John Smith: Opinion
It is one thing for the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to announce that he plans to make London the electric-car capital of Europe, it is quite another to understand who will buy or sell those vehicles.
He is not alone though. Most European governments are launching programmes to get more people to use electric vehicles. But few really understand who the electric vehicle customer is. How many Europeans truly want to drive electric vehicles? And what exactly are these people looking for?
The first question is a challenge because of the higher cost of electric vehicles, which depend on expensive batteries. Customer research reveals that if electric vehicles are offered at a total cost (vehicle price plus fuel and maintenance charges) comparable with conventional cars, global sales of electric vehicles would be upwards of 1.5 million units a year, with almost 600,000 sold in Europe.
The second question is even more complex. According to market research on more than 2,000 urban car owners from Europe’s four largest markets — Germany, the UK, Italy and France — the demand for electric vehicles in Europe will come from four distinct customer segments with varying affinity for electric vehicles. These are the eco-friendly “green innovators”, the budget-conscious “cost-shoppers”, the risk-averse “laggards” and, last but not least, the eco-prestige, high-end “Premium 2.0” customers.
In Europe, it is these up-market customers who will lead the charge for the new technology. They are willing to pay a higher price and put up with new technology glitches as long as they are the first to drive the “cool”, new electric cars. We have identified a potential market of about 350,000 such premium customers worldwide — about one third of them in Europe — who would be ready to buy an electric vehicle today, even if it is priced €10,000 (£8,900) above a comparable conventional car.
The emergence of the “Premium 2.0” shopper as the first sizeable customer segment — as opposed to eco-shoppers — will have huge implications for carmakers on how they design, market and package electric cars in Europe. Just as iPhone customers pride themselves on being quite distinct from other mobile phone users, these prestige customers seek cachet. Just as Apple revived its fortunes with the iPhone, the race for the electric car market will be won by the manufacturers that change gears the fastest.
The nascent market for electric cars is a potential disruptive force that could redefine the dominating position of leading car companies in Europe. “Premium 2.0” customers currently drive premium conventional European brands. When asked which carmaker they would buy an electric vehicle from, many listed German brands, such as BMW and Audi. They also gave high scores to brands such as Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi — brands that normally would not be on a premium customer’s shopping list.
More than a dozen carmakers plan to launch electric vehicles in Europe in the next 18 months. Quite clearly, the London electric vehicle sweepstakes are open to any manufacturer willing to woo premium consumers with trendy models that offer cool, urban, zero-emissions mobility.
? John Smith is global head of Bain & Company’s Industrial Goods and Services Practice
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
E.ON lights the way ahead with LED streetlamps
E.ON will today launch an LED streetlight that consumes up to 70% less energy than standard lights and promises to deliver a "step change" in the efficiency of lighting infrastructure.
From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 10.43 GMT
E.ON will today launch an LED streetlight that consumes up to 70 per cent less energy than standard lights and promises to deliver a "step change" in the efficiency of lighting infrastructure.
The energy firm already operates a number of lighting contracts for local authorities and private companies and is now looking to offer the technology to new and existing customers.
"We're bidding for a number of highway and streetlighting contracts and wanted to demonstrate a step change within the efficiency of lighting," Rachel Hodge at E.ON Sustainable Energy told BusinessGreen.com.
She added that the long life of streetlamps – contracts typically run for 25 years – means that it is important to install the most efficient systems available at the start of a project or risk being locked into higher levels of energy use.
The new Marlin streetlight has been in development for 18 months and has been tested successfully at a number of E.ON sites, as well as with two local authorities, the company said.
The technology was developed in partnership with West Midlands lighting firm Advanced LEDs, and according to E.ON it represents the first low-energy streetlight to be designed, developed and manufactured entirely in the UK.
Calculations based on data taken from the trial at an E.ON site last year found that an organisation installing just 10 lights would save £33,000 and 63 tonnes of carbon over 25 years. The lights are also expected to last 10 times longer than standard streetlights – lasting for more than 150,000 hours.
The company said that as well as local authority customers, E.ON will target private sector firms which are expected to use the technology to light car parks. E.ON said the lamp also provides improved resolution on CCTV images.
The lights will be produced in Coventry by local social enterprise Remploy and they contain no harmful mercury or heavy metals, meaning they are relatively easy to dispose of at the end of their life.
The announcement comes a fortnight after NGO the Climate Group announced the launch of a major global trial of LED streetlights. The LightSavers initiative was unveiled at the Copenhagen climate summit and will see LED lights trialled in Adelaide, Hong Kong, Kolkata, London, Mumbai, New York, Tianjin and Toronto.
From BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 10.43 GMT
E.ON will today launch an LED streetlight that consumes up to 70 per cent less energy than standard lights and promises to deliver a "step change" in the efficiency of lighting infrastructure.
The energy firm already operates a number of lighting contracts for local authorities and private companies and is now looking to offer the technology to new and existing customers.
"We're bidding for a number of highway and streetlighting contracts and wanted to demonstrate a step change within the efficiency of lighting," Rachel Hodge at E.ON Sustainable Energy told BusinessGreen.com.
She added that the long life of streetlamps – contracts typically run for 25 years – means that it is important to install the most efficient systems available at the start of a project or risk being locked into higher levels of energy use.
The new Marlin streetlight has been in development for 18 months and has been tested successfully at a number of E.ON sites, as well as with two local authorities, the company said.
The technology was developed in partnership with West Midlands lighting firm Advanced LEDs, and according to E.ON it represents the first low-energy streetlight to be designed, developed and manufactured entirely in the UK.
Calculations based on data taken from the trial at an E.ON site last year found that an organisation installing just 10 lights would save £33,000 and 63 tonnes of carbon over 25 years. The lights are also expected to last 10 times longer than standard streetlights – lasting for more than 150,000 hours.
The company said that as well as local authority customers, E.ON will target private sector firms which are expected to use the technology to light car parks. E.ON said the lamp also provides improved resolution on CCTV images.
The lights will be produced in Coventry by local social enterprise Remploy and they contain no harmful mercury or heavy metals, meaning they are relatively easy to dispose of at the end of their life.
The announcement comes a fortnight after NGO the Climate Group announced the launch of a major global trial of LED streetlights. The LightSavers initiative was unveiled at the Copenhagen climate summit and will see LED lights trialled in Adelaide, Hong Kong, Kolkata, London, Mumbai, New York, Tianjin and Toronto.
Unite union seeks British jobs pledge from Westinghouse nuclear consortium
Call for assurances when Westinghouse and Shaw Group meet Mandelson over nuclear reactor contract
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.43 GMT
Unions are pressing government ministers to extract guarantees on British jobs from the Westinghouse-led consortium, which wants to build more than £10bn of new nuclear reactors in Britain.
A joint delegation from Westinghouse and Shaw Group, the controversial US group recently appointed as lead contractor for the work, will fly to London next month to meet ministers from Lord Mandelson's business department and Ed Miliband's energy department.
The companies have promised that "up to 80%" of the contracts to supply reactor components will go to British companies.
But Dougie Rooney, national officer for energy from the union Unite, said that the ministers should hold the companies, which require government approval to build the reactors, to their promise on British jobs. "It's one thing to say it, it's another thing delivering on that promise," he said. "My concern is that given what has happened in the past and that Westinghouse and Shaw are sitting on a global monopoly to build that type of reactor, we have to have copper-bottomed guarantees about that being realised."
Shaw is best known in the UK as one of the main contractors to build Total's controversial Lindsey refinery and made 51 workers there redundant last year, which led to a series of wildcat walk-outs around the country over the use of foreign labour. There is the potential for 10,000 British manufacturing jobs to be created through the nuclear building programme.
Westinghouse announced that it had appointed Shaw to lead its new build programme in the UK on Christmas Eve. Shaw is partnered by British construction firm Laing O'Rourke, which Westinghouse said is consistent with its "buy where we build" approach to business.
Mike Tynan, chief executive of Westinghouse in Britain, said: "Laing O'Rourke is not only the largest privately owned construction company in the UK, it is also one of the most respected in the global construction industry. The addition of such an experienced UK-based company, and access to its existing UK supplier base, will certainly add value as we build AP1000s in the United Kingdom in a manner that is truly beneficial to all parties."
But Laing O'Rourke will not be involved in providing any of the high-specification reactor components. British-based manufacturers such as BAE Systems and Rolls Royce are understood to be concerned that lucrative contracts to make reactor modules could be lost to Shaw's manufacturing bases in the US and Belgium.
The UK nuclear joint venture formed by E.ON and RWE is expected to decide whether to place a reactor order with Westinghouse or its French rival Areva around Easter, although there is no guarantee that they will do either. It had planned to make an investment decision during the first quarter. The companies are understood to be concerned about the economics of building new reactors, particularly with the low carbon price. They also harbour doubts that the changes in the planning regime proposed by the Conservatives could delay construction should they win the election.
Tim Webb
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.43 GMT
Unions are pressing government ministers to extract guarantees on British jobs from the Westinghouse-led consortium, which wants to build more than £10bn of new nuclear reactors in Britain.
A joint delegation from Westinghouse and Shaw Group, the controversial US group recently appointed as lead contractor for the work, will fly to London next month to meet ministers from Lord Mandelson's business department and Ed Miliband's energy department.
The companies have promised that "up to 80%" of the contracts to supply reactor components will go to British companies.
But Dougie Rooney, national officer for energy from the union Unite, said that the ministers should hold the companies, which require government approval to build the reactors, to their promise on British jobs. "It's one thing to say it, it's another thing delivering on that promise," he said. "My concern is that given what has happened in the past and that Westinghouse and Shaw are sitting on a global monopoly to build that type of reactor, we have to have copper-bottomed guarantees about that being realised."
Shaw is best known in the UK as one of the main contractors to build Total's controversial Lindsey refinery and made 51 workers there redundant last year, which led to a series of wildcat walk-outs around the country over the use of foreign labour. There is the potential for 10,000 British manufacturing jobs to be created through the nuclear building programme.
Westinghouse announced that it had appointed Shaw to lead its new build programme in the UK on Christmas Eve. Shaw is partnered by British construction firm Laing O'Rourke, which Westinghouse said is consistent with its "buy where we build" approach to business.
Mike Tynan, chief executive of Westinghouse in Britain, said: "Laing O'Rourke is not only the largest privately owned construction company in the UK, it is also one of the most respected in the global construction industry. The addition of such an experienced UK-based company, and access to its existing UK supplier base, will certainly add value as we build AP1000s in the United Kingdom in a manner that is truly beneficial to all parties."
But Laing O'Rourke will not be involved in providing any of the high-specification reactor components. British-based manufacturers such as BAE Systems and Rolls Royce are understood to be concerned that lucrative contracts to make reactor modules could be lost to Shaw's manufacturing bases in the US and Belgium.
The UK nuclear joint venture formed by E.ON and RWE is expected to decide whether to place a reactor order with Westinghouse or its French rival Areva around Easter, although there is no guarantee that they will do either. It had planned to make an investment decision during the first quarter. The companies are understood to be concerned about the economics of building new reactors, particularly with the low carbon price. They also harbour doubts that the changes in the planning regime proposed by the Conservatives could delay construction should they win the election.
Greens step up calls for every home to have free insulation
Published Date: 05 January 2010
By Joe Quinn
GREEN campaigners have demanded free loft insulation for every home in Scotland.
Policymakers from the World Wild Life Fund Scotland said the target should be included in a "bold" package of measures in order to make sure Scottish Government climate change targets are reached.WWF Scotland said urgent action was needed to achieve the government's target of a 42 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. On the government's own figures, current policies would reach only a 9 per cent reduction by then, WWF said.WWF Scotland senior policy officer Elizabeth Leighton said: "Home energy use accounts for over a third of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions, so if we are to meet the targets, the Scottish Government must act urgently to make all Scottish homes low- carbon."The environmentalist group is calling for free loft and cavity-wall insulation for everyone and "attractive and accessible" financial packages for more expensive measures.It also wants house-by-house eco-refurbishment, across Scotland, led by local councils, on top of existing fuel poverty programmes, plus a commitment to minimum energy-efficiency standards for private housing within five years.The organisation said the insulation measures will cost £544 million: £388m for lofts and £156m for cavity-walls.Ms Leighton said: "The price tag sounds massive, but it would be spread over a decade and the cash will come from mix of sources, including energy companies, householders and the public purse."We would be able to realise economies of scale and as a result the total cost could be much less."A significant part of the investment would be recouped by savings in energy bills and associated economic and health benefits."
By Joe Quinn
GREEN campaigners have demanded free loft insulation for every home in Scotland.
Policymakers from the World Wild Life Fund Scotland said the target should be included in a "bold" package of measures in order to make sure Scottish Government climate change targets are reached.WWF Scotland said urgent action was needed to achieve the government's target of a 42 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. On the government's own figures, current policies would reach only a 9 per cent reduction by then, WWF said.WWF Scotland senior policy officer Elizabeth Leighton said: "Home energy use accounts for over a third of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions, so if we are to meet the targets, the Scottish Government must act urgently to make all Scottish homes low- carbon."The environmentalist group is calling for free loft and cavity-wall insulation for everyone and "attractive and accessible" financial packages for more expensive measures.It also wants house-by-house eco-refurbishment, across Scotland, led by local councils, on top of existing fuel poverty programmes, plus a commitment to minimum energy-efficiency standards for private housing within five years.The organisation said the insulation measures will cost £544 million: £388m for lofts and £156m for cavity-walls.Ms Leighton said: "The price tag sounds massive, but it would be spread over a decade and the cash will come from mix of sources, including energy companies, householders and the public purse."We would be able to realise economies of scale and as a result the total cost could be much less."A significant part of the investment would be recouped by savings in energy bills and associated economic and health benefits."
New EU regulations for battery disposal
Rules that require battery retailers to provide disposal facilities come into force this month to divert heavy metals from landfill
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.26 GMT
New regulations come into force this month that require retailers selling batteries to provide collection and recycling facilities for their eventual disposal.
The rules, part of the EU's batteries directive, are meant to deal with the thousands of tonnes of harmful metals that pollute the environment when used batteries are burned or put into landfill.
According to the Environment Agency, which will be among the organisations to enforce the new rules, the directive will "affect any business that uses, produces, supplies, or disposes of batteries, as well as any business that manufactures or designs battery-powered products".
For consumers, everything from AAA cells to mobile phone batteries and button cells used in hearing aids and watches, must be separated from household rubbish and placed into designated recycling bins in shops or other recycling points. Though the details are yet to be worked out, among the schemes expected to become available to consumers are in-store recycling points, kerbside collection and post-back to manufacturers or vendors.
"The primary intention is to divert batteries away from landfill, to avoid metals such as cadmium and mercury in those batteries from getting into the environment," said Bob Mead, the Environment Agency's project manager. "For portable batteries, the current rate of collection and recycling are pretty low, the government estimates it at around 3%. The directive requires us to get that up to a minimum of 25% by 2012 and 45% by 2016."
Anyone selling more than a tonne of portable batteries a year will have to arrange for the collection, recycling and disposal of waste batteries in proportion to their market share. But Mead said this did not mean retailers would be burdened with layers of extra responsibility. "The retailers themselves are required to do nothing more than provide a point where one of these collection bins can be placed," he said. "They have no responsibilities themselves in treating or recycling the batteries they collect. They merely have to phone up one of the compliance schemes and say: 'I've got some batteries so come and take them away from me.'"
The directive was created to deal with the approximately 800,000 tonnes of automotive batteries, 190,000 tonnes of industrial batteries and 160,000 tonnes of consumer batteries that are placed on the EU market every year. The metals used range from lead and mercury to nickel, cadmium, zinc, lithium and manganese.
According to the European commission, mercury, lead and cadmium are the most problematic substances in the battery waste stream and batteries made with these metals are classified as hazardous waste. When these waste batteries are burned, they contribute to air pollution and, when they end up in landfill, the metals leach into the surrounding land. In additioon, thousands of tonnes of valuable metals, such as nickel, cobalt and silver, could be recovered if batteries did not go to landfills or incinerators.
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.26 GMT
New regulations come into force this month that require retailers selling batteries to provide collection and recycling facilities for their eventual disposal.
The rules, part of the EU's batteries directive, are meant to deal with the thousands of tonnes of harmful metals that pollute the environment when used batteries are burned or put into landfill.
According to the Environment Agency, which will be among the organisations to enforce the new rules, the directive will "affect any business that uses, produces, supplies, or disposes of batteries, as well as any business that manufactures or designs battery-powered products".
For consumers, everything from AAA cells to mobile phone batteries and button cells used in hearing aids and watches, must be separated from household rubbish and placed into designated recycling bins in shops or other recycling points. Though the details are yet to be worked out, among the schemes expected to become available to consumers are in-store recycling points, kerbside collection and post-back to manufacturers or vendors.
"The primary intention is to divert batteries away from landfill, to avoid metals such as cadmium and mercury in those batteries from getting into the environment," said Bob Mead, the Environment Agency's project manager. "For portable batteries, the current rate of collection and recycling are pretty low, the government estimates it at around 3%. The directive requires us to get that up to a minimum of 25% by 2012 and 45% by 2016."
Anyone selling more than a tonne of portable batteries a year will have to arrange for the collection, recycling and disposal of waste batteries in proportion to their market share. But Mead said this did not mean retailers would be burdened with layers of extra responsibility. "The retailers themselves are required to do nothing more than provide a point where one of these collection bins can be placed," he said. "They have no responsibilities themselves in treating or recycling the batteries they collect. They merely have to phone up one of the compliance schemes and say: 'I've got some batteries so come and take them away from me.'"
The directive was created to deal with the approximately 800,000 tonnes of automotive batteries, 190,000 tonnes of industrial batteries and 160,000 tonnes of consumer batteries that are placed on the EU market every year. The metals used range from lead and mercury to nickel, cadmium, zinc, lithium and manganese.
According to the European commission, mercury, lead and cadmium are the most problematic substances in the battery waste stream and batteries made with these metals are classified as hazardous waste. When these waste batteries are burned, they contribute to air pollution and, when they end up in landfill, the metals leach into the surrounding land. In additioon, thousands of tonnes of valuable metals, such as nickel, cobalt and silver, could be recovered if batteries did not go to landfills or incinerators.
Climate change has no time for delay or denial
Powerful vested interests and climate sceptics will work overtime to block legislation and discredit the science ahead of the next global climate summit in Mexico
Rajendra Pachauri
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.24 GMT
It is often said by perceptive observers that a disconnect is in evidence in many countries between a public that want stringent action to tackle climate change and what governments are actually doing.
The United States, for example - which for many years has had no forward-looking policies in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) - is still encumbered with a large number of senators unwilling to act on account of partisanship or scepticism about the science of climate change.
It is a well-known fact that powerful vested interests and those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible.
The Centre for Public Integrity in the US has found that some 770 companies and interest groups have hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence America's federal policies on climate change in the past year, just as the stakes became higher with the prospect of far-reaching climate legislation in the US. That translates into more than four lobbyists for each member of Congress in Washington DC.
The climate sceptics have also been active in other ways. Take the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia and the use of private communications between the scientists involved to discredit the science contained in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which I chair. These scientists are highly reputed professionals, whose contributions over the years to scientific knowledge are unquestionable.
But, more importantly, even the allegations made on the basis of the stolen emails have proved incorrect. The papers which were criticised in the emails were actually discussed in detail in chapter six of the Working Group I report of the AR4. Furthermore, articles from the journal Climate Research, which was also decried in the emails, have been cited 47 times in the Working Group I report. It is also a well-established fact that the IPCC relies on datasets - not from any single source - but from a number of institutions in different parts of the world. Significantly, the datasets from East Anglia were totally consistent with those from other institutions, on the basis of which far-reaching and meaningful conclusions were reached in the AR4.
The same group of climate deniers who have been active across the Atlantic have now joined hands to attack me personally, alleging business interests on my part which are supposedly benefiting me as well as the Indian Tata group of companies. My institute, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has no links with the Tata group, other than having been established through seed funding from that group as a non-profit registered society in 1974, much like several other non-profit institutions of excellence set up by the Tatas for the larger public good. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me.
I am providing this background only to highlight the fact that powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010 in the next major climate negotiations in Mexico City. In the end, knowledge and science will undoubtedly triumph, but delay in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would only lead to worse impacts of climate change and growing hardship for the most vulnerable regions in the world, which are also unfortunately some of the poorest communities on earth.
A multilateral agreement to tackle climate change is absolutely essential, but given the slow pace of progress and the power that vested interests exercise over legislative and policy initiatives in democratic societies, something more may be essential. Firstly, given the critical role of the United States in forging an effective agreement to meet the challenge, the passage of legislation in that country will have to be supplemented with several initiatives to be put in place by the executive branch of the government.
But importantly, it seems to me that civil society and grassroots action would have to come into their own, not only to ensure that human society takes responsibility for action at the most basic level, but also to create upward pressure on governments to act decisively. If such grassroots efforts do not spread and intensify, nation states may not be able to resolve the differences that exist between them.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the spread of knowledge and awareness would be a critical driver of the transformation that is required to move human society towards a pattern of sustainable development. This would also be the most effective means of thwarting the efforts of skeptics and vested interests, who will do everything possible to maintain the status quo. As the science in the IPCC Fourth Assessment report clearly demonstrates, there is no leeway for delay or denial any longer.
• Rajendra Pachauri chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and is director-general of The Energy & Resources Institute
Rajendra Pachauri
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.24 GMT
It is often said by perceptive observers that a disconnect is in evidence in many countries between a public that want stringent action to tackle climate change and what governments are actually doing.
The United States, for example - which for many years has had no forward-looking policies in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) - is still encumbered with a large number of senators unwilling to act on account of partisanship or scepticism about the science of climate change.
It is a well-known fact that powerful vested interests and those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible.
The Centre for Public Integrity in the US has found that some 770 companies and interest groups have hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence America's federal policies on climate change in the past year, just as the stakes became higher with the prospect of far-reaching climate legislation in the US. That translates into more than four lobbyists for each member of Congress in Washington DC.
The climate sceptics have also been active in other ways. Take the hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia and the use of private communications between the scientists involved to discredit the science contained in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which I chair. These scientists are highly reputed professionals, whose contributions over the years to scientific knowledge are unquestionable.
But, more importantly, even the allegations made on the basis of the stolen emails have proved incorrect. The papers which were criticised in the emails were actually discussed in detail in chapter six of the Working Group I report of the AR4. Furthermore, articles from the journal Climate Research, which was also decried in the emails, have been cited 47 times in the Working Group I report. It is also a well-established fact that the IPCC relies on datasets - not from any single source - but from a number of institutions in different parts of the world. Significantly, the datasets from East Anglia were totally consistent with those from other institutions, on the basis of which far-reaching and meaningful conclusions were reached in the AR4.
The same group of climate deniers who have been active across the Atlantic have now joined hands to attack me personally, alleging business interests on my part which are supposedly benefiting me as well as the Indian Tata group of companies. My institute, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has no links with the Tata group, other than having been established through seed funding from that group as a non-profit registered society in 1974, much like several other non-profit institutions of excellence set up by the Tatas for the larger public good. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me.
I am providing this background only to highlight the fact that powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010 in the next major climate negotiations in Mexico City. In the end, knowledge and science will undoubtedly triumph, but delay in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would only lead to worse impacts of climate change and growing hardship for the most vulnerable regions in the world, which are also unfortunately some of the poorest communities on earth.
A multilateral agreement to tackle climate change is absolutely essential, but given the slow pace of progress and the power that vested interests exercise over legislative and policy initiatives in democratic societies, something more may be essential. Firstly, given the critical role of the United States in forging an effective agreement to meet the challenge, the passage of legislation in that country will have to be supplemented with several initiatives to be put in place by the executive branch of the government.
But importantly, it seems to me that civil society and grassroots action would have to come into their own, not only to ensure that human society takes responsibility for action at the most basic level, but also to create upward pressure on governments to act decisively. If such grassroots efforts do not spread and intensify, nation states may not be able to resolve the differences that exist between them.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the spread of knowledge and awareness would be a critical driver of the transformation that is required to move human society towards a pattern of sustainable development. This would also be the most effective means of thwarting the efforts of skeptics and vested interests, who will do everything possible to maintain the status quo. As the science in the IPCC Fourth Assessment report clearly demonstrates, there is no leeway for delay or denial any longer.
• Rajendra Pachauri chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and is director-general of The Energy & Resources Institute
Climate change scepticism will increase hardship for world's poor: IPCC chief
Rajendra Pachauri predicts lobbying will intensify to impede progress to agreement on binding treaty in Mexico City
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.42 GMT
Climate change scepticism is likely to surge in 2010 and could exacerbate "hardship" for the planet's poorest people, one of the world's leading authorities on climate change has told the Guardian.
Writing on environmentguardian.co.uk today, Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also dismisses suggestions that he is personally profiting from policies to tackle global warming.
Climate sceptics gained media attention in the run up to the Copenhagen climate summit after alleging that hacked emails between senior climate scientists showed that an important temperature record was flawed — a charge rejected by governments and scientific bodies. In Australia, sceptics within the party led to the ousting of the leader of the opposition over new climate laws.
Pachauri predicted this year would see further scepticism. "Powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010 in Mexico City," he said. "Those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible."
After a weak deal in Copenhagen, Pachauri warned that allowing scepticism to delay international action on global warming would endanger the lives of the world's poorest people. "In the end, knowledge and science will undoubtedly triumph, but delay in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would only lead to worse impacts of climate change and growing hardship for the most vulnerable regions in the world, which are also unfortunately some of the poorest communities on Earth."
Pachauri, a vegetarian, has previously described western lifestyles as unsustainable and advocated a diet including one meat-free day a week. He singled out lobbyists in the US for attempting to delay America's climate legislation, which is crucial for a global deal but is currently stalled in the Senate. Last year the Centre for Public Integrity found that 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence US policies on climate change, while America's oil, gas and coal industry increased its lobbying budget by 50%.
Pachauri said action from President Obama would be needed on top of Senate legislation. "The passage of legislation in that country [the US] will have to be supplemented with several initiatives to be put in place by the executive branch of the government," Pachauri said.
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said Pachauri was right on the level of sceptical activity. "We are already witnessing extraordinary efforts by powerful lobbies, in the US and Australia in particular, which are opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. There is a strong alliance of ideologically driven right-wingers, who reject environmental legislation on principle, and lobbyists for some hydrocarbon companies, who place the short-term commercial interests of their clients ahead of the wider public interest. Both have the common goal of delaying restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and both use the tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry, hiding their true motivations behind inaccurate and misleading claims about uncertainties in the science."
But Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund, which has been following US climate legislation, said the number of climate sceptic lobbyists was now being matched by companies supporting legislation to cap carbon emissions. However, he added: "Opponents of action and the old sceptics will of course ramp up their lobbying this year as well, as they do anytime the Congress is on the verge of making law. We already have a bill through the House of Representatives and a bipartisan effort underway in the Senate. The President made his commitment clear in Copenhagen to legislation because it's in our national interest. This year is not a dress rehearsal, and everyone on both sides gets that."
On the stolen emails, Pachauri said the contents did not impact on climate science, adding that "the allegations made on the basis of the stolen emails have proved incorrect."
The University of East Anglia is currently undertaking an independent review of the hacking incident, led by senior civil servant Sir Muir Russell. The review is expected to be published in the spring, but a university spokesman said today that Sir Russell will "determine his final timescale after completing his initial scoping exercise". He added that the university had also responded to a letter from the science and technology committee of MPs asking for an explanation of the incident. The IPCC is conducting its own review into the stolen emails.
Pachauri also rebutted claims in The Sunday Telegraph that, through advisory roles for Deutsche Bank, Toyota, Yale University, the Asian Development Bank and others, he was reaping personal financial gain from climate change policies that could be influenced by the reports of the IPCC he chairs. The article claimed Pachauri had been silent on the "highly lucrative commercial jobs", the rewards from which "must run into millions".
In response, he said: "The same group of climate deniers who have been active across the Atlantic have now joined hands to attack me personally. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit-making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me."
The Nobel Peace-prize winning Pachauri called for greater activism and more campaigning to press governments into taking strong action on carbon emissions this year. "Society and grassroots action would have to come into their own, not only to ensure that human society takes responsibility for action at the most basic level, but also to create upward pressure on governments to act decisively. If such grassroots efforts do not spread and intensify, nation states may not be able to resolve the differences that exist between them."
Adam Vaughan
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 16.42 GMT
Climate change scepticism is likely to surge in 2010 and could exacerbate "hardship" for the planet's poorest people, one of the world's leading authorities on climate change has told the Guardian.
Writing on environmentguardian.co.uk today, Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also dismisses suggestions that he is personally profiting from policies to tackle global warming.
Climate sceptics gained media attention in the run up to the Copenhagen climate summit after alleging that hacked emails between senior climate scientists showed that an important temperature record was flawed — a charge rejected by governments and scientific bodies. In Australia, sceptics within the party led to the ousting of the leader of the opposition over new climate laws.
Pachauri predicted this year would see further scepticism. "Powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010 in Mexico City," he said. "Those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible."
After a weak deal in Copenhagen, Pachauri warned that allowing scepticism to delay international action on global warming would endanger the lives of the world's poorest people. "In the end, knowledge and science will undoubtedly triumph, but delay in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would only lead to worse impacts of climate change and growing hardship for the most vulnerable regions in the world, which are also unfortunately some of the poorest communities on Earth."
Pachauri, a vegetarian, has previously described western lifestyles as unsustainable and advocated a diet including one meat-free day a week. He singled out lobbyists in the US for attempting to delay America's climate legislation, which is crucial for a global deal but is currently stalled in the Senate. Last year the Centre for Public Integrity found that 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence US policies on climate change, while America's oil, gas and coal industry increased its lobbying budget by 50%.
Pachauri said action from President Obama would be needed on top of Senate legislation. "The passage of legislation in that country [the US] will have to be supplemented with several initiatives to be put in place by the executive branch of the government," Pachauri said.
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said Pachauri was right on the level of sceptical activity. "We are already witnessing extraordinary efforts by powerful lobbies, in the US and Australia in particular, which are opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. There is a strong alliance of ideologically driven right-wingers, who reject environmental legislation on principle, and lobbyists for some hydrocarbon companies, who place the short-term commercial interests of their clients ahead of the wider public interest. Both have the common goal of delaying restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and both use the tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry, hiding their true motivations behind inaccurate and misleading claims about uncertainties in the science."
But Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund, which has been following US climate legislation, said the number of climate sceptic lobbyists was now being matched by companies supporting legislation to cap carbon emissions. However, he added: "Opponents of action and the old sceptics will of course ramp up their lobbying this year as well, as they do anytime the Congress is on the verge of making law. We already have a bill through the House of Representatives and a bipartisan effort underway in the Senate. The President made his commitment clear in Copenhagen to legislation because it's in our national interest. This year is not a dress rehearsal, and everyone on both sides gets that."
On the stolen emails, Pachauri said the contents did not impact on climate science, adding that "the allegations made on the basis of the stolen emails have proved incorrect."
The University of East Anglia is currently undertaking an independent review of the hacking incident, led by senior civil servant Sir Muir Russell. The review is expected to be published in the spring, but a university spokesman said today that Sir Russell will "determine his final timescale after completing his initial scoping exercise". He added that the university had also responded to a letter from the science and technology committee of MPs asking for an explanation of the incident. The IPCC is conducting its own review into the stolen emails.
Pachauri also rebutted claims in The Sunday Telegraph that, through advisory roles for Deutsche Bank, Toyota, Yale University, the Asian Development Bank and others, he was reaping personal financial gain from climate change policies that could be influenced by the reports of the IPCC he chairs. The article claimed Pachauri had been silent on the "highly lucrative commercial jobs", the rewards from which "must run into millions".
In response, he said: "The same group of climate deniers who have been active across the Atlantic have now joined hands to attack me personally. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit-making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me."
The Nobel Peace-prize winning Pachauri called for greater activism and more campaigning to press governments into taking strong action on carbon emissions this year. "Society and grassroots action would have to come into their own, not only to ensure that human society takes responsibility for action at the most basic level, but also to create upward pressure on governments to act decisively. If such grassroots efforts do not spread and intensify, nation states may not be able to resolve the differences that exist between them."
'Industry has big part to play in tackling climate change'
Published Date: 05 January 2010
By Eddie Gillanders
ENSURING food production is pushed further up the political agenda, and the development of a climate change strategy for the farming industry, will be "top priority" for NFU Scotland in 2010, says president Jim McLaren.
On the eve of the Oxford Farming Conference, McLaren said it would be short-sighted for the government to cut agricultural support in a short-term attempt to shore up public finances."The position of the UK government on farming support, driven by the Treasury, has flown in the face of Scottish views and the mainstream European view for many years," McLaren said."With a general election in the offing, we must take the opportunity to try and change that position by emphasising the huge benefits the UK will continue to reap from an efficient food production industry."The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England is in the midst of a vicious cost-cutting exercise and Environment Secretary Hilary Benn is on record that he would like to see the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) scrapped. The current CAP support scheme for agriculture is due to end in 2013 and the industry is already engaged in a wide-ranging discussion on the policy to be adopted from 2014 onwards. The European Commission is due to issue its first formal view of the matter during the year."Farmers in Scotland ultimately want their efforts to be rewarded fully by the market," said McLaren. "But in the absence of that, a simple support mechanism which supports sustainable food production and environmental stewardship is crucial."McLaren also believes agriculture can play a "huge role" in helping Scotland achieve the ambitious targets for reductions in carbon emissions set by the Scottish Government."Our potential to deliver on renewable energy sources needs to be grasped," he said. "The inherently sustainable nature of much of our farming production in Scotland can be bolstered by further moves to increase efficiency, which will lead to further emission reductions. Farmers are part of the solution to climate change, not the cause."And he added: "There are few certainties looking at the year to come. However, I am crystal clear that Scotland's agricultural industry, as a provider of food and energy security, is a key vehicle for addressing climate change and the foundation of a £10 billion food and drinks industry."
By Eddie Gillanders
ENSURING food production is pushed further up the political agenda, and the development of a climate change strategy for the farming industry, will be "top priority" for NFU Scotland in 2010, says president Jim McLaren.
On the eve of the Oxford Farming Conference, McLaren said it would be short-sighted for the government to cut agricultural support in a short-term attempt to shore up public finances."The position of the UK government on farming support, driven by the Treasury, has flown in the face of Scottish views and the mainstream European view for many years," McLaren said."With a general election in the offing, we must take the opportunity to try and change that position by emphasising the huge benefits the UK will continue to reap from an efficient food production industry."The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England is in the midst of a vicious cost-cutting exercise and Environment Secretary Hilary Benn is on record that he would like to see the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) scrapped. The current CAP support scheme for agriculture is due to end in 2013 and the industry is already engaged in a wide-ranging discussion on the policy to be adopted from 2014 onwards. The European Commission is due to issue its first formal view of the matter during the year."Farmers in Scotland ultimately want their efforts to be rewarded fully by the market," said McLaren. "But in the absence of that, a simple support mechanism which supports sustainable food production and environmental stewardship is crucial."McLaren also believes agriculture can play a "huge role" in helping Scotland achieve the ambitious targets for reductions in carbon emissions set by the Scottish Government."Our potential to deliver on renewable energy sources needs to be grasped," he said. "The inherently sustainable nature of much of our farming production in Scotland can be bolstered by further moves to increase efficiency, which will lead to further emission reductions. Farmers are part of the solution to climate change, not the cause."And he added: "There are few certainties looking at the year to come. However, I am crystal clear that Scotland's agricultural industry, as a provider of food and energy security, is a key vehicle for addressing climate change and the foundation of a £10 billion food and drinks industry."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
