a car's tailpipe is the same as carbon from a coal-fired power plant. And transportation is responsible for only 28% of U.S. emissions, versus 34% for electricity generation. Ms. Jackson is clearly trying to limit the immediate economic impact of her ruling, so as not to ignite too great a business or consumer backlash.
But her half-measure is also too clever by half. By finding carbon a public danger, she is inviting lawsuits from environmental lobbies demanding that EPA regulate all carbon sources. Massachusetts and two other states have already sued in federal court to force the EPA to create a NAAQS for CO2.
Which brings us back to the Obama Administration's political roulette. Democrats know that their cap-and-tax agenda is losing ground, notably among Midwestern Senators. The EPA "endangerment" is intended to threaten businesses and state and local governments until they surrender and support the Obama agenda. The car industry is merely the first target, meant to be the object lesson.
Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey put it this way at MIT recently: "Do you want the EPA to make the decision or would you like your Congressman or Senator to be in the room and drafting legislation? . . . Industries across the country will just have to gauge for themselves how lucky they feel if they kill legislation in terms of how the EPA process will include them."
This "Dirty Harry" theory of governance -- Do you feel lucky? -- is as cynical as it is destructive. And contra Mr. Markey, if cap and tax is killed this year, it will be done in by Democrats, many of whom are starting to realize the economic harm it would inflict. In March, the Senate voted 89 to 8 on a resolution vowing to pass a climate bill only if "such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices."
That's called democracy, but for the Obama Administration such debate is an inconvenient truth. If they can't get Congress to pass their agenda, they'll use EPA and the courts to impose it. How lucky do you feel?
Global Warming Overreach
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Congressman Henry Waxman played to the crowds this week with high-profile hearings designed to boost his climate legislation. To listen to the Energy and Commerce committee chair, a House global warming bill is all but in the recyclable bag.
To listen to Congressman Jim Matheson is something else. During opening statements, the Utah Democrat detailed 14 big problems he had with the bill, and told me later that if he hadn't been limited to five minutes, "I might have had more." Mr. Matheson is one of about 10 moderate committee Democrats who are less than thrilled with the Waxman climate extravaganza, and who may yet stymie one of Barack Obama's signature issues. If so, the president can thank Democratic liberals, who are engaging in one of their first big cases of overreach.
Not that you couldn't see this coming even last year, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered her coup against former Energy chairman John Dingell. House greens had been boiling over the Michigan veteran's cautious approach to climate-legislation. Mr. Dingell's mistake was understanding that when it comes to energy legislation, the divides aren't among parties, but among regions. Design a bill that socks it to all those manufacturing, oil-producing, coal-producing, coal-using states, and say goodbye to the very Democrats necessary to pass that bill.
Such sense didn't deter Mrs. Pelosi, who first tried an end-run around Mr. Dingell in 2007 by putting Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey in charge of a new global-warming committee. When that didn't get her a bill, she helped her fellow Californian, Mr. Waxman, unseat Mr. Dingell. Environmentalists threw a party, and the Waxman-Markey duo got busy on legislation to please their coastal crowds.
Cap and trade was already going to be a brawl, but the two upped the ante by including tougher targets and restrictions. If that weren't enough, they rolled in every other item on the green wish list: a renewable electricity standard; a low-carbon fuel standard; a broader renewable fuels policy; new efficiency standards. Any one of these is a monumental fight on its own. Put together they risk an intra-party committee mutiny.
There's Mr. Matheson, chair of the Blue Dog energy task force, who has made a political career championing energy diversity and his state's fossil fuels, and who understands Utah is mostly reliant on coal for its electricity needs. He says he sees several ways this bill could result in a huge "income transfer" from his state to those less fossil-fuel dependent. Indiana Democrat Baron Hill has a similar problem; not only does his district rely on coal, it is home to coal miners. Rick Boucher, who represents the coal-fields of South Virginia, knows the feeling.
Or consider Texas's Gene Green and Charles Gonzalez, or Louisiana's Charlie Melancon, oil-patch Dems all, whose home-district refineries would be taxed from every which way by the bill. Mr. Dingell remains protective of his district's struggling auto workers, which would be further incapacitated by the bill. Pennsylvania's Mike Doyle won't easily throw his home-state steel industry over a cliff.
Add in the fact that a number of these Democrats hail from districts that could just as easily be in Republicans' hands. They aren't eager to explain to their blue-collar constituents the costs of indulging Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco environmentalists. Remember 1993, when President Bill Clinton proposed an energy tax on BTUs? The House swallowed hard and passed the legislation, only to have Senate Democrats kill it; a year later, Newt Gingrich was in charge. With Senate Democrats already backing away from the Obama cap-and-trade plans, at least a few House Dems are reluctant to walk the plank.
Rumors were in fact flying earlier this week that Mr. Markey might have to postpone next week's subcommittee markup. For now, he and Mr. Waxman are busy trying to buy or arm-twist votes. They have some potent tools, in particular the enticement of giving some carbon-emission permits away for free, or allocating them to specific industries. Yet having set expectations so high, the duo risk losing liberal members if they give away too much.
The Obama team is aware it has trouble, which explains last week's well-timed Environmental Protection Agency "finding" that carbon is a danger. The administration is now using this as a stick to beat Congress to act, arguing that if it doesn't the EPA will. (Reality: Any EPA actions will be tied up in court for years.) It also helps explain EPA's Monday analysis claiming the legislation won't cost all that much. (Reality: The agency could only make this claim by assuming an endless recession.)
The real risk to the president is that his bill goes down at the hands of his own party -- with nary a Republican to blame. Whether Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Waxman considered this as they crafted their gem is unclear. But the overreach has made it a possibility now.
Write to kim@wsj.com
Congressman Henry Waxman played to the crowds this week with high-profile hearings designed to boost his climate legislation. To listen to the Energy and Commerce committee chair, a House global warming bill is all but in the recyclable bag.
To listen to Congressman Jim Matheson is something else. During opening statements, the Utah Democrat detailed 14 big problems he had with the bill, and told me later that if he hadn't been limited to five minutes, "I might have had more." Mr. Matheson is one of about 10 moderate committee Democrats who are less than thrilled with the Waxman climate extravaganza, and who may yet stymie one of Barack Obama's signature issues. If so, the president can thank Democratic liberals, who are engaging in one of their first big cases of overreach.
Not that you couldn't see this coming even last year, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered her coup against former Energy chairman John Dingell. House greens had been boiling over the Michigan veteran's cautious approach to climate-legislation. Mr. Dingell's mistake was understanding that when it comes to energy legislation, the divides aren't among parties, but among regions. Design a bill that socks it to all those manufacturing, oil-producing, coal-producing, coal-using states, and say goodbye to the very Democrats necessary to pass that bill.
Such sense didn't deter Mrs. Pelosi, who first tried an end-run around Mr. Dingell in 2007 by putting Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey in charge of a new global-warming committee. When that didn't get her a bill, she helped her fellow Californian, Mr. Waxman, unseat Mr. Dingell. Environmentalists threw a party, and the Waxman-Markey duo got busy on legislation to please their coastal crowds.
Cap and trade was already going to be a brawl, but the two upped the ante by including tougher targets and restrictions. If that weren't enough, they rolled in every other item on the green wish list: a renewable electricity standard; a low-carbon fuel standard; a broader renewable fuels policy; new efficiency standards. Any one of these is a monumental fight on its own. Put together they risk an intra-party committee mutiny.
There's Mr. Matheson, chair of the Blue Dog energy task force, who has made a political career championing energy diversity and his state's fossil fuels, and who understands Utah is mostly reliant on coal for its electricity needs. He says he sees several ways this bill could result in a huge "income transfer" from his state to those less fossil-fuel dependent. Indiana Democrat Baron Hill has a similar problem; not only does his district rely on coal, it is home to coal miners. Rick Boucher, who represents the coal-fields of South Virginia, knows the feeling.
Or consider Texas's Gene Green and Charles Gonzalez, or Louisiana's Charlie Melancon, oil-patch Dems all, whose home-district refineries would be taxed from every which way by the bill. Mr. Dingell remains protective of his district's struggling auto workers, which would be further incapacitated by the bill. Pennsylvania's Mike Doyle won't easily throw his home-state steel industry over a cliff.
Add in the fact that a number of these Democrats hail from districts that could just as easily be in Republicans' hands. They aren't eager to explain to their blue-collar constituents the costs of indulging Mrs. Pelosi's San Francisco environmentalists. Remember 1993, when President Bill Clinton proposed an energy tax on BTUs? The House swallowed hard and passed the legislation, only to have Senate Democrats kill it; a year later, Newt Gingrich was in charge. With Senate Democrats already backing away from the Obama cap-and-trade plans, at least a few House Dems are reluctant to walk the plank.
Rumors were in fact flying earlier this week that Mr. Markey might have to postpone next week's subcommittee markup. For now, he and Mr. Waxman are busy trying to buy or arm-twist votes. They have some potent tools, in particular the enticement of giving some carbon-emission permits away for free, or allocating them to specific industries. Yet having set expectations so high, the duo risk losing liberal members if they give away too much.
The Obama team is aware it has trouble, which explains last week's well-timed Environmental Protection Agency "finding" that carbon is a danger. The administration is now using this as a stick to beat Congress to act, arguing that if it doesn't the EPA will. (Reality: Any EPA actions will be tied up in court for years.) It also helps explain EPA's Monday analysis claiming the legislation won't cost all that much. (Reality: The agency could only make this claim by assuming an endless recession.)
The real risk to the president is that his bill goes down at the hands of his own party -- with nary a Republican to blame. Whether Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Waxman considered this as they crafted their gem is unclear. But the overreach has made it a possibility now.
Write to kim@wsj.com
We can't rely on the markets alone to fight climate change
The UK government's push for clean coal technology shows it recognises its duty to regulate emissions
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 April 2009 18.00 BST
Bryony WorthingtonThe government has finally come up with a clear policy about the sort of power stations it wants to see built: it wants coal and it wants it to be at least 20% cleaner than would be otherwise. This won't be enough for deep green environmentalists but it is nevertheless a significant step forward from where we are today.
Before today the mantra had been "let the market decide" but today's announcement admits that we can't rely on markets alone to tackle climate change or to stop us becoming too reliant on imported gas supplies - the government has acknowledged it has a duty to regulate.
This will, of course, cost more and we the consumers will be footing the bill. Though to be fair, we have been required to do this in the past for nuclear and are already doing the same for renewables now, so it is not such an outrageous suggestion. And one we should bear if we want to live in a country that is taking the issue of climate change seriously – finally.
The public and opposition parties have been very vocal in pointing out, given the significant role coal plays in climate change, that it would be madness to embark on a programme of building new traditional coal fired power stations as many companies appeared to want to do. And it seems their calls have been partially heeded.
Assuming the policies set out today go ahead (they still have to be consulted on over the summer) it will no longer be possible to build a new coal station in the UK without capturing, from the outset, approximately a fifth to a quarter of the carbon emissions. Many will say this is too low and will seek to use the consultation exercise to increase the ambition. In addition, once the technology is deemed to be commercially "proven" – a definition that will be likely fought over – it will then become mandatory to retrofit it to all stations built between now and then. The government estimates that this will be the case by 2020. It will also consult on back-up measures should this not transpire.
Again, many will argue that 2020 is too slow a timeline. If companies with pre-existing plans to build carbon capture and storage using 'pre-combustion' technologies get going quickly then they could be up and running by 2015 and will be far cleaner from the outset. Pre-combustion CCS involves gassifying the coal to produce a synthetic gas made up of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The former is reacted with water to produce CO2 which is captured, and more hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be burned cleanly to drive a turbine and generate electricity.
If pre-combustion proved successful it would then be hard to argue then that the technology is not available for all. From that point on it should be possible to mandate that all new stations are use 100% CO2 capture. What happens to existing stations will also be up for debate and it will be harder to resist the logic that in fact all stations should be meeting minimum emissions standards from then on.
So why the apparent change of heart? The current structure of DECC has something to do with it, enabling differences of opinion between energy and climate officials to be settled internally rather than escalated to the cabinet. The composition of the cabinet has also helped: Ed Miliband has been much more receptive to the arguments of the NGOs than previous secretaries of state for energy. Treasury officials will have no doubt still tried hard to defend the free market line, but Darling and presumably also Brown have clearly over-ruled them. Mandelson too is currently touting the need for a refreshed industrial policy that embraces future industries rather than protecting incumbents. So the stars were finally favourably aligned. With both Greenpeace and E.ON welcoming the announcement, it seems the new team has successfully dug itself out of a political hole.
And not a moment too soon. Industry needs to know what to build and the previously announced demonstration competition, that ruled out the best projects, was widely perceived to be a mess. The scaling up of ambition signalled today, backed by secure funding sources and tighter regulation, will increase confidence amongst would-be investors and may just be enough to make the UK a global hub for this technology. Let's hope so.
Of course it's important to point out that these measures will not actually save a single extra tonne of carbon from entering the atmosphere because all power stations already have caps on their emissions and unless these are tightened we are just shuffling pollution permits around. It is therefore more an industrial policy for Britain than it is a directly effective climate policy. That said, if it works, we will be doing the world a favour in proving that this technology can be part of the global solution. Committing to pay for this when the pressure to minimise costs is greater than ever, is especially significant, and proof that green and growth are now seen as mutually compatible.
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 April 2009 18.00 BST
Bryony WorthingtonThe government has finally come up with a clear policy about the sort of power stations it wants to see built: it wants coal and it wants it to be at least 20% cleaner than would be otherwise. This won't be enough for deep green environmentalists but it is nevertheless a significant step forward from where we are today.
Before today the mantra had been "let the market decide" but today's announcement admits that we can't rely on markets alone to tackle climate change or to stop us becoming too reliant on imported gas supplies - the government has acknowledged it has a duty to regulate.
This will, of course, cost more and we the consumers will be footing the bill. Though to be fair, we have been required to do this in the past for nuclear and are already doing the same for renewables now, so it is not such an outrageous suggestion. And one we should bear if we want to live in a country that is taking the issue of climate change seriously – finally.
The public and opposition parties have been very vocal in pointing out, given the significant role coal plays in climate change, that it would be madness to embark on a programme of building new traditional coal fired power stations as many companies appeared to want to do. And it seems their calls have been partially heeded.
Assuming the policies set out today go ahead (they still have to be consulted on over the summer) it will no longer be possible to build a new coal station in the UK without capturing, from the outset, approximately a fifth to a quarter of the carbon emissions. Many will say this is too low and will seek to use the consultation exercise to increase the ambition. In addition, once the technology is deemed to be commercially "proven" – a definition that will be likely fought over – it will then become mandatory to retrofit it to all stations built between now and then. The government estimates that this will be the case by 2020. It will also consult on back-up measures should this not transpire.
Again, many will argue that 2020 is too slow a timeline. If companies with pre-existing plans to build carbon capture and storage using 'pre-combustion' technologies get going quickly then they could be up and running by 2015 and will be far cleaner from the outset. Pre-combustion CCS involves gassifying the coal to produce a synthetic gas made up of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The former is reacted with water to produce CO2 which is captured, and more hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be burned cleanly to drive a turbine and generate electricity.
If pre-combustion proved successful it would then be hard to argue then that the technology is not available for all. From that point on it should be possible to mandate that all new stations are use 100% CO2 capture. What happens to existing stations will also be up for debate and it will be harder to resist the logic that in fact all stations should be meeting minimum emissions standards from then on.
So why the apparent change of heart? The current structure of DECC has something to do with it, enabling differences of opinion between energy and climate officials to be settled internally rather than escalated to the cabinet. The composition of the cabinet has also helped: Ed Miliband has been much more receptive to the arguments of the NGOs than previous secretaries of state for energy. Treasury officials will have no doubt still tried hard to defend the free market line, but Darling and presumably also Brown have clearly over-ruled them. Mandelson too is currently touting the need for a refreshed industrial policy that embraces future industries rather than protecting incumbents. So the stars were finally favourably aligned. With both Greenpeace and E.ON welcoming the announcement, it seems the new team has successfully dug itself out of a political hole.
And not a moment too soon. Industry needs to know what to build and the previously announced demonstration competition, that ruled out the best projects, was widely perceived to be a mess. The scaling up of ambition signalled today, backed by secure funding sources and tighter regulation, will increase confidence amongst would-be investors and may just be enough to make the UK a global hub for this technology. Let's hope so.
Of course it's important to point out that these measures will not actually save a single extra tonne of carbon from entering the atmosphere because all power stations already have caps on their emissions and unless these are tightened we are just shuffling pollution permits around. It is therefore more an industrial policy for Britain than it is a directly effective climate policy. That said, if it works, we will be doing the world a favour in proving that this technology can be part of the global solution. Committing to pay for this when the pressure to minimise costs is greater than ever, is especially significant, and proof that green and growth are now seen as mutually compatible.
Tiny steps in a marathon
We still have a long way to go, but this week's climate decisions inch us towards the big target
Nicholas Stern, Alex Bowen and Sam Fankhauser
The Guardian, Friday 24 April 2009
There was much to welcome in Wednesday's budget but many more bold steps towards a low-carbon economy need to be taken over the next few years, as part of a coherent, consistent and credible strategy to tackle climate change.
Most significant was the ground-breaking carbon budget, setting out limits on UK greenhouse gas emissions in future years. The government committed to a reduction of 34% by 2020 compared with 1990, but recognised that this was an interim target. It will ask the Committee on Climate Change to revise the target once the expected international agreement on emissions reductions is reached at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. The committee has already called for a 42% cut in UK emissions as part of an international agreement.
We need a strong carbon price so that people are faced with the true costs of emitting greenhouse gases. The increase in fuel duty above inflation from September signals to consumers they need to help the transition to a low-carbon economy, by paying more in "green taxes" or buying "green" products.
Energy efficiency is the main focus of the green elements of the UK's economic stimulus package. The £375m in the budget, coupled with £210m from the pre-budget report, is a significant investment for the long term that can yield immediate benefits, both in new jobs and helping homes and businesses to manage energy costs. This is a good start, but further investment is required in further years to ensure British buildings minimise the amount of heat and power they waste.
The additional support for wind and other renewable energy sources, leveraged from industry and the European Investment Bank, will help to unblock sources of financial backing that have been hit by the credit crunch. Along with the £405m in public spending on support for low-carbon energy and manufacturing industries, it will create immediate and long-term opportunities for low-carbon economic growth.
The government has taken its boldest "green" step on technology that allows the use of fossil fuels without releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Alistair Darling announced an increase in support for carbon capture and storage, with up to four demonstration projects. It was followed yesterday by Ed Miliband's pledge that no new coal-fired power stations would be built unless they can be fully equipped with carbon capture and storage technology within five years of it being proven on a commercial scale.
Globally over the next 10 years, we need to pilot about 30 full-scale power stations fitted with technology for carbon capture and storage, if we are going to explore properly the potential of this technology. If the UK initiates four full-scale demonstration plants for carbon capture and storage, it would represent more than 10% of the total we need worldwide to provide the evidence base for commercialisation. This could constitute genuine leadership by the UK. But consistency is required in both public policy commitments and implementation if the UK is to meet its emissions reduction targets.
An analysis published earlier this year by HSBC of economic stimulus packages concluded that 7% of the £20bn in recovery measures, including new tax incentives and new public expenditure, outlined in the pre-budget report could be considered "green". The budget promises a greater share of the discretionary measures designed to stimulate economic recovery will be devoted to tackling climate change and promoting low-carbon technologies.
But the proportion in the budget and PBR together is lower than the corresponding "green" portion of the stimulus packages initiated by countries such as China, France and South Korea. The UK should invest more in the future not only to tackle climate change domestically but also to slow deforestation and to boost aid, helping poorer nations with development in a more hostile climate.
The vehicle scrappage scheme, announced in the budget to stimulate sales of new cars, could lead to an increase in emissions, unless consumers choose substantially more fuel-efficient models. It does not directly encourage low-carbon vehicle technologies or switching to less carbon-intensive modes of transport. This shows, like the decision on Heathrow's third runway, how policies are not always joined up.
Ultimately, the success of green measures will be judged by whether the UK reaches its 2020 target and the longer-term ambition of a cut of at least 80% by 2050. We have a long way to go, but we have moved closer to that goal with this week's budget.
• Nicholas Stern, Alex Bowen and Sam Fankhauser and are at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics
Nicholas Stern, Alex Bowen and Sam Fankhauser
The Guardian, Friday 24 April 2009
There was much to welcome in Wednesday's budget but many more bold steps towards a low-carbon economy need to be taken over the next few years, as part of a coherent, consistent and credible strategy to tackle climate change.
Most significant was the ground-breaking carbon budget, setting out limits on UK greenhouse gas emissions in future years. The government committed to a reduction of 34% by 2020 compared with 1990, but recognised that this was an interim target. It will ask the Committee on Climate Change to revise the target once the expected international agreement on emissions reductions is reached at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December. The committee has already called for a 42% cut in UK emissions as part of an international agreement.
We need a strong carbon price so that people are faced with the true costs of emitting greenhouse gases. The increase in fuel duty above inflation from September signals to consumers they need to help the transition to a low-carbon economy, by paying more in "green taxes" or buying "green" products.
Energy efficiency is the main focus of the green elements of the UK's economic stimulus package. The £375m in the budget, coupled with £210m from the pre-budget report, is a significant investment for the long term that can yield immediate benefits, both in new jobs and helping homes and businesses to manage energy costs. This is a good start, but further investment is required in further years to ensure British buildings minimise the amount of heat and power they waste.
The additional support for wind and other renewable energy sources, leveraged from industry and the European Investment Bank, will help to unblock sources of financial backing that have been hit by the credit crunch. Along with the £405m in public spending on support for low-carbon energy and manufacturing industries, it will create immediate and long-term opportunities for low-carbon economic growth.
The government has taken its boldest "green" step on technology that allows the use of fossil fuels without releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Alistair Darling announced an increase in support for carbon capture and storage, with up to four demonstration projects. It was followed yesterday by Ed Miliband's pledge that no new coal-fired power stations would be built unless they can be fully equipped with carbon capture and storage technology within five years of it being proven on a commercial scale.
Globally over the next 10 years, we need to pilot about 30 full-scale power stations fitted with technology for carbon capture and storage, if we are going to explore properly the potential of this technology. If the UK initiates four full-scale demonstration plants for carbon capture and storage, it would represent more than 10% of the total we need worldwide to provide the evidence base for commercialisation. This could constitute genuine leadership by the UK. But consistency is required in both public policy commitments and implementation if the UK is to meet its emissions reduction targets.
An analysis published earlier this year by HSBC of economic stimulus packages concluded that 7% of the £20bn in recovery measures, including new tax incentives and new public expenditure, outlined in the pre-budget report could be considered "green". The budget promises a greater share of the discretionary measures designed to stimulate economic recovery will be devoted to tackling climate change and promoting low-carbon technologies.
But the proportion in the budget and PBR together is lower than the corresponding "green" portion of the stimulus packages initiated by countries such as China, France and South Korea. The UK should invest more in the future not only to tackle climate change domestically but also to slow deforestation and to boost aid, helping poorer nations with development in a more hostile climate.
The vehicle scrappage scheme, announced in the budget to stimulate sales of new cars, could lead to an increase in emissions, unless consumers choose substantially more fuel-efficient models. It does not directly encourage low-carbon vehicle technologies or switching to less carbon-intensive modes of transport. This shows, like the decision on Heathrow's third runway, how policies are not always joined up.
Ultimately, the success of green measures will be judged by whether the UK reaches its 2020 target and the longer-term ambition of a cut of at least 80% by 2050. We have a long way to go, but we have moved closer to that goal with this week's budget.
• Nicholas Stern, Alex Bowen and Sam Fankhauser and are at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics
U.S., California push ahead in climate politics
Reuters, Friday April 24 2009
* Democrats eye compromise for climate legislation
* Climate envoy Stern says legislation key
* California adopts landmark rules on auto fuels
* EPA head tells nations will work toward climate deal
(Adds California adopts low-carbon fuels standard, Schwarzenegger quote)
By Mary Milliken
LOS ANGELES, April 23 (Reuters) - Democrats in Congress worked on Thursday to win over U.S. lawmakers skeptical of climate change legislation, while climate leader California took another major step with low-carbon rules on fuels that could be copied nationwide.
The two moves signaled growing political momentum behind efforts to curb greenhouse gases, which President Barack Obama, a Democrat, has made a policy priority after years of slow going by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern told Reuters in an interview Thursday that "what happens in our own legislative process" will determine the country's commitment to cutting emissions in a global climate deal.[nN23334824]
In California, where climate change legislation was passed in 2006, regulators on Thursday adopted a landmark rule to slash carbon emissions in motor fuels and spur the market for cleaner gasoline alternatives. [nN22279273]
It marks the first attempt by a government anywhere in the world to subject transportation fuels -- as opposed to the cars and trucks they power -- to limits on their potential for releasing greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
"California's first-in-the-world Low Carbon Fuel Standard will not only reduce global warming pollution -- it will reward innovation, expand consumer choice and encourage the private investment we need to transform our energy infrastructure," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said after the landmark decision.
Schwarzenegger said 16 states, Obama and members of Congress support a national standard modeled on California's. Environmental groups say the state may also influence European Union policy.
DEMOCRATS OFFER FLEXIBILITY
In Washington, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held its third consecutive day of hearings on Thursday on a proposal to drastically limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases spewed from factories and utilities.
In the face of staunch opposition from most Republicans and the concerns of several moderate Democrats, Representative Edward Markey announced on Thursday that industries would be allowed some free pollution permits under the legislation, to be written in coming weeks.
There has been a spirited debate on Capitol Hill and within the environmental movement over whether firms should have to pay for all their emission permits, which could affect the price of permits auctioned by the government.
"There are going to be some free allocations of allowances," Markey told reporters, without specifying what entities would receive the allowances or what percentage might be free.
In acknowledging some permits would be free under the bill, Markey may have taken a major step toward enticing some wavering Democrats to support the measure.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who wrote draft climate control legislation with Markey, wants his panel to complete work on the bill by the end of May, teeing up a vote by the full House later in the year.
LEGISLATION NOT 'INSURMOUNTABLE'
The measure faces its toughest hurdle in the 100-member Senate, where 60 votes are needed for passage. But climate envoy Stern said he thought it would be possible to get enough support to pass the bill.
"I don't think the problem's too insurmountable," he said.
The crux of the bill is a cap-and-trade system, favored by Obama, to cut U.S. emissions by roughly 15 percent by 2020 -- back to 1990 levels. That commitment would be welcome by many nations frustrated by U.S. stonewalling on carbon cuts for a decade.
The message of a new climate strategy at the White House echoed abroad in Italy on Thursday, where the top U.S. environment official said her government would work tirelessly toward a deal on global warming. [nLN259261]
"I bring from President Obama his message of hope, his message of change, his message of common purpose for the environment," Lisa Jackson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), told environment ministers from rich and poor nations on her first overseas visit. (Reporting by Deborah Zabarenko, Jeff Mason and Ayesha Rascoe in Washington, Suzanne Hunt in Sacramento and Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; editing by Todd Eastham)
* Democrats eye compromise for climate legislation
* Climate envoy Stern says legislation key
* California adopts landmark rules on auto fuels
* EPA head tells nations will work toward climate deal
(Adds California adopts low-carbon fuels standard, Schwarzenegger quote)
By Mary Milliken
LOS ANGELES, April 23 (Reuters) - Democrats in Congress worked on Thursday to win over U.S. lawmakers skeptical of climate change legislation, while climate leader California took another major step with low-carbon rules on fuels that could be copied nationwide.
The two moves signaled growing political momentum behind efforts to curb greenhouse gases, which President Barack Obama, a Democrat, has made a policy priority after years of slow going by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.
U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern told Reuters in an interview Thursday that "what happens in our own legislative process" will determine the country's commitment to cutting emissions in a global climate deal.[nN23334824]
In California, where climate change legislation was passed in 2006, regulators on Thursday adopted a landmark rule to slash carbon emissions in motor fuels and spur the market for cleaner gasoline alternatives. [nN22279273]
It marks the first attempt by a government anywhere in the world to subject transportation fuels -- as opposed to the cars and trucks they power -- to limits on their potential for releasing greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
"California's first-in-the-world Low Carbon Fuel Standard will not only reduce global warming pollution -- it will reward innovation, expand consumer choice and encourage the private investment we need to transform our energy infrastructure," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said after the landmark decision.
Schwarzenegger said 16 states, Obama and members of Congress support a national standard modeled on California's. Environmental groups say the state may also influence European Union policy.
DEMOCRATS OFFER FLEXIBILITY
In Washington, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held its third consecutive day of hearings on Thursday on a proposal to drastically limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases spewed from factories and utilities.
In the face of staunch opposition from most Republicans and the concerns of several moderate Democrats, Representative Edward Markey announced on Thursday that industries would be allowed some free pollution permits under the legislation, to be written in coming weeks.
There has been a spirited debate on Capitol Hill and within the environmental movement over whether firms should have to pay for all their emission permits, which could affect the price of permits auctioned by the government.
"There are going to be some free allocations of allowances," Markey told reporters, without specifying what entities would receive the allowances or what percentage might be free.
In acknowledging some permits would be free under the bill, Markey may have taken a major step toward enticing some wavering Democrats to support the measure.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who wrote draft climate control legislation with Markey, wants his panel to complete work on the bill by the end of May, teeing up a vote by the full House later in the year.
LEGISLATION NOT 'INSURMOUNTABLE'
The measure faces its toughest hurdle in the 100-member Senate, where 60 votes are needed for passage. But climate envoy Stern said he thought it would be possible to get enough support to pass the bill.
"I don't think the problem's too insurmountable," he said.
The crux of the bill is a cap-and-trade system, favored by Obama, to cut U.S. emissions by roughly 15 percent by 2020 -- back to 1990 levels. That commitment would be welcome by many nations frustrated by U.S. stonewalling on carbon cuts for a decade.
The message of a new climate strategy at the White House echoed abroad in Italy on Thursday, where the top U.S. environment official said her government would work tirelessly toward a deal on global warming. [nLN259261]
"I bring from President Obama his message of hope, his message of change, his message of common purpose for the environment," Lisa Jackson, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), told environment ministers from rich and poor nations on her first overseas visit. (Reporting by Deborah Zabarenko, Jeff Mason and Ayesha Rascoe in Washington, Suzanne Hunt in Sacramento and Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; editing by Todd Eastham)
If carbon capture works we will be doing the world a favour
Pioneering new technology will capture and store 20% of the carbon emissions from a new generation of coal power stations
Bryony Worthington
The Guardian, Friday 24 April 2009
The government has finally come up with a clear policy about new power stations. It wants them to use coal and be at least 20% cleaner than they would be otherwise. This won't be enough for deep green environmentalists but it is nevertheless a significant step forward.
Before, the mantra had been "let the market decide" but yesterday's announcement admits we can't rely on markets alone to tackle climate change or to stop us becoming too reliant on imported gas - the government has acknowledged it has a duty to regulate.
This will, of course, cost more and we the consumers will be footing the bill. Though, to be fair, we have been required to do this in the past for nuclear and are already doing the same for renewables now, so it is one we should bear if we want to live in a country that is taking the issue of climate change seriously - finally.
The public and opposition parties have been very vocal in pointing out that, given the significant role coal plays in climate change, it would be madness to embark on a programme of building traditional coal-fired power stations, as many companies appeared to want to do. And it seems their calls have been partially heeded.
Assuming the policies go ahead (they still have to be consulted on over the summer) it will no longer be possible to build a coal power station in the UK without capturing, from the outset, about a fifth to a quarter of the carbon emissions. Many will say this is too low and will seek to use the consultation to increase the ambition.
In addition, once the technology is deemed to be commercially proven - a definition that will be likely fought over - it will then become mandatory to retrofit it to all stations built between now and then. The government estimates that this will be the case by 2020. It will also consult on back-up measures should this not happen.
So why the apparent change of heart? The current structure of the Department of Energy and Climate Change has something to do with it, enabling differences of opinion between energy and climate officials to be settled internally rather than escalating to the cabinet. The composition of the cabinet has also helped: Ed Miliband has been much more receptive to the arguments of the NGOs than previous secretaries of state for energy. Treasury officials will have no doubt tried hard to defend the free market line, but Darling and presumably also Brown have clearly overruled them. Mandelson too is currently touting the need for a refreshed industrial policy that embraces future industries rather than protecting incumbents. So the stars were finally favourably aligned. With both Greenpeace and E.ON welcoming the announcement, it seems the new team has successfully dug itself out of a political hole.
And not a moment too soon. Industry needs to know what to build and the previously announced demonstration competition, which ruled out the best projects, was widely perceived to be a mess. The scaling up of ambition signalled today, backed by secure funding sources and tighter regulation, will increase confidence among investors and may just be enough to make the UK a global hub for this technology.
Of course it's important to point out these measures will not actually save a single extra tonne of carbon from entering the atmosphere because all power stations already have caps on their emissions and until these are tightened we are just shuffling pollution permits around. It is therefore more an industrial policy for Britain than a directly effective climate policy. That said, if it works, we will be doing the world a favour in proving this technology can be part of the global solution. Committing to pay for this in a recession is especially significant and proof that green and growth are now seen as compatible.
Bryony Worthington
The Guardian, Friday 24 April 2009
The government has finally come up with a clear policy about new power stations. It wants them to use coal and be at least 20% cleaner than they would be otherwise. This won't be enough for deep green environmentalists but it is nevertheless a significant step forward.
Before, the mantra had been "let the market decide" but yesterday's announcement admits we can't rely on markets alone to tackle climate change or to stop us becoming too reliant on imported gas - the government has acknowledged it has a duty to regulate.
This will, of course, cost more and we the consumers will be footing the bill. Though, to be fair, we have been required to do this in the past for nuclear and are already doing the same for renewables now, so it is one we should bear if we want to live in a country that is taking the issue of climate change seriously - finally.
The public and opposition parties have been very vocal in pointing out that, given the significant role coal plays in climate change, it would be madness to embark on a programme of building traditional coal-fired power stations, as many companies appeared to want to do. And it seems their calls have been partially heeded.
Assuming the policies go ahead (they still have to be consulted on over the summer) it will no longer be possible to build a coal power station in the UK without capturing, from the outset, about a fifth to a quarter of the carbon emissions. Many will say this is too low and will seek to use the consultation to increase the ambition.
In addition, once the technology is deemed to be commercially proven - a definition that will be likely fought over - it will then become mandatory to retrofit it to all stations built between now and then. The government estimates that this will be the case by 2020. It will also consult on back-up measures should this not happen.
So why the apparent change of heart? The current structure of the Department of Energy and Climate Change has something to do with it, enabling differences of opinion between energy and climate officials to be settled internally rather than escalating to the cabinet. The composition of the cabinet has also helped: Ed Miliband has been much more receptive to the arguments of the NGOs than previous secretaries of state for energy. Treasury officials will have no doubt tried hard to defend the free market line, but Darling and presumably also Brown have clearly overruled them. Mandelson too is currently touting the need for a refreshed industrial policy that embraces future industries rather than protecting incumbents. So the stars were finally favourably aligned. With both Greenpeace and E.ON welcoming the announcement, it seems the new team has successfully dug itself out of a political hole.
And not a moment too soon. Industry needs to know what to build and the previously announced demonstration competition, which ruled out the best projects, was widely perceived to be a mess. The scaling up of ambition signalled today, backed by secure funding sources and tighter regulation, will increase confidence among investors and may just be enough to make the UK a global hub for this technology.
Of course it's important to point out these measures will not actually save a single extra tonne of carbon from entering the atmosphere because all power stations already have caps on their emissions and until these are tightened we are just shuffling pollution permits around. It is therefore more an industrial policy for Britain than a directly effective climate policy. That said, if it works, we will be doing the world a favour in proving this technology can be part of the global solution. Committing to pay for this in a recession is especially significant and proof that green and growth are now seen as compatible.
UK joins global race to develop carbon capture technology
The UK has become the first country in the world to make CCS compulsory for new coal-fired power plants but it still lags behind its competitors in building demonstration plants
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 April 2009 18.37 BST
The UK's embrace of carbon capture and storage (CCS) propels it into a global race to develop the technology. But while the UK now leads the world in policy - it is the first country in the world to make CCS compulsory for new coal-fired power plants - it still lags behind its competitors when it comes to building the first generation of CCS demonstration power stations.
Many billions of tonnes of coal are certain to be burned in coming decades, and scientists say it is imperative that most of those emissions are buried underground. Those that master CCS technology on a commercial scale stand to gain from a lucrative industrial opportunity. The climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, said that achieveing this could support 50,000 high-tech jobs in the UK by 2030.
But his conservative shadow, Greg Clarke, said government "dithering" had allowed the technology lead to go to the US, China and Germany. "We've known for over a decade now that a third of our generating capacity is going to be turned off during this decade without a remotely adequate plan to replace it with a low carbon alternative.
Stuart Haszledine, an expert in CCS at Edinburgh University, has previously criticised the lack of CCS research effort in the UK - he said just over £6m had been spent on CCS research in the UK in the past decade, compared with $2bn in Canada, and annual spends of around £40m in Norway and several hundreds of millions of dollars in Australia.
But Wednesday's budget allocated £90m for CCS research and yesterday ways were proposed of paying the billions it will cost to build four demonstrations. Haszledine said: "We know where good clusters of power plants will be, and we know where large storage sites are located. If these 'capture corridors' are built, UK CCS will be in a dominant position within the European Union."
Sue Ion, a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said: "It's still early enough for the UK to gain a real foothold in carbon capture and storage technology but only if we get on with it. We learn and become leaders by doing – not by watching others do it from afar."
To date, no CCS trial has in the UK has left the drawing board. In contrast, several overseas projects have already demonstrated the capture of CO2 and others have been burying the gas for many years.
Last year, the Schwarze Pumpe power plant in north Germany became the world's first demonstration of full-chain CCS - incorporating all the steps from capture to transportation to burial. Its operators Vattenfall built a 12MW fossil-fuel-fired boiler from scratch and will bury 100,000 tonnes of CO2 a year 3,000m below the surface of the depleted Altmark gas field.
In June, French energy giant Total's gas-fired power plant at Lacq will start operating the world's first retrofit of a power plant - engineers there have fitted one of the 30MW gas-fired boilers with equipment to trap CO2 and bury it in the nearby Rousse gas field. While still unbuilt, the UK's proposed demonstration will be much larger, at 400MW.
There are at least 20 other projects in construction or planning phases in the United States, China, Norway, Germany, France and Australia.
These include the Mountaineer power plant in West Virginia, which aims to trap 1.5m tonnes of CO2 per year by 2012. AEP is also constructing plants in North Dakota and Oklahoma.
In Australia, the ZeroGen project will start in 2012, using pre-combustion technology on a 120MW power plant while the main Chinese CCS plan includes GreenGen, a pre-combustion power plant up to 650MW that could begin working in 2018.
British companies are also building the technology abroad - in Australia, BP is working with Rio Tinto to build a 500MW hydrogen-fueled power plant that would capture and store CO2 under the sea bed after 2014
The European Union has plans for 12 demonstration plants to be in operation within the next decade and has reserved 300m carbon credits from the next stage of the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) to help fund the technology.
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 April 2009 18.37 BST
The UK's embrace of carbon capture and storage (CCS) propels it into a global race to develop the technology. But while the UK now leads the world in policy - it is the first country in the world to make CCS compulsory for new coal-fired power plants - it still lags behind its competitors when it comes to building the first generation of CCS demonstration power stations.
Many billions of tonnes of coal are certain to be burned in coming decades, and scientists say it is imperative that most of those emissions are buried underground. Those that master CCS technology on a commercial scale stand to gain from a lucrative industrial opportunity. The climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, said that achieveing this could support 50,000 high-tech jobs in the UK by 2030.
But his conservative shadow, Greg Clarke, said government "dithering" had allowed the technology lead to go to the US, China and Germany. "We've known for over a decade now that a third of our generating capacity is going to be turned off during this decade without a remotely adequate plan to replace it with a low carbon alternative.
Stuart Haszledine, an expert in CCS at Edinburgh University, has previously criticised the lack of CCS research effort in the UK - he said just over £6m had been spent on CCS research in the UK in the past decade, compared with $2bn in Canada, and annual spends of around £40m in Norway and several hundreds of millions of dollars in Australia.
But Wednesday's budget allocated £90m for CCS research and yesterday ways were proposed of paying the billions it will cost to build four demonstrations. Haszledine said: "We know where good clusters of power plants will be, and we know where large storage sites are located. If these 'capture corridors' are built, UK CCS will be in a dominant position within the European Union."
Sue Ion, a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said: "It's still early enough for the UK to gain a real foothold in carbon capture and storage technology but only if we get on with it. We learn and become leaders by doing – not by watching others do it from afar."
To date, no CCS trial has in the UK has left the drawing board. In contrast, several overseas projects have already demonstrated the capture of CO2 and others have been burying the gas for many years.
Last year, the Schwarze Pumpe power plant in north Germany became the world's first demonstration of full-chain CCS - incorporating all the steps from capture to transportation to burial. Its operators Vattenfall built a 12MW fossil-fuel-fired boiler from scratch and will bury 100,000 tonnes of CO2 a year 3,000m below the surface of the depleted Altmark gas field.
In June, French energy giant Total's gas-fired power plant at Lacq will start operating the world's first retrofit of a power plant - engineers there have fitted one of the 30MW gas-fired boilers with equipment to trap CO2 and bury it in the nearby Rousse gas field. While still unbuilt, the UK's proposed demonstration will be much larger, at 400MW.
There are at least 20 other projects in construction or planning phases in the United States, China, Norway, Germany, France and Australia.
These include the Mountaineer power plant in West Virginia, which aims to trap 1.5m tonnes of CO2 per year by 2012. AEP is also constructing plants in North Dakota and Oklahoma.
In Australia, the ZeroGen project will start in 2012, using pre-combustion technology on a 120MW power plant while the main Chinese CCS plan includes GreenGen, a pre-combustion power plant up to 650MW that could begin working in 2018.
British companies are also building the technology abroad - in Australia, BP is working with Rio Tinto to build a 500MW hydrogen-fueled power plant that would capture and store CO2 under the sea bed after 2014
The European Union has plans for 12 demonstration plants to be in operation within the next decade and has reserved 300m carbon credits from the next stage of the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) to help fund the technology.
UK gives green light to coal-fired power stations
Times Online
April 23, 2009
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Britain gave a green light to the construction of up to four coal-fired power stations, but insisted that developers offer a guarantee to bury some of their carbon emissions underground.
The scheme, which will be paid for through a levy of up to 2 per cent on the household bills paid by all 26 million households in the UK, represents a significant shot in the arm for British hopes of mastering carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which advocates say will play a critical role in efforts to tackle climate change.
“I believe that we need to signal a move away from the building of unabated coal-fired power stations, because it is right for our country to drive us towards low carbon as part of a progressive decarbonisation,” Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said.
He said that the project, which will see coal-fired stations built at Kingsnorth, in Kent, Hatfield, near Doncaster, and two other sites, was “the most environmentally ambitious of any country in the world”.
CCS, by which the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is stripped out using chemical scrubbers and piped for storage in old gasfields beneath the seabed, remains an unproven technology at commercial scale and has only ever been demonstrated at pilot plants generating 30 megawatts of electricity.
But under the terms of the scheme, power companies would have to apply CCS to 400 MW of power production, or a quarter to half of a typical coal plant, and would have to fit it to their entire output by 2025.
The inclusion of the CCS technology is expected to add about $1 billion (£685 million) to the cost of building each coal power station.
Mr Miliband said that the first plant could be operational by 2015.
Green goups welcomed the announcement.
“At last Ed Miliband is demonstrating welcome signs of climate leadership in the face of resistance from Whitehall officials and Cabinet colleagues,” John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said.
“He is the first minister in 12 years to throw down the gauntlet to the energy companies and demand they start taking climate change seriously.”
Matthew Lockwood, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said: "The Government has now stepped up to the mark on coal. The ban on new , unabated coal-fired power stations is the most important UK climate policy we have seen so far.”
But critics said the announcement was long overdue and others questioned how the scheme would be funded.
April 23, 2009
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Britain gave a green light to the construction of up to four coal-fired power stations, but insisted that developers offer a guarantee to bury some of their carbon emissions underground.
The scheme, which will be paid for through a levy of up to 2 per cent on the household bills paid by all 26 million households in the UK, represents a significant shot in the arm for British hopes of mastering carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which advocates say will play a critical role in efforts to tackle climate change.
“I believe that we need to signal a move away from the building of unabated coal-fired power stations, because it is right for our country to drive us towards low carbon as part of a progressive decarbonisation,” Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said.
He said that the project, which will see coal-fired stations built at Kingsnorth, in Kent, Hatfield, near Doncaster, and two other sites, was “the most environmentally ambitious of any country in the world”.
CCS, by which the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is stripped out using chemical scrubbers and piped for storage in old gasfields beneath the seabed, remains an unproven technology at commercial scale and has only ever been demonstrated at pilot plants generating 30 megawatts of electricity.
But under the terms of the scheme, power companies would have to apply CCS to 400 MW of power production, or a quarter to half of a typical coal plant, and would have to fit it to their entire output by 2025.
The inclusion of the CCS technology is expected to add about $1 billion (£685 million) to the cost of building each coal power station.
Mr Miliband said that the first plant could be operational by 2015.
Green goups welcomed the announcement.
“At last Ed Miliband is demonstrating welcome signs of climate leadership in the face of resistance from Whitehall officials and Cabinet colleagues,” John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, said.
“He is the first minister in 12 years to throw down the gauntlet to the energy companies and demand they start taking climate change seriously.”
Matthew Lockwood, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, said: "The Government has now stepped up to the mark on coal. The ban on new , unabated coal-fired power stations is the most important UK climate policy we have seen so far.”
But critics said the announcement was long overdue and others questioned how the scheme would be funded.
Ed Miliband: Coal with carbon capture and storage may fail but we have to try
The Times
April 24, 2009
Analysis: Robin Pagnamenta
Ed Miliband's policy of no new coal without carbon capture and storage (CCS) is certainly ambitious - but it represents a leap of faith almost as impressive as the Chancellor's Budget predictions.
The Energy Secretary wants as many as four CCS demonstration projects built, based on the expectation that the technology will be commercially viable by 2020. This, however, is by no means assured.
Small projects have succeeded in Germany and Canada but there is uncertainty over whether the technology can work on the scale required to make a difference in tackling climate change.These plants will be enormous: think of a structure the size of two Wembley stadiums. They represent a mammoth technical and engineering challenge. CCS is hugely energy-intensive - and there is the issue of how huge quantities of carbon will be piped out to subsea rock formations that formerly held natural gas.
The scientific principles underpinning each stage of this process are well understood, but putting all of this into practice could take far longer than 2020 and could be very expensive.
The Government could not say if the coal plants would operate “untreated” if the demonstration projects didn't work. It was also unclear just how the Environment Agency would make its decision over when CCS was viable.
Then there is the issue of cost and whether Mr Miliband is exposing consumers to huge overruns. Still, he deserves plaudits for trying. This is bold policymaking of the kind that may be necessary to deal with a global challenge.
April 24, 2009
Analysis: Robin Pagnamenta
Ed Miliband's policy of no new coal without carbon capture and storage (CCS) is certainly ambitious - but it represents a leap of faith almost as impressive as the Chancellor's Budget predictions.
The Energy Secretary wants as many as four CCS demonstration projects built, based on the expectation that the technology will be commercially viable by 2020. This, however, is by no means assured.
Small projects have succeeded in Germany and Canada but there is uncertainty over whether the technology can work on the scale required to make a difference in tackling climate change.These plants will be enormous: think of a structure the size of two Wembley stadiums. They represent a mammoth technical and engineering challenge. CCS is hugely energy-intensive - and there is the issue of how huge quantities of carbon will be piped out to subsea rock formations that formerly held natural gas.
The scientific principles underpinning each stage of this process are well understood, but putting all of this into practice could take far longer than 2020 and could be very expensive.
The Government could not say if the coal plants would operate “untreated” if the demonstration projects didn't work. It was also unclear just how the Environment Agency would make its decision over when CCS was viable.
Then there is the issue of cost and whether Mr Miliband is exposing consumers to huge overruns. Still, he deserves plaudits for trying. This is bold policymaking of the kind that may be necessary to deal with a global challenge.
New coal power plants must capture carbon
By Fiona Harvey and Ed Crooks
Published: April 24 2009 03:00
New coal-fired power stations to be built in the UK must have carbon capture and storage facilities, the government said yesterday.
The decision means that plans to build a new plant at Kingsnorth, which has been a focus for protests by environmental activists, can now go ahead. Its owner Eon said yesterday it would install carbon capture and storage equipment at one of the four units on the site.
Consumers will subsidise power companies to build the plants through an addition to bills that will reach 2 per cent, or £8 on the average bill, in 2020. The stations will receive the funding for 10 to 15 years. But the government will allow only up to four plants to benefit, so plans for several coal-fired power stations without CCS might have to be shelved.
Ed Miliband, energy and climate change secretary, said there was a "massive opportunity" for the UK to pioneer what could be a lucrative technology. The minister said it was needed because a third of the UK's coal-fired power stations would be closed in the next decade. "We are investing in British skills so our industries can lead CCS, not just within Britain, but at power stations around the world," he said.
CCS technology has been demonstrated at a small scale but the government's plans would mean new demonstrations 10 times bigger than any previously tried.
The UK has large depleted oilfields in the North Sea where carbon could be stored.
Mr Miliband defended the government's decision to allow new coal power stations to be built even if only part of the plant - at least 400MW of the capacity - were fitted with CCS. Such plants would be allowed to operate until 2025, when they would have to be fitted fully with CCS. "To have 100 per cent CCS from day one I don't think would be practical or affordable," he said. The government will consult on whether the 11 existing coal-fired power stations expected still to be running in the 2020s should have to be retrofitted with CCS.
Two of the four possible funded plants are expected to use technology known as integrated gasification combined cycle, in which the coal is heated to a gas that is split into carbon dioxide, which is stored, and hydrogen, which is burnt to power turbines. The others will use post-combustion technology, by which the carbon dioxide is separated from the exhaust gases from a standard coal-fired plant.
Post-combustion technology is the only one possible for retrofitting the thousands of existing coal-fired power plants around the world but IGCC is a more proven technology.
Generators welcomed Mr Miliband's announcement. Paul Golby, Eon UK's chief executive, said: "This is a vital step by the government that recognises the critical role that carbon capture and storage will play in decarbonising the UK and, if we can lead the way as a nation, the world."
Eon is likely to revive its plan for an IGCC plant at Killingholme on Humberside alongside Kingsnorth, a post-combustion plant.
Nick Horler, chief executive of ScottishPower, owned by Iberdrola of Spain, said: "Continued momentum on the demonstration project and investment in a UK skills base is essential for the UK to take a real advantage in this emerging market."
Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, said: "At long last the government is putting some momentum into CCS." But he said the government, which will consult on its plans until the summer, must move with greater urgency if the UK were to be a pioneer. "It's now three years since the first consultation on this. Let this be the last consultation and let's get on with it."
www.ft.com/budgetvideo
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: April 24 2009 03:00
New coal-fired power stations to be built in the UK must have carbon capture and storage facilities, the government said yesterday.
The decision means that plans to build a new plant at Kingsnorth, which has been a focus for protests by environmental activists, can now go ahead. Its owner Eon said yesterday it would install carbon capture and storage equipment at one of the four units on the site.
Consumers will subsidise power companies to build the plants through an addition to bills that will reach 2 per cent, or £8 on the average bill, in 2020. The stations will receive the funding for 10 to 15 years. But the government will allow only up to four plants to benefit, so plans for several coal-fired power stations without CCS might have to be shelved.
Ed Miliband, energy and climate change secretary, said there was a "massive opportunity" for the UK to pioneer what could be a lucrative technology. The minister said it was needed because a third of the UK's coal-fired power stations would be closed in the next decade. "We are investing in British skills so our industries can lead CCS, not just within Britain, but at power stations around the world," he said.
CCS technology has been demonstrated at a small scale but the government's plans would mean new demonstrations 10 times bigger than any previously tried.
The UK has large depleted oilfields in the North Sea where carbon could be stored.
Mr Miliband defended the government's decision to allow new coal power stations to be built even if only part of the plant - at least 400MW of the capacity - were fitted with CCS. Such plants would be allowed to operate until 2025, when they would have to be fitted fully with CCS. "To have 100 per cent CCS from day one I don't think would be practical or affordable," he said. The government will consult on whether the 11 existing coal-fired power stations expected still to be running in the 2020s should have to be retrofitted with CCS.
Two of the four possible funded plants are expected to use technology known as integrated gasification combined cycle, in which the coal is heated to a gas that is split into carbon dioxide, which is stored, and hydrogen, which is burnt to power turbines. The others will use post-combustion technology, by which the carbon dioxide is separated from the exhaust gases from a standard coal-fired plant.
Post-combustion technology is the only one possible for retrofitting the thousands of existing coal-fired power plants around the world but IGCC is a more proven technology.
Generators welcomed Mr Miliband's announcement. Paul Golby, Eon UK's chief executive, said: "This is a vital step by the government that recognises the critical role that carbon capture and storage will play in decarbonising the UK and, if we can lead the way as a nation, the world."
Eon is likely to revive its plan for an IGCC plant at Killingholme on Humberside alongside Kingsnorth, a post-combustion plant.
Nick Horler, chief executive of ScottishPower, owned by Iberdrola of Spain, said: "Continued momentum on the demonstration project and investment in a UK skills base is essential for the UK to take a real advantage in this emerging market."
Jeff Chapman, chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, said: "At long last the government is putting some momentum into CCS." But he said the government, which will consult on its plans until the summer, must move with greater urgency if the UK were to be a pioneer. "It's now three years since the first consultation on this. Let this be the last consultation and let's get on with it."
www.ft.com/budgetvideo
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
