Suzanne Goldenberg Washington John Vidal
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010
America sees a diminished role for the United Nations in trying to stop global warming after the "chaotic" Copenhagen climate change summit, an Obama administration official said today.
Jonathan Pershing, who helped lead talks at Copenhagen, instead sketched out a future path for negotiations dominated by the world's largest polluters such as China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa, who signed up to a deal in the final hours of the summit. That would represent a realignment of the way the international community has dealt with climate change over the last two decades.
"It is impossible to imagine a global agreement in place that doesn't essentially have a global buy-in. There aren't other institutions beside the UN that have that," Pershing said. "But it is also impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail."
Pershing said the flaws in the UN process, which demands consensus among the international community, were exposed at Copenhagen. "The meeting itself was at best chaotic," he said, in a talk at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "We met mostly overnight. It seemed like we didn't sleep for two weeks. It seemed a funny way to do things, and it showed."
The lack of confidence in the UN extends to the $30bn (£18.5bn) global fund, which will be mobilised over the next three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
"The UN didn't manage the conference that well," Pershing said. "I am not sure that any of us are particularly confident that the UN managing the near-term financing is the right way to go."
Pershing did not exclude the UN from future negotiations. But he repeatedly credited the group of leading economies headed by America for moving forward on the talks, including on finance and developing green technology. He suggested the larger forum offered by the UN was instead important for countries such as Cuba or the small islands which risk annihilation by climate change to air their grievances.
"We are going to have a very very difficult time moving forward and it will be a combination of small and larger processes," he said.
The first test of the accord agreed by America, China, India, South Africa and Brazil arrives on 31 January, the deadline for countries to commit officially to actions to halt global warming. Here, too, Pershing indicated the focus would be narrower in scope than the UN's all-inclusive approach. "We expect there will be significant actions recorded by major countries," he said. "We are not really worried what Chad does. We are not really worried about what Haiti says it is going to do about greenhouse gas emissions. We just hope they recover from the earthquake."
Key groups of developing countries are to meet this month to try to explore ways to get to agree a binding agreement.
As the dust settles on the stormy Danish meeting, environment ministers from the so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will meet on 24 January in New Delhi. No formal agenda has been set, but observers expect the emerging geopolitical alliance between the four large developing countries who brokered the final "deal" with the US in Denmark will define a common position on emission reductions and climate aid money, and seek ways to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord that emerged last month.
Fewer than 30 countries out of the 192 who are signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organised Copenhagen, have indicated that they will sign. Many are known to be deeply unhappy with the $100bn pledged for climate aid and the decision not to make deeper cuts in emissions.
Under UN laws, consensus is required. There is confusion over the legal standing of the agreement reached in Copenhagen and many countries may not be in a position to sign up by 31 January because they have yet to consult their parliaments.
Meanwhile, Bolivia, one of a handful of poor countries which openly opposed the deal in Copenhagen, has invited countries and non-governmental groups which want a much stronger climate deal to the World Conference of the People on Climate Change.
Pershing said that he had told some of those leaders that there was no prospect of reaching a stronger deal that would limit warming to 1.5 degrees.
The conference, to be held in Cochabamba in Bolivia from 20-22 April, is expected to attract heads of state from the loose alliance of socialist "Alba" countries, including Venezuela and Cuba. Alba, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America countries, was set up to provide an alternative to the US-led free trade area of the Americas.
Bolivia this week urged leaders of the world's indigenous ethnic groups and scientists to come. "The invitation is to heads of state but chiefly to civil society. We think that social movements and non government groups, people not at decision level, have an important role in climate talks," said Maria Souviron, the Bolivian ambassador in London.
The meeting, which is intended to cement ties between the seven Alba countries, is also expected to pursue the idea of an international court for environmental crimes, as well as the radical idea of "mother earth rights". This would give all entities, from man to endangered animal species, an equal right to life.
"Our objective is to save humanity and not just half of humanity," said Morales in a speech at Copenhagen. "We are here to save mother earth. Our objective is to reduce climate change to [under] 1C. [Above this] many islands will disappear and Africa will suffer a holocaust. The real cause of climate change is the capitalist system. If we want to save the earth then we must end that economic model."
Thursday, 14 January 2010
US officials helped prepare Obama for Copenhagen summit's collapse
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 21.41 GMT
US state department officials were so convinced that the Copenhagen climate change summit was heading for collapse that they crafted a "talks fail" speech for Barack Obama.
Jonathan Pershing, who helped lead talks at Copenhagen, instead sketched out a future path for negotiations dominated by the world's largest polluters such as China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa, who signed up to a deal in the final hours of the summit. That would represent a realignment of the way the international community has dealt with climate change over the last two decades.
"It is impossible to imagine a global agreement in place that doesn't essentially have a global buy-in. There aren't other institutions beside the UN that have that," Pershing said. "But it is also impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail."
Pershing said the flaws in the UN process, which demands consensus among the international community, were exposed at Copenhagen. "The meeting itself was at best chaotic," he said, in a talk at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "We met mostly overnight. It seemed like we didn't sleep for two weeks. It seemed a funny way to do things, and it showed."
The lack of confidence in the UN extends to the $30bn (£18.5bn) global fund, which will be mobilised over the next three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change. "I am not sure that any of us are particularly confident that the UN managing the near-term financing is the right way to go," he said.
Pershing did not exclude the UN from future negotiations. But he repeatedly credited the group of leading economies headed by America for moving forward on the talks. He suggested the larger forum offered by the UN was instead important for countries such as Cuba or the small islands which risk annihilation by climate change to air their grievances.
"We are going to have a very very difficult time moving forward and it will be a combination of small and larger process[es]," he said.
The first test of the accord agreed by the US, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil arrives on 31 January, the deadline for countries to commit officially to actions to halt global warming.
Here too Pershing indicated that the focus would be far narrower in scope that the UN's all-inclusive approach. "We expect that there will be significant actions recorded by major countries," he said. "We are not really worried what Chad does. We are not really worried about what Haiti says it is going to do about greenhouse gas emissions. We just hope they recover from the earthquake."
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 21.41 GMT
US state department officials were so convinced that the Copenhagen climate change summit was heading for collapse that they crafted a "talks fail" speech for Barack Obama.
Jonathan Pershing, who helped lead talks at Copenhagen, instead sketched out a future path for negotiations dominated by the world's largest polluters such as China, the US, India, Brazil and South Africa, who signed up to a deal in the final hours of the summit. That would represent a realignment of the way the international community has dealt with climate change over the last two decades.
"It is impossible to imagine a global agreement in place that doesn't essentially have a global buy-in. There aren't other institutions beside the UN that have that," Pershing said. "But it is also impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail."
Pershing said the flaws in the UN process, which demands consensus among the international community, were exposed at Copenhagen. "The meeting itself was at best chaotic," he said, in a talk at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "We met mostly overnight. It seemed like we didn't sleep for two weeks. It seemed a funny way to do things, and it showed."
The lack of confidence in the UN extends to the $30bn (£18.5bn) global fund, which will be mobilised over the next three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change. "I am not sure that any of us are particularly confident that the UN managing the near-term financing is the right way to go," he said.
Pershing did not exclude the UN from future negotiations. But he repeatedly credited the group of leading economies headed by America for moving forward on the talks. He suggested the larger forum offered by the UN was instead important for countries such as Cuba or the small islands which risk annihilation by climate change to air their grievances.
"We are going to have a very very difficult time moving forward and it will be a combination of small and larger process[es]," he said.
The first test of the accord agreed by the US, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil arrives on 31 January, the deadline for countries to commit officially to actions to halt global warming.
Here too Pershing indicated that the focus would be far narrower in scope that the UN's all-inclusive approach. "We expect that there will be significant actions recorded by major countries," he said. "We are not really worried what Chad does. We are not really worried about what Haiti says it is going to do about greenhouse gas emissions. We just hope they recover from the earthquake."
China, India, Brazil and South Africa prepare for post-Copenhagen meeting
Influential bloc of large developing countries expected to define common position on emissions cuts and climate aid
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 16.53 GMT
One month after the Copenhagen climate summit ended in recriminations and and a weak outline of a global deal, key groups of developing countries will meet to try to explore ways to get to agree a legally binding final agreement.
As the dust settles on the stormy Danish meeting, environment ministers from the so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will meet on January 24 in New Delhi. No formal agenda has been set, but observers expect the emerging geopolitical alliance between the four large developing countries who brokered the final "deal" with the US in Denmark will define a common position on emission reductions and climate aid money, and seek ways to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord that emerged last month.
Fewer than 30 countries out of the 192 who are signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organised Copenhagen, have indicated that they will sign. Many are known to be deeply unhappy with the $100bn pledged for climate aid and the decision not to make deeper cuts in emissions. Under UN laws, consensus is required for a binding agreement to be made.
Countries have until January 31 to sign up to the accord and provide the UN with information on the specific commitments and actions they plan to take to reduce emissions. But there is growing confusion over the legal standing of the agreement reached in Copenhagen and many countries may not be in a position to sign because they have yet to consult their parliaments.
Meanwhile, Bolivia, one of a handful of poor countries which openly opposed the deal in Copenhagen, has invited countries and non-governmental groups which want a much stronger climate deal to the World Conference of the People on Climate Change.
The conference, to be held in Cochabamba in Bolivia from April 20-22, is expected to attract heads of state from the loose alliance of socialist "Alba" countries, including Venezuela and Cuba. ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America countries, was set up to provide an alternative to the US-led free trade area of the Americas.
Bolivia this week urged leaders of the world's indigenous ethnic groups and scientists to come. "The invitation is to heads of state but chiefly to civil society. We think that social movements and non government groups, people not at decision level, have an important role in climate talks," said Maria Souviron, Bolivian ambassador in London.
The meeting, which is intended to cement ties between the seven Alba countries, is also expected to persue the idea of an international court for environmental crimes, as well as the radical idea of "mother earth rights". This would give all entities, from man to endangered animal species, an equal right to life.
"Our objective is to save humanity and not just half of humanity," said Morales in a speech at Copenhagen. "We are here to save mother earth. Our objective is to reduce climate change to [under] 1C. [Above this] many islands will disappear and Africa will suffer a holocaust … the real cause of climate change is the capitalist system. If we want to save the earth then we must end that economic model."
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 16.53 GMT
One month after the Copenhagen climate summit ended in recriminations and and a weak outline of a global deal, key groups of developing countries will meet to try to explore ways to get to agree a legally binding final agreement.
As the dust settles on the stormy Danish meeting, environment ministers from the so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – will meet on January 24 in New Delhi. No formal agenda has been set, but observers expect the emerging geopolitical alliance between the four large developing countries who brokered the final "deal" with the US in Denmark will define a common position on emission reductions and climate aid money, and seek ways to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord that emerged last month.
Fewer than 30 countries out of the 192 who are signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organised Copenhagen, have indicated that they will sign. Many are known to be deeply unhappy with the $100bn pledged for climate aid and the decision not to make deeper cuts in emissions. Under UN laws, consensus is required for a binding agreement to be made.
Countries have until January 31 to sign up to the accord and provide the UN with information on the specific commitments and actions they plan to take to reduce emissions. But there is growing confusion over the legal standing of the agreement reached in Copenhagen and many countries may not be in a position to sign because they have yet to consult their parliaments.
Meanwhile, Bolivia, one of a handful of poor countries which openly opposed the deal in Copenhagen, has invited countries and non-governmental groups which want a much stronger climate deal to the World Conference of the People on Climate Change.
The conference, to be held in Cochabamba in Bolivia from April 20-22, is expected to attract heads of state from the loose alliance of socialist "Alba" countries, including Venezuela and Cuba. ALBA, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America countries, was set up to provide an alternative to the US-led free trade area of the Americas.
Bolivia this week urged leaders of the world's indigenous ethnic groups and scientists to come. "The invitation is to heads of state but chiefly to civil society. We think that social movements and non government groups, people not at decision level, have an important role in climate talks," said Maria Souviron, Bolivian ambassador in London.
The meeting, which is intended to cement ties between the seven Alba countries, is also expected to persue the idea of an international court for environmental crimes, as well as the radical idea of "mother earth rights". This would give all entities, from man to endangered animal species, an equal right to life.
"Our objective is to save humanity and not just half of humanity," said Morales in a speech at Copenhagen. "We are here to save mother earth. Our objective is to reduce climate change to [under] 1C. [Above this] many islands will disappear and Africa will suffer a holocaust … the real cause of climate change is the capitalist system. If we want to save the earth then we must end that economic model."
European environment ministers meeting in Seville must raise their game
The EU can no longer claim that 20% is a credible and world-leading target when the US and Japan have offered more
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 16.28 GMT
Claiming credit for achievements that take little effort is not the way to make friends and influence people. Yet the European Union, which has long seen itself as the global leader on action against climate change, might soon find itself in that uncomfortable position.
So when environment ministers meet in Seville tomorrow, to rake through the ashes of the Copenhagen summit and to plan how to advance efforts to curb global warming, the most important decision they must make is to increase the EU's offer of 2020 carbon cuts from 20% to 30%. This would be both easy and inexpensive. The deadline for such a pledge is January 31 under the Copenhagen accord.
There will, however, be those wishing to continue to offer a range of targets in order leverage other nations up to a higher level of ambition: the "we will if you will" approach. But one thing that was clear in Copenhagen was that the major power blocks were not there to negotiate their targets. The US arrived with a number and was not about to change it, not without domestic legislation in place, which may take another 12 months to pass. The Chinese also, for the first time, arrived with a number but they too offered it on a non-negotiable basis. So who was the EU was trying to tempt into accepting higher targets?
The way forward agreed under the Copenhagen accord is a bottom-up approach: countries will voluntarily pledge targets. The EU knows that there is a yawning gulf between the targets rich countries have offered to date and what is needed to keep the world safe from more than 2C of global warming.
They and many others also now know that the 20% target is far from stretching, and that they could very comfortably go further. Latest analysis from Sandbag, the emissions trading campaigners, finds that with greenhouse gas emissions dropping because of the recession, the EU could now meet a unilateral target of a 30% reduction very easily
First, the EU is almost half way there already. Latest information from the European Environment Agency indicates that in 2008 our emissions levels were already at 10.7% below 1990 levels and that business-as-usual would take us close to 15%. Data for 2009 is very likely to show a further reduction.
Second, and most strikingly, recent studies have shown the drop in emissions during the recession has now lowered the costs of meeting a 30% target to at least €100bn below the projected costs for the 20% target.
Last, the presence in the EU of an emissions trading system and comprehensive policies to cut energy wastage and to boost the supply of lower carbon energy and fuels means the EU has the tools to meet a 30% cut effectively and efficiently.
Although the 20% target looked impressive when it was set in 2008, much has changed internationally since then. The 20% target is now lower in ambition than targets offered by the US and Japan when expressed in relation to most recent emissions data. China has also offered a target to decrease the carbon intensity of its economy and other major economies such as Brazil have also pledged unilateral, ambitious targets. The EU can no longer claim that 20% is a credible and world-leading target.
Other nations have made bold steps. President Lula of Brazil, a developing country with no current legal obligation to take action, has already enshrined in law its commitments to reduce emissions and deforestation [webcast of speech]. The newly elected President of Europe Hermann Van Rompuy, and the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, would do well to read his Copenhagen speech and reflect on what it means to lead.
Europe has the opportunity to inject new enthusiasm and hope into the deflated international climate talks by entering an ambitious 30% target into the Copenhagen accord. If the EU sticks with 20%, allowing billions of extra tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it would add insult to injury for the least developed and vulnerable countries already experiencing the negative impacts of a warming globe.
Now is not the time to sit back and wait, Europe must lead by example and demonstrate its commitment to making a low carbon economy a reality.
Bryony Worthington is the founder of Sandbag.org.uk. Sandbag has launched a new briefing and targeted political action calling on Europe to lead. Please sign Sandbag's online letter to urge Hermann Van Rompuy, and the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to commit to 30% cuts in emissions.
Bryony Worthington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 16.28 GMT
Claiming credit for achievements that take little effort is not the way to make friends and influence people. Yet the European Union, which has long seen itself as the global leader on action against climate change, might soon find itself in that uncomfortable position.
So when environment ministers meet in Seville tomorrow, to rake through the ashes of the Copenhagen summit and to plan how to advance efforts to curb global warming, the most important decision they must make is to increase the EU's offer of 2020 carbon cuts from 20% to 30%. This would be both easy and inexpensive. The deadline for such a pledge is January 31 under the Copenhagen accord.
There will, however, be those wishing to continue to offer a range of targets in order leverage other nations up to a higher level of ambition: the "we will if you will" approach. But one thing that was clear in Copenhagen was that the major power blocks were not there to negotiate their targets. The US arrived with a number and was not about to change it, not without domestic legislation in place, which may take another 12 months to pass. The Chinese also, for the first time, arrived with a number but they too offered it on a non-negotiable basis. So who was the EU was trying to tempt into accepting higher targets?
The way forward agreed under the Copenhagen accord is a bottom-up approach: countries will voluntarily pledge targets. The EU knows that there is a yawning gulf between the targets rich countries have offered to date and what is needed to keep the world safe from more than 2C of global warming.
They and many others also now know that the 20% target is far from stretching, and that they could very comfortably go further. Latest analysis from Sandbag, the emissions trading campaigners, finds that with greenhouse gas emissions dropping because of the recession, the EU could now meet a unilateral target of a 30% reduction very easily
First, the EU is almost half way there already. Latest information from the European Environment Agency indicates that in 2008 our emissions levels were already at 10.7% below 1990 levels and that business-as-usual would take us close to 15%. Data for 2009 is very likely to show a further reduction.
Second, and most strikingly, recent studies have shown the drop in emissions during the recession has now lowered the costs of meeting a 30% target to at least €100bn below the projected costs for the 20% target.
Last, the presence in the EU of an emissions trading system and comprehensive policies to cut energy wastage and to boost the supply of lower carbon energy and fuels means the EU has the tools to meet a 30% cut effectively and efficiently.
Although the 20% target looked impressive when it was set in 2008, much has changed internationally since then. The 20% target is now lower in ambition than targets offered by the US and Japan when expressed in relation to most recent emissions data. China has also offered a target to decrease the carbon intensity of its economy and other major economies such as Brazil have also pledged unilateral, ambitious targets. The EU can no longer claim that 20% is a credible and world-leading target.
Other nations have made bold steps. President Lula of Brazil, a developing country with no current legal obligation to take action, has already enshrined in law its commitments to reduce emissions and deforestation [webcast of speech]. The newly elected President of Europe Hermann Van Rompuy, and the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, would do well to read his Copenhagen speech and reflect on what it means to lead.
Europe has the opportunity to inject new enthusiasm and hope into the deflated international climate talks by entering an ambitious 30% target into the Copenhagen accord. If the EU sticks with 20%, allowing billions of extra tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it would add insult to injury for the least developed and vulnerable countries already experiencing the negative impacts of a warming globe.
Now is not the time to sit back and wait, Europe must lead by example and demonstrate its commitment to making a low carbon economy a reality.
Bryony Worthington is the founder of Sandbag.org.uk. Sandbag has launched a new briefing and targeted political action calling on Europe to lead. Please sign Sandbag's online letter to urge Hermann Van Rompuy, and the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to commit to 30% cuts in emissions.
Lord Monckton climate change lecture costs Australian sceptics $100,000
It's astonishing, but aside from travel costs, climate sceptic Lord Monckton will get a $20,000 stipend as the organiser in Noosa, Queensland calls for donations
What price climate scepticism? Ever wondered? Well, now we have an answer. With just a few days to go now before the climate sceptic Lord Monckton sets off from his Highlands estate and embarks on his grand tour of Australia to spread the good word, a local newspaper in Queensland called the Noosa Journal has revealed how much Monckton's trip down under is costing his loyal fans. Nice work if you can get it, judging by the comments made by Case Smit, the Noosa resident who has invited Monckton to speak in his home town:
Mr Smit said getting Lord Monckton to Australia came at a substantial cost and he was appealing to supporters for donations. "We have to fly Lord Monkton to Australia, cover all his domestic travel and accommodation and provide a stipend of $20,000 [£11,500],'' he said. "Our aim is to cover these costs from donations from individuals, appropriate associations and corporations. We expect the required total to be about $100,000. We would like to keep the cost of admission to Monckton's lectures to around $20 to maximise the number of people that will come to hear him. We have already had a number of offers of $1,000 and would prefer donations to be of that order, but of course any amount is very welcome. Should there be a surplus, this, depending on the amount, will be given to Lord Monckton and/or the Climate Sceptics Party which is assisting with this project.''
Personally, I would love to know what Monckton has requested to be on his rider. One suspects that if the tour is reportedly costing $100,000, with Monckton bagging a $20,000 stipend, then the organisers can afford him something a little more luxurious than, say, the obligatory freshly pressed towels and bottles of mineral water.
The story of how the idea for the tour was born is worth hearing, too. Australian Associated Press is reporting that it originated how all good ideas originate – between good friends over a beer.
Engineer John Smeed said he and a friend, retiree Case Smit, were having lunch and "crying in our beer about what Mr Rudd was going to do to us", when they decided there was no point just whingeing. The pair contacted Australian climate change sceptic Professor Ian Plimer, who was with Lord Monckton at the Copenhagen conference. "We rang Ian and said, put the weights on his Lordship and ask him if he'll come out to Australia," Mr Smeed said. "He agreed, and it ran from there."
What a double act – Plimer and Monckton together on the same stage. And, by all accounts, it is building up to be quite the social event, too:
It promised to be an entertaining tour, Mr Smeed said. "His Lordship's a bit of a thespian," he said. "He's very good on his feet." Mining heiress Gina Rinehart, chairwoman of Hancock Prospecting, will host the Perth visit on 8 February, before Lord and Lady Monckton are scheduled to leave Australia on 9 February.
Not all Australians are looking forward to the moment Monckton steps off the plane in Sydney on 27 January, though. It seems news of Monckton's infamous "Hitler Youth" jibes during the Copenhagen summit are common knowledge down under, as is his habit of making grandiose unfounded claims on his curriculum vitae. The Australian news site Crickey, for example, isn't exactly enamoured by the thought of Monckton hitting the nation's airwaves and lecture halls:
It is tempting to scoff at the simple-minded mid-west Americans who lap up [Monckton's] fairy stories, until we remember that Senator Nick Minchin believes them too … Monckton and his associates are to climate scepticism what black-clad anarchists are to the anti-globalisation movement, except that the Moncktonians are no longer just embarrassing parasites on the body of sceptical thought but have colonised the host entirely.
What price climate scepticism? Ever wondered? Well, now we have an answer. With just a few days to go now before the climate sceptic Lord Monckton sets off from his Highlands estate and embarks on his grand tour of Australia to spread the good word, a local newspaper in Queensland called the Noosa Journal has revealed how much Monckton's trip down under is costing his loyal fans. Nice work if you can get it, judging by the comments made by Case Smit, the Noosa resident who has invited Monckton to speak in his home town:
Mr Smit said getting Lord Monckton to Australia came at a substantial cost and he was appealing to supporters for donations. "We have to fly Lord Monkton to Australia, cover all his domestic travel and accommodation and provide a stipend of $20,000 [£11,500],'' he said. "Our aim is to cover these costs from donations from individuals, appropriate associations and corporations. We expect the required total to be about $100,000. We would like to keep the cost of admission to Monckton's lectures to around $20 to maximise the number of people that will come to hear him. We have already had a number of offers of $1,000 and would prefer donations to be of that order, but of course any amount is very welcome. Should there be a surplus, this, depending on the amount, will be given to Lord Monckton and/or the Climate Sceptics Party which is assisting with this project.''
Personally, I would love to know what Monckton has requested to be on his rider. One suspects that if the tour is reportedly costing $100,000, with Monckton bagging a $20,000 stipend, then the organisers can afford him something a little more luxurious than, say, the obligatory freshly pressed towels and bottles of mineral water.
The story of how the idea for the tour was born is worth hearing, too. Australian Associated Press is reporting that it originated how all good ideas originate – between good friends over a beer.
Engineer John Smeed said he and a friend, retiree Case Smit, were having lunch and "crying in our beer about what Mr Rudd was going to do to us", when they decided there was no point just whingeing. The pair contacted Australian climate change sceptic Professor Ian Plimer, who was with Lord Monckton at the Copenhagen conference. "We rang Ian and said, put the weights on his Lordship and ask him if he'll come out to Australia," Mr Smeed said. "He agreed, and it ran from there."
What a double act – Plimer and Monckton together on the same stage. And, by all accounts, it is building up to be quite the social event, too:
It promised to be an entertaining tour, Mr Smeed said. "His Lordship's a bit of a thespian," he said. "He's very good on his feet." Mining heiress Gina Rinehart, chairwoman of Hancock Prospecting, will host the Perth visit on 8 February, before Lord and Lady Monckton are scheduled to leave Australia on 9 February.
Not all Australians are looking forward to the moment Monckton steps off the plane in Sydney on 27 January, though. It seems news of Monckton's infamous "Hitler Youth" jibes during the Copenhagen summit are common knowledge down under, as is his habit of making grandiose unfounded claims on his curriculum vitae. The Australian news site Crickey, for example, isn't exactly enamoured by the thought of Monckton hitting the nation's airwaves and lecture halls:
It is tempting to scoff at the simple-minded mid-west Americans who lap up [Monckton's] fairy stories, until we remember that Senator Nick Minchin believes them too … Monckton and his associates are to climate scepticism what black-clad anarchists are to the anti-globalisation movement, except that the Moncktonians are no longer just embarrassing parasites on the body of sceptical thought but have colonised the host entirely.
Last-minute agreement at Copenhagen marks turning point for the world
Dramatic finish to summit has radically changed approach to tackling global warming and indicates accord will succeed
Jonathan Lash
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 07.00 GMT
Spin is the political language of Washington, but I have never encountered such conflicting currents of hype as those that have swirled around the globe since the gavel fell on the Copenhagen climate summit. Depending on whether you live in Beijing, Berlin or Boston the assessment ranges from catastrophe to success to somewhere in between. But what lies ahead?
First let us take stock. In important ways the Copenhagen accord signals significant and promising changes in the world's approach to global warming under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, not just in what it says, but also in how it was negotiated.
The dramatic story of a last-minute agreement fashioned in a meeting among the leaders of the "Copenhagen 5", Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States reveals a profound change in global politics. One in which, for the first time, the rapidly developing giants of Asia, Africa, and Latin America emerged as key to the solution.
The ad hoc leadership by the so-called Copenhagen 5 (C-5), representing 45% of the world's population and 44% of global greenhouse gas emissions, constitutes a new and potentially historic alliance, a symbol, perhaps, of a new world order.
The Copenhagen accord signals other changes as well. It sets a goal of limiting global warming to 2C, and was accompanied by a requirement for explicit, quantitative pollution reduction commitments across the world.
The key obstacle that was overcome in the C-5 negotiations was the United States' insistence that all parties agree to verification of fulfillment of their carbon-cutting commitments. When the major developing economies agreed to a form of verification, they set in motion a process can be the basis for building the trust necessary ultimately to strengthen the accord.
Finally, the fact that the accord was negotiated by heads of state, and the way it became the Copenhagen accord, may be a significant step toward overcoming a dysfunctional negotiation process which requires that decisions be reached by consensus among all 190+ parties to the UNFCCC. Despite opposition from a small minority of countries, heads of state found a way to move the accord ahead without unanimity. By doing so they demonstrated their seriousness and exerted the capacity of the majority of nations to move forward when they agree.
However, unlike the Kyoto protocol, the accord is not legally binding, and provides neither rules to structure international carbon markets, nor means to enforce compliance. This creates daunting uncertainties about how nations and markets will interact over greenhouse gas reductions.
Europe, which was not part of the C-5 meeting from which the accord emerged, but endorsed it almost immediately, faces important decisions. First, what is the future role of the KP? Will Europe pursue two paths, both a second commitment period under the KP, and participation in the accord? Second, will Europe which has led the world toward collective action on climate, put aside disappointment about how the Copenhagen process played out, and seize the lead in creating a process to implement the accord?
The next few months will offer strong indicators of whether nations whose heads of state endorsed the accord will treat it as binding. Various signposts will suggest which way the road is heading. The first deadline to watch for is January 31. By then, developed countries must register national commitments — and developing countries national plans of action — to reduce greenhouse gases. Major defections at this point would doom the accord, but early indications are that countries that offered commitments coming into Copenhagen will register them.
A second key indicator that the accord has legs will be how fast and effectively key countries seek to implement its terms. It remains unclear who "owns" the Copenhagen accord, who staffs its implementation and even who has the authority to convene the next meeting to keep the process going. Will negotiations around the accord's implementation be included in the next UNFCCC meeting in late May, or does it require an entirely separate process? The accord includes promises of adaptation assistance, a green climate fund, and forest protection and technology "mechanisms". The question of who moves the process forward needs to be resolved in the next few months.
China has already invited the other emerging countries behind the accord, India, Brazil and South Africa, to meet this month to devise a united front on a way forward. Will Europe take the initiative to define a workable process?
There will be two more important signposts during 2010, from the two largest emitters. China will launch its 12th five-year plan, and much will ride on the strength of the measures they include to improve energy efficiency, and develop low-carbon sources of energy. Already since Copenhagen they have adopted new measures requiring electric utilities to purchase wind and solar energy.
Similarly, the US Congress will decide whether to complete action on legislation to reduce US emissions, as a bi-partisan trio of Senators — John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman — strive to find an acceptable compromise bill that addresses both climate and energy security.
One last hope. Because the accord may reflect a reordering of global political dynamics it may make possible a profoundly important shift in which action on climate change is no longer seen as a threat, but rather the key, to development and the future of poverty eradication is recognised as low carbon development. That would be an historic achievement.
• Jonathan Lash is president of the World Resources Institute (WRI)
Jonathan Lash
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 07.00 GMT
Spin is the political language of Washington, but I have never encountered such conflicting currents of hype as those that have swirled around the globe since the gavel fell on the Copenhagen climate summit. Depending on whether you live in Beijing, Berlin or Boston the assessment ranges from catastrophe to success to somewhere in between. But what lies ahead?
First let us take stock. In important ways the Copenhagen accord signals significant and promising changes in the world's approach to global warming under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, not just in what it says, but also in how it was negotiated.
The dramatic story of a last-minute agreement fashioned in a meeting among the leaders of the "Copenhagen 5", Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States reveals a profound change in global politics. One in which, for the first time, the rapidly developing giants of Asia, Africa, and Latin America emerged as key to the solution.
The ad hoc leadership by the so-called Copenhagen 5 (C-5), representing 45% of the world's population and 44% of global greenhouse gas emissions, constitutes a new and potentially historic alliance, a symbol, perhaps, of a new world order.
The Copenhagen accord signals other changes as well. It sets a goal of limiting global warming to 2C, and was accompanied by a requirement for explicit, quantitative pollution reduction commitments across the world.
The key obstacle that was overcome in the C-5 negotiations was the United States' insistence that all parties agree to verification of fulfillment of their carbon-cutting commitments. When the major developing economies agreed to a form of verification, they set in motion a process can be the basis for building the trust necessary ultimately to strengthen the accord.
Finally, the fact that the accord was negotiated by heads of state, and the way it became the Copenhagen accord, may be a significant step toward overcoming a dysfunctional negotiation process which requires that decisions be reached by consensus among all 190+ parties to the UNFCCC. Despite opposition from a small minority of countries, heads of state found a way to move the accord ahead without unanimity. By doing so they demonstrated their seriousness and exerted the capacity of the majority of nations to move forward when they agree.
However, unlike the Kyoto protocol, the accord is not legally binding, and provides neither rules to structure international carbon markets, nor means to enforce compliance. This creates daunting uncertainties about how nations and markets will interact over greenhouse gas reductions.
Europe, which was not part of the C-5 meeting from which the accord emerged, but endorsed it almost immediately, faces important decisions. First, what is the future role of the KP? Will Europe pursue two paths, both a second commitment period under the KP, and participation in the accord? Second, will Europe which has led the world toward collective action on climate, put aside disappointment about how the Copenhagen process played out, and seize the lead in creating a process to implement the accord?
The next few months will offer strong indicators of whether nations whose heads of state endorsed the accord will treat it as binding. Various signposts will suggest which way the road is heading. The first deadline to watch for is January 31. By then, developed countries must register national commitments — and developing countries national plans of action — to reduce greenhouse gases. Major defections at this point would doom the accord, but early indications are that countries that offered commitments coming into Copenhagen will register them.
A second key indicator that the accord has legs will be how fast and effectively key countries seek to implement its terms. It remains unclear who "owns" the Copenhagen accord, who staffs its implementation and even who has the authority to convene the next meeting to keep the process going. Will negotiations around the accord's implementation be included in the next UNFCCC meeting in late May, or does it require an entirely separate process? The accord includes promises of adaptation assistance, a green climate fund, and forest protection and technology "mechanisms". The question of who moves the process forward needs to be resolved in the next few months.
China has already invited the other emerging countries behind the accord, India, Brazil and South Africa, to meet this month to devise a united front on a way forward. Will Europe take the initiative to define a workable process?
There will be two more important signposts during 2010, from the two largest emitters. China will launch its 12th five-year plan, and much will ride on the strength of the measures they include to improve energy efficiency, and develop low-carbon sources of energy. Already since Copenhagen they have adopted new measures requiring electric utilities to purchase wind and solar energy.
Similarly, the US Congress will decide whether to complete action on legislation to reduce US emissions, as a bi-partisan trio of Senators — John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman — strive to find an acceptable compromise bill that addresses both climate and energy security.
One last hope. Because the accord may reflect a reordering of global political dynamics it may make possible a profoundly important shift in which action on climate change is no longer seen as a threat, but rather the key, to development and the future of poverty eradication is recognised as low carbon development. That would be an historic achievement.
• Jonathan Lash is president of the World Resources Institute (WRI)
Exaggerating the impact of climate change on the spread of malaria
A recent press release from Dfid suggested that millions in Kenya are susceptible to malaria due to a rise in temperature. Simple analysis shows questions this claim.
From Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 13.15 GMT
A recent press release from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) suggested that millions more people in Kenya are susceptible to malaria as a result of mosquitoes colonising higher ground as global temperatures rise. ('New evidence of a link between climate change and malaria', 30.12.09 – see below). The press release was extensively covered in UK newspapers and elsewhere.
Simple analysis shows that the claims of the press release are almost entirely without foundation. The battle against the severe threat from climate change is impeded, not helped, by government departments issuing alarmist and exaggerated alerts based on poor science.
All other things being equal, the spread of malaria is probably encouraged by higher global temperatures. The malaria parasite in the insect's body grows fastest at average daily temperatures of about 25 degrees and most parts of the world are well below this level. But temperature is only one factor in the spread of this terrible disease, possibly a small one. The presence of stagnant water in open sunlit fields after deforestation, increased population pressure, lack of availability of mosquito nets, or a reluctance to use them, may all contribute as much to the spread of malaria as increasing temperatures. Nevertheless, despite the plethora of more convincing explanations for varying levels of malarial illness, policy-makers and government departments continue to state, without any qualification, that malaria will become very much more prevalent in a warmer world.
The 2001 IPCC report also overstated the connection between climate change and malarial infections. Understandably, the top selling books by climate sceptics published in the last few years all feast on the weak scientific evidence for this assertion. These books usually quote the specialist in insect-borne diseases, Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who has strenuously and effectively attacked the idea that increasing temperatures will necessarily produce a rapid rise in the incidence of insect-borne diseases. Professor Reiter points out that malaria transmission is a complex matter and that rising temperatures are only weakly linked to an increasing incidence of malaria. (The illustration at the head of this article provides us with some sense of just how complex malaria is). Why, he and others have asked, if temperature is so important, did the disease disappear from countries like Britain just as the climate was warming at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' during the 18th and 19th centuries?
However the story that substantial increases in malaria will inevitably follow rising temperatures will not go away and DFID's recent press release is another example. The document claims that 'new research' in the highland areas around Mt Kenya has shown strong links between increasing temperatures and malaria incidence. When I asked for a copy of the scientific papers to back up this assertion, DFID said it was unable to provide this 'new research', stating instead that the press release was based on 'a cumulation of several studies over the past few years'.
Three papers were attached to this surprising response from DFID. The press release asserted that temperatures on the western side of Mt Kenya had risen two degrees Celsius in twenty years, prompting epidemics of malaria, but these research papers actually showed a much smaller increase. The specific claim that the Mt Kenya area has recently become vulnerable to malaria was backed up by interview data of a few years ago from a small number of families who declared a total of eight cases of malaria in the past five years compared to only three in the period of five to ten years ago. No medical analysis appears to have been carried out to determine whether the disease recorded was or was not malaria. Neither was any attempt apparently made to adjust for deficiencies in memory of events ten years ago.
What about the physical evidence of mosquitoes? The scientific papers sent to me by DFID write of finding a total of two mosquito larvae in pools on high ground near Mt Kenya. These larvae produced a total of 23 insects when incubated in a laboratory. The quality of this finding is never questioned. Most importantly, the background research papers do fully acknowledge that other events in the geographic areas under study, such as deforestation or increased pooling of stagnant water as a result of land use changes, could well have been the primary cause of any growth in the number of mosquitos and of malaria, not climate change. But these possibilities are unmentioned in the DFID press release.
A line-by-line analysis of the press release is provided below. It suggests that almost all the assertions in the DFID document are unsupported by any evidence or are downright wrong. Malaria may indeed be increasing in highland areas of Kenya but the evidence that the disease is driven by rapid climate change is completely unsupported. The research used by DFID and sent to me actually states that changes in land use may be the key factors in encouraging the growth of this extremely unpleasant disease.
The climate sceptics often claim that the political establishment routinely exaggerates the effects of increasing temperatures. These sceptics say that very poor scientific evidence is used to create alarmist headlines about the impact of global warming. The DFID press release is a clear candidate for criticism of this type. It has used inadequate scientific research as the basis for an unqualified conclusion about the impact of climate change on insect-borne diseases. In this case, the press release goes even further by misstating many of the elements of the research on which it is based. Such abuse of science does substantial disservice to the attempt to energise the global community to take action to mitigate climate change.
(With many thanks to Professor Paul Reiter for his comments during the preparation of this article. Errors are my responsibility. If you are interested in reading more about the causes of malarial infections, please consult one of Professor Reiter's papers)
Press release sent out by DFID with my notes in bold
New evidence of link between climate change and malaria
'New research released today shows a direct link between rising temperatures and the spread of malaria.'
a) The research is not new. The key scientific papers to which the press release refers were published in 2001 and 2006. The research was carried out by Dr Githeko of the Kenya Medical Research Institute and his colleagues. Dr Githeko contributed a summary of this earlier research and of other recent findings from around the world for a Commonwealth health ministers meeting in 2009.
b) DFID now acknowledges the material is not 'new research'. When questioned the Department said 'It's more a cumulation of several studies over the past few years'.
c) The research does not show a 'direct link' between malaria and average temperatures. The 2001 paper actually says 'Land use pattern and land cover might be the key factors affecting … malaria transmission in the region'.
'Four million people living on the slopes of Mount Kenya in the Kenyan Central Highlands are now at risk of malaria, after warmer temperatures pushed the disease into high altitude areas where the population has little or no immunity.'
a) The 2001 paper says 'With the increased population on the highlands, enhanced human activities including deforestation, farming and livestock rearing could create more vector (ie malaria carrying mosquitoes) habitats'. It does not say climate change is causing malaria.
b) The 2006 paper says in reference to Western Kenya, over 200 km from Mt Kenya, that the researchers had found 'an association between rainfall and unusually high maximum temperatures and the number of inpatient malaria cases 3-4 months later'. It makes no reference to the slopes of Mt Kenya.
'The findings, announced today by a research team from the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) partly funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), also show the number of cases recorded during malaria epidemics has increased by up to 600% over the past decade.'
a) The findings, at least as provided in the back-up reports provided by DFID, do not show this. The only mention of malaria cases in this research is as follows: 'In Karatina and Naro Moru areas where An. Arabiensis (one of the malaria mosquitoes) was detected, the numbers of malaria cases recorded were eight in the past 5 years, three in the past 5 – 10 years and none in the past 10 – 20 years, indicating a trend of increasing malaria incidence over the past 10 years.'
b) Malaria may well be becoming an even more serious problem in Kenya, and rising temperatures may indeed contribute to the incidence of this disease. But DFID provides no evidence to support its assertion about the Mount Kenya region. Dr Githeko's 2009 summary paper does mention third party research showing an 'eight-fold' increase in malaria in Western Kenya (not the Mount Kenya area) and this may be the basis for the DFID assertion.
'While similar outbreaks elsewhere have been attributed to multiple factors such as drug resistance and land use change, the research team claim the only change that has occurred recently in the Kenyan Central Highlands that might lead to malaria is an increase in the mean annual temperature.'
a) Dr Githeko's 2009 summary paper says that 'In the central highlands the only change that occurred and that lead (sic) to malaria was the mean annual temperature'. But in this and the other papers, he also pointed to variations in rainfall, increases in maximum daily temperatures, changes in land use, greater population density, deforestation, irrigation and stagnant water as having effect on malaria rates. Dr Githeko's comments are inconsistent, even within single papers.
'The spread of malaria into the Central Highlands district followed a rise in average yearly temperatures from 17 degrees in 1989 to nearly 19 degrees today. The malaria parasite can only mature in temperatures above 18 degrees.'
a) Prior to 1994, the mean annual temperature in the Central Highlands region is said by Dr Githeko to be 'between 17.4 degrees C and 18.2 degrees C. Dr Githeko does not provide data for recent years. His record stops at around 2002.
b) The average annual temperature does not have to be above 18 degrees for the malaria parasite to mature. The parasite requires periods of higher temperatures to grow but it can mature in a few days of warm weather. The annual mean is not a particularly relevant measure. (Some North European countries were infested by malaria until the 20th century and their annual average temperatures were well below 18 degrees C)
'Before the 1990s malaria was completely absent in the Central Highlands district. However, as climate change pushed average temperatures over the 18 degree tipping point in the 1990s, malaria epidemics began to break out among the population.'
a) As said before, mean annual temperatures rising above 18 degrees do not create a 'tipping point' for malaria. Recent years may have seen malaria increasing in the Mt Kenya region, partly perhaps as a result of global warming but, second, the DFID papers provide no evidence whatsoever of 'epidemics'.
'Malaria has continued to spread in populations with little immunity to the disease. In 2005 malaria-carrying anopheles mosquitoes were discovered in Naru Moro, over 1,900 metres above sea level.'
a) Dr Githeko found two (2) mosquito larvae in 2005 in Naru Moro, not mosquitoes. Larvae do not carry malaria. The mosquito carries malaria after it has ingested the blood of a person with the disease.
b) DFID is wrong to state that Dr Githeko's findings show that 'malaria has continued to spread in populations with little immunity' and to associate this conclusion with his finding that the two Naru Moro larvae showed this continuing spread.
'The KEMRI researchers were funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC).'
(Press release then continues with quotes for journalists)
• From Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
From Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 13 January 2010 13.15 GMT
A recent press release from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) suggested that millions more people in Kenya are susceptible to malaria as a result of mosquitoes colonising higher ground as global temperatures rise. ('New evidence of a link between climate change and malaria', 30.12.09 – see below). The press release was extensively covered in UK newspapers and elsewhere.
Simple analysis shows that the claims of the press release are almost entirely without foundation. The battle against the severe threat from climate change is impeded, not helped, by government departments issuing alarmist and exaggerated alerts based on poor science.
All other things being equal, the spread of malaria is probably encouraged by higher global temperatures. The malaria parasite in the insect's body grows fastest at average daily temperatures of about 25 degrees and most parts of the world are well below this level. But temperature is only one factor in the spread of this terrible disease, possibly a small one. The presence of stagnant water in open sunlit fields after deforestation, increased population pressure, lack of availability of mosquito nets, or a reluctance to use them, may all contribute as much to the spread of malaria as increasing temperatures. Nevertheless, despite the plethora of more convincing explanations for varying levels of malarial illness, policy-makers and government departments continue to state, without any qualification, that malaria will become very much more prevalent in a warmer world.
The 2001 IPCC report also overstated the connection between climate change and malarial infections. Understandably, the top selling books by climate sceptics published in the last few years all feast on the weak scientific evidence for this assertion. These books usually quote the specialist in insect-borne diseases, Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who has strenuously and effectively attacked the idea that increasing temperatures will necessarily produce a rapid rise in the incidence of insect-borne diseases. Professor Reiter points out that malaria transmission is a complex matter and that rising temperatures are only weakly linked to an increasing incidence of malaria. (The illustration at the head of this article provides us with some sense of just how complex malaria is). Why, he and others have asked, if temperature is so important, did the disease disappear from countries like Britain just as the climate was warming at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' during the 18th and 19th centuries?
However the story that substantial increases in malaria will inevitably follow rising temperatures will not go away and DFID's recent press release is another example. The document claims that 'new research' in the highland areas around Mt Kenya has shown strong links between increasing temperatures and malaria incidence. When I asked for a copy of the scientific papers to back up this assertion, DFID said it was unable to provide this 'new research', stating instead that the press release was based on 'a cumulation of several studies over the past few years'.
Three papers were attached to this surprising response from DFID. The press release asserted that temperatures on the western side of Mt Kenya had risen two degrees Celsius in twenty years, prompting epidemics of malaria, but these research papers actually showed a much smaller increase. The specific claim that the Mt Kenya area has recently become vulnerable to malaria was backed up by interview data of a few years ago from a small number of families who declared a total of eight cases of malaria in the past five years compared to only three in the period of five to ten years ago. No medical analysis appears to have been carried out to determine whether the disease recorded was or was not malaria. Neither was any attempt apparently made to adjust for deficiencies in memory of events ten years ago.
What about the physical evidence of mosquitoes? The scientific papers sent to me by DFID write of finding a total of two mosquito larvae in pools on high ground near Mt Kenya. These larvae produced a total of 23 insects when incubated in a laboratory. The quality of this finding is never questioned. Most importantly, the background research papers do fully acknowledge that other events in the geographic areas under study, such as deforestation or increased pooling of stagnant water as a result of land use changes, could well have been the primary cause of any growth in the number of mosquitos and of malaria, not climate change. But these possibilities are unmentioned in the DFID press release.
A line-by-line analysis of the press release is provided below. It suggests that almost all the assertions in the DFID document are unsupported by any evidence or are downright wrong. Malaria may indeed be increasing in highland areas of Kenya but the evidence that the disease is driven by rapid climate change is completely unsupported. The research used by DFID and sent to me actually states that changes in land use may be the key factors in encouraging the growth of this extremely unpleasant disease.
The climate sceptics often claim that the political establishment routinely exaggerates the effects of increasing temperatures. These sceptics say that very poor scientific evidence is used to create alarmist headlines about the impact of global warming. The DFID press release is a clear candidate for criticism of this type. It has used inadequate scientific research as the basis for an unqualified conclusion about the impact of climate change on insect-borne diseases. In this case, the press release goes even further by misstating many of the elements of the research on which it is based. Such abuse of science does substantial disservice to the attempt to energise the global community to take action to mitigate climate change.
(With many thanks to Professor Paul Reiter for his comments during the preparation of this article. Errors are my responsibility. If you are interested in reading more about the causes of malarial infections, please consult one of Professor Reiter's papers)
Press release sent out by DFID with my notes in bold
New evidence of link between climate change and malaria
'New research released today shows a direct link between rising temperatures and the spread of malaria.'
a) The research is not new. The key scientific papers to which the press release refers were published in 2001 and 2006. The research was carried out by Dr Githeko of the Kenya Medical Research Institute and his colleagues. Dr Githeko contributed a summary of this earlier research and of other recent findings from around the world for a Commonwealth health ministers meeting in 2009.
b) DFID now acknowledges the material is not 'new research'. When questioned the Department said 'It's more a cumulation of several studies over the past few years'.
c) The research does not show a 'direct link' between malaria and average temperatures. The 2001 paper actually says 'Land use pattern and land cover might be the key factors affecting … malaria transmission in the region'.
'Four million people living on the slopes of Mount Kenya in the Kenyan Central Highlands are now at risk of malaria, after warmer temperatures pushed the disease into high altitude areas where the population has little or no immunity.'
a) The 2001 paper says 'With the increased population on the highlands, enhanced human activities including deforestation, farming and livestock rearing could create more vector (ie malaria carrying mosquitoes) habitats'. It does not say climate change is causing malaria.
b) The 2006 paper says in reference to Western Kenya, over 200 km from Mt Kenya, that the researchers had found 'an association between rainfall and unusually high maximum temperatures and the number of inpatient malaria cases 3-4 months later'. It makes no reference to the slopes of Mt Kenya.
'The findings, announced today by a research team from the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) partly funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), also show the number of cases recorded during malaria epidemics has increased by up to 600% over the past decade.'
a) The findings, at least as provided in the back-up reports provided by DFID, do not show this. The only mention of malaria cases in this research is as follows: 'In Karatina and Naro Moru areas where An. Arabiensis (one of the malaria mosquitoes) was detected, the numbers of malaria cases recorded were eight in the past 5 years, three in the past 5 – 10 years and none in the past 10 – 20 years, indicating a trend of increasing malaria incidence over the past 10 years.'
b) Malaria may well be becoming an even more serious problem in Kenya, and rising temperatures may indeed contribute to the incidence of this disease. But DFID provides no evidence to support its assertion about the Mount Kenya region. Dr Githeko's 2009 summary paper does mention third party research showing an 'eight-fold' increase in malaria in Western Kenya (not the Mount Kenya area) and this may be the basis for the DFID assertion.
'While similar outbreaks elsewhere have been attributed to multiple factors such as drug resistance and land use change, the research team claim the only change that has occurred recently in the Kenyan Central Highlands that might lead to malaria is an increase in the mean annual temperature.'
a) Dr Githeko's 2009 summary paper says that 'In the central highlands the only change that occurred and that lead (sic) to malaria was the mean annual temperature'. But in this and the other papers, he also pointed to variations in rainfall, increases in maximum daily temperatures, changes in land use, greater population density, deforestation, irrigation and stagnant water as having effect on malaria rates. Dr Githeko's comments are inconsistent, even within single papers.
'The spread of malaria into the Central Highlands district followed a rise in average yearly temperatures from 17 degrees in 1989 to nearly 19 degrees today. The malaria parasite can only mature in temperatures above 18 degrees.'
a) Prior to 1994, the mean annual temperature in the Central Highlands region is said by Dr Githeko to be 'between 17.4 degrees C and 18.2 degrees C. Dr Githeko does not provide data for recent years. His record stops at around 2002.
b) The average annual temperature does not have to be above 18 degrees for the malaria parasite to mature. The parasite requires periods of higher temperatures to grow but it can mature in a few days of warm weather. The annual mean is not a particularly relevant measure. (Some North European countries were infested by malaria until the 20th century and their annual average temperatures were well below 18 degrees C)
'Before the 1990s malaria was completely absent in the Central Highlands district. However, as climate change pushed average temperatures over the 18 degree tipping point in the 1990s, malaria epidemics began to break out among the population.'
a) As said before, mean annual temperatures rising above 18 degrees do not create a 'tipping point' for malaria. Recent years may have seen malaria increasing in the Mt Kenya region, partly perhaps as a result of global warming but, second, the DFID papers provide no evidence whatsoever of 'epidemics'.
'Malaria has continued to spread in populations with little immunity to the disease. In 2005 malaria-carrying anopheles mosquitoes were discovered in Naru Moro, over 1,900 metres above sea level.'
a) Dr Githeko found two (2) mosquito larvae in 2005 in Naru Moro, not mosquitoes. Larvae do not carry malaria. The mosquito carries malaria after it has ingested the blood of a person with the disease.
b) DFID is wrong to state that Dr Githeko's findings show that 'malaria has continued to spread in populations with little immunity' and to associate this conclusion with his finding that the two Naru Moro larvae showed this continuing spread.
'The KEMRI researchers were funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC).'
(Press release then continues with quotes for journalists)
• From Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network
Climate change: investors ignore it at your peril
There are three trends which are set to unfold which will have major impact on the global economy: climate change; water shortages; and changing demographics
By Clare BrookPublished: 1:10PM GMT 13 Jan 2010
In the investment world it is a challenge to predict with accuracy what will happen in the next week, let alone the next decade. But there are three trends which are set to unfold in the coming years which will have such a major impact on the global economy that the investment implications are reasonably easy to foresee.
The first and most potentially calamitous trend is climate change, both in terms of costs of mitigating its effects and also adjusting global energy use to ensure that the effects do not worsen. The second is a global water shortage. The third is demographic shifts, both in terms of population growth, which is partly the cause of the first two issues, and, in the developed world, a rapidly ageing population.
The floods in the Lake District last year were passed off by the Environment Agency as a 'once in every 1000 years weather event'. Unfortunately, once in every 1,000 year events will start to occur with alarming frequency now that the effects of climate change are starting to be felt.
While politicians argued at Copenhagen about how much CO2 to reduce and who makes the first move on an international level, at a national level the shift to more sustainable energy production has already begun in earnest. In the UK, for example, 2.3 million homes are now fuelled by windpower.
The European Union as a whole is predicted to have 199 gigawatts of wind energy by 2020, about enough to fuel 100 million homes. The United States and China are rapidly growing their wind and solar capacity. At the moment only 1pc of urban air in China meets European equivalent standards and the Chinese government is facing civil unrest, so it is unsurprising that they are putting their weight behind the alternative energy industry.
A solar plant was recently commissioned by the Chinese to be built in Inner Mongolia which will be 25 square miles – about the size of Greater London – and will provide two gigawatts of capacity.
What this means in investment terms is that there is a tremendous opportunity to participate in an emerging growth area, not just by investing in wind and solar companies, but in other companies providing solutions to the now pressing problem of climate change: Insulation manufacturers, for example, companies involved in the smart grid, makers of batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, rail companies.
All these sectors will see tremendous growth over the next decade and yet the share prices are still smarting in the wake of the financial crisis and are far off their 2007 highs.
Less headline grabbing than climate change, but nonetheless a disaster in store for many parts of the world is the increasing scarcity of water.
Already 1.1 billion people in the world do not have access to clean drinking water. As the global population increases and water usage per capita grows, there will be a 40pc shortfall in the water needs of the world in the next 20 years. Again, as with climate change, companies providing solutions to this issue exist and it seems likely that, given the scale of the problem, they will see rapid growth in the coming decade.
The main areas of investment opportunity are threefold: companies controlling demand through water metering and other technologies; companies preventing leaks by shoring up decaying infrastructure (in the US it is estimated that between $30bn and $40bn annually needs to be spent on regenerating water infrastructure); and increasing supply through techniques such as desalination and filtration.
In addition, agriculture and manufacturing will be forced to find methods of production that are less water intensive. As an investment area, water is interesting because it is relatively under explored and so there are still attractive opportunities on reasonable valuations.
Finally, demographics, in particular the rapidly ageing population is a trend which will gather pace in the coming decade. Between now and 2050, the number of people aged over 85 is set to treble in the European Union. People over the age of 85 need on average nine times the amount of health care products and services that someone under 65 needs.
The implications for the health care industry are clear; strong and sustainable growth for companies providing goods and services such as orthopaedic equipment, hearing aids, dental implants, kidney dialysis machines, care homes and hospital equipment.
From an investment point of view, health care is attractive because the growth tends to be steady and counter cyclical so the investor need not suffer the roller coaster ride that other sectors proffer.
So at WHEB Asset Management, we believe that the most reliable way of making money over time is by identifying these long term trends and investing accordingly. One word of warning though: In the 1890s it was predicted that if the rate of traffic continued to increase in London, by the end of the 20th Century, London would be buried under six feet of horse manure.
Then the car came along. Mankind has a wonderful capacity to invent and adapt. But for the moment, we'll be backing climate change solutions, water companies and health care providers. From where we see the future, it looks like the safest bet.
Clare Brook managed funds at Jupiter, NPI, Henderson and Morley (now Aviva). She is the co-founder of WHEB Asset Management, which runs the IM WHEB Sustainability Fund. For details see www.whebam.com
By Clare BrookPublished: 1:10PM GMT 13 Jan 2010
In the investment world it is a challenge to predict with accuracy what will happen in the next week, let alone the next decade. But there are three trends which are set to unfold in the coming years which will have such a major impact on the global economy that the investment implications are reasonably easy to foresee.
The first and most potentially calamitous trend is climate change, both in terms of costs of mitigating its effects and also adjusting global energy use to ensure that the effects do not worsen. The second is a global water shortage. The third is demographic shifts, both in terms of population growth, which is partly the cause of the first two issues, and, in the developed world, a rapidly ageing population.
The floods in the Lake District last year were passed off by the Environment Agency as a 'once in every 1000 years weather event'. Unfortunately, once in every 1,000 year events will start to occur with alarming frequency now that the effects of climate change are starting to be felt.
While politicians argued at Copenhagen about how much CO2 to reduce and who makes the first move on an international level, at a national level the shift to more sustainable energy production has already begun in earnest. In the UK, for example, 2.3 million homes are now fuelled by windpower.
The European Union as a whole is predicted to have 199 gigawatts of wind energy by 2020, about enough to fuel 100 million homes. The United States and China are rapidly growing their wind and solar capacity. At the moment only 1pc of urban air in China meets European equivalent standards and the Chinese government is facing civil unrest, so it is unsurprising that they are putting their weight behind the alternative energy industry.
A solar plant was recently commissioned by the Chinese to be built in Inner Mongolia which will be 25 square miles – about the size of Greater London – and will provide two gigawatts of capacity.
What this means in investment terms is that there is a tremendous opportunity to participate in an emerging growth area, not just by investing in wind and solar companies, but in other companies providing solutions to the now pressing problem of climate change: Insulation manufacturers, for example, companies involved in the smart grid, makers of batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles, rail companies.
All these sectors will see tremendous growth over the next decade and yet the share prices are still smarting in the wake of the financial crisis and are far off their 2007 highs.
Less headline grabbing than climate change, but nonetheless a disaster in store for many parts of the world is the increasing scarcity of water.
Already 1.1 billion people in the world do not have access to clean drinking water. As the global population increases and water usage per capita grows, there will be a 40pc shortfall in the water needs of the world in the next 20 years. Again, as with climate change, companies providing solutions to this issue exist and it seems likely that, given the scale of the problem, they will see rapid growth in the coming decade.
The main areas of investment opportunity are threefold: companies controlling demand through water metering and other technologies; companies preventing leaks by shoring up decaying infrastructure (in the US it is estimated that between $30bn and $40bn annually needs to be spent on regenerating water infrastructure); and increasing supply through techniques such as desalination and filtration.
In addition, agriculture and manufacturing will be forced to find methods of production that are less water intensive. As an investment area, water is interesting because it is relatively under explored and so there are still attractive opportunities on reasonable valuations.
Finally, demographics, in particular the rapidly ageing population is a trend which will gather pace in the coming decade. Between now and 2050, the number of people aged over 85 is set to treble in the European Union. People over the age of 85 need on average nine times the amount of health care products and services that someone under 65 needs.
The implications for the health care industry are clear; strong and sustainable growth for companies providing goods and services such as orthopaedic equipment, hearing aids, dental implants, kidney dialysis machines, care homes and hospital equipment.
From an investment point of view, health care is attractive because the growth tends to be steady and counter cyclical so the investor need not suffer the roller coaster ride that other sectors proffer.
So at WHEB Asset Management, we believe that the most reliable way of making money over time is by identifying these long term trends and investing accordingly. One word of warning though: In the 1890s it was predicted that if the rate of traffic continued to increase in London, by the end of the 20th Century, London would be buried under six feet of horse manure.
Then the car came along. Mankind has a wonderful capacity to invent and adapt. But for the moment, we'll be backing climate change solutions, water companies and health care providers. From where we see the future, it looks like the safest bet.
Clare Brook managed funds at Jupiter, NPI, Henderson and Morley (now Aviva). She is the co-founder of WHEB Asset Management, which runs the IM WHEB Sustainability Fund. For details see www.whebam.com
Solar shield on agenda at climate summit
Emergency measures to slow global warming, such as a ‘solar shield’ to block the sun or artificial trees to soak up CO2, will be discussed at a ‘geo-engineering’ conference.
By Alastair JamiesonPublished: 9:19AM GMT 13 Jan 2010
The summit of climate scientists, to be held in California in March, will examine drastic techniques for slowing climate change that are controversial and have been described as “geo-piracy”.
Among the possible measures to be discussed will be ocean fertilisation, which would see iron dumped into the sea to boost plankton growth, and artificial trees that use a chemical process to soak up CO2.
Most techniques focus on ways of reducing the sun’s rays by blocking them using mirrors orbiting in space or by spraying sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from earth.
One proposal is for a fleet of ships that would spray seawater into the sky that would leave behind salt crystals to brighten clouds, reflecting more sunlight back into space.
The conference, reported in The Guardian, comes amid concern that such techniques may be the only way to prevent average temperatures rising.
Mike MacCracken, a global warming expert at the Climate Institute in Washington DC, who is organising the conference's scientific programme, told the newspaper: "Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well, the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now."
Scientists at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say the techniques should not be ruled out but that more evidence from experiments is required.
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation recently described geo-engineering an act of "geo-piracy" and warned that the "the world runs a serious risk of choosing solutions that turn out to be new global problems".
However, some geo-engineering techniques are already being used on a large scale. The Chinese government is thought to use cloud-seeding on a regular basis to encourage precipitation in areas hit by drought.
By Alastair JamiesonPublished: 9:19AM GMT 13 Jan 2010
The summit of climate scientists, to be held in California in March, will examine drastic techniques for slowing climate change that are controversial and have been described as “geo-piracy”.
Among the possible measures to be discussed will be ocean fertilisation, which would see iron dumped into the sea to boost plankton growth, and artificial trees that use a chemical process to soak up CO2.
Most techniques focus on ways of reducing the sun’s rays by blocking them using mirrors orbiting in space or by spraying sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from earth.
One proposal is for a fleet of ships that would spray seawater into the sky that would leave behind salt crystals to brighten clouds, reflecting more sunlight back into space.
The conference, reported in The Guardian, comes amid concern that such techniques may be the only way to prevent average temperatures rising.
Mike MacCracken, a global warming expert at the Climate Institute in Washington DC, who is organising the conference's scientific programme, told the newspaper: "Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well, the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now."
Scientists at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say the techniques should not be ruled out but that more evidence from experiments is required.
The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation recently described geo-engineering an act of "geo-piracy" and warned that the "the world runs a serious risk of choosing solutions that turn out to be new global problems".
However, some geo-engineering techniques are already being used on a large scale. The Chinese government is thought to use cloud-seeding on a regular basis to encourage precipitation in areas hit by drought.
India to Roll Out Euro III Fuel by October
By SUNIL RAGHU
NEW DELHI -- India, the world's fourth-biggest polluter, will likely miss the April 1, 2010, deadline it set for itself for the introduction across the nation of cleaner automotive fuels meeting Euro III emission standards.
It will now roll out Euro III fuel by October, junior oil minister Jitin Prasada said Wednesday.
"India being a very large country, it will be difficult to introduce Euro III fuel everywhere and it will be implemented in phases by October," Mr. Prasada told reporters.
However, he said that the oil companies would meet the deadline to introduce fuels complying with Euro IV emission standards in 13 cities, including all major ones.
The Bharat Stage-III and Bharat Stage-IV emission rules were established under India's National Auto Fuel Policy of 2003 to regulate the emission of harmful pollutants from vehicles. Specifications under Bharat Stage-III and Bharat Stage-IV are equivalent to Euro III and Euro IV guidelines.
"The road map for the roll out of Euro III fuel across the country would be finalised after a meeting to be held on Feb. 15," India oil secretary R. S. Pandey told reporters.
Private players, including Reliance Industries Ltd. and Essar Oil Ltd. have agreed to supply Euro III and Euro IV fuels, he said, without specifying the quantities of gasoline and diesel required.
The onus of importing or supplying Euro III and Euro IV fuels lie with the oil marketing companies, both state-owned and private, he said.
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Chairman Sarthak Behuria said that the company plans to import about 2 million-2.5 million tons of Euro III diesel in the initial four-five months of its adoption.
"There should be no problem in introducing Euro IV fuels but we are stretching our facilities so that we can begin introducing Euro III fuels from April 1 at least in some parts of the country," he said.
Mr. Pandey said the oil companies or the federal government would approach the country's supreme court with a plea to extend the April 1 deadline for the roll out of Euro III fuel across the country after obtaining legal advice.
Write to Sunil Raghu at Sunil.Raghu@dowjones.com
NEW DELHI -- India, the world's fourth-biggest polluter, will likely miss the April 1, 2010, deadline it set for itself for the introduction across the nation of cleaner automotive fuels meeting Euro III emission standards.
It will now roll out Euro III fuel by October, junior oil minister Jitin Prasada said Wednesday.
"India being a very large country, it will be difficult to introduce Euro III fuel everywhere and it will be implemented in phases by October," Mr. Prasada told reporters.
However, he said that the oil companies would meet the deadline to introduce fuels complying with Euro IV emission standards in 13 cities, including all major ones.
The Bharat Stage-III and Bharat Stage-IV emission rules were established under India's National Auto Fuel Policy of 2003 to regulate the emission of harmful pollutants from vehicles. Specifications under Bharat Stage-III and Bharat Stage-IV are equivalent to Euro III and Euro IV guidelines.
"The road map for the roll out of Euro III fuel across the country would be finalised after a meeting to be held on Feb. 15," India oil secretary R. S. Pandey told reporters.
Private players, including Reliance Industries Ltd. and Essar Oil Ltd. have agreed to supply Euro III and Euro IV fuels, he said, without specifying the quantities of gasoline and diesel required.
The onus of importing or supplying Euro III and Euro IV fuels lie with the oil marketing companies, both state-owned and private, he said.
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. Chairman Sarthak Behuria said that the company plans to import about 2 million-2.5 million tons of Euro III diesel in the initial four-five months of its adoption.
"There should be no problem in introducing Euro IV fuels but we are stretching our facilities so that we can begin introducing Euro III fuels from April 1 at least in some parts of the country," he said.
Mr. Pandey said the oil companies or the federal government would approach the country's supreme court with a plea to extend the April 1 deadline for the roll out of Euro III fuel across the country after obtaining legal advice.
Write to Sunil Raghu at Sunil.Raghu@dowjones.com
Green Isle of Eigg comes out sunny side up
Islanders’ innovation in reducing carbon emissions recognised with £300,000 share of UK-wide award
Charlene Sweeney
Two years ago Eigg did not even have mains electricity. Now the tiny Scottish island, population 95, has won a UK-wide award for its leap forward in harnessing renewable energy and its approach to tackling climate change.
Among the measures it has adopted are using spent cooking oil from the local ferry in its community vehicles, and running public conveniences by solar power.
Eigg was yesterday among three groups each receiving a £300,000 share of a £1 million prize offered by the Big Green Challenge, a competition organised by the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts to reduce carbon emissions.
Sharing the jackpot were The Green Valleys, a project based in the Brecon Beacons, and the Household Energy Service, based in Ludlow, Shropshire. Low Carbon West Oxford received £100,000 as runner-up. Eigg managed the greatest decrease in CO2 emissions, with a cut of 32 per cent.
Maggie Fyffe, secretary of the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, said that residents were delighted.
The prize will be seen as a vindication of Eigg’s decision to launch the first community buyout in Scotland. After decades of being owned by lairds who did not invest in the Hebridean island, south of Skye, it had become desperately run-down. In 1997 the population of Eigg took advantage of land reform legislation and raised £1.5 million to take control of their own affairs. The trust set up to run the community embarked on a regeneration programme that culminated in the construction of a £1.6 million renewable energy scheme combining hydro, wind and solar power. It was switched on in February 2008, bringing all-day electricity to the island for the first time.
The system was instrumental to its success in the Big Green Challenge, impressing judges who had to select 10 finalists from 350 entrants before awarding them £20,000 to implement their carbon-cutting plans. The communities had a year to put their proposals into action. On Eigg, that meant fitting solar panels in homes and businesses, and adding insulation. People were encouraged to travel by bicycle, or lift-share to reduce car use.
Residents said that the project had the hidden advantage of uniting the community as they sought to meet their targets. Eigg had pledged to reduce its carbon emission from 6.2 tonnes annually per household in October 2008, to four tonnes by November 2009.
“The Big Green Challenge has given me and many other younger folk the opportunity to get involved and work within the community on projects over the last year where we haven’t felt confident or lacked in experience to contribute before,” said Tasha Lancaster, the 31-year-old project manager, who was born and bred on Eigg.
“The outward purpose of this project is tackling climate change, but it’s also ensuring we continue to be a strong, vibrant healthy community to live in.”
There are now plans to install more solar panels, build a £200,000 eco-house for students, and buy a community electric vehicle.
Charlene Sweeney
Two years ago Eigg did not even have mains electricity. Now the tiny Scottish island, population 95, has won a UK-wide award for its leap forward in harnessing renewable energy and its approach to tackling climate change.
Among the measures it has adopted are using spent cooking oil from the local ferry in its community vehicles, and running public conveniences by solar power.
Eigg was yesterday among three groups each receiving a £300,000 share of a £1 million prize offered by the Big Green Challenge, a competition organised by the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts to reduce carbon emissions.
Sharing the jackpot were The Green Valleys, a project based in the Brecon Beacons, and the Household Energy Service, based in Ludlow, Shropshire. Low Carbon West Oxford received £100,000 as runner-up. Eigg managed the greatest decrease in CO2 emissions, with a cut of 32 per cent.
Maggie Fyffe, secretary of the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust, said that residents were delighted.
The prize will be seen as a vindication of Eigg’s decision to launch the first community buyout in Scotland. After decades of being owned by lairds who did not invest in the Hebridean island, south of Skye, it had become desperately run-down. In 1997 the population of Eigg took advantage of land reform legislation and raised £1.5 million to take control of their own affairs. The trust set up to run the community embarked on a regeneration programme that culminated in the construction of a £1.6 million renewable energy scheme combining hydro, wind and solar power. It was switched on in February 2008, bringing all-day electricity to the island for the first time.
The system was instrumental to its success in the Big Green Challenge, impressing judges who had to select 10 finalists from 350 entrants before awarding them £20,000 to implement their carbon-cutting plans. The communities had a year to put their proposals into action. On Eigg, that meant fitting solar panels in homes and businesses, and adding insulation. People were encouraged to travel by bicycle, or lift-share to reduce car use.
Residents said that the project had the hidden advantage of uniting the community as they sought to meet their targets. Eigg had pledged to reduce its carbon emission from 6.2 tonnes annually per household in October 2008, to four tonnes by November 2009.
“The Big Green Challenge has given me and many other younger folk the opportunity to get involved and work within the community on projects over the last year where we haven’t felt confident or lacked in experience to contribute before,” said Tasha Lancaster, the 31-year-old project manager, who was born and bred on Eigg.
“The outward purpose of this project is tackling climate change, but it’s also ensuring we continue to be a strong, vibrant healthy community to live in.”
There are now plans to install more solar panels, build a £200,000 eco-house for students, and buy a community electric vehicle.
UPDATE 1-Fisker, Ener1 break off battery supply talks
Reuters, Thursday January 14 2010
* Fisker, Ener1 unable to reach battery supply deal
* Fisker CEO: Expect battery supply announcement this week
* Ener1 sees growth with Volvo, established carmakers
By David Bailey and Kevin Krolicki
DETROIT, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Fisker Automotive, a venture-capital backed luxury electric carmaker, will announce a battery supply deal for its Karma plug-in hybrid later this week after failing to clinch a deal with Ener1, the company's founder said on Wednesday.
Fisker had been in talks with EnerDel, an Indiana-based unit of Ener1 , but discussions about a lithium-ion battery supply deal but those discussions broke off in recent days, both sides said.
Ener1 Chief Executive Charles Gassenheimer said that his company had decided it would be better off pursuing higher-volume battery supply deals as established automakers begin to roll out electric cars.
"We have some capacity constraints on our side," Gassenheimer told Reuters on the sidelines of the Automotive News World Congress in Detroit.
"The Karma was a low-volume program. We're interested in high volume programs in the future."
Fisker founder and Chief Executive Henrik Fisker said his start-up had been testing EnerDel and other batteries over the past year.
"You will see when we announce our new battery supplier ... all our performance and price targets are going to be hit," Fisker told reporters.
Fisker, which counts Silicon Valley-based Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as an investor, plans to deliver its first Karma models in September.
BOOM MARKET IN PORTABLE POWER
Lithium-ion batteries have long been used in consumer electronics like cell phones and laptop computers.
Now, automakers from start-ups like Fisker to industry giants like General Motors Co[GM.UL] and Nissan Motor Co <7201.t> are readying electric vehicles powered by packs built up from hundreds of lithium-ion cells.
The race to supply those batteries, which can cost $10,000 or more, has emerged as a booming market in the making and one where there is no dominant and established vendor.
Industry estimates project annual sales of up to $25 billion in the next-generation auto batteries by 2015, up from almost none now.
The Fisker Karma, which is designed to travel 50 miles on a single charge and accelerate to 60 miles per hour from a standing start in six seconds, will sell for $87,900.
The Karma will be built in Finland by Valmet Automotive.
Ener1 owns a controlling share in the electric car maker THINK. In addition, it has a deal to convert 22,000 Japanese postal delivery vans for the Japanese postal service provider.
Japanese trading company Itochu Corp <8001.t> invested $20 million in Ener1 in December in exchange for a 2.5 percent stake in the company.
In August, the company received a $118 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a battery cell plant in Indiana.
Ener1 also is working on electric car projects with Nissan Motor Co <7201.t>, Mazda Motor <7261.t> and Volvo, a unit of Ford Motor Co .
Gassenheimer told Reuters he was confident Volvo would move ahead with its plans for an all-electric C30 even if Ford sells the brand to China's Geely.
"The sale process is only going to be beneficial. If it ends up being the Chinese, they are only going to want to see the technology even more," he said.
* Fisker, Ener1 unable to reach battery supply deal
* Fisker CEO: Expect battery supply announcement this week
* Ener1 sees growth with Volvo, established carmakers
By David Bailey and Kevin Krolicki
DETROIT, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Fisker Automotive, a venture-capital backed luxury electric carmaker, will announce a battery supply deal for its Karma plug-in hybrid later this week after failing to clinch a deal with Ener1, the company's founder said on Wednesday.
Fisker had been in talks with EnerDel, an Indiana-based unit of Ener1 , but discussions about a lithium-ion battery supply deal but those discussions broke off in recent days, both sides said.
Ener1 Chief Executive Charles Gassenheimer said that his company had decided it would be better off pursuing higher-volume battery supply deals as established automakers begin to roll out electric cars.
"We have some capacity constraints on our side," Gassenheimer told Reuters on the sidelines of the Automotive News World Congress in Detroit.
"The Karma was a low-volume program. We're interested in high volume programs in the future."
Fisker founder and Chief Executive Henrik Fisker said his start-up had been testing EnerDel and other batteries over the past year.
"You will see when we announce our new battery supplier ... all our performance and price targets are going to be hit," Fisker told reporters.
Fisker, which counts Silicon Valley-based Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers as an investor, plans to deliver its first Karma models in September.
BOOM MARKET IN PORTABLE POWER
Lithium-ion batteries have long been used in consumer electronics like cell phones and laptop computers.
Now, automakers from start-ups like Fisker to industry giants like General Motors Co[GM.UL] and Nissan Motor Co <7201.t> are readying electric vehicles powered by packs built up from hundreds of lithium-ion cells.
The race to supply those batteries, which can cost $10,000 or more, has emerged as a booming market in the making and one where there is no dominant and established vendor.
Industry estimates project annual sales of up to $25 billion in the next-generation auto batteries by 2015, up from almost none now.
The Fisker Karma, which is designed to travel 50 miles on a single charge and accelerate to 60 miles per hour from a standing start in six seconds, will sell for $87,900.
The Karma will be built in Finland by Valmet Automotive.
Ener1 owns a controlling share in the electric car maker THINK. In addition, it has a deal to convert 22,000 Japanese postal delivery vans for the Japanese postal service provider.
Japanese trading company Itochu Corp <8001.t> invested $20 million in Ener1 in December in exchange for a 2.5 percent stake in the company.
In August, the company received a $118 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a battery cell plant in Indiana.
Ener1 also is working on electric car projects with Nissan Motor Co <7201.t>, Mazda Motor <7261.t> and Volvo, a unit of Ford Motor Co .
Gassenheimer told Reuters he was confident Volvo would move ahead with its plans for an all-electric C30 even if Ford sells the brand to China's Geely.
"The sale process is only going to be beneficial. If it ends up being the Chinese, they are only going to want to see the technology even more," he said.
Detroit Motor Show flags up car firms' green fears
Motor City's auto fair is pushing a energy-efficient message that US buyers don't seem to want to hear .
By James Quinn, US Business Editor in DetroitPublished: 9:10PM GMT 13 Jan 2010
After the near-deafening house music died down and the fast-paced video disappeared from the overhead plasma screens, Alan Mulally took to the stage to unveil what he believes will be Ford's game-changer in the US car market.
Accompanied by all the glitz and pizzazz one would expect from a new product launch at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) , the Ford president and chief executive did his best to argue that the new compact version of the Ford Focus is just what is needed for the American market.
In many ways, it is. A smaller, more efficient car for more austere economic times. The sort of car that even a company like Ford – which managed to avoid tapping the US government for bail-out money when rivals General Motors and Chrysler were taking state aid – could do with in its arsenal ready for the battlefield that will be the car market in 2010.
If only the US market was clamouring for such a car. In spite of the hype surrounding compact cars for the US market at this year's autmotive jamboree, the reality appears to be somewhat different.
Worldwide, 25pc of vehicles sold are what most drivers would class as a "small" or "compact" car. However, in the US, this figure stood at 14pc as recently as five years ago, and even last year, in the worst recession in 70 years, only managed to edge up to 21pc. For Americans, the saloon class of car remains the most dominant by a considerable way.
"A compact car is a logical move from a global perspective," says industry veteran Jim Hall, managing director of motor industry analysis firm 2953 Analytics, "and you have the by-product [in GM and Chrysler's case] that it will please the government."
But in reality, Mr Hall argues, these manufacturers are perhaps fooling themselves, as outside of major urban centres like Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco, there is little actual demand for compact cars, especially with petrol prices back at the $3-a-gallon mark compared to the $4-plus peak in the summer of 2008 when oil topped out at $147-a-barrel.
Part of the need for smaller cars stems from new environmental standards, with cars expected to be able to return 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 under new US guidelines. However, Mr Hall believes that these guidelines will simply force the manufacturers to further develop the sedan class, in response to consumer demand, rather than force consumers to accept smaller vehicles.
Michael Robinet, of automotive market forecaster CSM Worldwide, attests that these newer, smaller cars such as the Focus and GM's Chevy Cruze are not being aimed at families who currently have gas-guzzling 4X4's, but rather at a "younger demographic". He argues such compacts are symptomatic of a "generational shift" in attitudes when it comes to the American car buying public, one that will take time to take hold.
But it would seem such a shift is also needed when it comes to the green 'revolution' heavily on display in Detroit's Cobo Hall this week.
The NAIAS includes a 35,000 sq ft display entitled "Electric Avenue" designed to show off the latest in non-petrol-powered technology.
And in this instance it is not just the US manufacturers who are trying to pitch hard to the domestic market
From Nissan's fully electric Leaf – which contains 48 individual lithium-ion battery packs and takes 12 hours to charge for a 100-mile drive – to Daimler's battery-driven Smart car, the need for green is everywhere.
But again the sales statistics don't seem to match up to the hype. After almost 10 years of hybrid vehicles being available in America, only 2.8pc of US cars are hybrids. This is in part because of price. A basic Toyota Prius sells for approximately $24,000, several thousand dollars more than an average saloon.
And GM's electric-powered Chevy Volt – on sale later this year in the US – is estimated by analysts to likely cost more than $30,000, even after a $7,500-per-car green technology rebate from the US government.
For the few members of the public granted special access to attend the motor show on its first two days – reserved for the media – the idea of a non-petrol-propelled car didn't seem overly appealing.
"They're lovely," said Diana, from Virginia, gazing at the latest updated Prius range, "but I've got my 10-year-old SUV (sports utility vehicle) and I'm happy with it."
"I'd be worried about constantly having to recharge it. What happens when you don't have the time?" said John, a dealer from Michigan, stood next to a Chevy Volt.
But even if consumers do buy into the smaller and greener concepts being exhibited, it will come to nothing if the US car market does not return to form. Some 10.5m cars were sold in the US last year, the industry's worst annual performance since 1982.
Forecasts for the current year vary widely, not least because of the uncertainty as to the impact the slow economic recovery will have on sales and whether the Obama administration's successful cash-for-clunkers programme last year worked too well in bringing car sales forward.
Anthony Pratt, senior manager of PricewaterhouseCoopers' Autofacts group in Detroit, points to a likely sales figure of 11.4m units in the US this year, cautioning that a return to the boom years seen earlier in the decade are unlikely.
"This year it's all about recovery," he said. "Among the auto companies…there seems to be a sense of relief that they're through 2009."
Ford is forecasting a range of somewhere between 11.5m-12.5m cars sold in the US, while GM has plumped for a more conservative 11m-12m.
But is it a false dawn? Mr Hall thinks so: "This will be a year of two halves for the US auto industry. The first half, and the second."
The second, he contests, is when the second dip of what he believes will be a double-dip recession – led by continued problems in America's heavily indebted commercial property market – will kick in. He thinks the total sales figure for this year will be closer to 10.9m.
The other worry for the US manufacturers is the knock-on effect of the rest of the world, with Europe the greatest concern. Nick Reilly, GM's recently appointed European chief, forecasts that car sales in Western Europe this year could be 1m-1.5m below the 15m of 2009, warning 2010 will be "pretty anaemic" for the car industry." It will be a battle," he predicts.
If so, and if Europe is hurting as the US returns to form, or worse, as Mr Hall would argue, Europe is hurting and the US is too, 2010 may not be the crossroads Motor City's manufacturers are hoping it will be
By James Quinn, US Business Editor in DetroitPublished: 9:10PM GMT 13 Jan 2010
After the near-deafening house music died down and the fast-paced video disappeared from the overhead plasma screens, Alan Mulally took to the stage to unveil what he believes will be Ford's game-changer in the US car market.
Accompanied by all the glitz and pizzazz one would expect from a new product launch at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) , the Ford president and chief executive did his best to argue that the new compact version of the Ford Focus is just what is needed for the American market.
In many ways, it is. A smaller, more efficient car for more austere economic times. The sort of car that even a company like Ford – which managed to avoid tapping the US government for bail-out money when rivals General Motors and Chrysler were taking state aid – could do with in its arsenal ready for the battlefield that will be the car market in 2010.
If only the US market was clamouring for such a car. In spite of the hype surrounding compact cars for the US market at this year's autmotive jamboree, the reality appears to be somewhat different.
Worldwide, 25pc of vehicles sold are what most drivers would class as a "small" or "compact" car. However, in the US, this figure stood at 14pc as recently as five years ago, and even last year, in the worst recession in 70 years, only managed to edge up to 21pc. For Americans, the saloon class of car remains the most dominant by a considerable way.
"A compact car is a logical move from a global perspective," says industry veteran Jim Hall, managing director of motor industry analysis firm 2953 Analytics, "and you have the by-product [in GM and Chrysler's case] that it will please the government."
But in reality, Mr Hall argues, these manufacturers are perhaps fooling themselves, as outside of major urban centres like Manhattan, Boston and San Francisco, there is little actual demand for compact cars, especially with petrol prices back at the $3-a-gallon mark compared to the $4-plus peak in the summer of 2008 when oil topped out at $147-a-barrel.
Part of the need for smaller cars stems from new environmental standards, with cars expected to be able to return 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 under new US guidelines. However, Mr Hall believes that these guidelines will simply force the manufacturers to further develop the sedan class, in response to consumer demand, rather than force consumers to accept smaller vehicles.
Michael Robinet, of automotive market forecaster CSM Worldwide, attests that these newer, smaller cars such as the Focus and GM's Chevy Cruze are not being aimed at families who currently have gas-guzzling 4X4's, but rather at a "younger demographic". He argues such compacts are symptomatic of a "generational shift" in attitudes when it comes to the American car buying public, one that will take time to take hold.
But it would seem such a shift is also needed when it comes to the green 'revolution' heavily on display in Detroit's Cobo Hall this week.
The NAIAS includes a 35,000 sq ft display entitled "Electric Avenue" designed to show off the latest in non-petrol-powered technology.
And in this instance it is not just the US manufacturers who are trying to pitch hard to the domestic market
From Nissan's fully electric Leaf – which contains 48 individual lithium-ion battery packs and takes 12 hours to charge for a 100-mile drive – to Daimler's battery-driven Smart car, the need for green is everywhere.
But again the sales statistics don't seem to match up to the hype. After almost 10 years of hybrid vehicles being available in America, only 2.8pc of US cars are hybrids. This is in part because of price. A basic Toyota Prius sells for approximately $24,000, several thousand dollars more than an average saloon.
And GM's electric-powered Chevy Volt – on sale later this year in the US – is estimated by analysts to likely cost more than $30,000, even after a $7,500-per-car green technology rebate from the US government.
For the few members of the public granted special access to attend the motor show on its first two days – reserved for the media – the idea of a non-petrol-propelled car didn't seem overly appealing.
"They're lovely," said Diana, from Virginia, gazing at the latest updated Prius range, "but I've got my 10-year-old SUV (sports utility vehicle) and I'm happy with it."
"I'd be worried about constantly having to recharge it. What happens when you don't have the time?" said John, a dealer from Michigan, stood next to a Chevy Volt.
But even if consumers do buy into the smaller and greener concepts being exhibited, it will come to nothing if the US car market does not return to form. Some 10.5m cars were sold in the US last year, the industry's worst annual performance since 1982.
Forecasts for the current year vary widely, not least because of the uncertainty as to the impact the slow economic recovery will have on sales and whether the Obama administration's successful cash-for-clunkers programme last year worked too well in bringing car sales forward.
Anthony Pratt, senior manager of PricewaterhouseCoopers' Autofacts group in Detroit, points to a likely sales figure of 11.4m units in the US this year, cautioning that a return to the boom years seen earlier in the decade are unlikely.
"This year it's all about recovery," he said. "Among the auto companies…there seems to be a sense of relief that they're through 2009."
Ford is forecasting a range of somewhere between 11.5m-12.5m cars sold in the US, while GM has plumped for a more conservative 11m-12m.
But is it a false dawn? Mr Hall thinks so: "This will be a year of two halves for the US auto industry. The first half, and the second."
The second, he contests, is when the second dip of what he believes will be a double-dip recession – led by continued problems in America's heavily indebted commercial property market – will kick in. He thinks the total sales figure for this year will be closer to 10.9m.
The other worry for the US manufacturers is the knock-on effect of the rest of the world, with Europe the greatest concern. Nick Reilly, GM's recently appointed European chief, forecasts that car sales in Western Europe this year could be 1m-1.5m below the 15m of 2009, warning 2010 will be "pretty anaemic" for the car industry." It will be a battle," he predicts.
If so, and if Europe is hurting as the US returns to form, or worse, as Mr Hall would argue, Europe is hurting and the US is too, 2010 may not be the crossroads Motor City's manufacturers are hoping it will be
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
