By KARA SCANNELL And SIOBHAN HUGHES
WASHINGTON—Political feuding over global warming reached the Securities and Exchange Commission Wednesday when commissioners, divided on party lines, voted to encourage companies to disclose the effects of climate change on their business.
SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, an Obama administration appointee, said the agency wasn't weighing in on the global-warming debate and wanted to ensure that investors get reliable information.
The agency's two Republican commissioners voted against issuing the guidance. "I can only conclude that the purpose of this release is to place the imprimatur of the commission on the agenda of the social and environmental policy lobby, an agenda that falls outside of our expertise," said Republican Commissioner Kathleen Casey.
Two Republican lawmakers from the House Energy and Commerce Committee also took a swipe at the SEC in a letter sent Tuesday, calling the move "transparently political and such a breathtaking waste of the commission's resources."
Social investment groups have been urging the SEC for years to require more disclosure on climate matters.
Meredith Cross, director of the SEC's corporation-finance division, defended the move, saying large investors wanted the information.
"Investors have a fundamental right to know which companies are well positioned for the future and which are not," said Anne Stausboll, chief executive of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, of Calpers, the nation's largest public pension fund.
Insurance companies are among those affected by the SEC action. The agency said insurers may want to consider disclosing whether severe weather or changes in sea levels might increase the risk of claims in coastal regions.
The SEC also said companies should weigh disclosure on how pending rules or laws might affect the bottom line. For example, it noted, goods that produce significant greenhouse-gas emissions might see lower demand.
Peter DeSimone, the director of programs at the Social Investment Forum, said his group will ask the SEC "to intervene and enforce...in case where we see there's a clear lack of disclosure." He said insurance companies, oil and gas companies and car makers would be of particular interest to the forum, which focuses on socially responsible investing.
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to regulate greenhouse gases and Democrats and Republicans in Congress are sparring over whether to pass new laws to mandate reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.
Write to Kara Scannell at kara.scannel@wsj.com and Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@dowjones.com
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Global supply of rare earth elements could be wiped out by 2012
Tuesday, January 26, 2010by Mike Adams, the Health RangerEditor of NaturalNews.com
It's the bubble you've probably never heard of: The rare earth bubble. And it's due to pop in 2012, potentially devastating the industries of western nations that depend on these rare elements.What industries are those? The automobile industry uses tens of thousands of tons of rare earth elements each year, and advanced military technology depends on these elements, too. Lots of "green" technologies depend on them, including wind turbines, low-energy light bulbs and hybrid car batteries. In fact, much of western civilization depends on rare earth elements such as terbium, lanthanum and neodymium.So what's the problem with these rare elements? 97 percent of the world's supply comes from mines in China, and China is prepared to simply stop exporting these strategic elements to the rest of the world by 2012.If that happens, the western world will be crippled by the collapse of available rare earth elements. Manufacturing of everything from computers and electronics to farm machinery will grind to a halt. Electronics will disappear from the shelves and prices for manufactured goods that depend on these rare elements will skyrocket.These 17 rare earth elements (REE) -- all of which are metals -- are strategic resources upon which entire nations are built. In many ways, they are similar to rubber -- a resource so valuable and important to the world that many experts call it the "fourth most important natural resource in the world," right after water, steel and oil. Without rubber, you couldn't drive your car to work or water your lawn. Many medical technologies would cease to work and virtually all commercial construction would grind to a halt.Many of the strategic battles fought in World War II were fought, in fact, over control of rubber, most of which now comes through Singapore and its surrounding regions (Malaysia and Indonesia).
Global shortage of Rare Earth Elements coming...Now, by threatening to cut off the world's supply of rare earth elements, China appears to be attempting to monopolize this extremely important strategic resource. According to information received by The Independent, by 2012 China may cease all exports of rare earth elements, reserving them for its own economic expansion.An article in that paper quotes REE expert Jack Lifton as saying, "A real crunch is coming. In America, Britain and elsewhere we have not yet woken up to the fact that there is an urgent need to secure the supply of rare earths from sources outside China."And yet virtually no one has heard of this problem! People are familiar with peak oil, global warming, ocean acidification, the national debt and the depletion of fossil water, but very few are aware of the looming crisis in rare metals... upon which much of western civilization rests.For those who still aren't convinced this is a big deal, consider this: Without rare earth elements, we would have no iPhones. Yeah, I know. That's a disaster, huh?We would have no fiber optic cables, either. No X-ray machines, no car stereos and no high-tech missile guidance systems for the military. And here's the real kicker: No electric motors.
Demand outstrips supplyThe problem with the supply of rare earth elements is that demand has skyrocketed over the last decade from 40,000 tons to 120,000 tons. Meanwhile, China has been cutting its exports. Now, it only exports about 30,000 tons a year -- only one-fourth of the demand the world needs.
It's the bubble you've probably never heard of: The rare earth bubble. And it's due to pop in 2012, potentially devastating the industries of western nations that depend on these rare elements.What industries are those? The automobile industry uses tens of thousands of tons of rare earth elements each year, and advanced military technology depends on these elements, too. Lots of "green" technologies depend on them, including wind turbines, low-energy light bulbs and hybrid car batteries. In fact, much of western civilization depends on rare earth elements such as terbium, lanthanum and neodymium.So what's the problem with these rare elements? 97 percent of the world's supply comes from mines in China, and China is prepared to simply stop exporting these strategic elements to the rest of the world by 2012.If that happens, the western world will be crippled by the collapse of available rare earth elements. Manufacturing of everything from computers and electronics to farm machinery will grind to a halt. Electronics will disappear from the shelves and prices for manufactured goods that depend on these rare elements will skyrocket.These 17 rare earth elements (REE) -- all of which are metals -- are strategic resources upon which entire nations are built. In many ways, they are similar to rubber -- a resource so valuable and important to the world that many experts call it the "fourth most important natural resource in the world," right after water, steel and oil. Without rubber, you couldn't drive your car to work or water your lawn. Many medical technologies would cease to work and virtually all commercial construction would grind to a halt.Many of the strategic battles fought in World War II were fought, in fact, over control of rubber, most of which now comes through Singapore and its surrounding regions (Malaysia and Indonesia).
Global shortage of Rare Earth Elements coming...Now, by threatening to cut off the world's supply of rare earth elements, China appears to be attempting to monopolize this extremely important strategic resource. According to information received by The Independent, by 2012 China may cease all exports of rare earth elements, reserving them for its own economic expansion.An article in that paper quotes REE expert Jack Lifton as saying, "A real crunch is coming. In America, Britain and elsewhere we have not yet woken up to the fact that there is an urgent need to secure the supply of rare earths from sources outside China."And yet virtually no one has heard of this problem! People are familiar with peak oil, global warming, ocean acidification, the national debt and the depletion of fossil water, but very few are aware of the looming crisis in rare metals... upon which much of western civilization rests.For those who still aren't convinced this is a big deal, consider this: Without rare earth elements, we would have no iPhones. Yeah, I know. That's a disaster, huh?We would have no fiber optic cables, either. No X-ray machines, no car stereos and no high-tech missile guidance systems for the military. And here's the real kicker: No electric motors.
Demand outstrips supplyThe problem with the supply of rare earth elements is that demand has skyrocketed over the last decade from 40,000 tons to 120,000 tons. Meanwhile, China has been cutting its exports. Now, it only exports about 30,000 tons a year -- only one-fourth of the demand the world needs.
Research is robust but communication is weak
Vicky Pope: Commentary
For Britain’s climate science community, the past few months have come as a profound shock.
First we had the so-called “climategate” scandal, where e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) showed apparent attempts to thwart Freedom of Information requests.
More recently we have had a series of reports suggesting that “key” sections of assessments of climate change science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were in error.
It all makes a profound contrast to the situation up until last November when the global consensus on climate change science seemed stronger than ever. For scientists, climate research was based on powerful computer models backed by a wealth of real-world evidence. Nothing was certain — in science it seldom is. But we could say with a high degree of certainty — and people believed us when we said it — that the world was warming and the consequences were likely to be serious.
What has changed over the past few months? Certainly not the science. Yes there have been mistakes emerging, and the “climategate” e-mails demonstrate that scientists are human. They do not call into question the robustness of the surface temperature record produced by UEA. There are two other independent data sets that show clearly that global-average temperature has increased over the past century and this warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s.
The more substantive mistake in the IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers were melting so fast that they would vanish by 2035 has been dealt with swiftly and clearly by the IPCC. Some claim that there are more mistakes and in fact, in a subject that is so complex and rapidly evolving, that is likely.
But all those questions have been about the impacts of climate change — perhaps one of the most difficult areas to judge. What has not been called into question is the basic science.
The key finding that “warming is unequivocal and very likely due to man’s activities” remains robust. The basic physics tells us that increasing greenhouse gases cause global warming and we are likely to pay a heavy price if we keep emitting them.
The big difference then, is not in the physics of climate change but the public’s perception of what climate research is all about.
That means it is a communications problem and the blame for that has to lie at least in part with the scientists and in part with the way that science is reported.
Dr Vicky Pope is Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office
For Britain’s climate science community, the past few months have come as a profound shock.
First we had the so-called “climategate” scandal, where e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) showed apparent attempts to thwart Freedom of Information requests.
More recently we have had a series of reports suggesting that “key” sections of assessments of climate change science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were in error.
It all makes a profound contrast to the situation up until last November when the global consensus on climate change science seemed stronger than ever. For scientists, climate research was based on powerful computer models backed by a wealth of real-world evidence. Nothing was certain — in science it seldom is. But we could say with a high degree of certainty — and people believed us when we said it — that the world was warming and the consequences were likely to be serious.
What has changed over the past few months? Certainly not the science. Yes there have been mistakes emerging, and the “climategate” e-mails demonstrate that scientists are human. They do not call into question the robustness of the surface temperature record produced by UEA. There are two other independent data sets that show clearly that global-average temperature has increased over the past century and this warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s.
The more substantive mistake in the IPCC report that Himalayan glaciers were melting so fast that they would vanish by 2035 has been dealt with swiftly and clearly by the IPCC. Some claim that there are more mistakes and in fact, in a subject that is so complex and rapidly evolving, that is likely.
But all those questions have been about the impacts of climate change — perhaps one of the most difficult areas to judge. What has not been called into question is the basic science.
The key finding that “warming is unequivocal and very likely due to man’s activities” remains robust. The basic physics tells us that increasing greenhouse gases cause global warming and we are likely to pay a heavy price if we keep emitting them.
The big difference then, is not in the physics of climate change but the public’s perception of what climate research is all about.
That means it is a communications problem and the blame for that has to lie at least in part with the scientists and in part with the way that science is reported.
Dr Vicky Pope is Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office
Professor Phil Jones’s leaked e-mails reveal climate of secrecy and distrust
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Professor Phil Jones and his colleagues at the University of East Anglia have been hounded by climate sceptics for more than a decade. They were targeted because their research underpinned the conclusion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the increase in temperature was likely to have been caused by man-made emissions.
The sceptics made dozens of demands for information under the Freedom of Information Act. They wanted to see e-mails sent between the scientists discussing their contributions to the IPCC. They also wanted the computer code used by scientists in constructing their climate change models.
Professor Jones believed that they were fishing for information to try to destroy his work. He also feared that they were seeking to distract him from his research by making him spend his time responding to requests.
The leaked e-mails from Professor Jones and others reveal a culture of secrecy and a determination to release as little information as possible.
In response to one request for data, Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Sceptics also claimed that the e-mails show that Professor Jones attempted to manipulate data. There is little in the e-mails to support this.
In an interview in The Times on Wednesday Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to critics. He said: “There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”
Many requests for data came from climate sceptics connected with the Climate Audit (CA) blog, which questions the IPCC’s conclusions. Climate Audit is edited by Steve McIntyre, a former mineral industry executive.
In one e-mail sent in 2008, Professor Jones tells a colleague how he managed to persuade the university to refuse information requests from Climate Audit. “When the FoI requests began here, the FoI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions — one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school — the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.”
In possibly the most damning e-mail, Professor Jones asks a colleague at another university to delete e-mails discussing contributions to the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report. “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
The recipient of this e-mail was Michael Mann, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who produced the famous “hockey stick” graph showing a sharp upward turn in global temperatures after 1900.
Sceptics have dubbed Professor Jones, Mr Mann and their colleagues the “hockey team”.
Professor Jones wrote in 2005 that if anyone tried to use FoI legislation to obtain the code behind the computer models used to plot the global temperature record, he would be “hiding behind” data protection laws.
Tom Wigley, another US climate scientist close to Professor Jones, attempted to warn him last year about the implications of refusing requests for information. He wrote: “The trouble here is that withholding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.”
Professor Phil Jones and his colleagues at the University of East Anglia have been hounded by climate sceptics for more than a decade. They were targeted because their research underpinned the conclusion by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the increase in temperature was likely to have been caused by man-made emissions.
The sceptics made dozens of demands for information under the Freedom of Information Act. They wanted to see e-mails sent between the scientists discussing their contributions to the IPCC. They also wanted the computer code used by scientists in constructing their climate change models.
Professor Jones believed that they were fishing for information to try to destroy his work. He also feared that they were seeking to distract him from his research by making him spend his time responding to requests.
The leaked e-mails from Professor Jones and others reveal a culture of secrecy and a determination to release as little information as possible.
In response to one request for data, Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Sceptics also claimed that the e-mails show that Professor Jones attempted to manipulate data. There is little in the e-mails to support this.
In an interview in The Times on Wednesday Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to critics. He said: “There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”
Many requests for data came from climate sceptics connected with the Climate Audit (CA) blog, which questions the IPCC’s conclusions. Climate Audit is edited by Steve McIntyre, a former mineral industry executive.
In one e-mail sent in 2008, Professor Jones tells a colleague how he managed to persuade the university to refuse information requests from Climate Audit. “When the FoI requests began here, the FoI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half-hour sessions — one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school — the head of school and a few others) became very supportive.”
In possibly the most damning e-mail, Professor Jones asks a colleague at another university to delete e-mails discussing contributions to the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report. “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”
The recipient of this e-mail was Michael Mann, a climatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who produced the famous “hockey stick” graph showing a sharp upward turn in global temperatures after 1900.
Sceptics have dubbed Professor Jones, Mr Mann and their colleagues the “hockey team”.
Professor Jones wrote in 2005 that if anyone tried to use FoI legislation to obtain the code behind the computer models used to plot the global temperature record, he would be “hiding behind” data protection laws.
Tom Wigley, another US climate scientist close to Professor Jones, attempted to warn him last year about the implications of refusing requests for information. He wrote: “The trouble here is that withholding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.”
Climate sceptics distract us from the scientific realities of global warming
Is the goal of climate sceptics to lead us into greater scientific truth – or merely to sow doubt about the temperature record?
When you peruse the many sceptic arguments against man-made global warming, you find a tendency to focus on a narrow piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. This narrow focus serves as a useful distraction from the scientific realities of global warming.
A recent example is the campaign to sow doubts about the US temperature record. To achieve this, an army of volunteers traversed the US photographing weather stations. Pictures were posted on surfacestations.org, showing weather stations positioned near heated buildings, air conditioners and other sources of artificial heat.
Each new photo was greeted with a clucking of tongues and a sense of reaffirmation among sceptics that global warming was largely the product of suspect temperature data. "How do we know if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the temperature record?" asked Anthony Watts who runs the sceptic blog Wattsupwiththat.
Never mind that the Greenland ice sheet is losing ice at an accelerating rate. That Antarctic ice loss is also accelerating, including east Antarctica which until late 2009 was thought too cold and stable to lose ice. Arctic sea ice is melting, sea levels are rising and glaciers are retreating. These and many other physical realities of global warming are well documented in the peer-reviewed literature. However, to some, the accumulated body of empirical data is no match against the persuasive power of a well-framed photograph.
The photos were compiled into a single report by Watts and published by the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that funds climate sceptic activities. For good measure, infrared photos were included to visually drive the point home. Using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's own classifications, Watts divided the weather stations into five categories. Well-sited stations, positioned well clear of roads, buildings and other heated surfaces, were given a rating one or two. Poorly sited stations, positioned in proximity to warming influences, were ratedthree, four or five. Most weather stations fell into the poorly sited categories. Watts suggested poor siting could contribute a warming of at least 1-5C to individual stations.
The report concludes:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat ... The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
The crucial question though is how much extra warming do poorly sited weather stations contribute to the temperature record? Unfortunately, no amount of photos will answer this question. The only solution is data analysis, calculating the temperature trends from poor sites compared with good sites. Curiously, Watt's report contained no such data analysis. While page after page of photos may be effective in sowing doubt about the temperature record, they offer no actual answers on the impact of poor siting.
Finally this month, a peer-reviewed analysis of the temperature data was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The paper used Watt's station ratings to split all US weather stations into two categories: good (rating one or two) and bad (ratings three, four or five). The analysis then compared the raw, unadjusted data from the good and bad sites. In typical peer-reviewed understatement, the results were described as "counterintuitive". They were in fact, a great surprise to many. Poorly sited weather stations actually show a cooler trend compared to the good sites.
The cause of this cooling bias appears to have been a change in instruments. In the late 1980s, many sites converted from Cotton Region Shelters (CRS, otherwise known as Stevenson Screens) to electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). This had two effects. Firstly, MMTS sensors record lower daily maximums compared to their CRS counterparts. So the switch from CRS to MMTS sensors caused a cooling bias in certain stations.
Secondly, the MMTS sensors were attached by cable to an indoor readout device. Limited by cable length, the MMTS weather stations were often located closer to buildings and other artificial sources of heat. This meant most of the stations with the newer MMTS sensors also happened to fall under poorly sited categories. The net result is that poor stations show an overall cooler trend compared with good stations. However, when the change from CRS to MMTS is taken into account in data adjustments, the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites.
One might reasonably question whether the goal of surfacestations.org was to lead us into greater scientific truth or merely to sow doubt about the temperature record. Nevertheless, their efforts to rate each individual weather station enabled scientists to identify a cool bias in poor sites and isolate the cause. A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the surfacestations.org volunteers were hoping for, but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate.
When you peruse the many sceptic arguments against man-made global warming, you find a tendency to focus on a narrow piece of the puzzle while ignoring the broader picture. This narrow focus serves as a useful distraction from the scientific realities of global warming.
A recent example is the campaign to sow doubts about the US temperature record. To achieve this, an army of volunteers traversed the US photographing weather stations. Pictures were posted on surfacestations.org, showing weather stations positioned near heated buildings, air conditioners and other sources of artificial heat.
Each new photo was greeted with a clucking of tongues and a sense of reaffirmation among sceptics that global warming was largely the product of suspect temperature data. "How do we know if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the temperature record?" asked Anthony Watts who runs the sceptic blog Wattsupwiththat.
Never mind that the Greenland ice sheet is losing ice at an accelerating rate. That Antarctic ice loss is also accelerating, including east Antarctica which until late 2009 was thought too cold and stable to lose ice. Arctic sea ice is melting, sea levels are rising and glaciers are retreating. These and many other physical realities of global warming are well documented in the peer-reviewed literature. However, to some, the accumulated body of empirical data is no match against the persuasive power of a well-framed photograph.
The photos were compiled into a single report by Watts and published by the Heartland Institute, a thinktank that funds climate sceptic activities. For good measure, infrared photos were included to visually drive the point home. Using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's own classifications, Watts divided the weather stations into five categories. Well-sited stations, positioned well clear of roads, buildings and other heated surfaces, were given a rating one or two. Poorly sited stations, positioned in proximity to warming influences, were ratedthree, four or five. Most weather stations fell into the poorly sited categories. Watts suggested poor siting could contribute a warming of at least 1-5C to individual stations.
The report concludes:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat ... The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable. And since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
The crucial question though is how much extra warming do poorly sited weather stations contribute to the temperature record? Unfortunately, no amount of photos will answer this question. The only solution is data analysis, calculating the temperature trends from poor sites compared with good sites. Curiously, Watt's report contained no such data analysis. While page after page of photos may be effective in sowing doubt about the temperature record, they offer no actual answers on the impact of poor siting.
Finally this month, a peer-reviewed analysis of the temperature data was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The paper used Watt's station ratings to split all US weather stations into two categories: good (rating one or two) and bad (ratings three, four or five). The analysis then compared the raw, unadjusted data from the good and bad sites. In typical peer-reviewed understatement, the results were described as "counterintuitive". They were in fact, a great surprise to many. Poorly sited weather stations actually show a cooler trend compared to the good sites.
The cause of this cooling bias appears to have been a change in instruments. In the late 1980s, many sites converted from Cotton Region Shelters (CRS, otherwise known as Stevenson Screens) to electronic Maximum/Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). This had two effects. Firstly, MMTS sensors record lower daily maximums compared to their CRS counterparts. So the switch from CRS to MMTS sensors caused a cooling bias in certain stations.
Secondly, the MMTS sensors were attached by cable to an indoor readout device. Limited by cable length, the MMTS weather stations were often located closer to buildings and other artificial sources of heat. This meant most of the stations with the newer MMTS sensors also happened to fall under poorly sited categories. The net result is that poor stations show an overall cooler trend compared with good stations. However, when the change from CRS to MMTS is taken into account in data adjustments, the trend from good sites show close agreement with poor sites.
One might reasonably question whether the goal of surfacestations.org was to lead us into greater scientific truth or merely to sow doubt about the temperature record. Nevertheless, their efforts to rate each individual weather station enabled scientists to identify a cool bias in poor sites and isolate the cause. A net cooling bias was perhaps not the result the surfacestations.org volunteers were hoping for, but improving the quality of the surface temperature record is surely a result we should all appreciate.
John Beddington: chief scientist says climate change sceptics 'should not be dismissed'
Climate change sceptics should not be dismissed, the Government's chief scientific adviser has said, as he called for more openness in the global warming debate.
By Andrew HoughPublished: 7:30AM GMT 27 Jan 2010
"It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth" says Professor John Beddington
Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.
In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.
His words were refected in a New Scientist editorial that also argued that climate scientists should "welcome in the outside world" for more scrutiny.
Prof Beddington also said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.
''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he said.
“Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.
“There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”
His comments come after the United Nations’ climate science panel admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The IPCC was forced to apologise after the prediction in its benchmark 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – was revealed to have been based on unsubstantiated claims.
It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data.
As a result Prof Phil Jones, the director of the University’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to IPCC reports, has been forced to stand down while he is investigated.
Urging scientists to release their data to their critics, Prof Beddington added: ''I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.
“There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”
The New Scientist editorial said that the IPCC has done 'Herculean' work in assessing the risk of climate change and the recent revelations do not undermine the conclustion that man made global warming is happening.
But the process needs to be reviewed so that the public had more access to research and reports come out more frequently.
Lord Stern of Brentford, has previously said that climate change sceptics that pedal “muddled and unscientific” thinking could stop the world from tackling global warming.
Prof Beddington insisted that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction:
But he said the false claim in the IPCC's 2007 report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.
“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,” he said.
“We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there.
“If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, 'there's a level of uncertainty about that'.”
Prof Beddington also said that large-scale climate modelling using computers resulted in ''quite substantial uncertainties'' that should be communicated.
''It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,” he told The Times.
“But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.”
Last week Nasa scientists reported that the past decade was the warmest on record, proving that global warming had continued “unabated”.
Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, found average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5F (0.8C) since 1880, when records began
By Andrew HoughPublished: 7:30AM GMT 27 Jan 2010
"It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth" says Professor John Beddington
Prof John Beddington admitted the impact of global warming had been exaggerated by some scientists and condemned climate researchers who refused to publish data which formed the basis of their reports into global warming.
In an interview, Prof Beddington, called for a new era of honesty and responsibility from the environmental community and said scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming.
His words were refected in a New Scientist editorial that also argued that climate scientists should "welcome in the outside world" for more scrutiny.
Prof Beddington also said public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.
''I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper scepticism,” he said.
“Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.
“There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.”
His comments come after the United Nations’ climate science panel admitted last week that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
The IPCC was forced to apologise after the prediction in its benchmark 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 – was revealed to have been based on unsubstantiated claims.
It followed another row surrounding the science behind climate change, dubbed “Climategate”, when leaked e-mails appeared to suggest that scientists at the University of East Anglia had manipulated climate change data.
As a result Prof Phil Jones, the director of the University’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to IPCC reports, has been forced to stand down while he is investigated.
Urging scientists to release their data to their critics, Prof Beddington added: ''I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.
“There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”
The New Scientist editorial said that the IPCC has done 'Herculean' work in assessing the risk of climate change and the recent revelations do not undermine the conclustion that man made global warming is happening.
But the process needs to be reviewed so that the public had more access to research and reports come out more frequently.
Lord Stern of Brentford, has previously said that climate change sceptics that pedal “muddled and unscientific” thinking could stop the world from tackling global warming.
Prof Beddington insisted that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction:
But he said the false claim in the IPCC's 2007 report revealed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.
“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate,” he said.
“We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There's definitely an issue there.
“If there wasn't, there wouldn't be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, 'there's a level of uncertainty about that'.”
Prof Beddington also said that large-scale climate modelling using computers resulted in ''quite substantial uncertainties'' that should be communicated.
''It's unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere,” he told The Times.
“But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.”
Last week Nasa scientists reported that the past decade was the warmest on record, proving that global warming had continued “unabated”.
Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, found average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5F (0.8C) since 1880, when records began
Glasgow aims to cut emissions by 30%
Charlene Sweeney
Glasgow aims to cut its carbon emissions by 30 per cent in ten years.
The proposals by the city council were outlined in a report, Sustainable Glasgow, which recommended installing systems to turn sewage and other waste into biogas, a “smart” electricity grid, creating urban woodlands and increasing the use of electric vehicles.
The project aims to transform the city into a hub of the sustainable energy sector, delivering jobs and training. It will also play a major role in attempts to regenerate communities and tackle fuel poverty over the next 10 years, potentially attracting £1.5 billion of investment.
Launching the report, Steven Purcell, the leader of Glasgow City Council, said: “Climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face over the next decade but it is also a complex challenge as we balance our increasing demand for energy with the need to lower carbon emissions, use renewable energy technologies and continue apace with the city’s economic regeneration effort.
“The answer lies in developing a strategic city-wide and integrated approach with key stakeholders that understands our energy consumption, projected future use and how this can be provided in a sustainable way to meet the needs of all citizens, businesses and communities alike.”
The report suggested initiatives such as the creation of systems to turn the city’s sewage and municipal waste into biogas; a drive to increase the use of biogas and electric vehicles; the development of natural biogas-fuelled combined heat and power systems and a ‘smart’ grid system to deliver power. Other schemes include the creation of urban woodlands on vacant city land and projects to encourage “behavioural change” among the city's residents.
The Sustainable Glasgow project includes the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow City Council, Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Enterprise.
Jim Mather, the Energy Minister, praised the plans and said he hoped they would be replicated across Scotland.
Glasgow aims to cut its carbon emissions by 30 per cent in ten years.
The proposals by the city council were outlined in a report, Sustainable Glasgow, which recommended installing systems to turn sewage and other waste into biogas, a “smart” electricity grid, creating urban woodlands and increasing the use of electric vehicles.
The project aims to transform the city into a hub of the sustainable energy sector, delivering jobs and training. It will also play a major role in attempts to regenerate communities and tackle fuel poverty over the next 10 years, potentially attracting £1.5 billion of investment.
Launching the report, Steven Purcell, the leader of Glasgow City Council, said: “Climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face over the next decade but it is also a complex challenge as we balance our increasing demand for energy with the need to lower carbon emissions, use renewable energy technologies and continue apace with the city’s economic regeneration effort.
“The answer lies in developing a strategic city-wide and integrated approach with key stakeholders that understands our energy consumption, projected future use and how this can be provided in a sustainable way to meet the needs of all citizens, businesses and communities alike.”
The report suggested initiatives such as the creation of systems to turn the city’s sewage and municipal waste into biogas; a drive to increase the use of biogas and electric vehicles; the development of natural biogas-fuelled combined heat and power systems and a ‘smart’ grid system to deliver power. Other schemes include the creation of urban woodlands on vacant city land and projects to encourage “behavioural change” among the city's residents.
The Sustainable Glasgow project includes the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow City Council, Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Enterprise.
Jim Mather, the Energy Minister, praised the plans and said he hoped they would be replicated across Scotland.
Australia to put forward unchanged carbon cuts to United Nations
Australia on Wednesday said it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by between five and 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020, depending on the commitments of other nations.
By an AFP reporter in SydneyPublished: 12:25PM GMT 27 Jan 2010
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the proposal, consistent with that taken to global climate change talks in Copenhagen last month, would be submitted to the UN.
"Consistent with our commitment to do no more and no less than the rest of the world, we are today submitting our existing target range: five percent unconditional, with up to 15 per cent and 25 per cent both conditional on the extent of action by others," Wong said in a statement.
The minister said Australia's target range was in step with that expected from other nations.
The non-binding Copenhagen Accord noted in the global talks committed nations to limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), but it failed to set targets for greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
Experts say Australia's proposed cut of up to 25 per cent of 2000 levels would be roughly equivalent to cuts of up to 24 per cent of 1990 levels because record land-clearing allowed up until 1990 no longer occurs
By an AFP reporter in SydneyPublished: 12:25PM GMT 27 Jan 2010
Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the proposal, consistent with that taken to global climate change talks in Copenhagen last month, would be submitted to the UN.
"Consistent with our commitment to do no more and no less than the rest of the world, we are today submitting our existing target range: five percent unconditional, with up to 15 per cent and 25 per cent both conditional on the extent of action by others," Wong said in a statement.
The minister said Australia's target range was in step with that expected from other nations.
The non-binding Copenhagen Accord noted in the global talks committed nations to limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), but it failed to set targets for greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
Experts say Australia's proposed cut of up to 25 per cent of 2000 levels would be roughly equivalent to cuts of up to 24 per cent of 1990 levels because record land-clearing allowed up until 1990 no longer occurs
Simulated volcanoes and man-made 'sun blocks' can rescue the planet
Scientists back radical 'geoengineering' projects to stop climate change
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Thursday, 28 January 2010
It would be 100 times cheaper to shield the Earth from sunlight with a man-made "sun block" than to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. This is one of the reasons why the world needs an international project to investigate ways of safely manipulating the global climate in addition to cutting greenhouse gases, scientists have said.
Simulating a volcanic eruption by putting man-made aerosol particles into the atmosphere to reflect the Sun's heat would rapidly lower global temperatures and could provide a vital respite from global warming until cuts in carbon dioxide emissions begin to have the desired effect, they added.
It is important to start tests in "geoengineering" now rather than leave it until a full-blown emergency, according to three environmental scientists who argue that governments should establish a multimillion-pound fund to pay for research into solar-radiation management – techniques for shielding the Earth against sunlight.
"The idea of deliberately manipulating Earth's energy balance to offset human-driven climate change strikes many as dangerous hubris," said David Keith of the University of Calgary in Canada, Edward Parson of the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University, writing in the journal Nature.
"Many scientists have argued against research on solar radiation management, saying that developing the capability to perform such tasks will reduce the political will to lower greenhouse gas emissions. We think that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it," they wrote.
Until recently, even discussing the idea of manipulating the global climate artificially to combat rising temperatures has been considered a taboo subject among scientists. However, last year a survey of 50 climate scientists by The Independent found there was a growing appetite to at least investigate the idea, an approach supported by a report into geoengineering last September by the Royal Society.
The latest call by David Keith and his colleagues emphasises that there are serious potential problems with building a solar shield, and that it should never be seen as an alternative to cuts in greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, they argue that it is better for an international research project to be established rather than leaving it until a "rogue state" decides to go it alone.
"It is plausible that, after exhausting other avenues to limit climate risks, such a nation might decide to begin a gradual, well-monitored programme of deployment, even without any international agreement on its regulation," the scientists said.
"In this case, one nation – which need not be a large and rich industrialised country – could seize the initiative on global climate, making it extremely difficult for other powers to restrain it."
An international research effort into such a project could begin with an annual budget of about $10m (£6.3m), rising to about $1bn by 2020. It could investigate the risks, such as altering weather patterns, as well as known drawbacks, such as it doing nothing to combat the increasing acidity of the oceans.
Scientists have suggested that generating sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere, which are naturally emitted during a volcanic eruption, could quickly lower global temperatures, which happened after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. Another possibility is to spray fine droplets of seawater into the air to create low-level clouds that would lower daytime temperatures over the oceans.
"Opinions about solar radiation management are changing rapidly. Only a few years ago, many scientists opposed open discussion of the topic. Many now support model-based research, but field testing of the sort we advocate here is contentious and will probably grow more so," the three scientists wrote.
"The main argument against solar radiation management research is that it would undermine the already-inadequate resolve to cut emissions. We are keenly aware of this 'moral hazard'; but sceptical that suppressing research would in fact raise commitment to mitigation.
"Indeed, with the possibility of solar radiation management now widely recognised, failing to subject it to serious research and risk assessment may well pose the greater threat to mitigation efforts, by allowing implicit reliance on solar radiation management without scrutiny of its actual requirements, limitations and risks," they said.
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Thursday, 28 January 2010
It would be 100 times cheaper to shield the Earth from sunlight with a man-made "sun block" than to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. This is one of the reasons why the world needs an international project to investigate ways of safely manipulating the global climate in addition to cutting greenhouse gases, scientists have said.
Simulating a volcanic eruption by putting man-made aerosol particles into the atmosphere to reflect the Sun's heat would rapidly lower global temperatures and could provide a vital respite from global warming until cuts in carbon dioxide emissions begin to have the desired effect, they added.
It is important to start tests in "geoengineering" now rather than leave it until a full-blown emergency, according to three environmental scientists who argue that governments should establish a multimillion-pound fund to pay for research into solar-radiation management – techniques for shielding the Earth against sunlight.
"The idea of deliberately manipulating Earth's energy balance to offset human-driven climate change strikes many as dangerous hubris," said David Keith of the University of Calgary in Canada, Edward Parson of the University of Michigan and Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University, writing in the journal Nature.
"Many scientists have argued against research on solar radiation management, saying that developing the capability to perform such tasks will reduce the political will to lower greenhouse gas emissions. We think that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it," they wrote.
Until recently, even discussing the idea of manipulating the global climate artificially to combat rising temperatures has been considered a taboo subject among scientists. However, last year a survey of 50 climate scientists by The Independent found there was a growing appetite to at least investigate the idea, an approach supported by a report into geoengineering last September by the Royal Society.
The latest call by David Keith and his colleagues emphasises that there are serious potential problems with building a solar shield, and that it should never be seen as an alternative to cuts in greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, they argue that it is better for an international research project to be established rather than leaving it until a "rogue state" decides to go it alone.
"It is plausible that, after exhausting other avenues to limit climate risks, such a nation might decide to begin a gradual, well-monitored programme of deployment, even without any international agreement on its regulation," the scientists said.
"In this case, one nation – which need not be a large and rich industrialised country – could seize the initiative on global climate, making it extremely difficult for other powers to restrain it."
An international research effort into such a project could begin with an annual budget of about $10m (£6.3m), rising to about $1bn by 2020. It could investigate the risks, such as altering weather patterns, as well as known drawbacks, such as it doing nothing to combat the increasing acidity of the oceans.
Scientists have suggested that generating sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere, which are naturally emitted during a volcanic eruption, could quickly lower global temperatures, which happened after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. Another possibility is to spray fine droplets of seawater into the air to create low-level clouds that would lower daytime temperatures over the oceans.
"Opinions about solar radiation management are changing rapidly. Only a few years ago, many scientists opposed open discussion of the topic. Many now support model-based research, but field testing of the sort we advocate here is contentious and will probably grow more so," the three scientists wrote.
"The main argument against solar radiation management research is that it would undermine the already-inadequate resolve to cut emissions. We are keenly aware of this 'moral hazard'; but sceptical that suppressing research would in fact raise commitment to mitigation.
"Indeed, with the possibility of solar radiation management now widely recognised, failing to subject it to serious research and risk assessment may well pose the greater threat to mitigation efforts, by allowing implicit reliance on solar radiation management without scrutiny of its actual requirements, limitations and risks," they said.
TPG deal energises Greenko
Smaller companies: Peter Stiff
Shares in Greenko rose by more than 9 per cent yesterday after TPG, the private equity group, took a 10 per cent stake in the Indian clean energy business.
The move, TPG’s first investment in renewable energy in India, is part of a wider £72 million fundraising for Greenko, which is placing 51.4 million shares at 140p through Arden Partners and Mirabaud. Greenko, up 13p at 155p, will use the money to develop renewable power assets.
Anil Chalamalasetty, the chief executive, said that the support of an investor of TPG’s calibre was a significant affirmation of Greenko’s position as a leading clean energy company within India. Arden said it thought that the importance of renewable power in India would continue to increase and that Greenko had a huge opportunity to take advantage of the strong market.
Havelock Europa fell 2½p to 16p after the educational and retail interiors group said that its full-year loss would be as much as £2 million more than expected after reviewing projects in its educational furniture division.
Globo rose 2.38p to 11p after the mobile software group signed a contact with a big mobile network operator in South-East Asia.
Stratex eased 0.38p to 4¼p after the Turkey-focused miner raised £1.3 million in a share placing at 3½p by Westhouse. The funds will be used to develop its portfolio in Ethiopia. Aurelian Oil & Gas rose 3p to 37½p after the Eastern European-focused explorer raised £34 million in a placing of 106 million share at 32p each to develop a well in Poland.
Innovation Group rose ½p to 13½p in heavy trading, with more than 24 million shares changing hands in one deal.
Shares in Greenko rose by more than 9 per cent yesterday after TPG, the private equity group, took a 10 per cent stake in the Indian clean energy business.
The move, TPG’s first investment in renewable energy in India, is part of a wider £72 million fundraising for Greenko, which is placing 51.4 million shares at 140p through Arden Partners and Mirabaud. Greenko, up 13p at 155p, will use the money to develop renewable power assets.
Anil Chalamalasetty, the chief executive, said that the support of an investor of TPG’s calibre was a significant affirmation of Greenko’s position as a leading clean energy company within India. Arden said it thought that the importance of renewable power in India would continue to increase and that Greenko had a huge opportunity to take advantage of the strong market.
Havelock Europa fell 2½p to 16p after the educational and retail interiors group said that its full-year loss would be as much as £2 million more than expected after reviewing projects in its educational furniture division.
Globo rose 2.38p to 11p after the mobile software group signed a contact with a big mobile network operator in South-East Asia.
Stratex eased 0.38p to 4¼p after the Turkey-focused miner raised £1.3 million in a share placing at 3½p by Westhouse. The funds will be used to develop its portfolio in Ethiopia. Aurelian Oil & Gas rose 3p to 37½p after the Eastern European-focused explorer raised £34 million in a placing of 106 million share at 32p each to develop a well in Poland.
Innovation Group rose ½p to 13½p in heavy trading, with more than 24 million shares changing hands in one deal.
TPG deal energises Greenko
Smaller companies: Peter Stiff
Shares in Greenko rose by more than 9 per cent yesterday after TPG, the private equity group, took a 10 per cent stake in the Indian clean energy business.
The move, TPG’s first investment in renewable energy in India, is part of a wider £72 million fundraising for Greenko, which is placing 51.4 million shares at 140p through Arden Partners and Mirabaud. Greenko, up 13p at 155p, will use the money to develop renewable power assets.
Anil Chalamalasetty, the chief executive, said that the support of an investor of TPG’s calibre was a significant affirmation of Greenko’s position as a leading clean energy company within India. Arden said it thought that the importance of renewable power in India would continue to increase and that Greenko had a huge opportunity to take advantage of the strong market.
Havelock Europa fell 2½p to 16p after the educational and retail interiors group said that its full-year loss would be as much as £2 million more than expected after reviewing projects in its educational furniture division.
Globo rose 2.38p to 11p after the mobile software group signed a contact with a big mobile network operator in South-East Asia.
Stratex eased 0.38p to 4¼p after the Turkey-focused miner raised £1.3 million in a share placing at 3½p by Westhouse. The funds will be used to develop its portfolio in Ethiopia. Aurelian Oil & Gas rose 3p to 37½p after the Eastern European-focused explorer raised £34 million in a placing of 106 million share at 32p each to develop a well in Poland.
Innovation Group rose ½p to 13½p in heavy trading, with more than 24 million shares changing hands in one deal.
Shares in Greenko rose by more than 9 per cent yesterday after TPG, the private equity group, took a 10 per cent stake in the Indian clean energy business.
The move, TPG’s first investment in renewable energy in India, is part of a wider £72 million fundraising for Greenko, which is placing 51.4 million shares at 140p through Arden Partners and Mirabaud. Greenko, up 13p at 155p, will use the money to develop renewable power assets.
Anil Chalamalasetty, the chief executive, said that the support of an investor of TPG’s calibre was a significant affirmation of Greenko’s position as a leading clean energy company within India. Arden said it thought that the importance of renewable power in India would continue to increase and that Greenko had a huge opportunity to take advantage of the strong market.
Havelock Europa fell 2½p to 16p after the educational and retail interiors group said that its full-year loss would be as much as £2 million more than expected after reviewing projects in its educational furniture division.
Globo rose 2.38p to 11p after the mobile software group signed a contact with a big mobile network operator in South-East Asia.
Stratex eased 0.38p to 4¼p after the Turkey-focused miner raised £1.3 million in a share placing at 3½p by Westhouse. The funds will be used to develop its portfolio in Ethiopia. Aurelian Oil & Gas rose 3p to 37½p after the Eastern European-focused explorer raised £34 million in a placing of 106 million share at 32p each to develop a well in Poland.
Innovation Group rose ½p to 13½p in heavy trading, with more than 24 million shares changing hands in one deal.
Cash incentives needed for green energy in homes
Most homeowners would consider installing green energy systems such as solar panels or small wind turbines if they were paid enough cash, according to a new study.
Published: 7:30AM GMT 27 Jan 2010
A survey of over 2,100 adults showed that seven out of 10 would consider fitting micro-generation schemes if so-called feed in tariffs were generous enough.
Friends of the Earth, the Renewable Energy Association (REA) and the Co-operative Group, which commissioned the study, said the findings showed the Government's plans to pay homes and businesses to generate green electricity were not ambitious enough.
Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said: "The public overwhelmingly wants the Government to think big when it comes to small-scale renewable energy.
"Our homes, businesses and communities could become green power stations, but bigger Government incentives are needed to make this a reality.
"Ministers must listen and introduce an ambitious feed-in tariff scheme that will encourage millions of households, companies and communities across the UK to join the green energy revolution.
"This will help tackle climate change, create new jobs and businesses and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels."
The Co-operative Group's sustainable development manager, Chris Shearlock, said: "As a business that has campaigned for strong climate change legislation, is taking action to reduce its own emissions and owns the UK's largest solar power project, we want to be able to use small-scale renewables on our stores and branches around the country.
"Without feed-in tariffs offering a greater level of return this opportunity will be sadly lost."
REA head of external affairs Leonie Greene said: "The public have given an incredible show of support for renewable energy, even in the deepest recession for a generation.
"The involvement of everyday people and businesses can transform the UK's renewable energy industry and bring down technology costs, as is the case in other European countries.
"The new renewable electricity payment schemes that will be announced shortly should make it easier for everyone to invest - let's hope the Government delivers the ambitious scheme we clearly all want."
Most of those questioned said the UK should spend money on developing its own renewable resources to make it less dependent on importing gas.
Published: 7:30AM GMT 27 Jan 2010
A survey of over 2,100 adults showed that seven out of 10 would consider fitting micro-generation schemes if so-called feed in tariffs were generous enough.
Friends of the Earth, the Renewable Energy Association (REA) and the Co-operative Group, which commissioned the study, said the findings showed the Government's plans to pay homes and businesses to generate green electricity were not ambitious enough.
Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said: "The public overwhelmingly wants the Government to think big when it comes to small-scale renewable energy.
"Our homes, businesses and communities could become green power stations, but bigger Government incentives are needed to make this a reality.
"Ministers must listen and introduce an ambitious feed-in tariff scheme that will encourage millions of households, companies and communities across the UK to join the green energy revolution.
"This will help tackle climate change, create new jobs and businesses and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels."
The Co-operative Group's sustainable development manager, Chris Shearlock, said: "As a business that has campaigned for strong climate change legislation, is taking action to reduce its own emissions and owns the UK's largest solar power project, we want to be able to use small-scale renewables on our stores and branches around the country.
"Without feed-in tariffs offering a greater level of return this opportunity will be sadly lost."
REA head of external affairs Leonie Greene said: "The public have given an incredible show of support for renewable energy, even in the deepest recession for a generation.
"The involvement of everyday people and businesses can transform the UK's renewable energy industry and bring down technology costs, as is the case in other European countries.
"The new renewable electricity payment schemes that will be announced shortly should make it easier for everyone to invest - let's hope the Government delivers the ambitious scheme we clearly all want."
Most of those questioned said the UK should spend money on developing its own renewable resources to make it less dependent on importing gas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
