Half a million households have traditionally used wood for cooking, heating, housing
Village leader Zhang Chengui was first in Meiquan to adopt alternative energy
Hundreds of households have since signed on, thanks to credit and grants
Zhang's income has tripled; children freed up to attend university, he says
LIJIANG, China (CNN) -- In the northwest of China's mountainous Yunnan province, among the world's most biodiverse areas, a green revolution is under way among rural residents.
In Meiquan Village near Lashi Lake, Zhang Chengui says he has been able to maximize profits by spending more time growing crops since installing a biogas digester-greenhouse, solar water heater, energy-efficient stove and rain-collecting cistern. He installed them with loans from the bank and grants from The Nature Conservancy, becoming in 2003 the first in his village to adopt alternative energy.
Since then, his income has tripled to 40,000-50,000 yuan ($5,800-$7,300), he said.
The region, which sees the crossing of three of Asia's great rivers -- the Yangtze, Mekong and Salween -- is a poor one, with firewood traditionally being the source for cooking, heating and housing for half a million households. However, despite a decade-long ban on commercial logging, such a firewood-dependent lifestyle poses a threat to Yunnan's forests and its more than 17,000 plants and wildlife, including the endangered golden monkey.
Zhang's status as Meiquan's village leader made him a natural choice to launch the alternative energy project there. By enlisting him as an ally, The Nature Conservancy was able to slowly persuade other villagers, who would otherwise be hesitant to invest their limited money.
Hundreds of households in the area have followed his lead. Under the Nature Conservancy's alternative energy project, 820 households adopted biogas digesters, and 600 adopted solar water heaters, many of them choosing both, according to Zhu Li, communications manager at the nongovernmental organization's Kunming office.
The Nature Conservancy says it and partners have taken the alternative energy project to 420 villages in Yunnan, installing more than 14,000 biogas units, energy efficient stoves and solar water heating systems. Most of those villages are remote and had relied on nearby forests as opposed to a power grid.
To tap money for such devices, villagers can receive small loans under the GreenVillage Credit program. Part of the United Nations Environment Programme's China Rural Energy Enterprises Development (CREED) initiative, the program has successful precedents in five African nations -- Senegal, Mali, Ghana, Zambia and Tanzania -- and northeast Brazil. The approach, developed by clean energy investor E+Co, helps entrepreneurs take risks in an otherwise emerging sector in order to gain public trust and attract commercial investment.
The goal is to overcome the hurdles generally posed by limited money and training in such remote areas -- and reduce fuel wood consumption by 75 percent. The initiative -- which links the government with nongovernmental organizations and financial institutions -- harnesses financing, alternative energy sources, entrepreneurship and training into income-generating activities.
In addition, the CREED initiative aims to provide alternatives for rural areas where women and children shoulder the burden of collecting firewood and wood burning. The number of hours spent daily, as well as the detrimental health effects of wood burning and indoor pollution -- such as eye and respiratory ailments -- risk contributing to the persistence of the area's poverty.
In a report last year ("Investing in a Climate for Change"), the U.N. Environment Programme said that finance is "essential" in addressing climate change. "Without substantial and sustained investment in clean energy and other measures now, the reality of a global economy free of climate change impacts will remain a distant dream," the report noted.
For most Yunnan households, whose average yearly income is a few hundred dollars, a biogas digester ($150-$300), a solar water heater ($400), or an efficiency stove ($40-80) is too costly, The Nature Conservancy points out.
Under GreenVillage Credit, households can apply for loans up to 10,000 yuan ($1460) after mapping out their income-generating activity from such devices. To offset any default, 5 percent of the loan is deposited at a bank as a guarantee, and a solidarity group of five to eight households is formed to share responsibility for the member's loan repayments. In return, participants get technical support and have about 18 months to pay the loan off.
Nearly 600 households have been able to tap more than $300,000 in loans to purchase such energy-efficient systems and generate income, thanks to GreenVillage Credit.
Whereas Zhang's family used to spend hours seeking, chopping and carrying firewood, the switch to alternative energy has enabled them to save the equivalent of 100 working days, he estimated. Thanks to the solar heater, a shower is a daily possibility, and the biogas digester -- which converts human and pig waste to a clean gas that can be pressurized -- has enabled cooking and lighting. More time is then left to devote to his income-generating greenhouse, which uses waste slurry left over from the biogas digester as fertilizer for his grapes, strawberries, apples, plums, cherries, peaches, eggplant, cucumber, tomatoes and squash.
Thanks to increased income, his children were freed up to attend the university, said the 53-year-old Zhang, whose own education ended with high school. Zhang's children have since graduated; his son became a magazine editor, while his daughter became a government official, Zhang said.
"What we have today cannot be separated from alternative energy," Zhang told journalists visiting his home last year. His life's goal, he said, was to educate the next generation well and see an improvement in his grandchildren's lives.
Elsewhere in China, biogas projects have proven more popular than in Yunnan, where colder temperatures generally require a greenhouse to cover the units.
As of the end of 2007, more than 26.5 million rural households were using household biodigesters, saving the equivalent of 44 million tons of CO2 emissions, according to China's State Council Information Office. The number is notable for a country criticized for its environmental record while trying to bridge a wide
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
In-vitro meat: Would lab-burgers be better for us and the planet?
Ongoing research into in-vitro meat; grown in a lab using animal samples
Advocates say in-vitro meat is better for health of humans and environment
Lab-made meat could be served in a decade, says research scientist Jason Matheny
A pioneering group of scientists are working to grow real animal protein in the laboratory, which they not only claim is better for animal welfare, but actually healthier, both for people and the planet. It may sound like science fiction, but this technology to create in-vitro meat could be changing global diets within ten years.
"Cultured meat would have a lot of advantages," said Jason Matheny of research group New Harvest. "We could precisely control the amount of fat in meat. We could make ground beef with an ideal fatty acid ratio -- a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them."
But it isn't just the possibility of creating designer ground beef with the fat profile of salmon that drives Matheny's work. Meat and livestock farming is also the source of many human diseases, which he claims would be far less common when the product is raised in laboratory conditions.
"We could reduce the risks of diseases like swine flu, avian flu, 'mad cow disease', or contamination from Salmonella," he told CNN. "We could produce meat in sterile conditions that are impossible in conventional animal farms and slaughterhouses. And when we grow only the meat we can eat, it's more efficient. There's no need to grow the whole animal and lose 75 to 95 percent of what we feed it."
Conventional meat production is also hard on the environment. The contribution of livestock to climate change was recently highlighted by the United Nations' report, "Livestock's Long Shadow", while groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have demonstrated how soy farming for animal feed contributes to the destruction of the Amazon.
In this context Matheny believes his project could significantly cut the environmental impact of meat production -- using much less water and producing far fewer greenhouse gases.
"We could reduce the environmental footprint of meat, which currently contributes more to global warming than the entire transportation sector," says Matheny.
Preliminary results from a study by Hanna Tuomisto, at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, suggest that cultured meat would reduce the carbon emissions of meat production by more than 80 percent.
Making cultured meat
In-vitro meat is made from samples of animals conventionally slaughtered. For example, "pork" is made from pig ovaries retrieved from slaughterhouses, which are fertilized with pig semen, transforming them into embryos. They are then placed in a nutrient solution, where they grow and develop.
It's a long way from the popular image of animals wandering round the farmyard in the sunshine, but then so is modern intensive farming. The factor that could take the research from the lab to the store and into refrigerators around the world is its remarkable commercial potential.
According to New Harvest, meat is already estimated to be a $1 trillion global market, and demand is expected to double by 2050. With concerns about health, animal welfare and the environment growing the appeal of in vitro meat is obvious.
Watch moreWatch Eco Solutions interview with Jason Matheny, the research scientist for in-vitro meat, and more about meat's impact on the environment on CNN International at 7pm ET on Sunday, August 9.
Matheny told CNN that venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers have shown an interest in his technology, while Stegman, a sausage subsidiary of food giant Sara Lee, is a partner. The Netherlands' Government has also invested around $4 million in Dutch research into in-vitro meat production.
But it isn't just the suits who are circling with their checkbooks out -- campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have announced a $1 million prize for the first commercially viable in vitro chicken product. The Humane Society of the United States has also been supportive.
"We think that a technology to produce cultured ground meats -- burgers, sausages, nuggets, and so forth -- could be commercialized within ten years," said Matheny.
"As with most technologies, successive generations should improve in price, quality, and acceptance. We don't think that matching the taste and texture of ground meats will be very difficult. Both conventional and cultured meat is made of muscle tissue. And conventional ground meat is typically highly processed. Chicken nuggets for instance, are made of something called 'meat slurry' -- it would be hard not to do better!"
Public attitude
But the public doesn't always blindly buy what companies believe they should, and acceptance of what is a very radical proposition certainly isn't a foregone conclusion. There are bound to be claims of "Frankenfoods," and reaction against the work.
"Social acceptance isn't guaranteed, but we all want meat that's safer and healthier," he said. "If cultured meat looks, tastes, and costs the same as regular meat, then I think acceptance will be high. The more we learn about the health and environmental impact of conventional meat, the more cultured meat looks like a good alternative."
One obvious touchstone for how in-vitro-meat will be received by the public is perhaps the way GM crops were -- or were not - accepted around the world, something that Matheny draws encouragement from.
"What's interesting about the GM issue is that it has been controversial in some places, but is a non-issue for most consumers," he said.
"Most Americans are regularly eating GM foods. In any case, it's not necessarily the case that cultured meat would involve GM foods.
"We all want meat that's safer and healthier. If cultured meat looks, tastes, and costs the same as regular meat, then do we care that it's produced in a steel tank, rather than in an animal farm?
"Take hydroponic vegetables. We like the idea that they're produced in sterile water instead of dirt and manure. It's true that in-vitro meat isn't natural. Nor for that matter are hydroponic vegetables, or bread, or cheese, or wine. Raising 10,000 chickens indoors and pumping them full of drugs isn't natural, either, and it isn't healthy or safe. The more we learn about how meat is produced now, the more in-vitro meat looks like a better alternative."
Lab-produced meat also raises some ethical considerations. Kate McMahon, Friends of the Earth Energy and Transport campaigner, believes more attention should be paid to improving livestock conditions rather than developing in-vitro meat.
"At a time when hundreds of small-scale, sustainable farming operations are filing for bankruptcy every day, it is unethical to consider purchasing petri dish meat. Rather, we should be making it easier and more affordable to raise livestock in a safe, humane and ecologically sensitive manner," she told CNN.
Gillian Madill, Genetics Technologies spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, thinks that clear parameters for in-vitro development need to put in place: "If we can successfully develop these products, what is the defining line between lab-grown meat and natural animals?" she told CNN.
"That is an especially important question since a high level of differentiation and tissue complexity is required to replicate muscle tissue that we use as meat. We need to draw clear lines in order to prevent the commodification of all life."
Ultimately the success of in-vitro meat may be less about consumer sensibilities and more about the hard realities of feeding a growing global population in a finite world.
"With India and China doubling their meat consumption every decade, there's no sustainable way to satisfy the growing global appetite for meat without a significant improvement in technology," said Matheny.
"Cultured meat offers one solution. Improved plant-based meat substitutes offer another. I expect both will be needed."
Advocates say in-vitro meat is better for health of humans and environment
Lab-made meat could be served in a decade, says research scientist Jason Matheny
A pioneering group of scientists are working to grow real animal protein in the laboratory, which they not only claim is better for animal welfare, but actually healthier, both for people and the planet. It may sound like science fiction, but this technology to create in-vitro meat could be changing global diets within ten years.
"Cultured meat would have a lot of advantages," said Jason Matheny of research group New Harvest. "We could precisely control the amount of fat in meat. We could make ground beef with an ideal fatty acid ratio -- a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them."
But it isn't just the possibility of creating designer ground beef with the fat profile of salmon that drives Matheny's work. Meat and livestock farming is also the source of many human diseases, which he claims would be far less common when the product is raised in laboratory conditions.
"We could reduce the risks of diseases like swine flu, avian flu, 'mad cow disease', or contamination from Salmonella," he told CNN. "We could produce meat in sterile conditions that are impossible in conventional animal farms and slaughterhouses. And when we grow only the meat we can eat, it's more efficient. There's no need to grow the whole animal and lose 75 to 95 percent of what we feed it."
Conventional meat production is also hard on the environment. The contribution of livestock to climate change was recently highlighted by the United Nations' report, "Livestock's Long Shadow", while groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have demonstrated how soy farming for animal feed contributes to the destruction of the Amazon.
In this context Matheny believes his project could significantly cut the environmental impact of meat production -- using much less water and producing far fewer greenhouse gases.
"We could reduce the environmental footprint of meat, which currently contributes more to global warming than the entire transportation sector," says Matheny.
Preliminary results from a study by Hanna Tuomisto, at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, suggest that cultured meat would reduce the carbon emissions of meat production by more than 80 percent.
Making cultured meat
In-vitro meat is made from samples of animals conventionally slaughtered. For example, "pork" is made from pig ovaries retrieved from slaughterhouses, which are fertilized with pig semen, transforming them into embryos. They are then placed in a nutrient solution, where they grow and develop.
It's a long way from the popular image of animals wandering round the farmyard in the sunshine, but then so is modern intensive farming. The factor that could take the research from the lab to the store and into refrigerators around the world is its remarkable commercial potential.
According to New Harvest, meat is already estimated to be a $1 trillion global market, and demand is expected to double by 2050. With concerns about health, animal welfare and the environment growing the appeal of in vitro meat is obvious.
Watch moreWatch Eco Solutions interview with Jason Matheny, the research scientist for in-vitro meat, and more about meat's impact on the environment on CNN International at 7pm ET on Sunday, August 9.
Matheny told CNN that venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers have shown an interest in his technology, while Stegman, a sausage subsidiary of food giant Sara Lee, is a partner. The Netherlands' Government has also invested around $4 million in Dutch research into in-vitro meat production.
But it isn't just the suits who are circling with their checkbooks out -- campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have announced a $1 million prize for the first commercially viable in vitro chicken product. The Humane Society of the United States has also been supportive.
"We think that a technology to produce cultured ground meats -- burgers, sausages, nuggets, and so forth -- could be commercialized within ten years," said Matheny.
"As with most technologies, successive generations should improve in price, quality, and acceptance. We don't think that matching the taste and texture of ground meats will be very difficult. Both conventional and cultured meat is made of muscle tissue. And conventional ground meat is typically highly processed. Chicken nuggets for instance, are made of something called 'meat slurry' -- it would be hard not to do better!"
Public attitude
But the public doesn't always blindly buy what companies believe they should, and acceptance of what is a very radical proposition certainly isn't a foregone conclusion. There are bound to be claims of "Frankenfoods," and reaction against the work.
"Social acceptance isn't guaranteed, but we all want meat that's safer and healthier," he said. "If cultured meat looks, tastes, and costs the same as regular meat, then I think acceptance will be high. The more we learn about the health and environmental impact of conventional meat, the more cultured meat looks like a good alternative."
One obvious touchstone for how in-vitro-meat will be received by the public is perhaps the way GM crops were -- or were not - accepted around the world, something that Matheny draws encouragement from.
"What's interesting about the GM issue is that it has been controversial in some places, but is a non-issue for most consumers," he said.
"Most Americans are regularly eating GM foods. In any case, it's not necessarily the case that cultured meat would involve GM foods.
"We all want meat that's safer and healthier. If cultured meat looks, tastes, and costs the same as regular meat, then do we care that it's produced in a steel tank, rather than in an animal farm?
"Take hydroponic vegetables. We like the idea that they're produced in sterile water instead of dirt and manure. It's true that in-vitro meat isn't natural. Nor for that matter are hydroponic vegetables, or bread, or cheese, or wine. Raising 10,000 chickens indoors and pumping them full of drugs isn't natural, either, and it isn't healthy or safe. The more we learn about how meat is produced now, the more in-vitro meat looks like a better alternative."
Lab-produced meat also raises some ethical considerations. Kate McMahon, Friends of the Earth Energy and Transport campaigner, believes more attention should be paid to improving livestock conditions rather than developing in-vitro meat.
"At a time when hundreds of small-scale, sustainable farming operations are filing for bankruptcy every day, it is unethical to consider purchasing petri dish meat. Rather, we should be making it easier and more affordable to raise livestock in a safe, humane and ecologically sensitive manner," she told CNN.
Gillian Madill, Genetics Technologies spokesperson for Friends of the Earth, thinks that clear parameters for in-vitro development need to put in place: "If we can successfully develop these products, what is the defining line between lab-grown meat and natural animals?" she told CNN.
"That is an especially important question since a high level of differentiation and tissue complexity is required to replicate muscle tissue that we use as meat. We need to draw clear lines in order to prevent the commodification of all life."
Ultimately the success of in-vitro meat may be less about consumer sensibilities and more about the hard realities of feeding a growing global population in a finite world.
"With India and China doubling their meat consumption every decade, there's no sustainable way to satisfy the growing global appetite for meat without a significant improvement in technology," said Matheny.
"Cultured meat offers one solution. Improved plant-based meat substitutes offer another. I expect both will be needed."
Biofuel Bet Aims to Harvest Fish That Feed on Algae
Start-Up Wants to Render Oil by Targeting 'Dead Zones' in the Gulf of Mexico; 'The Sea Equivalent of Traveling Goats'
By RUSSELL GOLD
Each spring, fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi River floods into the Gulf of Mexico, causing a massive algae bloom that leads to a giant oxygen-deprived "dead zone" where fish can't survive.
Now, this annual problem is getting new attention, not from marine scientists but from entrepreneurs looking for a new domestic source of fuel. And one start-up sees fish themselves being part of the process.
The algae blooms are spawned each year as the farmland runoff from as far away as Montana flows into rivers, eventually reaching the Mississippi and flowing into Louisiana bayous and out into the Gulf of Mexico. These nutrients are a buffet for the floating algae, or phytoplankton, which are simple sea organisms that eat and reproduce quickly. This algae bloom eventually sinks and feeds bacteria, which undergo their own population bonanza, and the bacteria suck up so much oxygen that fish and plants either move away or perish.
Looking Back at Industrial Innovations
Journal articles on industrial innovations of the 1940s:
Peanuts: They Are Playing Major Role in Fight to Lick Fats and Oils Shortage (July 7, 1942)
Uncle Sam, Scientist: Peactime Wares Arise From War Experiments In Bureau of Standards (Aug. 16, 1944)
Crop Laboratory: U.S. Experts Dream Up New Industrial Uses for Future Farm Surpluses (April 20, 1946)
These so-called hypoxic areas exist around the world, and there were as many as 200 in North America in the spring, says Robert J. Diaz, a professor of marine science at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is the second largest in the world, after one in the Baltic Sea.
Scientists have been studying dead zones for decades. The Louisiana seafood industry worries that dead zones threaten the ecosystems that support the state's $1 billion shrimp industry as well as other fisheries. Environmental groups are concerned that the runoff from agricultural fertilizer is pushing a natural ecosystem toward collapse.
Turning algae into a bio-based oil to run in conventional refineries alongside crude has been a long-held dream of biofuels entrepreneurs. Exxon Mobil Corp. last month announced a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc., a biotech firm owned by genomics scientist J. Craig Venter, to spend as much as $600 million working on developing algae biofuels. Greener Dawn Research estimates that privately held start-ups Sapphire Energy and Solazyme Inc. have raised more than $75 million for their own algae-to-fuel effort.
Thus far, both of those projects plan to raise their algae stocks in controlled facilities onshore.
LiveFuels Inc., a Silicon Valley start-up, has a different idea. Rather than growing algae in onshore facilities, where the cost of circulating the water can be high, LiveFuels wants to use the algae in the dead zones. But instead of harvesting it directly, it wants to go a step up the food chain, using algae to feed fish that could be processed for oil.
"It is too expensive for humans to grow algae, harvest it and get the water out and then convert it into a petroleum-like substitute," said LiveFuels Chief Executive Lissa Morgenthaler-Jones. It is easier and cheaper to harvest algae's oil the way Mother Nature does it -- "which is to use fish," she said.
The fish would gobble up the algae and then be harvested, cooked and pressed to extract fish oil -- a method already used to produce omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements.
LiveFuels, San Carlos, Calif., is testing out carp, tilapia and members of the sardine family at a fish farm in Rio Hondo, Texas, near the Mexican border. Once it figures out a good fish mix, LiveFuels wants to release them in Louisiana bays -- more than 25,000 pounds of fish per acre -- to feast on the algae blooms. "This is the sea equivalent of traveling goats: you have algae, we'll bring the fish," she says, referring to companies that rent out goats to eat up grasses on California hillsides to reduce the danger from wildfires. They would truck in the fish and release them into a cordoned-off area. Cages would be used to keep carnivorous fish out.
The company envisions building caged fish farms in parts of the algae blooms in Louisiana bayous and offshore in the Gulf. The algae would provide a free source of food to raise the fish, and natural tidal flows would churn the algae to keep fresh nutrient-rich water flowing through.
The idea isn't meeting universal praise. "Our preference is not to wait until the Gulf of Mexico is a giant dead zone and then have someone go out and collect the algae," says Ed Hopkins, director of the Sierra Club's environmental-quality program. He favors reducing fertilizer runoff upstream to cut off the nutrients that feed the algae blooms.
LiveFuels also faces a more practical concern. Algae blooms are seasonal and move around from year to year, so Livefuels might have to design mobile fish farms to capture the moveable feasts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently said the dead zone this summer was the fourth smallest in the 25 years they have been measured, though it was still about 3,000 square miles, larger than Delaware.
Nancy Rabalais, executive director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, is doubtful of the plan. "There are several groups looking at phytoplankton as a biomass. But my sense is there is not enough on a continual basis to make it economically feasible," she said.
David T. Kingsbury, chairman of LiveFuels' scientific advisory board and a former assistant director of the National Science Foundation, said he was skeptical at first, too, "but I've come around. It hasn't really been fully tested yet, but it seems like a reasonable idea," he said.
Write to Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com
By RUSSELL GOLD
Each spring, fertilizer runoff from the Mississippi River floods into the Gulf of Mexico, causing a massive algae bloom that leads to a giant oxygen-deprived "dead zone" where fish can't survive.
Now, this annual problem is getting new attention, not from marine scientists but from entrepreneurs looking for a new domestic source of fuel. And one start-up sees fish themselves being part of the process.
The algae blooms are spawned each year as the farmland runoff from as far away as Montana flows into rivers, eventually reaching the Mississippi and flowing into Louisiana bayous and out into the Gulf of Mexico. These nutrients are a buffet for the floating algae, or phytoplankton, which are simple sea organisms that eat and reproduce quickly. This algae bloom eventually sinks and feeds bacteria, which undergo their own population bonanza, and the bacteria suck up so much oxygen that fish and plants either move away or perish.
Looking Back at Industrial Innovations
Journal articles on industrial innovations of the 1940s:
Peanuts: They Are Playing Major Role in Fight to Lick Fats and Oils Shortage (July 7, 1942)
Uncle Sam, Scientist: Peactime Wares Arise From War Experiments In Bureau of Standards (Aug. 16, 1944)
Crop Laboratory: U.S. Experts Dream Up New Industrial Uses for Future Farm Surpluses (April 20, 1946)
These so-called hypoxic areas exist around the world, and there were as many as 200 in North America in the spring, says Robert J. Diaz, a professor of marine science at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is the second largest in the world, after one in the Baltic Sea.
Scientists have been studying dead zones for decades. The Louisiana seafood industry worries that dead zones threaten the ecosystems that support the state's $1 billion shrimp industry as well as other fisheries. Environmental groups are concerned that the runoff from agricultural fertilizer is pushing a natural ecosystem toward collapse.
Turning algae into a bio-based oil to run in conventional refineries alongside crude has been a long-held dream of biofuels entrepreneurs. Exxon Mobil Corp. last month announced a partnership with Synthetic Genomics Inc., a biotech firm owned by genomics scientist J. Craig Venter, to spend as much as $600 million working on developing algae biofuels. Greener Dawn Research estimates that privately held start-ups Sapphire Energy and Solazyme Inc. have raised more than $75 million for their own algae-to-fuel effort.
Thus far, both of those projects plan to raise their algae stocks in controlled facilities onshore.
LiveFuels Inc., a Silicon Valley start-up, has a different idea. Rather than growing algae in onshore facilities, where the cost of circulating the water can be high, LiveFuels wants to use the algae in the dead zones. But instead of harvesting it directly, it wants to go a step up the food chain, using algae to feed fish that could be processed for oil.
"It is too expensive for humans to grow algae, harvest it and get the water out and then convert it into a petroleum-like substitute," said LiveFuels Chief Executive Lissa Morgenthaler-Jones. It is easier and cheaper to harvest algae's oil the way Mother Nature does it -- "which is to use fish," she said.
The fish would gobble up the algae and then be harvested, cooked and pressed to extract fish oil -- a method already used to produce omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements.
LiveFuels, San Carlos, Calif., is testing out carp, tilapia and members of the sardine family at a fish farm in Rio Hondo, Texas, near the Mexican border. Once it figures out a good fish mix, LiveFuels wants to release them in Louisiana bays -- more than 25,000 pounds of fish per acre -- to feast on the algae blooms. "This is the sea equivalent of traveling goats: you have algae, we'll bring the fish," she says, referring to companies that rent out goats to eat up grasses on California hillsides to reduce the danger from wildfires. They would truck in the fish and release them into a cordoned-off area. Cages would be used to keep carnivorous fish out.
The company envisions building caged fish farms in parts of the algae blooms in Louisiana bayous and offshore in the Gulf. The algae would provide a free source of food to raise the fish, and natural tidal flows would churn the algae to keep fresh nutrient-rich water flowing through.
The idea isn't meeting universal praise. "Our preference is not to wait until the Gulf of Mexico is a giant dead zone and then have someone go out and collect the algae," says Ed Hopkins, director of the Sierra Club's environmental-quality program. He favors reducing fertilizer runoff upstream to cut off the nutrients that feed the algae blooms.
LiveFuels also faces a more practical concern. Algae blooms are seasonal and move around from year to year, so Livefuels might have to design mobile fish farms to capture the moveable feasts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently said the dead zone this summer was the fourth smallest in the 25 years they have been measured, though it was still about 3,000 square miles, larger than Delaware.
Nancy Rabalais, executive director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, is doubtful of the plan. "There are several groups looking at phytoplankton as a biomass. But my sense is there is not enough on a continual basis to make it economically feasible," she said.
David T. Kingsbury, chairman of LiveFuels' scientific advisory board and a former assistant director of the National Science Foundation, said he was skeptical at first, too, "but I've come around. It hasn't really been fully tested yet, but it seems like a reasonable idea," he said.
Write to Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com
Developed countries' demand for biofuels has been 'disastrous'
Production of crops such as maize and palm oil fuelling poverty and environmental damage in poor countries, says Christian Aid
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 August 2009 11.29 BST
The production of biofuels is fuelling poverty, human rights abuses and damage to the environment, Christian Aid warned today.
The charity said huge subsidies and targets in developed countries for boosting the production of fuels from plants such as maize and palm oil are exacerbating environmental and social problems in poor nations.
And rather than being a "silver bullet" to tackle climate change, the carbon emissions of some of the fuels are higher than fossil fuels because of deforestation driven by the need for land for them to grow.
According to a report, Growing Pains, by Christian Aid, industrial scale production of biofuels is worsening problems such as food price hikes in central America, forced displacement of small farmers for plantations and pollution of local water sources.
But with 2.4 billion people worldwide currently without secure sources of energy for cooking and heating, Christian Aid believes the renewable fuels do have the potential to help the poor.
The charity highlights schemes such as the growing of jatropha in Mali, where the plant is raised between food crops and the oil from the seeds is used to run village generators which can power appliances such as stoves and lights.
The report argues that talking about "good" or "bad" biofuels is oversimplifying the situation, and the problem is not with the crop or fuel – but the policies surrounding them.
Developed countries have poured subsidies into biofuel production – for example in the US where between 9.2 billion dollars and 11 billion dollars went to supporting maize-based ethanol in 2008 – when there are cheaper and more effective ways to cut emissions from transport, the report said.
The charity said biofuels production needed a "new vision" – a switch from supplying significant quantities of transport fuel for industrial markets to helping poor people have access to clean energy.
The report's author Eliot Whittington, climate advocacy specialist for Christian Aid, said: "Vast sums of European and American taxpayers' money are being used to prop up industries which are fuelling hunger, severe human rights abuses and environmental destruction — and failing to deliver the benefits claimed for them."
He said the current approach to biofuels had been "disastrous".
He added: "Christian Aid believes that the best approach to biofuels is to grow them on a small scale and process them locally to provide energy for people in the surrounding countryside. This can also increase rural people's incomes and has the potential to actually increase soil fertility and moisture retention, without compromising people's food security."
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 August 2009 11.29 BST
The production of biofuels is fuelling poverty, human rights abuses and damage to the environment, Christian Aid warned today.
The charity said huge subsidies and targets in developed countries for boosting the production of fuels from plants such as maize and palm oil are exacerbating environmental and social problems in poor nations.
And rather than being a "silver bullet" to tackle climate change, the carbon emissions of some of the fuels are higher than fossil fuels because of deforestation driven by the need for land for them to grow.
According to a report, Growing Pains, by Christian Aid, industrial scale production of biofuels is worsening problems such as food price hikes in central America, forced displacement of small farmers for plantations and pollution of local water sources.
But with 2.4 billion people worldwide currently without secure sources of energy for cooking and heating, Christian Aid believes the renewable fuels do have the potential to help the poor.
The charity highlights schemes such as the growing of jatropha in Mali, where the plant is raised between food crops and the oil from the seeds is used to run village generators which can power appliances such as stoves and lights.
The report argues that talking about "good" or "bad" biofuels is oversimplifying the situation, and the problem is not with the crop or fuel – but the policies surrounding them.
Developed countries have poured subsidies into biofuel production – for example in the US where between 9.2 billion dollars and 11 billion dollars went to supporting maize-based ethanol in 2008 – when there are cheaper and more effective ways to cut emissions from transport, the report said.
The charity said biofuels production needed a "new vision" – a switch from supplying significant quantities of transport fuel for industrial markets to helping poor people have access to clean energy.
The report's author Eliot Whittington, climate advocacy specialist for Christian Aid, said: "Vast sums of European and American taxpayers' money are being used to prop up industries which are fuelling hunger, severe human rights abuses and environmental destruction — and failing to deliver the benefits claimed for them."
He said the current approach to biofuels had been "disastrous".
He added: "Christian Aid believes that the best approach to biofuels is to grow them on a small scale and process them locally to provide energy for people in the surrounding countryside. This can also increase rural people's incomes and has the potential to actually increase soil fertility and moisture retention, without compromising people's food security."
Q-Cells to lay off 500 staff as solar price slumps
From BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Fears that the solar industry will prove less resilient to the global recession than other renewable energy sectors appear increasingly well founded this week after three leading solar firms posted sizable losses.
However, experts maintain that there are already signs of recovery on the horizon, while some solar outfits continue to record impressive growth despite a slump in the price of solar panels.
The bad news was led by German manufacturer Q-Cells, the world's second-largest producer of solar panels, which announced yesterday that it is to lay off 500 jobs after recording an operating loss of €47.6m (£41m) during the first half of the year.
The company reported that sales for the first six months of the year fell more than 36 per cent year on year to €366.2m, while overall losses soared to almost €700m after the company undertook a write-down of more than €600m from the sale of its shares in solar firm Renewable Energy Corporation.
Q-Cells said it was embarking on a major restructuring exercise designed to cut production costs by 25 per cent and increase its focus on emerging thin-film solar cells. Under the plan, about 500 staff are to be made redundant while the company will also shut down its older production lines at its factory in Thalheim.
The company's management said it would also increase its focus on its thin-film subsidiaries Solibro and Calyxo, adding that it had requested that Calyxo proves its technological potential in mass production by the end of this year.
Several of Q-Cells' main rivals fared only a little better this week, with China-based ReneSola and JA Solar both posting second-quarter losses of $3.6m and $28.5m respectively.
After scaling up rapidly in response to strong demand during 2007 and early 2008, falling demand has seen the solar market hit by a glut of silicon, the raw material used in most panels, and solar panels themselves. As a result, silicon prices have dropped by as much as 40 per cent in the past year, while panel prices have fallen by about 20 per cent, making many older production lines unviable.
A report earlier this week from analyst iSuppli warned that the glut is now so severe that it could take until 2012 for stockpiles to be run down.
However, while analysts have been warning for more than a year that the solar sector has become overheated, the bleak picture is far from universal, with several leading players bucking the trend and posting solid financial results.
For example, US-based First Solar, the world's largest solar manufacturer, recently reported that it saw second-quarter profits more than double year on year to more than $180m, while SunPower posted net profits of more than $24m during the same period, reversing the loss it recorded during the first three months of the year.
Moroever, optimism remains that demand for solar panels will rebound strongly as the global economy recovers.
Many manufacturers anticipate growth during the second half of the year, and the sector received an encouraging long-term endorsement from the boss of German energy giant E.ON this week, when he informed shareholders that he intended to establish the company as a major player in the solar market.
In a letter to shareholders, chief executive Dr Wulf Bernotat underlined the company's commitment to the Destertec consortium, which was launched earlier this year with the ambitious goal of developing solar farms in North Africa to provide energy for Europe.
"Our objective is to develop solar energy into a strong second pillar of our renewables business along with wind energy," he wrote. "A visionary project called Desertec shows the potential of solar energy when it is operated on a global scale."
The letter came as the company posted half-yearly results showing that while overall gross earnings slipped one per cent to €5.7bn, the importance of the firm's Renewables division continued to grow, with renewable energy power sales worldwide rising 17 per cent and gross earnings almost doubling year on year to €122m.
• This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Fears that the solar industry will prove less resilient to the global recession than other renewable energy sectors appear increasingly well founded this week after three leading solar firms posted sizable losses.
However, experts maintain that there are already signs of recovery on the horizon, while some solar outfits continue to record impressive growth despite a slump in the price of solar panels.
The bad news was led by German manufacturer Q-Cells, the world's second-largest producer of solar panels, which announced yesterday that it is to lay off 500 jobs after recording an operating loss of €47.6m (£41m) during the first half of the year.
The company reported that sales for the first six months of the year fell more than 36 per cent year on year to €366.2m, while overall losses soared to almost €700m after the company undertook a write-down of more than €600m from the sale of its shares in solar firm Renewable Energy Corporation.
Q-Cells said it was embarking on a major restructuring exercise designed to cut production costs by 25 per cent and increase its focus on emerging thin-film solar cells. Under the plan, about 500 staff are to be made redundant while the company will also shut down its older production lines at its factory in Thalheim.
The company's management said it would also increase its focus on its thin-film subsidiaries Solibro and Calyxo, adding that it had requested that Calyxo proves its technological potential in mass production by the end of this year.
Several of Q-Cells' main rivals fared only a little better this week, with China-based ReneSola and JA Solar both posting second-quarter losses of $3.6m and $28.5m respectively.
After scaling up rapidly in response to strong demand during 2007 and early 2008, falling demand has seen the solar market hit by a glut of silicon, the raw material used in most panels, and solar panels themselves. As a result, silicon prices have dropped by as much as 40 per cent in the past year, while panel prices have fallen by about 20 per cent, making many older production lines unviable.
A report earlier this week from analyst iSuppli warned that the glut is now so severe that it could take until 2012 for stockpiles to be run down.
However, while analysts have been warning for more than a year that the solar sector has become overheated, the bleak picture is far from universal, with several leading players bucking the trend and posting solid financial results.
For example, US-based First Solar, the world's largest solar manufacturer, recently reported that it saw second-quarter profits more than double year on year to more than $180m, while SunPower posted net profits of more than $24m during the same period, reversing the loss it recorded during the first three months of the year.
Moroever, optimism remains that demand for solar panels will rebound strongly as the global economy recovers.
Many manufacturers anticipate growth during the second half of the year, and the sector received an encouraging long-term endorsement from the boss of German energy giant E.ON this week, when he informed shareholders that he intended to establish the company as a major player in the solar market.
In a letter to shareholders, chief executive Dr Wulf Bernotat underlined the company's commitment to the Destertec consortium, which was launched earlier this year with the ambitious goal of developing solar farms in North Africa to provide energy for Europe.
"Our objective is to develop solar energy into a strong second pillar of our renewables business along with wind energy," he wrote. "A visionary project called Desertec shows the potential of solar energy when it is operated on a global scale."
The letter came as the company posted half-yearly results showing that while overall gross earnings slipped one per cent to €5.7bn, the importance of the firm's Renewables division continued to grow, with renewable energy power sales worldwide rising 17 per cent and gross earnings almost doubling year on year to €122m.
• This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Biofuel production 'is harming the poor'
By Emily Beament, Press Association
Monday, 17 August 2009
The production of biofuels is fuelling poverty, human rights abuses and damage to the environment, Christian Aid warned today.
The charity said huge subsidies and targets in developed countries for boosting the production of fuels from plants such as maize and oil palm are exacerbating environmental and social problems in poor nations.
And rather than being a "silver bullet" to tackle climate change, the carbon emissions of some of the fuels are higher than fossil fuels because of deforestation driven by the need for land for them to grow.
According to a report, Growing Pains, by Christian Aid, industrial scale production of biofuels is worsening problems such as food price hikes in central America, forced displacement of small farmers for plantations and pollution of local water sources.
But with 2.4 billion people worldwide currently without secure sources of energy for cooking and heating, Christian Aid believes the renewable fuels do have the potential to help the poor.
The charity highlights schemes such as the growing of jatropha in Mali, where the plant is raised between food crops and the oil from the seeds is used to run village generators which can power appliances such as stoves and lights.
The report argues that talking about "good" or "bad" biofuels is oversimplifying the situation, and the problem is not with the crop or fuel - but the policies surrounding them.
Developed countries have poured subsidies into biofuel production - for example in the US where between 9.2 billion dollars and 11 billion dollars went to supporting maize-based ethanol in 2008 - when there are cheaper and more effective ways to cut emissions from transport, the report said.
The charity said biofuels production needed a "new vision" - a switch from supplying significant quantities of transport fuel for industrial markets to helping poor people have access to clean energy.
The report's author Eliot Whittington, climate advocacy specialist for Christian Aid, said: "Vast sums of European and American taxpayers' money are being used to prop up industries which are fuelling hunger, severe human rights abuses and environmental destruction - and failing to deliver the benefits claimed for them."
He said the current approach to biofuels had been "disastrous".
"Policymakers should urgently rethink their entire approach to biofuels, to ensure that only crops and fuels which will achieve their social and environmental goals receive government backing."
He added: "Christian Aid believes that the best approach to biofuels is to grow them on a small scale and process them locally to provide energy for people in the surrounding countryside.
"This can also increase rural people's incomes and has the potential to actually increase soil fertility and moisture retention, without compromising people's food security."
Monday, 17 August 2009
The production of biofuels is fuelling poverty, human rights abuses and damage to the environment, Christian Aid warned today.
The charity said huge subsidies and targets in developed countries for boosting the production of fuels from plants such as maize and oil palm are exacerbating environmental and social problems in poor nations.
And rather than being a "silver bullet" to tackle climate change, the carbon emissions of some of the fuels are higher than fossil fuels because of deforestation driven by the need for land for them to grow.
According to a report, Growing Pains, by Christian Aid, industrial scale production of biofuels is worsening problems such as food price hikes in central America, forced displacement of small farmers for plantations and pollution of local water sources.
But with 2.4 billion people worldwide currently without secure sources of energy for cooking and heating, Christian Aid believes the renewable fuels do have the potential to help the poor.
The charity highlights schemes such as the growing of jatropha in Mali, where the plant is raised between food crops and the oil from the seeds is used to run village generators which can power appliances such as stoves and lights.
The report argues that talking about "good" or "bad" biofuels is oversimplifying the situation, and the problem is not with the crop or fuel - but the policies surrounding them.
Developed countries have poured subsidies into biofuel production - for example in the US where between 9.2 billion dollars and 11 billion dollars went to supporting maize-based ethanol in 2008 - when there are cheaper and more effective ways to cut emissions from transport, the report said.
The charity said biofuels production needed a "new vision" - a switch from supplying significant quantities of transport fuel for industrial markets to helping poor people have access to clean energy.
The report's author Eliot Whittington, climate advocacy specialist for Christian Aid, said: "Vast sums of European and American taxpayers' money are being used to prop up industries which are fuelling hunger, severe human rights abuses and environmental destruction - and failing to deliver the benefits claimed for them."
He said the current approach to biofuels had been "disastrous".
"Policymakers should urgently rethink their entire approach to biofuels, to ensure that only crops and fuels which will achieve their social and environmental goals receive government backing."
He added: "Christian Aid believes that the best approach to biofuels is to grow them on a small scale and process them locally to provide energy for people in the surrounding countryside.
"This can also increase rural people's incomes and has the potential to actually increase soil fertility and moisture retention, without compromising people's food security."
Staehr appointed as Welcon chairman
Published Date: 18 August 2009
WELCON Towers, the wind turbine shaft maker based in Campbeltown, yesterday unveiled Per Staehr as its chairman. Welcon was setup in March after Danish firm Skykon bought the former Vestas facility in Argyll.
Staehr was previously chairman of Denmark-based A2SEA – which specialises in the installation of offshore wind farms – before its acquisition by Dong Energy in June this year. He is currently on the board of Houston-based Trico Marine Services, an offshore and subsea services group and Aim-listed LPA.
WELCON Towers, the wind turbine shaft maker based in Campbeltown, yesterday unveiled Per Staehr as its chairman. Welcon was setup in March after Danish firm Skykon bought the former Vestas facility in Argyll.
Staehr was previously chairman of Denmark-based A2SEA – which specialises in the installation of offshore wind farms – before its acquisition by Dong Energy in June this year. He is currently on the board of Houston-based Trico Marine Services, an offshore and subsea services group and Aim-listed LPA.
Salmond announces £2.6m for green energy centre
Published Date: 18 August 2009
By FRANK URQUHART
FIRST Minister Alex Salmond has announced a £2.6 million funding boost for the new Scottish European Green Energy Centre in Aberdeen, aimed at establishing the city as a major hub for research into wave, tidal and wind power.
The centre, officially opened by Mr Salmond yesterday, will benefit from £1.6m support from the European Regional Development Fund and £1m from the Scottish Government.Mr Salmond said: "The Scottish European Green Energy Centre (SEGEC) aims to build on Aberdeen's long-established global reputation as an energy hub by positioning Scotland at the forefront of European innovation, research and development in clean, renewable energy."The investment of European funding will embrace the energy-related opportunities presented through Scotland's leading global effort to reduce climate change. Scotland's natural capital can create tens of thousands of green jobs."Professor Jim McDonald, the chairman of the Energy Technology Partnership (ETP), formed by Scottish universities engaged in energy research, said the international collaboration made possible by the new centre would be "unparalleled in Europe."He said: "Scotland's universities are leading the way in world-class research and development on the low carbon energy supplies and infrastructure of the future. "Scotland's top energy researchers are already collaborating together through the Energy Technology Partnership within Scotland and across the world. SEGEC will help ensure a dedicated focal point for research collaborations between Scotland and the EU, where there are significant funding opportunities and challenging targets to deliver a low carbon economy.
By FRANK URQUHART
FIRST Minister Alex Salmond has announced a £2.6 million funding boost for the new Scottish European Green Energy Centre in Aberdeen, aimed at establishing the city as a major hub for research into wave, tidal and wind power.
The centre, officially opened by Mr Salmond yesterday, will benefit from £1.6m support from the European Regional Development Fund and £1m from the Scottish Government.Mr Salmond said: "The Scottish European Green Energy Centre (SEGEC) aims to build on Aberdeen's long-established global reputation as an energy hub by positioning Scotland at the forefront of European innovation, research and development in clean, renewable energy."The investment of European funding will embrace the energy-related opportunities presented through Scotland's leading global effort to reduce climate change. Scotland's natural capital can create tens of thousands of green jobs."Professor Jim McDonald, the chairman of the Energy Technology Partnership (ETP), formed by Scottish universities engaged in energy research, said the international collaboration made possible by the new centre would be "unparalleled in Europe."He said: "Scotland's universities are leading the way in world-class research and development on the low carbon energy supplies and infrastructure of the future. "Scotland's top energy researchers are already collaborating together through the Energy Technology Partnership within Scotland and across the world. SEGEC will help ensure a dedicated focal point for research collaborations between Scotland and the EU, where there are significant funding opportunities and challenging targets to deliver a low carbon economy.
Deep trouble in hydro mountain
Published Date: 18 August 2009
By Craig Brown
A HIGHLAND hydro-electric scheme capable of powering a quarter of a million homes has been switched off barely a month after it came online, when a rock collapse partially blocked a vital water-carrying tunnel.
Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) said that the blockage at the £140 million Glendoe hydro-electric plant, to the east of Fort Augustus in Inverness-shire, was noticed last week. It was caused by "internal rock falls" which occurred a third of a way along a 7km tunnel which carries water from the reservoir through the mountainside, to the "power cavity" where the turbine rooms are located. The blockage was only detected when a drop in the station's water pressure was noticed. A spokesman for the company said Glendoe power station was then shut down and the tunnel drained so engineers could examine the rock fall. "We went through the process of de-watering the tunnel, which takes about a week, mainly because you want to let the water out at a speed where you won't dislodge anything that might be in the tunnel into the turbine area and do any damage," he said. "The next stage is to do a proper investigation to find out what caused it and if there are any other locations where this may be a problem."A team of engineers has already entered the tunnel to carry out an initial survey. The spokesman was unable to give any indication as to when the station would come back online "Until this is done, it is impossible to say how long it will take," he said. "However, what we have said is that we will give an update at our interim results in November, so it's several months away before we will be able to say anything more. Clearly, if we are able to do anything before then, we will." The power station can produce around 180 million units of green electricity, with a maximum capacity of 100MW, enough electricity to power almost 250,000 homes. It does not provide base power to the SSE's supply but comes online when the company's other power stations are working at peak capacity.Glendoe is Scotland's second-largest conventional hydro-electric station and the first large-scale station to be built since 1957, when the Errochty station in Perthshire, which has a capacity of 75MW, was opened.The station began extensive testing in December, but only went online last month. The spokesman said that it had been a "relatively big decision" to shut down the power station but said that in the absence of concrete knowledge on the extent of the problem, it had been the safest option. As yet, there are no indications as to what caused the fall; whether it was vibration that dislodged the rocks or a geological weakness in the area. However, the spokesman said that there had been extensive geological surveys carried out before, during and after the construction of the tunnel to ensure its integrity.
By Craig Brown
A HIGHLAND hydro-electric scheme capable of powering a quarter of a million homes has been switched off barely a month after it came online, when a rock collapse partially blocked a vital water-carrying tunnel.
Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) said that the blockage at the £140 million Glendoe hydro-electric plant, to the east of Fort Augustus in Inverness-shire, was noticed last week. It was caused by "internal rock falls" which occurred a third of a way along a 7km tunnel which carries water from the reservoir through the mountainside, to the "power cavity" where the turbine rooms are located. The blockage was only detected when a drop in the station's water pressure was noticed. A spokesman for the company said Glendoe power station was then shut down and the tunnel drained so engineers could examine the rock fall. "We went through the process of de-watering the tunnel, which takes about a week, mainly because you want to let the water out at a speed where you won't dislodge anything that might be in the tunnel into the turbine area and do any damage," he said. "The next stage is to do a proper investigation to find out what caused it and if there are any other locations where this may be a problem."A team of engineers has already entered the tunnel to carry out an initial survey. The spokesman was unable to give any indication as to when the station would come back online "Until this is done, it is impossible to say how long it will take," he said. "However, what we have said is that we will give an update at our interim results in November, so it's several months away before we will be able to say anything more. Clearly, if we are able to do anything before then, we will." The power station can produce around 180 million units of green electricity, with a maximum capacity of 100MW, enough electricity to power almost 250,000 homes. It does not provide base power to the SSE's supply but comes online when the company's other power stations are working at peak capacity.Glendoe is Scotland's second-largest conventional hydro-electric station and the first large-scale station to be built since 1957, when the Errochty station in Perthshire, which has a capacity of 75MW, was opened.The station began extensive testing in December, but only went online last month. The spokesman said that it had been a "relatively big decision" to shut down the power station but said that in the absence of concrete knowledge on the extent of the problem, it had been the safest option. As yet, there are no indications as to what caused the fall; whether it was vibration that dislodged the rocks or a geological weakness in the area. However, the spokesman said that there had been extensive geological surveys carried out before, during and after the construction of the tunnel to ensure its integrity.
Gorgon Moves Closer to Approval
By RACHEL PANNETT
CANBERRA -- Australia's government moved a step closer to approving the multibillion-dollar Gorgon liquefied natural gas project in Western Australia state, agreeing with the state government to assume joint responsibility for any future claims arising from plans to capture and store the venture's greenhouse-gas emissions deep underground.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told lawmakers that with the regulatory approvals process now nearing completion, he expects the Gorgon partners -- international energy companies Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC -- to be in a position to make a final investment decision "shortly."
The project, which the joint-venture partners estimate would contribute around 65 billion Australian dollars (US$54 billion) to Australia's gross domestic product in net present value terms over the next three decades, shows ambitious projects are still progressing in the resource-rich country despite the global economic downturn, Mr. Rudd said.
The Gorgon partners plan to develop the Greater Gorgon gas fields, located about 200 kilometers off the northwest coast of Western Australia.
If it goes ahead, the A$50 billion Gorgon scheme would be the largest-ever resources project in Australia, Mr. Rudd said, dwarfing the A$12 billion Pluto LNG project being developed by Woodside Petroleum Ltd.
At the peak of construction, the project will employ around 6,000 workers. It will provide a significant boost to Australia's export income, with contracts to sell around A$300 billion worth of LNG to customers in the Asian-Pacific region over the next 20 years, Mr. Rudd said.
It would also be the world's biggest geological storage operation, as the project operators inject carbon dioxide gases emitted during the LNG extraction process two kilometers underground in a bid to reduce the environmental impact of the venture.
The deal Mr. Rudd unveiled Monday, in which the federal government assumed joint responsibility, means the Gorgon partners will have no future responsibility for any third-party claims after the gas storage site has been closed.
The Western Australia government approved the Gorgon project last Monday.
Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson has indicated it could clear the last of the regulatory approvals, including environmental conditions and production licenses and retention leases, this month.
Write to Rachel Pannett at rachel.pannett@dowjones.com
CANBERRA -- Australia's government moved a step closer to approving the multibillion-dollar Gorgon liquefied natural gas project in Western Australia state, agreeing with the state government to assume joint responsibility for any future claims arising from plans to capture and store the venture's greenhouse-gas emissions deep underground.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told lawmakers that with the regulatory approvals process now nearing completion, he expects the Gorgon partners -- international energy companies Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC -- to be in a position to make a final investment decision "shortly."
The project, which the joint-venture partners estimate would contribute around 65 billion Australian dollars (US$54 billion) to Australia's gross domestic product in net present value terms over the next three decades, shows ambitious projects are still progressing in the resource-rich country despite the global economic downturn, Mr. Rudd said.
The Gorgon partners plan to develop the Greater Gorgon gas fields, located about 200 kilometers off the northwest coast of Western Australia.
If it goes ahead, the A$50 billion Gorgon scheme would be the largest-ever resources project in Australia, Mr. Rudd said, dwarfing the A$12 billion Pluto LNG project being developed by Woodside Petroleum Ltd.
At the peak of construction, the project will employ around 6,000 workers. It will provide a significant boost to Australia's export income, with contracts to sell around A$300 billion worth of LNG to customers in the Asian-Pacific region over the next 20 years, Mr. Rudd said.
It would also be the world's biggest geological storage operation, as the project operators inject carbon dioxide gases emitted during the LNG extraction process two kilometers underground in a bid to reduce the environmental impact of the venture.
The deal Mr. Rudd unveiled Monday, in which the federal government assumed joint responsibility, means the Gorgon partners will have no future responsibility for any third-party claims after the gas storage site has been closed.
The Western Australia government approved the Gorgon project last Monday.
Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson has indicated it could clear the last of the regulatory approvals, including environmental conditions and production licenses and retention leases, this month.
Write to Rachel Pannett at rachel.pannett@dowjones.com
Fast rail can mean slower CO2 progress
As a new report shows, building high-speed rail links is sometimes less green than leaving passengers up in the air
Leo Hickman
guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 August 2009 15.08 BST
There has long been a rather sensible assumption that train travel produces far fewer emissions than going by plane for every kilometre a passenger travels. A figure that is widely quoted is that trains are broadly 10 times more efficient than planes when carrying the same number of people over the same distance. This statistic appears to originate from a Eurostar campaign that ran a few years ago, urging people to do their bit for the environment by going by train to Paris and Brussels rather than hopping on a cheap flight. It hinges on the fact that France's electrified high-speed lines are powered in large part by electricity generated from France's low-carbon nuclear power stations.
But today we learn via a government-commissioned report produced by consultants Booz Allen Hamilton that the proposed high-speed line between London and Manchester might not be so green after all. In fact, it could result in more emissions than if passengers took a domestic flight. Cue a modicum of embarrassment for Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, who just a couple of weeks ago said that switching 46 million domestic air passengers a year to a new multibillion-pound north-south rail line was, "for reasons of carbon reduction and wider environmental benefits, manifestly in the public interest".
Booz Allen Hamilton is arguing that when you factor in the energy required to build then operate the new high-speed line, it would generate more carbon emissions over a 60-year period than allowing passengers to fly the same route. Airlines have long argued that they don't require the same amount of infrastructure to operate as land-based transport does, and that this rarely gets taken into account during such discussions.
However, the report does suggest that building a London-Glasgow high-speed line would produce a net carbon saving over the same period. It explains these contrasting conclusions by noting that many people already go by train between London and Manchester, whereas on the London-Scotland route the train companies – which currently claim only 15% of the market share – have a much greater chance of winning over passengers from airlines. If the train operators were to achieve more than 62% of the market share then a high-speed line would make environmental sense, the report concludes.
While this research is unlikely to settle this debate once and for all – it was originally researched two years ago and Lord Adonis has promised a new report by the end of the year – it does highlight the enormous number of variables that must be taken into account when calculating the efficiencies of the various forms of transport. Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had to reissue its CO2 emission factors for passenger flights after there were complaints from members of the public and interested parties that its 2007 figures had failed to include a range of factors, such as accurate passenger load factors, the carrying of freight on aircraft and the increased use of more modern aircraft. Once the recalculations had been completed, the figure for short-haul flights into continental Europe fell from 130.4 grams of CO2 per passenger kilometre (gCO2/pkm) to 98.3 gCO2/pkm. However, the figure for domestic flights actually rose from 158.0 gCO2/pkm to 175.3 gCO2/pkm. (Long-haul flights also rose from 105.6 gCO2/pkm to 110.6 gCO2/pkm.)
Defra also recalculated its figures for rail travel. It concluded that the average figure for "national rail" travel was 60.2 gCO2/pkm. It's a considerable improvement on domestic flights – almost three-fold, in fact – but it doesn't quite match the 10-fold figure commonly attributed to rail when compared to aviation. The new calculations also highlight the often forgotten environmental benefits of travelling by coach. As George Monbiot has highlighted in his book Heat and here on Cif, coaches are currently the most efficient way to transport large numbers of people across the country. Defra's new figure for coaches is 29.0 gCO2/pkm – twice as efficient as going by train and almost six times as efficient as flying. But, realistically, how is the government ever going to convince the majority of us to go by coach from London to Glasgow?
There is one universal truth, though, that most of us can agree on: the faster you go, the more fuel you require. The promised "High Speed 2" line between London and Scotland would allow trains to travel at speeds faster than 150mph. In June, Professor Andrew McNaughton, chief engineer of the High Speed 2 company, said that the line would ideally need to allow trains to travel up to 250mph – half the speed of an aircraft – meaning no tunnels and very few curves. But he admitted that if the new line was to ever boast its "green credentials", it would entirely depend on the government's future electricity generating policies.
So, as with motoring and the promised dawn of the electric car, we find a discussion about the environmental merits of competing modes of transport ultimately boiling down to how you source and generate the energy. Use renewables and/or nuclear to produce your electricity and you're already more than half way to your destination – namely, creating a decarbonised transport network. But continue to rely on fossil fuels to generate your power and you'll barely get beyond the station platform.
Leo Hickman
guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 August 2009 15.08 BST
There has long been a rather sensible assumption that train travel produces far fewer emissions than going by plane for every kilometre a passenger travels. A figure that is widely quoted is that trains are broadly 10 times more efficient than planes when carrying the same number of people over the same distance. This statistic appears to originate from a Eurostar campaign that ran a few years ago, urging people to do their bit for the environment by going by train to Paris and Brussels rather than hopping on a cheap flight. It hinges on the fact that France's electrified high-speed lines are powered in large part by electricity generated from France's low-carbon nuclear power stations.
But today we learn via a government-commissioned report produced by consultants Booz Allen Hamilton that the proposed high-speed line between London and Manchester might not be so green after all. In fact, it could result in more emissions than if passengers took a domestic flight. Cue a modicum of embarrassment for Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, who just a couple of weeks ago said that switching 46 million domestic air passengers a year to a new multibillion-pound north-south rail line was, "for reasons of carbon reduction and wider environmental benefits, manifestly in the public interest".
Booz Allen Hamilton is arguing that when you factor in the energy required to build then operate the new high-speed line, it would generate more carbon emissions over a 60-year period than allowing passengers to fly the same route. Airlines have long argued that they don't require the same amount of infrastructure to operate as land-based transport does, and that this rarely gets taken into account during such discussions.
However, the report does suggest that building a London-Glasgow high-speed line would produce a net carbon saving over the same period. It explains these contrasting conclusions by noting that many people already go by train between London and Manchester, whereas on the London-Scotland route the train companies – which currently claim only 15% of the market share – have a much greater chance of winning over passengers from airlines. If the train operators were to achieve more than 62% of the market share then a high-speed line would make environmental sense, the report concludes.
While this research is unlikely to settle this debate once and for all – it was originally researched two years ago and Lord Adonis has promised a new report by the end of the year – it does highlight the enormous number of variables that must be taken into account when calculating the efficiencies of the various forms of transport. Last year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) had to reissue its CO2 emission factors for passenger flights after there were complaints from members of the public and interested parties that its 2007 figures had failed to include a range of factors, such as accurate passenger load factors, the carrying of freight on aircraft and the increased use of more modern aircraft. Once the recalculations had been completed, the figure for short-haul flights into continental Europe fell from 130.4 grams of CO2 per passenger kilometre (gCO2/pkm) to 98.3 gCO2/pkm. However, the figure for domestic flights actually rose from 158.0 gCO2/pkm to 175.3 gCO2/pkm. (Long-haul flights also rose from 105.6 gCO2/pkm to 110.6 gCO2/pkm.)
Defra also recalculated its figures for rail travel. It concluded that the average figure for "national rail" travel was 60.2 gCO2/pkm. It's a considerable improvement on domestic flights – almost three-fold, in fact – but it doesn't quite match the 10-fold figure commonly attributed to rail when compared to aviation. The new calculations also highlight the often forgotten environmental benefits of travelling by coach. As George Monbiot has highlighted in his book Heat and here on Cif, coaches are currently the most efficient way to transport large numbers of people across the country. Defra's new figure for coaches is 29.0 gCO2/pkm – twice as efficient as going by train and almost six times as efficient as flying. But, realistically, how is the government ever going to convince the majority of us to go by coach from London to Glasgow?
There is one universal truth, though, that most of us can agree on: the faster you go, the more fuel you require. The promised "High Speed 2" line between London and Scotland would allow trains to travel at speeds faster than 150mph. In June, Professor Andrew McNaughton, chief engineer of the High Speed 2 company, said that the line would ideally need to allow trains to travel up to 250mph – half the speed of an aircraft – meaning no tunnels and very few curves. But he admitted that if the new line was to ever boast its "green credentials", it would entirely depend on the government's future electricity generating policies.
So, as with motoring and the promised dawn of the electric car, we find a discussion about the environmental merits of competing modes of transport ultimately boiling down to how you source and generate the energy. Use renewables and/or nuclear to produce your electricity and you're already more than half way to your destination – namely, creating a decarbonised transport network. But continue to rely on fossil fuels to generate your power and you'll barely get beyond the station platform.
Emissions Trading System fails to take off
The introduction of an EU Emissions Trading System is in danger of running late because the European Commission has failed to keep up with its own timetable.
By David Millward Published: 7:19PM BST 17 Aug 2009
By 2012 nearly 4,000 airlines and other aircraft operators will be set a carbon ceiling above which they will be forced to trade in emissions permits. But much of the machinery needed for the scheme — under which airlines would be forced to trade carbon permits — is still not in place.
Under ETS, aviation as a whole will be set a cap based on the industry’s average CO₂ emissions between 2004 and 2006. Currently it is intended to limit the industry to 97pc of this figure in 2012, with the ceiling being lowered in later years. Airlines’ allowances, however, will be based initially on their individual emissions, with the figures being calculated from the beginning of January.
But there is still little agreement on how these figures will be calculated or airlines’ emissions monitored — even though the deadline for agreeing the plans is now just a fortnight away.
In Britain, the Environment Agency, which will be the competent authority responsible for monitoring, has already put the deadline back until early November, because it is still waiting for Brussels to publish the full list of aviation companies covered by the scheme. It will leave the Agency less than two months to approve the monitoring scheme which will set the cap for nearly 900 operators.
Other parts of Europe are facing similar problems.
There are question marks over the initial list of carriers produced by the Commission. Which, according to industry sources, is riddled with anomalies.
It includes non-EU airlines which do not even fly to the European Union, while others which do have been omitted from the list.
British Airways, which has supported the principle of a trading scheme, has voiced doubts about the current proposals, especially the plans to include flights from outside the EU.
By David Millward Published: 7:19PM BST 17 Aug 2009
By 2012 nearly 4,000 airlines and other aircraft operators will be set a carbon ceiling above which they will be forced to trade in emissions permits. But much of the machinery needed for the scheme — under which airlines would be forced to trade carbon permits — is still not in place.
Under ETS, aviation as a whole will be set a cap based on the industry’s average CO₂ emissions between 2004 and 2006. Currently it is intended to limit the industry to 97pc of this figure in 2012, with the ceiling being lowered in later years. Airlines’ allowances, however, will be based initially on their individual emissions, with the figures being calculated from the beginning of January.
But there is still little agreement on how these figures will be calculated or airlines’ emissions monitored — even though the deadline for agreeing the plans is now just a fortnight away.
In Britain, the Environment Agency, which will be the competent authority responsible for monitoring, has already put the deadline back until early November, because it is still waiting for Brussels to publish the full list of aviation companies covered by the scheme. It will leave the Agency less than two months to approve the monitoring scheme which will set the cap for nearly 900 operators.
Other parts of Europe are facing similar problems.
There are question marks over the initial list of carriers produced by the Commission. Which, according to industry sources, is riddled with anomalies.
It includes non-EU airlines which do not even fly to the European Union, while others which do have been omitted from the list.
British Airways, which has supported the principle of a trading scheme, has voiced doubts about the current proposals, especially the plans to include flights from outside the EU.
Fridge scrappage scheme 'would help consumers cut fuel bills'
A 'scrappage' scheme should be started to encourage consumers to switch to more environmentally friendly refrigerators and other white goods, retailers claim.
Published: 7:00AM BST 17 Aug 2009
Fridge scrappage scheme would cost around £507 million a year in lost VAT receipts
The British Retail Consortium said introducing a car-industry-style scrappage scheme to the high street would help households cut their fuel bills by encouraging them to switch to products that generated lower emissions.
It added reducing the tax paid on new appliances that met certain standards would also support retail jobs and help to revive the high street, as well as contributing to the fight against climate change.
Research carried out for the BRC found that CO2 emissions could be reduced by 1.3 million tonnes each year, the equivalent of nearly 1% of domestic emissions, by 2020 if VAT was removed from the most energy efficient appliances.
It added that the initiative would cost around £507 million a year in lost VAT receipts, roughly equivalent to the cost of just two weeks of the VAT reduction that was introduced in December last year.
The group has written to the Chancellor calling on him to include the proposals in his Pre-Budget Report.
Stephen Robertson, British Retail Consortium director general, said: "The Government's working against its own objectives when it sets targets for reducing carbon emissions while charging full VAT on the efficient products that will move us towards those targets.
"Retailers are already doing their bit to cut carbon but homes are responsible for 27% of the nation's emissions. Helping householders improve their performance has to be the next step."
Published: 7:00AM BST 17 Aug 2009
Fridge scrappage scheme would cost around £507 million a year in lost VAT receipts
The British Retail Consortium said introducing a car-industry-style scrappage scheme to the high street would help households cut their fuel bills by encouraging them to switch to products that generated lower emissions.
It added reducing the tax paid on new appliances that met certain standards would also support retail jobs and help to revive the high street, as well as contributing to the fight against climate change.
Research carried out for the BRC found that CO2 emissions could be reduced by 1.3 million tonnes each year, the equivalent of nearly 1% of domestic emissions, by 2020 if VAT was removed from the most energy efficient appliances.
It added that the initiative would cost around £507 million a year in lost VAT receipts, roughly equivalent to the cost of just two weeks of the VAT reduction that was introduced in December last year.
The group has written to the Chancellor calling on him to include the proposals in his Pre-Budget Report.
Stephen Robertson, British Retail Consortium director general, said: "The Government's working against its own objectives when it sets targets for reducing carbon emissions while charging full VAT on the efficient products that will move us towards those targets.
"Retailers are already doing their bit to cut carbon but homes are responsible for 27% of the nation's emissions. Helping householders improve their performance has to be the next step."
Tesco becomes UK's first retailer to display carbon footprint on milk
Methane from cows accounts for biggest proportion of greenhouse gases, as supermarket aims to 'footprint' 500 products by the end of the year
Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 August 2009 15.59 BST
Supermarket giant Tesco has become the first UK retailer to display the full carbon footprint of milk — one of the top-selling products in its stores.
From today, all Tesco own-label full-fat, semi-skimmed and skimmed milk ranges will display the carbon footprint label as part of an on-going drive to help shoppers make "green" purchasing decisions. It has pledged to "footprint" 500 products by the end of the year. The new labelling will not apply to organic milk, where greenhouse gas emissions are generally much lower than for conventional milk.
The move comes alongside new research which found that 50% of customers surveyed now understand the correct meaning of the term "carbon footprint", compared with only 32% of people surveyed in 2008. The research also revealed that customers increasingly want to be green. Over half said they that would seek lower carbon footprint products as part of their weekly shop, compared with only 35% last year.
Tesco community and government director David North said: "We're using [milk] to play an important new role in helping our customers understand climate change, the carbon footprints of products, and what steps they can take to help. Milk is not only one of the biggest sellers in store; it's also prominent on breakfast tables day in day out across the country. So we think carbon labels on milk can play a great part in raising awareness and helping customers navigate the new carbon currency."
Tesco said that with milk it is the agricultural stage that accounts for by far the biggest portion of the carbon footprint — in this case the most significant factor being methane emissions from the cows themselves. Tesco is already working to reduce these emissions alongside the dairy industry and farmers through the Tesco Sustainable Dairy Group and Dairy Centre of Excellence at the University of Liverpool.
North added: "We are currently embarking on a number of research projects to reduce the carbon emissions from milk production. For example, we're working on using different feeds that might help reduce methane emissions from cows, and encouraging the use of renewable energy on farms."
Cutting the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional fresh milk has been a major challenge because of the methane emitted by cows, relative to other animals used for food such as pigs and chickens.
Euan Murray, Carbon Footprinting General Manager of the Carbon Trust said: "Milk is found in almost every UK home and it is taking small actions in our daily lives that will help us really make a difference in tackling climate change. The Carbon Trust have been consistently impressed by the scale and ambition of Tesco's carbon footprinting work, which will make a real difference in building consumer understanding and de-carbonising our daily shopping."
The Carbon Trust is working with Dairy UK to help the milk industry understand more about its carbon footprints as a route to greater emission reductions, he added.
Rebecca Smithers, consumer affairs correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 August 2009 15.59 BST
Supermarket giant Tesco has become the first UK retailer to display the full carbon footprint of milk — one of the top-selling products in its stores.
From today, all Tesco own-label full-fat, semi-skimmed and skimmed milk ranges will display the carbon footprint label as part of an on-going drive to help shoppers make "green" purchasing decisions. It has pledged to "footprint" 500 products by the end of the year. The new labelling will not apply to organic milk, where greenhouse gas emissions are generally much lower than for conventional milk.
The move comes alongside new research which found that 50% of customers surveyed now understand the correct meaning of the term "carbon footprint", compared with only 32% of people surveyed in 2008. The research also revealed that customers increasingly want to be green. Over half said they that would seek lower carbon footprint products as part of their weekly shop, compared with only 35% last year.
Tesco community and government director David North said: "We're using [milk] to play an important new role in helping our customers understand climate change, the carbon footprints of products, and what steps they can take to help. Milk is not only one of the biggest sellers in store; it's also prominent on breakfast tables day in day out across the country. So we think carbon labels on milk can play a great part in raising awareness and helping customers navigate the new carbon currency."
Tesco said that with milk it is the agricultural stage that accounts for by far the biggest portion of the carbon footprint — in this case the most significant factor being methane emissions from the cows themselves. Tesco is already working to reduce these emissions alongside the dairy industry and farmers through the Tesco Sustainable Dairy Group and Dairy Centre of Excellence at the University of Liverpool.
North added: "We are currently embarking on a number of research projects to reduce the carbon emissions from milk production. For example, we're working on using different feeds that might help reduce methane emissions from cows, and encouraging the use of renewable energy on farms."
Cutting the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional fresh milk has been a major challenge because of the methane emitted by cows, relative to other animals used for food such as pigs and chickens.
Euan Murray, Carbon Footprinting General Manager of the Carbon Trust said: "Milk is found in almost every UK home and it is taking small actions in our daily lives that will help us really make a difference in tackling climate change. The Carbon Trust have been consistently impressed by the scale and ambition of Tesco's carbon footprinting work, which will make a real difference in building consumer understanding and de-carbonising our daily shopping."
The Carbon Trust is working with Dairy UK to help the milk industry understand more about its carbon footprints as a route to greater emission reductions, he added.
Green policy 'ignored' as small companies struggle
Small and medium sized enterprises are abandoning green business practices as they wrestle with recession, the Environment Agency has reported.
By Roland Gribben Published: 8:46PM BST 17 Aug 2009
A study covering 7,000 companies found a 75pc drop in those operating what the agency described as "a basic formal environmental management system". More than half said the system or environmental policy was of "no use" to their business in the current climate.
The agency, in a report out today, expressed disappointment at the low priority being given to green policies after earlier evidence of an improvement in business practices. It said that with half of all serious pollution incidents caused by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and average fines running at more than £10,000, small businesses "ignore green legislation at their commercial peril".
In the past two years the number of small businesses reducing energy and water consumption had doubled, according to data collected by NetRegs, the environmental website, for the agency.
Almost 85pc were now recycling waste compared with 66pc in 2007 and overall 55pc had taken some action to reduce their contribution to environmental damage.
The research also showed a fall in the appreciation among SMEs about their impact on the environment. Just 7pc thought some of their business operations were harmful – but under further questioning the total jumped to 46pc.
Debbie Chatting, the website's strategy manager, said the survey had unearthed a "level of denial" among some small businesses and added: "SMEs make up 99pc of British business so their cumulative impact is huge. They simply cannot be apathetic or maintain indifference."
The website is also encouraging businesses to appoint "green ambassadors" – employees responsible for overseeing energy improvement programmes.
By Roland Gribben Published: 8:46PM BST 17 Aug 2009
A study covering 7,000 companies found a 75pc drop in those operating what the agency described as "a basic formal environmental management system". More than half said the system or environmental policy was of "no use" to their business in the current climate.
The agency, in a report out today, expressed disappointment at the low priority being given to green policies after earlier evidence of an improvement in business practices. It said that with half of all serious pollution incidents caused by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and average fines running at more than £10,000, small businesses "ignore green legislation at their commercial peril".
In the past two years the number of small businesses reducing energy and water consumption had doubled, according to data collected by NetRegs, the environmental website, for the agency.
Almost 85pc were now recycling waste compared with 66pc in 2007 and overall 55pc had taken some action to reduce their contribution to environmental damage.
The research also showed a fall in the appreciation among SMEs about their impact on the environment. Just 7pc thought some of their business operations were harmful – but under further questioning the total jumped to 46pc.
Debbie Chatting, the website's strategy manager, said the survey had unearthed a "level of denial" among some small businesses and added: "SMEs make up 99pc of British business so their cumulative impact is huge. They simply cannot be apathetic or maintain indifference."
The website is also encouraging businesses to appoint "green ambassadors" – employees responsible for overseeing energy improvement programmes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
