Frank Pope, Ocean Correspondent
When lobsters swarm up the beach and octopuses try to clamber up fishing lines to get out of the water, you know that something has gone badly wrong in the ocean.
Oxygen-starved dead zones have been appearing with increasing frequency around the world, with some 400 identified so far. While most are caused by sewage or fertiliser leaching into the ocean, a possible new driver has appeared in the northwest Pacific: climate change.
Just as land animals need oxygen in the air to breathe, those in the sea need the oxygen dissolved in seawater. Dead zones cover up to 20,000 sq miles each and their borders shift according to wind, current and tide, killing all animal life that cannot escape in time.
“Oregon is a little different,” said Jack Barth, of Oregon State University. “We have an open coastline, so the ability to flush the coast is high and there are no rivers carrying fertiliser. All nutrients appear to come from natural sources.”
But for the past four years Professor Barth has been using autonomous underwater robots to monitor worrying developments on a naturally occuring area of low oxygen off the northwest Pacific, on the border of Washington state and Oregon. “We’ve seen various degrees of oxygen deficiency,” he said. “We’ve seen zero oxygen, known as anoxia.”
Camera footage from remotely operated vehicles “showed us just piles of Dungeness crab, dead tube worms. None could flee”.
Off South Africa and Namibia, lobsters swarm to the beach when anoxic waters close in. Professor Barth cites reports that octopuses have tried to climb fishing lines to escape.
Low-oxygen areas occur naturally on the west coast of all continents, where nutrient-rich waters well up to the sunlit surface, causing heavy productivity. The upper waters are well mixed by wind and waves but deeper down there is less opportunity to replenish oxygen. When dead plankton drift into this zone in a marine snowfall, they cause a secondary bloom in microscopic animal life that strips away the oxygen.
If the oxygen-starved water does not reach the seabed, the effects are usually less severe. If it does, the animals there are usually unable to escape.
Usually winds push the de-oxygenated areas off Oregon out to sea but in recent years they have been coming ever closer to land and shallower water. Professor Barth said that climate-change models show coastal winds changing.
“The forecast is for stronger and less persistent winds and for deeper waters becoming less oxygenated as surface layers warm, isolating the deeper layers more. So it’s a double-whammy we’re seeing off Oregon.”
Although Professor Barth does not yet have enough records to prove that climate change is affecting the winds, he is confident that they are not altering as a result of any natural cycles, such as the warm current El Niño.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Bangkok climate talks end in recrimination
Bitter delegates say no agreement on money or emissions cuts means a deal at Copenhagen will be weak at best
John Vidal in Bangkok
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 15.41 BST
Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok today in an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.
With just five days of negotiating time now left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.
However, President Obama's expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.
"World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks," said one diplomat.
The citation for the prize specifically mentions the president "now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting".
However, China, India, Brazil and other major developing countries lined up with environment and development groups to condemn both the US and EU for demanding a brand-new climate agreement.
This would bring the US aboard an agreement but in the eyes of most countries would mean the effective end of the Kyoto protocol and possibly allow countries to set their own targets and timetables for cuts.
"It's irresponsible to even contemplate the idea of discarding the Kyoto protocol. It's the lifeblood of any future agreement. It is the only legally binding agreement that gives the certainty of moving rapidly to addressing the climate concerns of billions of people," said said Di-Aping Lumumba, Sudanese chair of the G77, a group of 130 developing countries.
"Developed countries have a massive leadership deficit. It's now up to their leaders to intervene and give a direction to the negotiations rather than waste everyone's time," he said.
Shyam Saran, Indian special envoy on climate change, said: "The EU must change its position. There have been inadmissible attempts to abandon the Kyoto protocol. This would mean rewriting the key principles. This is not what we agreed by consensus."
But the EU and UN brushed off concerns. "We are not killing Kyoto," said Anders Turesson, chair of the EU working group in the negotiations. "We want to preserve the contents [of the protocol]. The only way to do that is to find a new home for it in a new single legal instrument."
"This is trying to build something bigger and better than Kyoto. The fear is that there would be a race to the bottom. It is the opposite," he said.
Yvo de Boer, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted there were now "serious" problems. "The spirit remains constructive and we have seen advances in Bangkok, but there is a strong fear that there is an attempt to kill the Kyoto protocol. That is causing great dissatisfaction," he said.
Environment and development groups accused the EU and US of holding poor countries to ransom. "The rift between rich and poor has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to escalating impacts of climate change," said Oxfam senior climate adviser Antonio Hill. "The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to."
"Both the US and the EU have tried to shift the burden on to developing countries, arguing that they should even pay towards the costs of adapting to climate change despite their minimal contribution to the problem," said Tom Sharman, ActionAid's head of climate change. The only bright spot in the negotiations was Norway's decision to increase its emissions reduction target to 40% on 1990 levels by 2020, he said.
"The EU has only increased developing country mistrust and the US is trying to impose its own domestic limitations on the world. It's time for President Obama to be the climate leader he says he is," said Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International climate policy adviser.
John Vidal in Bangkok
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 15.41 BST
Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok today in an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.
With just five days of negotiating time now left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.
However, President Obama's expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.
"World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks," said one diplomat.
The citation for the prize specifically mentions the president "now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting".
However, China, India, Brazil and other major developing countries lined up with environment and development groups to condemn both the US and EU for demanding a brand-new climate agreement.
This would bring the US aboard an agreement but in the eyes of most countries would mean the effective end of the Kyoto protocol and possibly allow countries to set their own targets and timetables for cuts.
"It's irresponsible to even contemplate the idea of discarding the Kyoto protocol. It's the lifeblood of any future agreement. It is the only legally binding agreement that gives the certainty of moving rapidly to addressing the climate concerns of billions of people," said said Di-Aping Lumumba, Sudanese chair of the G77, a group of 130 developing countries.
"Developed countries have a massive leadership deficit. It's now up to their leaders to intervene and give a direction to the negotiations rather than waste everyone's time," he said.
Shyam Saran, Indian special envoy on climate change, said: "The EU must change its position. There have been inadmissible attempts to abandon the Kyoto protocol. This would mean rewriting the key principles. This is not what we agreed by consensus."
But the EU and UN brushed off concerns. "We are not killing Kyoto," said Anders Turesson, chair of the EU working group in the negotiations. "We want to preserve the contents [of the protocol]. The only way to do that is to find a new home for it in a new single legal instrument."
"This is trying to build something bigger and better than Kyoto. The fear is that there would be a race to the bottom. It is the opposite," he said.
Yvo de Boer, executive director of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted there were now "serious" problems. "The spirit remains constructive and we have seen advances in Bangkok, but there is a strong fear that there is an attempt to kill the Kyoto protocol. That is causing great dissatisfaction," he said.
Environment and development groups accused the EU and US of holding poor countries to ransom. "The rift between rich and poor has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to escalating impacts of climate change," said Oxfam senior climate adviser Antonio Hill. "The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to."
"Both the US and the EU have tried to shift the burden on to developing countries, arguing that they should even pay towards the costs of adapting to climate change despite their minimal contribution to the problem," said Tom Sharman, ActionAid's head of climate change. The only bright spot in the negotiations was Norway's decision to increase its emissions reduction target to 40% on 1990 levels by 2020, he said.
"The EU has only increased developing country mistrust and the US is trying to impose its own domestic limitations on the world. It's time for President Obama to be the climate leader he says he is," said Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International climate policy adviser.
Climate talks end with diplomats looking to Obama for leadership
John Vidal in Bangkok
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 22.21 BST
Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok todayin an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.
With five days of negotiating time left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.
Barack Obama's expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.
"World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks," said one diplomat. The Nobel citation specifically mentions the president's role in the US "now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting".
China, India, Brazil and other developing countries lined up with environment and development groups to condemn both the US and EU for demanding a brand-new climate agreement rather than staying within the Kyoto protocol framework.
"It's irresponsible to even contemplate the idea of discarding the Kyoto protocol. It's the lifeblood of any future agreement. It is the only legally binding agreement that gives the certainty of moving rapidly to addressing the climate concerns of billions of people," said Di-Aping Lumumba, Sudanese chair of the G77, a group of 130 developing countries.
But the EU and UN brushed off concerns. "We are not killing Kyoto," said Anders Turesson, chair of the EU working group in the negotiations. "This is trying to build something bigger and better than Kyoto." But environment and development groups accused the EU and US of holding poor countries to ransom.
"The rift between rich and poor has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to escalating impacts of climate change," said Oxfam's senior climate adviser, Antonio Hill. "The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to."
Separately, the EU was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on forest protection. One of its negotiators adopted a position with the Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea to strike a passage from the proposed agreement intended to protect forests. This led to accusations that the EU had been influenced by lobbyists from the logging industry.
At a press conference a spokesman for the Swedish EU presidency admitted there had been "an unfortunate mishap … the EU has not changed its position. It is unfortunate. The poor negotiator has been slapped in his face."
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 22.21 BST
Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok todayin an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.
With five days of negotiating time left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.
Barack Obama's expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.
"World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks," said one diplomat. The Nobel citation specifically mentions the president's role in the US "now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting".
China, India, Brazil and other developing countries lined up with environment and development groups to condemn both the US and EU for demanding a brand-new climate agreement rather than staying within the Kyoto protocol framework.
"It's irresponsible to even contemplate the idea of discarding the Kyoto protocol. It's the lifeblood of any future agreement. It is the only legally binding agreement that gives the certainty of moving rapidly to addressing the climate concerns of billions of people," said Di-Aping Lumumba, Sudanese chair of the G77, a group of 130 developing countries.
But the EU and UN brushed off concerns. "We are not killing Kyoto," said Anders Turesson, chair of the EU working group in the negotiations. "This is trying to build something bigger and better than Kyoto." But environment and development groups accused the EU and US of holding poor countries to ransom.
"The rift between rich and poor has intensified because rich countries have not put serious money on the table to help poor countries adapt to escalating impacts of climate change," said Oxfam's senior climate adviser, Antonio Hill. "The US has been silent on the scale of finance it will commit to."
Separately, the EU was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on forest protection. One of its negotiators adopted a position with the Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea to strike a passage from the proposed agreement intended to protect forests. This led to accusations that the EU had been influenced by lobbyists from the logging industry.
At a press conference a spokesman for the Swedish EU presidency admitted there had been "an unfortunate mishap … the EU has not changed its position. It is unfortunate. The poor negotiator has been slapped in his face."
Climate change causing havoc to coffee and tea farmers, says Cafédirect
• Small growers forced to higher altitudes• Government gives £12m to Fairtrade Foundation
Heather Stewart and Nick Mathiason
The Guardian, Saturday 10 October 2009
Climate change is already wreaking havoc on the livelihoods of small-scale tea and coffee farmers in some of the world's poorest countries, according to a three-year research project by Fairtrade drinks producer Cafédirect.
Research across four countries – Kenya, Mexico, Peru and Nicaragua – carried out with the state-funded German Technical Corporation, showed that growers are already being forced uphill to higher altitudes, at a rate of three to four metres a year on average, as temperatures rise. "A huge number of growers are now experiencing increased instances of pestilence and disease from rises in temperature. They are also facing prolonged drought and changing weather patterns," said Cafédirect chief executive, Anne MacCaig.
She argued that the priority for developed countries should be helping the world's poor to protect themselves against climate change.
"What's crucial is that there's an option of sustainable adaptation to safeguard the supply chain. Climate change is affecting those least able to deal with it. We can't underestimate that."
Smaller producers, who are reliant on a single crop and often cannot afford to install costly irrigation equipment as temperatures rise, are worst affected, the project, known as AdapCC, found.
Some farmers could see their incomes fall by up to 90% in the next fifteen years, the researchers say. They argue that worldwide 30 million farmers will be affected.
Small-scale growers in Peru have seen yields fall by 40% since last year, compared to 30% across the country as a whole; small producers in Mexico have seen yields halve, against a national decline of 7%, Cafédirect says.
Tea and coffee are on the climate change front line because they only grow in a relatively narrow temperature range. Research suggested that all four of the countries involved would see the quantity and quality of their crops decline sharply over the coming years.
Cafédirect worked on different ways of helping farmers adapt. In Kenya, it helped growers diversify into new crops such as passion fruits; in Peru, farmers were able to use their land to sell carbon credits; and elsewhere they planted native tree species to help bind the soil and prevent mudslides.
The report came as the government said that it will donate £12m to the Fairtrade Foundation, with the hope of doubling the number of developing country farmers who are awarded the Fairtrade mark.
Fairtrade products pay a premium to relatively small-scale growers, helping to protect them from the vicissitudes of global commodity markets and the buying power of vast multinationals. The Fairtrade mark is celebrating its 15th birthday, and now covers a wide range of products, from bananas to chocolate. Sales of Fairtrade products were up by 43% in 2008.
Addressing a conference of Fairtrade supporters yesterday, development minister Douglas Alexander said: "Fairtrade products are already a big part of life in the UK, with new products appearing on our shelves every day. Our £12m funding will help improve this even further." The Fairtrade market as a whole is expected to treble, to £9bn, by 2013.
Harriet Lamb, executive director of the Fairtrade Foundation, said: "In the current economic climate, it's the poorest communities who are hit the hardest, and so positive business models like Fairtrade, which deliver increased development benefits from trade, are more important than ever."
Heather Stewart and Nick Mathiason
The Guardian, Saturday 10 October 2009
Climate change is already wreaking havoc on the livelihoods of small-scale tea and coffee farmers in some of the world's poorest countries, according to a three-year research project by Fairtrade drinks producer Cafédirect.
Research across four countries – Kenya, Mexico, Peru and Nicaragua – carried out with the state-funded German Technical Corporation, showed that growers are already being forced uphill to higher altitudes, at a rate of three to four metres a year on average, as temperatures rise. "A huge number of growers are now experiencing increased instances of pestilence and disease from rises in temperature. They are also facing prolonged drought and changing weather patterns," said Cafédirect chief executive, Anne MacCaig.
She argued that the priority for developed countries should be helping the world's poor to protect themselves against climate change.
"What's crucial is that there's an option of sustainable adaptation to safeguard the supply chain. Climate change is affecting those least able to deal with it. We can't underestimate that."
Smaller producers, who are reliant on a single crop and often cannot afford to install costly irrigation equipment as temperatures rise, are worst affected, the project, known as AdapCC, found.
Some farmers could see their incomes fall by up to 90% in the next fifteen years, the researchers say. They argue that worldwide 30 million farmers will be affected.
Small-scale growers in Peru have seen yields fall by 40% since last year, compared to 30% across the country as a whole; small producers in Mexico have seen yields halve, against a national decline of 7%, Cafédirect says.
Tea and coffee are on the climate change front line because they only grow in a relatively narrow temperature range. Research suggested that all four of the countries involved would see the quantity and quality of their crops decline sharply over the coming years.
Cafédirect worked on different ways of helping farmers adapt. In Kenya, it helped growers diversify into new crops such as passion fruits; in Peru, farmers were able to use their land to sell carbon credits; and elsewhere they planted native tree species to help bind the soil and prevent mudslides.
The report came as the government said that it will donate £12m to the Fairtrade Foundation, with the hope of doubling the number of developing country farmers who are awarded the Fairtrade mark.
Fairtrade products pay a premium to relatively small-scale growers, helping to protect them from the vicissitudes of global commodity markets and the buying power of vast multinationals. The Fairtrade mark is celebrating its 15th birthday, and now covers a wide range of products, from bananas to chocolate. Sales of Fairtrade products were up by 43% in 2008.
Addressing a conference of Fairtrade supporters yesterday, development minister Douglas Alexander said: "Fairtrade products are already a big part of life in the UK, with new products appearing on our shelves every day. Our £12m funding will help improve this even further." The Fairtrade market as a whole is expected to treble, to £9bn, by 2013.
Harriet Lamb, executive director of the Fairtrade Foundation, said: "In the current economic climate, it's the poorest communities who are hit the hardest, and so positive business models like Fairtrade, which deliver increased development benefits from trade, are more important than ever."
British delegate's pro-logging stance prompts EU apology
Embarassed official apologises after a British negotiator at the Bangkok climate talks rewrites the EU's climate change policy to sanction the felling of rainforests
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 16.07 BST
The EU had to apologise last night after a British official at the Bangkok climate negotiations single-handedly rewrote its position to effectively sanction the felling of the world's rainforests in order to grow plantations of palm oil.
Wording that would have protected natural forests was in the draft UN text at the start of the week's negotiations, but had mysteriously disappeared by Wednesday – to the delight of loggers and some African countries.
On Friday, more than 20 countries led by Brazil, Mexico, India and Norway protested vigorously and pleaded for the safeguard to be put back in. But the EU, supported by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and other countries not known for their forestry protection policies, declined to reinstate it.
This prompted environmentalists and others to accuse the EU of being in the pocket of the global logging industry – some of whose members were at the negotiations lobbying delegates in the Bangkok conference halls.
But at a press conference this afternoon, the EU gave way. A clearly embarrassed Swedish spokesman was forced to say the negotiator had blundered. "It was an unfortunate mishap," he said. "Sometimes negotiators think of tactical moves. In this case, he wanted to wait until the Barcelona talks next month (to reinstate it). The EU has not changed its position. It is unfortunate. The poor negotiator has been slapped in his face."
John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 October 2009 16.07 BST
The EU had to apologise last night after a British official at the Bangkok climate negotiations single-handedly rewrote its position to effectively sanction the felling of the world's rainforests in order to grow plantations of palm oil.
Wording that would have protected natural forests was in the draft UN text at the start of the week's negotiations, but had mysteriously disappeared by Wednesday – to the delight of loggers and some African countries.
On Friday, more than 20 countries led by Brazil, Mexico, India and Norway protested vigorously and pleaded for the safeguard to be put back in. But the EU, supported by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and other countries not known for their forestry protection policies, declined to reinstate it.
This prompted environmentalists and others to accuse the EU of being in the pocket of the global logging industry – some of whose members were at the negotiations lobbying delegates in the Bangkok conference halls.
But at a press conference this afternoon, the EU gave way. A clearly embarrassed Swedish spokesman was forced to say the negotiator had blundered. "It was an unfortunate mishap," he said. "Sometimes negotiators think of tactical moves. In this case, he wanted to wait until the Barcelona talks next month (to reinstate it). The EU has not changed its position. It is unfortunate. The poor negotiator has been slapped in his face."
Regulator: U.K. Needs £200 Billion to Meet Carbon Targets
By ALEX MACDONALD
LONDON -- Britain will need to invest up to £200 billion ($321.5 billion) over the next decade and a half to ensure the country can meet its carbon targets and secure adequate energy supplies, the U.K. energy regulator Ofgem said Friday.
Ofgem outlined four energy scenarios to assess the energy security risks over the next 10 to 15 years. In the four scenarios, Ofgem concluded Britain will face significant levels of gas imports, in particular for gas power plants to replace lost nuclear and coal-fired capacity.
The report also found that Britain will need to make significant changes to the way it generates and consumes power in order to manage fluctuations in power generation from the nation's increasing dependence on wind power.
Since massive levels of investment will be needed in order to make these changes, Ofgem said there is a high likelihood that consumer bills will rise -- especially if oil and gas prices continue their upward trend, evidenced since 2003.
"Our scenarios suggest that Britain faces a tough challenge in maintaining secure supplies whilst at the same time meeting its climate change targets," Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan said. "However, there is still time to act. Ofgem will be putting forward proposals in the New Year based on today's consultation to ensure that Britain's energy industry can meet the challenges ahead."
The four scenarios -- which consider variables including economic recovery, investment, environment targets and security of supply -- would result in increases in domestic energy bills of between 14% and 25% by 2020 (from 2009 levels). Domestic bills could rise by as much as 60% in the interim if wholesale energy prices spike due to a strong rebound in the global economy.
The scenarios are labeled Green Transition, Green Stimulus, Dash for Energy, and Slow Growth. In all four, Britain's dependence on gas imports increases but in two of them imports stabilize from the middle of the next decade, Ofgem said.
Write to Alex MacDonald at alex.macdonald@dowjones.com
LONDON -- Britain will need to invest up to £200 billion ($321.5 billion) over the next decade and a half to ensure the country can meet its carbon targets and secure adequate energy supplies, the U.K. energy regulator Ofgem said Friday.
Ofgem outlined four energy scenarios to assess the energy security risks over the next 10 to 15 years. In the four scenarios, Ofgem concluded Britain will face significant levels of gas imports, in particular for gas power plants to replace lost nuclear and coal-fired capacity.
The report also found that Britain will need to make significant changes to the way it generates and consumes power in order to manage fluctuations in power generation from the nation's increasing dependence on wind power.
Since massive levels of investment will be needed in order to make these changes, Ofgem said there is a high likelihood that consumer bills will rise -- especially if oil and gas prices continue their upward trend, evidenced since 2003.
"Our scenarios suggest that Britain faces a tough challenge in maintaining secure supplies whilst at the same time meeting its climate change targets," Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan said. "However, there is still time to act. Ofgem will be putting forward proposals in the New Year based on today's consultation to ensure that Britain's energy industry can meet the challenges ahead."
The four scenarios -- which consider variables including economic recovery, investment, environment targets and security of supply -- would result in increases in domestic energy bills of between 14% and 25% by 2020 (from 2009 levels). Domestic bills could rise by as much as 60% in the interim if wholesale energy prices spike due to a strong rebound in the global economy.
The scenarios are labeled Green Transition, Green Stimulus, Dash for Energy, and Slow Growth. In all four, Britain's dependence on gas imports increases but in two of them imports stabilize from the middle of the next decade, Ofgem said.
Write to Alex MacDonald at alex.macdonald@dowjones.com
Hummer Will Test China's Green Credentials
By ANDREW PEAPLE
A step closer to signing a deal for Hummer, Sichuan Tengzhong now faces a final hurdle -- China's regulators.
The chief executive of the little-known Chinese company is in Detroit to seal a $150 million purchase of Hummer from General Motors.
Bloomberg News
A deal could be signed as early as Friday. Still, sealing approval from Beijing might prove difficult.
The gas-guzzling Hummer doesn't exactly fit with China's newfound focus on energy efficiency, something that's had Beijing offering subsidies to automakers building greener cars. A green light to the Hummer deal will fly in the face of such progressive policy trends, especially since Tengzhong's longer term aim seems to be to sell the Hummer in China.
Efforts by Hummer's technicians to come up with more fuel-efficient models, will be crucial to overcoming this. Certainly Hummer is hoping that it will retain access to GM's fuel efficiency technology even after they split.
The deal fits some patterns the government's trying to encourage, such as giving Chinese companies greater access to technology.
Whether that will be enough to convince the Chinese authorities of the viability of Tengzhong's acquisition plans remains to be seen.
The company certainly seems to think it will. The environmental misfit adds a final uncertainty to a deal that's always been out of left field.
Write to Andrew Peaple at andrew.peaple@dowjones.com
A step closer to signing a deal for Hummer, Sichuan Tengzhong now faces a final hurdle -- China's regulators.
The chief executive of the little-known Chinese company is in Detroit to seal a $150 million purchase of Hummer from General Motors.
Bloomberg News
A deal could be signed as early as Friday. Still, sealing approval from Beijing might prove difficult.
The gas-guzzling Hummer doesn't exactly fit with China's newfound focus on energy efficiency, something that's had Beijing offering subsidies to automakers building greener cars. A green light to the Hummer deal will fly in the face of such progressive policy trends, especially since Tengzhong's longer term aim seems to be to sell the Hummer in China.
Efforts by Hummer's technicians to come up with more fuel-efficient models, will be crucial to overcoming this. Certainly Hummer is hoping that it will retain access to GM's fuel efficiency technology even after they split.
The deal fits some patterns the government's trying to encourage, such as giving Chinese companies greater access to technology.
Whether that will be enough to convince the Chinese authorities of the viability of Tengzhong's acquisition plans remains to be seen.
The company certainly seems to think it will. The environmental misfit adds a final uncertainty to a deal that's always been out of left field.
Write to Andrew Peaple at andrew.peaple@dowjones.com
While wind farms run out of puff our bills will build up a head of steam
Wind. It's a touchy subject. Pete 'n' Dud spotted the problem back in 1961 when they were preparing for the End of The World.
By Alistair OsbornePublished: 8:13PM BST 09 Oct 2009
"Will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth?" inquired the fretful Dud. "No. It will not be quite as mighty as that," Pete replied. "That is why we have come up on the mountain, you stupid nit – to be safe from it."
As it turned out, the wind failed to show up – a recurrent theme that Ofgem reprised yesterday as it highlighted the "variability" of such an energy supply. So variable in fact that the energy regulator is currently assuming that, in the future, windfarms are available for just 15pc of the time.
Ofgem is not a political animal. But there was plenty of ammo in Friday's report for critics of Labour energy policy.
Realising fish can't vote, the Government's major contribution has been to approve pricey, unreliable offshore windfarms – while refusing, for far too long, to address the nuclear option.
The upshot is that cash-strapped Britain is now facing a looming energy gap, priced yesterday by Ofgem at up to £200bn. This is the sum that may be required to build new energy infrastructure while meeting environmental targets.
Who pays, you wonder. Well, you do, with the pain intensifying around 2015 when Britain shuts down its most polluting coal-fired power plants and our old nukes. Then, household bills could jump by 60pc – enough to make anyone's hair stand on end.
There are two main reasons for this little shocker. First, that Britain has signed up to emission targets that call for 40pc of our electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2020.
And second, that because we've been so slow in replacing our dwindling North Sea reserves with other forms of energy, we've become increasingly reliant on gas from Russia and Qatar – with all the attendant political risks.
It's enough to put the wind up any incoming Government.
By Alistair OsbornePublished: 8:13PM BST 09 Oct 2009
"Will this wind be so mighty as to lay low the mountains of the earth?" inquired the fretful Dud. "No. It will not be quite as mighty as that," Pete replied. "That is why we have come up on the mountain, you stupid nit – to be safe from it."
As it turned out, the wind failed to show up – a recurrent theme that Ofgem reprised yesterday as it highlighted the "variability" of such an energy supply. So variable in fact that the energy regulator is currently assuming that, in the future, windfarms are available for just 15pc of the time.
Ofgem is not a political animal. But there was plenty of ammo in Friday's report for critics of Labour energy policy.
Realising fish can't vote, the Government's major contribution has been to approve pricey, unreliable offshore windfarms – while refusing, for far too long, to address the nuclear option.
The upshot is that cash-strapped Britain is now facing a looming energy gap, priced yesterday by Ofgem at up to £200bn. This is the sum that may be required to build new energy infrastructure while meeting environmental targets.
Who pays, you wonder. Well, you do, with the pain intensifying around 2015 when Britain shuts down its most polluting coal-fired power plants and our old nukes. Then, household bills could jump by 60pc – enough to make anyone's hair stand on end.
There are two main reasons for this little shocker. First, that Britain has signed up to emission targets that call for 40pc of our electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2020.
And second, that because we've been so slow in replacing our dwindling North Sea reserves with other forms of energy, we've become increasingly reliant on gas from Russia and Qatar – with all the attendant political risks.
It's enough to put the wind up any incoming Government.
Power cuts forecast to hit UK in four years
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
Britain faces a return to 1970s-style power blackouts and disruption to its electricity supplies within four years, the energy regulator warned yesterday.
Ofgem raised the spectre of a return to the three-day week for British industry as the country scrambles to renovate its crumbling power infrastructure ahead of new EU pollution rules that will force the closure of a quarter of UK power stations by 2015.
Alistair Buchanan, Ofgem’s chief executive, said: “There could be a potential shortfall in the period 2013-18 ... Life might be pretty cold.”
In extreme scenarios such as during periods of unusually harsh winter weather, Mr Buchanan said that Britain could be forced to switch off power supplies to large factories to conserve dwindling electricity supplies for households.
Ofgem said that in such circumstances, “involuntary curtailment of demand” for large energy users might be the only solution.
Speaking at the publication of Project Discovery, a report from Ofgem on the security of energy supplies, Mr Buchanan said that a failure to tackle the issue had left Britain more vulnerable to energy supply shocks than any other major country in Europe. Germany and France, he said, were “way ahead of us” in terms of investing in new, lower-carbon power supplies, adding that only “massive reductions” in demand achieved through energy savings could rescue consumers from swingeing increases in their energy bills of up to 60 per cent.
Ofgem said that by 2020 Britain needed to spend between £95 billion and £200 billion on new wind farms, gas, nuclear and biomass power stations, as well as high-voltage transmission networks to ensure reliable supplies and meet tough targets to cut carbon emissions.
But Jeremy Nicholson, of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents some of Britain’s biggest manufacturers, including Corus, the steelmaker, said Britain was entering “very dangerous territory”.
He warned that such major disruption presented a “material threat to heavy industry” and added that manufacturers could be facing even bigger rises in their energy bills than consumers — as much as 120 per cent.
Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, acknowledged the need for greater action.
He said: “I think Government does need to play more of a role if we are going to get the low-carbon transition and if we are going to get security of supply.”
Britain faces a return to 1970s-style power blackouts and disruption to its electricity supplies within four years, the energy regulator warned yesterday.
Ofgem raised the spectre of a return to the three-day week for British industry as the country scrambles to renovate its crumbling power infrastructure ahead of new EU pollution rules that will force the closure of a quarter of UK power stations by 2015.
Alistair Buchanan, Ofgem’s chief executive, said: “There could be a potential shortfall in the period 2013-18 ... Life might be pretty cold.”
In extreme scenarios such as during periods of unusually harsh winter weather, Mr Buchanan said that Britain could be forced to switch off power supplies to large factories to conserve dwindling electricity supplies for households.
Ofgem said that in such circumstances, “involuntary curtailment of demand” for large energy users might be the only solution.
Speaking at the publication of Project Discovery, a report from Ofgem on the security of energy supplies, Mr Buchanan said that a failure to tackle the issue had left Britain more vulnerable to energy supply shocks than any other major country in Europe. Germany and France, he said, were “way ahead of us” in terms of investing in new, lower-carbon power supplies, adding that only “massive reductions” in demand achieved through energy savings could rescue consumers from swingeing increases in their energy bills of up to 60 per cent.
Ofgem said that by 2020 Britain needed to spend between £95 billion and £200 billion on new wind farms, gas, nuclear and biomass power stations, as well as high-voltage transmission networks to ensure reliable supplies and meet tough targets to cut carbon emissions.
But Jeremy Nicholson, of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents some of Britain’s biggest manufacturers, including Corus, the steelmaker, said Britain was entering “very dangerous territory”.
He warned that such major disruption presented a “material threat to heavy industry” and added that manufacturers could be facing even bigger rises in their energy bills than consumers — as much as 120 per cent.
Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, acknowledged the need for greater action.
He said: “I think Government does need to play more of a role if we are going to get the low-carbon transition and if we are going to get security of supply.”
Higher wheat yields and land for biofuels
UK wheat production and farmers' long-term prospects
Sir, Professor Bryan Reuben (letter, Oct 6) is only partly correct with his statement that farmers were not encouraged to grow wheat until entry to the Common Market brought in import controls to this country, thereby raising prices.
The main reason for the increased production is that average yields per acre doubled between the mid-1970s to mid-1990s due almost entirely to the advent of higher-yielding varieties that, combined with higher prices, made wheat cultivation very profitable.
Richard Mitham
Alton, Hants
Sir, Despite this year’s wheat production being lower than in 2008, UK stocks are at double the levels of the five-year average — five million tonnes against the five-year average of 2.5 million tonnes. In fact, in the past ten years we have produced nearly 16 million tonnes four times.
The long-term prospects are positive with UK farmers able to produce more if the correct market and policy signals are in place. The 2009 harvest reflected falling cereal markets and higher crop input costs affecting production directly.
Biofuels are an efficient use of land, producing both an important low-carbon fuel to replace fossil fuels and also a high protein co-product that can help to reduce our dependence on imported protein for animal feeds.
Peter Kendall
President, NFU
Sir, Professor Bryan Reuben (letter, Oct 6) is only partly correct with his statement that farmers were not encouraged to grow wheat until entry to the Common Market brought in import controls to this country, thereby raising prices.
The main reason for the increased production is that average yields per acre doubled between the mid-1970s to mid-1990s due almost entirely to the advent of higher-yielding varieties that, combined with higher prices, made wheat cultivation very profitable.
Richard Mitham
Alton, Hants
Sir, Despite this year’s wheat production being lower than in 2008, UK stocks are at double the levels of the five-year average — five million tonnes against the five-year average of 2.5 million tonnes. In fact, in the past ten years we have produced nearly 16 million tonnes four times.
The long-term prospects are positive with UK farmers able to produce more if the correct market and policy signals are in place. The 2009 harvest reflected falling cereal markets and higher crop input costs affecting production directly.
Biofuels are an efficient use of land, producing both an important low-carbon fuel to replace fossil fuels and also a high protein co-product that can help to reduce our dependence on imported protein for animal feeds.
Peter Kendall
President, NFU
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
