By Mike Scott
Published: September 21 2008 18:02
With more than three-quarters of global oil reserves controlled by governments, the options for the oil groups are diminishing. In a world of high oil prices, Canada’s Athabasca oil sands look like a godsend. Covering an area larger than England, they are estimated to contain at least 1,700bn barrels, – equivalent to all the conventional oil reserves in the world.
But fears over climate change mean sentiment has turned against many fossil fuel projects, as the recent protests in the UK over plans to build a new coal-fired power station at Kings-north in Kent have shown. A significant number of coal-fired plants in the US have also been abandoned or rejected recently.
“This is not the same environment we were in 10 years ago,” says Elizabeth McGeveran, senior vice-president in F&C’s governance and sustainable investment team. “Companies need to think differently about projects with high environmental impacts.”
F&C is among a group of investors, including Calpers and Calstrs, the Californian public pension funds, that have pressed the US Securities and Exchange Commision to require oil and gas companies to factor in the carbon intensity of their reserves in future. “We are concerned climate change, and policies adopted to combat greenhouse gas emissions, could render certain assets – particularly those with high carbon intensity – uneconomic,” says a letter sent by the group.
“Current SEC regulations require the disclosure of known trends that companies can reasonably expect will have a material impact on net sales, revenues or income from continuing operations. For the oil and gas industry regulatory, physical and litigation- related climate risks fall clearly into this category.”
Oil sands are increasingly important for the oil majors’ future strategy, says Ms McGeveran, but they require so much energy to extract at a time of increasing regulation of energy and emissions that there is a lot of risk here for investors.
Producing oil from oil sands causes serious environmental impacts, according to environmental group the Worldwide Fund for Nature, including destruction of forests, depletion and pollution of water, loss of biodiversity, acid rain and air pollution. There are no schemes in place for land reclamation, it adds.
In the UK, Co-operative Asset Management has urged fellow investors to put pressure on the energy companies to think again about their rush into unconventional fossil fuel assets. “We want to alert other investors to what we believe could be a material risk to shareholder value through large-scale, rapid exploitation of unconventionals,” says Niall O’Shea, the group’s engagement manager.
The firm also called for greater transparency from oil groups about their scenario planning around carbon capture and storage, carbon pricing and licence to operate issues.
Environmental groups say oil from oil sands generates 80kg-135kg of CO2 per barrel, against an average of 28.6kg for a barrel of conventional oil. Oil companies need to think again about what they are doing, says Marc Brammer of Innovest Strategic Management. “What they are investing in now is completely unsustainable in every sense.” Instead, he says, the oil groups should hedge against their fossil fuel investments by investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies.
While Alberta – and Canada – have no legislation concerning carbon capture and storage at the moment, this could well change. With a general election imminent in Canada, to be followed by the US presidential contest, the political and regulatory regimes could look much more hostile to this type of investment in six months’ time and lead to significant extra costs.
Shell, whose Athabasca Oil Sands Project currently produces 155,000 barrels per day through mining, says oil sands are only 15 per cent more carbon intensive than conventional sources of oil and that a new high-temperature treatment process will cut energy consumption by 10 per cent. It also intends to install technology at its upgrader facility that would take out another 1m tonnes of CO2.
BP, whose joint venture with Husky Energy is due to come on line in 2012, says: “For us, the issue is providing the energy and products that the world demands. Fossil fuels will continue to be the mainstay of the energy mix for decades to come and we need stable sources of supply – oil sands is part of that.” Its project, still to be approved, uses steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), which it says is more environmentally friendly than strip mining.
However, the logic of SAGD production is likely to come under scrutiny, says Mr Brammer. “A huge amount of natural gas is being used to produce the steam needed to release the oil sands – it makes no sense at all. We are taking a low-carbon product [natural gas] and using it to make a high-carbon product.”
Oil companies should revise their expansion plans to much more moderate levels “and treat oil sands not as a bonanza but an experiment in getting the sustainability issues addressed before going on to a large-scale exploitation, if – and we stress if – this is something that has international political support, by that time”’ says Mr O’Shea. “We remain to be convinced that the sustainability and long-term viability of these projects stack up.“
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Monday, 22 September 2008
The future remains green despite financial downturn
Published Date: 22 September 2008
By PETER RANSCOMBE
BUSINESS REPORTER
SUPERMARKETS and other major retailers are pressing ahead with green business practices despite the threat of recession, according to a report published today.
In the study, the Forum for the Future – a sustainable development charity – claims it makes "good business sense" to concentrate on the "green agenda". This is because of consumer pressure for greener goods, the rising cost of energy and other resources, and efficiency savings.The charity highlights ten business areas – ranging from vision and governance through to products and services and the supply chain – in which companies can improve their sustainability.The report holds up dozens of firms as leaders in their fields, including tea and coffee company Cafédirect for its "vision and strategy", Tesco for its "green" marketing and the John Lewis Partnership, for improving its supply chain. Other companies praised by the report included the Co-operative Food Group, for the definitions of its ethical policies, and Cadbury for reducing its packaging and cutting its carbon dioxide emissions.The forum says it works with 130 businesses and public sector organisations to support sustainability in the workplace. Tom Berry, head of retail at the forum and the report's author, said: "Maintaining an emphasis on sustainable development in core business will be an important element of retail success – recession or not."Staying focused on sustainability in a downturn will only help to reinforce claims and dispel accusations of greenwash."Ray Baker, director of corporate responsibility at B&Q-owner Kingfisher, which commissioned the report, said: "The global economic slowdown may cause some to question the benefits. In my mind, there is no question. During the past year, we have seen an enormous public shift in the attention given to environmental and social issues and our customers look to us for solutions to create more sustainable homes."Peter Madden, chief executive of the forum, said: "Our partners are leading the way in building a sustainable, low-carbon economy because they understand it is good for their profits, good for their customers and good for the communities they serve."The Forum for the Future was founded by Sara Parkin, a nurse from Edinburgh and former chairwoman of the UK Green Party, and Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission.
First US greenhouse gas auction set for Thursday
The Associated Press
Published: September 22, 2008
ALBANY, New York: A coalition of 10 northeastern states this week will take steps to check global warming when it conducts the nation's first carbon auction, taking the same approach that curbed lake-killing acid rain.
Environmental groups, energy producers, and government leaders will be watching closely as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative sells carbon credits Thursday in the first of a series of quarterly online auctions.
The cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction program, which aims to hold carbon dioxide emissions steady through 2014 and then gradually reduce them, is widely viewed as a model for future programs around the globe.
"With the leadership vacuum in Washington, it has fallen to the states to take the lead on combating climate change," said Richard Revesz, dean of the New York University School of Law and an expert on environmental law.
In July 2003, then-New York Gov. George Pataki brought together nine other governors to develop a regional strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The bipartisan action followed President George W. Bush's rejection of greenhouse gas reduction goals set under a 1997 United Nations protocol reached in Kyoto, Japan.
Governors in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont joined Pataki in the coalition known as RGGI, or "Reggie." Other regional greenhouse gas coalitions, such as the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord, are in earlier stages of development.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama support cap-and-trade programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, seen as key contributors to global warming.
The approach is patterned after the acid rain-reducing program targeting sulfur dioxide that began with a New York law in 1984 and was expanded nationally with amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990.
RGGI caps the total amount of carbon that power plants in the 10-state region can pump out of their smokestacks at the current level — 188 million tons (171 million metric tons). Electric power generators must pay for allowances covering the amount of carbon they emit and RGGI will provide a market-based auction and trading system where the generators can buy, sell and trade the emissions allowances.
The initiative will gradually reduce carbon going into the atmosphere by lowering the cap in several steps, until it is 10 percent below the current level in 2018. During that 10-year span, businesses will have to reduce their emissions. Those that can't, because of cost or technical hurdles, can buy allowances from companies that have achieved cleaner emissions.
Companies have a financial incentive to curb emissions because they won't have to buy as many credits and because they can sell any they don't need. The price of credits is likely to rise as the cap is lowered. That gives companies more incentive to curb emissions sooner rather than later so they can buy and use credits at a lower price and sell them at a profit.
In addition, generators can make up for a small percentage of their emissions by purchasing narrowly defined carbon offsets, such as investing in energy-efficient building technology or planting trees to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
The overall goal is to give utilities an economic incentive, rather than a regulatory mandate, to burn less coal, fuel oil and natural gas, while at the same time making carbon-free energy alternatives such as wind and solar power more economically attractive.
While power plants account for only a third of the carbon dioxide generated in the region, they're the easiest source to regulate because their emissions are already monitored in other pollution programs, said Peter Iwanowicz, director of the state Department of Environmental Conservation's Climate Change Office.
Eventually, the program may be expanded to include sources such as industry and transportation, Iwanowicz said.
Some business and utility leaders have urged the states to hold off until a national plan is developed.
The Business Council of New York State warns that the regional plan could harm the power supply and system reliability while increasing energy prices that are already 52 percent higher than the national average for commercial customers.
Research conducted by RGGI projects the typical New York residential customer will see an increase of 78 cents per month. But the Independent Power Producers of New York, an industry group, says the cost assumptions used by RGGI are outdated and inaccurate.
Not all energy generators oppose the plan.
"We're very much in favor of a national cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions because we believe climate change is real and that it requires a national, and really international, solution," said Don McCloskey, environmental policy manager for Public Service Enterprise Group, a power generator in Newark, New Jersey.
While other carbon-curtailing programs have been proposed, including a carbon tax, McCloskey said PSEG supports cap-and-trade because it allows companies to use their ingenuity and knowledge of markets to achieve environmental goals.
He noted that while steep price increases were predicted when a similar program was launched to curb acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions, the worst fears didn't come to pass.
The three-hour auction will be conducted online among previously approved bidders. At the end, bids in the system will be used to determine a clearing price based on supply versus demand.
Proceeds of the auctions are to be invested in programs to increase energy efficiency, support non-carbon-generating renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and develop carbon abatement technologies.
Published: September 22, 2008
ALBANY, New York: A coalition of 10 northeastern states this week will take steps to check global warming when it conducts the nation's first carbon auction, taking the same approach that curbed lake-killing acid rain.
Environmental groups, energy producers, and government leaders will be watching closely as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative sells carbon credits Thursday in the first of a series of quarterly online auctions.
The cap-and-trade greenhouse gas reduction program, which aims to hold carbon dioxide emissions steady through 2014 and then gradually reduce them, is widely viewed as a model for future programs around the globe.
"With the leadership vacuum in Washington, it has fallen to the states to take the lead on combating climate change," said Richard Revesz, dean of the New York University School of Law and an expert on environmental law.
In July 2003, then-New York Gov. George Pataki brought together nine other governors to develop a regional strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The bipartisan action followed President George W. Bush's rejection of greenhouse gas reduction goals set under a 1997 United Nations protocol reached in Kyoto, Japan.
Governors in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont joined Pataki in the coalition known as RGGI, or "Reggie." Other regional greenhouse gas coalitions, such as the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord, are in earlier stages of development.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama support cap-and-trade programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, seen as key contributors to global warming.
The approach is patterned after the acid rain-reducing program targeting sulfur dioxide that began with a New York law in 1984 and was expanded nationally with amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990.
RGGI caps the total amount of carbon that power plants in the 10-state region can pump out of their smokestacks at the current level — 188 million tons (171 million metric tons). Electric power generators must pay for allowances covering the amount of carbon they emit and RGGI will provide a market-based auction and trading system where the generators can buy, sell and trade the emissions allowances.
The initiative will gradually reduce carbon going into the atmosphere by lowering the cap in several steps, until it is 10 percent below the current level in 2018. During that 10-year span, businesses will have to reduce their emissions. Those that can't, because of cost or technical hurdles, can buy allowances from companies that have achieved cleaner emissions.
Companies have a financial incentive to curb emissions because they won't have to buy as many credits and because they can sell any they don't need. The price of credits is likely to rise as the cap is lowered. That gives companies more incentive to curb emissions sooner rather than later so they can buy and use credits at a lower price and sell them at a profit.
In addition, generators can make up for a small percentage of their emissions by purchasing narrowly defined carbon offsets, such as investing in energy-efficient building technology or planting trees to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
The overall goal is to give utilities an economic incentive, rather than a regulatory mandate, to burn less coal, fuel oil and natural gas, while at the same time making carbon-free energy alternatives such as wind and solar power more economically attractive.
While power plants account for only a third of the carbon dioxide generated in the region, they're the easiest source to regulate because their emissions are already monitored in other pollution programs, said Peter Iwanowicz, director of the state Department of Environmental Conservation's Climate Change Office.
Eventually, the program may be expanded to include sources such as industry and transportation, Iwanowicz said.
Some business and utility leaders have urged the states to hold off until a national plan is developed.
The Business Council of New York State warns that the regional plan could harm the power supply and system reliability while increasing energy prices that are already 52 percent higher than the national average for commercial customers.
Research conducted by RGGI projects the typical New York residential customer will see an increase of 78 cents per month. But the Independent Power Producers of New York, an industry group, says the cost assumptions used by RGGI are outdated and inaccurate.
Not all energy generators oppose the plan.
"We're very much in favor of a national cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions because we believe climate change is real and that it requires a national, and really international, solution," said Don McCloskey, environmental policy manager for Public Service Enterprise Group, a power generator in Newark, New Jersey.
While other carbon-curtailing programs have been proposed, including a carbon tax, McCloskey said PSEG supports cap-and-trade because it allows companies to use their ingenuity and knowledge of markets to achieve environmental goals.
He noted that while steep price increases were predicted when a similar program was launched to curb acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions, the worst fears didn't come to pass.
The three-hour auction will be conducted online among previously approved bidders. At the end, bids in the system will be used to determine a clearing price based on supply versus demand.
Proceeds of the auctions are to be invested in programs to increase energy efficiency, support non-carbon-generating renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and develop carbon abatement technologies.
Investors weigh risks of not fighting climate change
By Emma Byrne and Fiona Harvey in London
Published: September 22 2008 03:00
Investors are using information on companies' carbon dioxide emissions to manage their portfolios, according to an annual survey of the world's leading businesses.
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), backed by hundreds of institutional investors, asks the world's biggest companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This year, almost two-thirds of the 385 institutional investors behind the project, whose findings are published today, said they used the survey to identify companies not adequately addressing climate change.
The Axa Group, for instance, said: "In terms of investment policy, companies which are ill-prepared for more stringent environmental regulation may face unexpected new expenses and decreasing ability to sustain their returns and share price."
The investors are basing their decisions on the belief that emissions will be more closely regulated around the world in future, giving companies that already manage their emissions a competitive advantage. They are also weighing other factors, such as the risk that companies may face future litigation, and the possible illeffects of climate change, such as floods and storms.
Paul Dickinson, chief executive of the CDP, said: "[The survey is] effectively an audit of climate-change risk. Over 1,500 companies have gone through that process this year, with 77 per cent of the Global 500 responding. Whilst it's hard to evaluate definitively, the CDP is likely to have had a pivotal role in developing consciousness of those risks."
This year's report found that companies were starting to manage environmental risk at board level. Of the 383 groups that responded to the Global 500 survey, nearly two-thirds said they had an executive with overall responsibility for climate-change management, compared with half of respondents in 2007, and most had put in place some risk management measures to prepare for climate change.
Companies in all sectors said that uncertainty about future regulation was a stumbling block. Arcelor Mittal told the survey: "There is significant risk in the lack of predictability in climate-change regulation."
Another survey, by McKinsey and the UK government-funded Carbon Trust, found that companies were failing to respond adequately to the need to reduce emissions.
Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said: "Our findings show that we are not on the path to a low-carbon economy. This is something that will impact on all investors - it will have a damaging effect on shareholder value. Shareholders should be demanding that the companies they invest in address these issues."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: September 22 2008 03:00
Investors are using information on companies' carbon dioxide emissions to manage their portfolios, according to an annual survey of the world's leading businesses.
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), backed by hundreds of institutional investors, asks the world's biggest companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This year, almost two-thirds of the 385 institutional investors behind the project, whose findings are published today, said they used the survey to identify companies not adequately addressing climate change.
The Axa Group, for instance, said: "In terms of investment policy, companies which are ill-prepared for more stringent environmental regulation may face unexpected new expenses and decreasing ability to sustain their returns and share price."
The investors are basing their decisions on the belief that emissions will be more closely regulated around the world in future, giving companies that already manage their emissions a competitive advantage. They are also weighing other factors, such as the risk that companies may face future litigation, and the possible illeffects of climate change, such as floods and storms.
Paul Dickinson, chief executive of the CDP, said: "[The survey is] effectively an audit of climate-change risk. Over 1,500 companies have gone through that process this year, with 77 per cent of the Global 500 responding. Whilst it's hard to evaluate definitively, the CDP is likely to have had a pivotal role in developing consciousness of those risks."
This year's report found that companies were starting to manage environmental risk at board level. Of the 383 groups that responded to the Global 500 survey, nearly two-thirds said they had an executive with overall responsibility for climate-change management, compared with half of respondents in 2007, and most had put in place some risk management measures to prepare for climate change.
Companies in all sectors said that uncertainty about future regulation was a stumbling block. Arcelor Mittal told the survey: "There is significant risk in the lack of predictability in climate-change regulation."
Another survey, by McKinsey and the UK government-funded Carbon Trust, found that companies were failing to respond adequately to the need to reduce emissions.
Tom Delay, chief executive of the Carbon Trust, said: "Our findings show that we are not on the path to a low-carbon economy. This is something that will impact on all investors - it will have a damaging effect on shareholder value. Shareholders should be demanding that the companies they invest in address these issues."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
EDF takeover of British Energy set to be signed off this week
Terry Macalister
The Guardian,
Monday September 22 2008
Lawyers for British Energy and EDF of France were completing the final paperwork on a £12.4bn merger last night amid hopes that the formal deal can be fully signed off and announced to the London stockmarket as early as tomorrow.
The move will hasten the government's nuclear revolution as EDF wants to use some of British Energy's sites to build a new generation of atomic power stations. The French company is expected to hand back some BE land so that the government can auction it off to others wanting to construct plants.
Previous attempts to complete a takeover of the UK's nuclear power generator foundered on BE shareholder discontent but Invesco and other minority investors have been brought on side by improved terms. They are being offered either cash or a mixture of cash and contingent value rights (CVRs).
EDF has raised its initial offer of 765p a share by 9p to 774p, but is also offering an alternative of 700p and some CVRs. These are used as a mechanism by which shareholders of an acquired company can receive additional benefits if a specified event occurs. In the case of British Energy, Invesco believes there will be further increases in electricity prices.
Neither BE nor EDF were willing to comment last night, but industry sources said a successful deal had been tied up, leaving the formal agreement and announcement only awaiting the legal work. "It [the transaction] will happen this week," said a source, although others said previous hiccups meant nothing should be taken for granted.
Dungeness in Kent and Bradwell in Essex are believed to be two of the facilities that EDF is willing to transfer to its rivals via an auction.
Both E.ON and RWE of Germany have indicated a willingness to build new stations. E.ON has already secured an agreement with National Grid about building new power lines from the Oldbury nuclear plant in Gloucestershire.
The site is one of three - along with Wylfa in Anglesey and Bradwell - said by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to be up for sale after discussions with interested buyers.
Part of Bradwell is owned by British Energy and part by the NDA, the government agency responsible for decommissioning all the UK's nuclear sites.
The Guardian,
Monday September 22 2008
Lawyers for British Energy and EDF of France were completing the final paperwork on a £12.4bn merger last night amid hopes that the formal deal can be fully signed off and announced to the London stockmarket as early as tomorrow.
The move will hasten the government's nuclear revolution as EDF wants to use some of British Energy's sites to build a new generation of atomic power stations. The French company is expected to hand back some BE land so that the government can auction it off to others wanting to construct plants.
Previous attempts to complete a takeover of the UK's nuclear power generator foundered on BE shareholder discontent but Invesco and other minority investors have been brought on side by improved terms. They are being offered either cash or a mixture of cash and contingent value rights (CVRs).
EDF has raised its initial offer of 765p a share by 9p to 774p, but is also offering an alternative of 700p and some CVRs. These are used as a mechanism by which shareholders of an acquired company can receive additional benefits if a specified event occurs. In the case of British Energy, Invesco believes there will be further increases in electricity prices.
Neither BE nor EDF were willing to comment last night, but industry sources said a successful deal had been tied up, leaving the formal agreement and announcement only awaiting the legal work. "It [the transaction] will happen this week," said a source, although others said previous hiccups meant nothing should be taken for granted.
Dungeness in Kent and Bradwell in Essex are believed to be two of the facilities that EDF is willing to transfer to its rivals via an auction.
Both E.ON and RWE of Germany have indicated a willingness to build new stations. E.ON has already secured an agreement with National Grid about building new power lines from the Oldbury nuclear plant in Gloucestershire.
The site is one of three - along with Wylfa in Anglesey and Bradwell - said by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to be up for sale after discussions with interested buyers.
Part of Bradwell is owned by British Energy and part by the NDA, the government agency responsible for decommissioning all the UK's nuclear sites.
British Energy set for fresh bid
Published Date: 22 September 2008
FRENCH power giant EDF was yesterday said to be on the verge of tabling an improved £12.4 billion offer for nuclear power group East Kilbride-based British Energy.
The deal, which could be unveiled this week, is said to be worth 774p a share, 9p higher than the offer made in July.Opposition from major shareholders, such as investment groups Invesco and M&G, scuppered the original deal.There were fears that it undervalued British Energy at a time when the value of energy assets was rising.
Sunday, 21 September 2008
BBC series stitches up sceptics in counter-attack over climate change
As informed questioning of the global warming orthodoxy rises on all sides, the BBC's three-part series Climate Wars, ending tonight, bears all the marks of a carefully planned counter-attack.
BBC science producers were apoplectic at the attention given last year to Martin Durkin's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring a galaxy of the world's more sceptical climate scientists. This is their riposte.
Last week, against a range of far-flung locations from Greenland to California, the presenter, Dr Iain Stewart, tackled three of the main arguments of Durkin's film.
In each case the technique was the same. After caricaturing the sceptics' point, with soundbite clips that did not allow them to develop their scientific argument, he then asserted that they had somehow been discredited.
For example, doubts had been raised over the reliability of satellite temperature records which do not show the same degree of warming as surface readings. Dr Roy Spencer, who designed Nasa's satellite system for measuring temperatures, was allowed to admit that a flaw had been found in the system.
But his interview ended before he could explain that, when the flaw was discovered in 1998, it was immediately corrected (although it made little difference to the results).
Likewise, there is a growing case for a correlation between global temperatures and solar activity. Dr Stewart accused Durkin's programme of cutting off a graph which illustrated this at a point when the data failed to support the thesis. Then he did exactly the same himself, not extending his own graph to 2008 in a way that would reinforce the thesis.
Most hilarious of all, however, was a long sequence in which Stewart defended the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show that temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level on record.
The BBC had a huge blow-up of this "iconic" graph carted triumphantly round London, from Big Ben to Buckingham Palace, as if it were proof that the warming alarmists are right.
There was no hint that the "hockey stick" is among the most completely discredited artefacts in the history of science, not least thanks to the devastating critique by Steve McIntyre, which showed that the graph's creators had an algorithm in their programme which could produce a hockey-stick shape whatever data were fed into it.
There was scarcely a frame of this clever exercise which did not distort or obscure some vital fact. Yet the "impartial" BBC is sending out this farrago of convenient untruths to schools, ensuring that the "march of the lie" continues.
BBC science producers were apoplectic at the attention given last year to Martin Durkin's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring a galaxy of the world's more sceptical climate scientists. This is their riposte.
Last week, against a range of far-flung locations from Greenland to California, the presenter, Dr Iain Stewart, tackled three of the main arguments of Durkin's film.
In each case the technique was the same. After caricaturing the sceptics' point, with soundbite clips that did not allow them to develop their scientific argument, he then asserted that they had somehow been discredited.
For example, doubts had been raised over the reliability of satellite temperature records which do not show the same degree of warming as surface readings. Dr Roy Spencer, who designed Nasa's satellite system for measuring temperatures, was allowed to admit that a flaw had been found in the system.
But his interview ended before he could explain that, when the flaw was discovered in 1998, it was immediately corrected (although it made little difference to the results).
Likewise, there is a growing case for a correlation between global temperatures and solar activity. Dr Stewart accused Durkin's programme of cutting off a graph which illustrated this at a point when the data failed to support the thesis. Then he did exactly the same himself, not extending his own graph to 2008 in a way that would reinforce the thesis.
Most hilarious of all, however, was a long sequence in which Stewart defended the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show that temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level on record.
The BBC had a huge blow-up of this "iconic" graph carted triumphantly round London, from Big Ben to Buckingham Palace, as if it were proof that the warming alarmists are right.
There was no hint that the "hockey stick" is among the most completely discredited artefacts in the history of science, not least thanks to the devastating critique by Steve McIntyre, which showed that the graph's creators had an algorithm in their programme which could produce a hockey-stick shape whatever data were fed into it.
There was scarcely a frame of this clever exercise which did not distort or obscure some vital fact. Yet the "impartial" BBC is sending out this farrago of convenient untruths to schools, ensuring that the "march of the lie" continues.
Lehman misses out on carbon credit scam
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 21/09/2008
What is the connection between the bankrupt Lehman Brothers and the likelihood that in four years' time our electricity bills will jump another 25 per cent (on top of the rises likely from soaring coal and gas prices)?
The answer is that, before its collapse, Lehman was pitching to become the leader in the vast trade created by the new worldwide regulatory system to "fight climate change" by curbing emissions of carbon dioxide.
The biggest money-spinners will be the schemes whereby industry will pay for permits to emit CO2 at so much a ton, either directly to governments or by buying them on an international market.
This market, soon to be worth trillions of pounds, was where Lehman hoped to be "the prime brokerage for emissions permits", as it set out in two hefty reports on "The Business of Climate Change".
Advised by some of the world's leading global warming activists, such as Dr James Hansen and Al Gore (a close friend of the firm's erstwhile managing director Theodore Roosevelt IV), Lehman bought their message wholesale. GIM, the company set up by Gore to sell "carbon offsets" in return for planting trees, was a prized Lehman client.
The particular market that Lehman hoped to dominate is centred on the buying and selling of carbon permits, through the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) set up in 2005, the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the "cap and trade" system proposed for the US by both McCain and Obama.
Read more by Christopher Booker
This may still seem abstract but it will affect all our lives, because ultimately we will all be paying for it, through the colossal costs it will impose on industry, not least electricity.
The EU scheme already adds more than a billion pounds a year to our electricity bills. In four years' time it will become much more obvious when, under phase two of the ETS, permits will be auctioned, at a projected initial figure of £35 per ton of CO2.
On the basis of current wholesale prices, the annual cost of electricity used in the UK alone is around £32 billion. Adding £35 for every ton of CO2 emitted in producing it will mean that our electricity supply companies will have to pay £8 billion for their permits, adding 25 per cent to the total cost. Under EU rules, this must be passed on to all of us in our bills.
The idea is that, to reduce carbon emissions by an eventual 60 per cent, the number of permits auctioned will reduce year by year, leaving an ever larger shortfall which firms will have to account for either by reducing emissions or by buying additional permits - not least from the developing world under the UN's CDM.
Everything about this grandiose scheme betokens the economics of the madhouse.
The new costs it will impose are so colossal that whole industries, including aluminium, steel and Germany's chemical companies, threaten to move their operations outside the EU unless they are given free allocations. It has not even been agreed who - whether national governments or the EU itself - will run the auctions or keep the hundreds of billions of euros a year the scheme will raise.
China, by virtue of having built giant dams to produce electricity, will be a net "carbon creditor", able to sell permits to the EU worth billions more, despite continuing to build a new coal-fired power station every four days.
So will Russia, thanks to it having closed down so much of its polluting industry after the fall of Communism. There is not the slightest indication that the scheme itself will result in any lowering of global CO2 emissions.
What is certain is that it will pile astronomic costs onto everyone in the EU, inevitably impacting most severely on poorer householders that will face bills they cannot afford. The only other certainty - perhaps a consolation - is that those sharing in this bonanza will not include Lehman Brothers, now excluded from cashing in on what threatens to become the maddest scam the world has ever seen.
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 21/09/2008
What is the connection between the bankrupt Lehman Brothers and the likelihood that in four years' time our electricity bills will jump another 25 per cent (on top of the rises likely from soaring coal and gas prices)?
The answer is that, before its collapse, Lehman was pitching to become the leader in the vast trade created by the new worldwide regulatory system to "fight climate change" by curbing emissions of carbon dioxide.
The biggest money-spinners will be the schemes whereby industry will pay for permits to emit CO2 at so much a ton, either directly to governments or by buying them on an international market.
This market, soon to be worth trillions of pounds, was where Lehman hoped to be "the prime brokerage for emissions permits", as it set out in two hefty reports on "The Business of Climate Change".
Advised by some of the world's leading global warming activists, such as Dr James Hansen and Al Gore (a close friend of the firm's erstwhile managing director Theodore Roosevelt IV), Lehman bought their message wholesale. GIM, the company set up by Gore to sell "carbon offsets" in return for planting trees, was a prized Lehman client.
The particular market that Lehman hoped to dominate is centred on the buying and selling of carbon permits, through the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) set up in 2005, the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the "cap and trade" system proposed for the US by both McCain and Obama.
Read more by Christopher Booker
This may still seem abstract but it will affect all our lives, because ultimately we will all be paying for it, through the colossal costs it will impose on industry, not least electricity.
The EU scheme already adds more than a billion pounds a year to our electricity bills. In four years' time it will become much more obvious when, under phase two of the ETS, permits will be auctioned, at a projected initial figure of £35 per ton of CO2.
On the basis of current wholesale prices, the annual cost of electricity used in the UK alone is around £32 billion. Adding £35 for every ton of CO2 emitted in producing it will mean that our electricity supply companies will have to pay £8 billion for their permits, adding 25 per cent to the total cost. Under EU rules, this must be passed on to all of us in our bills.
The idea is that, to reduce carbon emissions by an eventual 60 per cent, the number of permits auctioned will reduce year by year, leaving an ever larger shortfall which firms will have to account for either by reducing emissions or by buying additional permits - not least from the developing world under the UN's CDM.
Everything about this grandiose scheme betokens the economics of the madhouse.
The new costs it will impose are so colossal that whole industries, including aluminium, steel and Germany's chemical companies, threaten to move their operations outside the EU unless they are given free allocations. It has not even been agreed who - whether national governments or the EU itself - will run the auctions or keep the hundreds of billions of euros a year the scheme will raise.
China, by virtue of having built giant dams to produce electricity, will be a net "carbon creditor", able to sell permits to the EU worth billions more, despite continuing to build a new coal-fired power station every four days.
So will Russia, thanks to it having closed down so much of its polluting industry after the fall of Communism. There is not the slightest indication that the scheme itself will result in any lowering of global CO2 emissions.
What is certain is that it will pile astronomic costs onto everyone in the EU, inevitably impacting most severely on poorer householders that will face bills they cannot afford. The only other certainty - perhaps a consolation - is that those sharing in this bonanza will not include Lehman Brothers, now excluded from cashing in on what threatens to become the maddest scam the world has ever seen.
Einstein fridge design can help global cooling
Scientists relaunch a 1930 invention that uses no electricity and would reduce greenhouse gases
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
The Observer,
Sunday September 21 2008
An early invention by Albert Einstein has been rebuilt by scientists at Oxford University who are trying to develop an environmentally friendly refrigerator that runs without electricity.
Modern fridges are notoriously damaging to the environment. They work by compressing and expanding man-made greenhouse gases called freons - far more damaging that carbon dioxide - and are being manufactured in increasing numbers. Sales of fridges around the world are rising as demand increases in developing countries.
Now Malcolm McCulloch, an electrical engineer at Oxford who works on green technologies, is leading a three-year project to develop more robust appliances that can be used in places without electricity.
His team has completed a prototype of a type of fridge patented in 1930 by Einstein and his colleague, the Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard. It had no moving parts and used only pressurised gases to keep things cold. The design was partly used in the first domestic refrigerators, but the technology was abandoned when more efficient compressors became popular in the 1950s. That meant a switch to using freons.
Einstein and Szilard's idea avoids the need for freons. It uses ammonia, butane and water and takes advantage of the fact that liquids boil at lower temperatures when the air pressure around them is lower. 'If you go to the top of Mount Everest, water boils at a much lower temperature than it does when you're at sea level and that's because the pressure is much lower up there,' said McCulloch.
At one side is the evaporator, a flask that contains butane. 'If you introduce a new vapour above the butane, the liquid boiling temperature decreases and, as it boils off, it takes energy from the surroundings to do so,' says McCulloch. 'That's what makes it cold.'
Pressurised gas fridges based around Einstein's design were replaced by freon-compressor fridges partly because Einstein and Szilard's design was not very efficient. But McCulloch thinks that by tweaking the design and replacing the types of gases used it will be possible to quadruple the efficiency. He also wants to take the idea further. The only energy input needed into the fridge is to heat a pump, and McCulloch has been working on powering this with solar energy.
'No moving parts is a real benefit because it can carry on going without maintenance. This could have real applications in rural areas,' he said.
McCulloch's is not the only technology to improve the environmental credentials of fridges. Engineers working at a Cambridge-based start-up company, Camfridge, are using magnetic fields to cool things. 'Our fridge works, from a conceptual point of view, in a similar way [to gas compressor fridges] but instead of using a gas we use a magnetic field and a special metal alloy,' said managing director Neil Wilson.
'When the magnetic field is next to the alloy, it's like compressing the gas, and when the magnetic field leaves, it's like expanding the gas.' He added: 'This effect can be seen in rubber bands - when you stretch the band it gets hot, and when you let the band contract it gets cold.'
Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said creating greener fridges was hugely important. 'If you look at developing countries, if they're aspiring to the lifestyles that we lead, they're going to require more cooling - whether that's air conditioning, food cooling or freezing. Putting in place the technologies that are both low greenhouse-gas refrigerants and low energy use is critical.'
McCulloch's fridge is still in its early stages. 'It's very much a prototype; this is nowhere near commercialised,' he said. 'Give us another month and we'll have it working.'
Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
The Observer,
Sunday September 21 2008
An early invention by Albert Einstein has been rebuilt by scientists at Oxford University who are trying to develop an environmentally friendly refrigerator that runs without electricity.
Modern fridges are notoriously damaging to the environment. They work by compressing and expanding man-made greenhouse gases called freons - far more damaging that carbon dioxide - and are being manufactured in increasing numbers. Sales of fridges around the world are rising as demand increases in developing countries.
Now Malcolm McCulloch, an electrical engineer at Oxford who works on green technologies, is leading a three-year project to develop more robust appliances that can be used in places without electricity.
His team has completed a prototype of a type of fridge patented in 1930 by Einstein and his colleague, the Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard. It had no moving parts and used only pressurised gases to keep things cold. The design was partly used in the first domestic refrigerators, but the technology was abandoned when more efficient compressors became popular in the 1950s. That meant a switch to using freons.
Einstein and Szilard's idea avoids the need for freons. It uses ammonia, butane and water and takes advantage of the fact that liquids boil at lower temperatures when the air pressure around them is lower. 'If you go to the top of Mount Everest, water boils at a much lower temperature than it does when you're at sea level and that's because the pressure is much lower up there,' said McCulloch.
At one side is the evaporator, a flask that contains butane. 'If you introduce a new vapour above the butane, the liquid boiling temperature decreases and, as it boils off, it takes energy from the surroundings to do so,' says McCulloch. 'That's what makes it cold.'
Pressurised gas fridges based around Einstein's design were replaced by freon-compressor fridges partly because Einstein and Szilard's design was not very efficient. But McCulloch thinks that by tweaking the design and replacing the types of gases used it will be possible to quadruple the efficiency. He also wants to take the idea further. The only energy input needed into the fridge is to heat a pump, and McCulloch has been working on powering this with solar energy.
'No moving parts is a real benefit because it can carry on going without maintenance. This could have real applications in rural areas,' he said.
McCulloch's is not the only technology to improve the environmental credentials of fridges. Engineers working at a Cambridge-based start-up company, Camfridge, are using magnetic fields to cool things. 'Our fridge works, from a conceptual point of view, in a similar way [to gas compressor fridges] but instead of using a gas we use a magnetic field and a special metal alloy,' said managing director Neil Wilson.
'When the magnetic field is next to the alloy, it's like compressing the gas, and when the magnetic field leaves, it's like expanding the gas.' He added: 'This effect can be seen in rubber bands - when you stretch the band it gets hot, and when you let the band contract it gets cold.'
Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said creating greener fridges was hugely important. 'If you look at developing countries, if they're aspiring to the lifestyles that we lead, they're going to require more cooling - whether that's air conditioning, food cooling or freezing. Putting in place the technologies that are both low greenhouse-gas refrigerants and low energy use is critical.'
McCulloch's fridge is still in its early stages. 'It's very much a prototype; this is nowhere near commercialised,' he said. 'Give us another month and we'll have it working.'
EDF swoops on British Energy ... but gives back plants
French group poised for £12bnBritish Energy takeoverEnergy with plans for improved offer
FRANCE’s EDF is this week poised to clinch a £12 billion takeover of British Energy (BE), the nuclear power company, and will immediately signal that it is prepared to hand back two key nuclear sites to the government for auction.
BE’s holdings at Dungeness, on the Kent coast, and Bradwell, in Essex, are expected to be carved out and included in a separate package of sites for new nuclear stations.
The package will be auctioned later this year. Power companies will be invited to tender for some or all of the sites, with Germany’s RWE and Eon, Spain’s Iberdrola and Sweden’s Vattenfall expected to make bids.
As well as Dungeness and Bradwell, the sites to be auctioned include some that have old nuclear stations that have been shut down.
They are currently owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA), the government body responsible for cleaning up the waste from Britain’s first generation of atomic power plants.
Ministers and officials hope the auction will create one or more competitors to EDF, and speed up the construction of new reactors, with multiple sites under development at the same time.
EDF’s planned takeover of BE ran into trouble last month when two of the British group’s largest shareholders, Invesco and M&G, rejected its bid.
As revealed by the The Sunday Times a fortnight ago, the board of the French utility group is this week expected to approve a new offer, up from 765p a share to 774p a share, valuing BE at about £12 billion.
The increased offer — and indications that Invesco will accept it — are expected to be enough to allow the BE board to recommend the deal.
The government holds an interest of 35% in BE, and has already indicated that it will accept the EDF offer.
If the takeover of BE is successful, EDF is expected to press ahead with the construction of reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk. Industry experts think it will build two reactors at each site.
Meanwhile, Westinghouse, the Japanese-owned nuclear reactor group, will this week say that the construction of its plants could bring a £30 billion boost to the British economy.
A study it has commissioned on the economic impact of new stations using its reactor design will be unveiled at the Labour party conference in Manchester tomorrow.
John Hutton, the business secretary, who will attend tomorrow’s launch, said: “This report illustrates why I am so determined to press all the buttons to get nuclear facilities built in this country at the earliest opportunity.”
Britain’s nuclear regulators are in the process of examining designs for new power stations. Westinghouse and Areva (the French group that will supply EDF) have submitted plans, but last week General Electric and Hitachi, which have a joint design, withdrew from the process. The pair are expected to resubmit their proprosals next year.
FRANCE’s EDF is this week poised to clinch a £12 billion takeover of British Energy (BE), the nuclear power company, and will immediately signal that it is prepared to hand back two key nuclear sites to the government for auction.
BE’s holdings at Dungeness, on the Kent coast, and Bradwell, in Essex, are expected to be carved out and included in a separate package of sites for new nuclear stations.
The package will be auctioned later this year. Power companies will be invited to tender for some or all of the sites, with Germany’s RWE and Eon, Spain’s Iberdrola and Sweden’s Vattenfall expected to make bids.
As well as Dungeness and Bradwell, the sites to be auctioned include some that have old nuclear stations that have been shut down.
They are currently owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA), the government body responsible for cleaning up the waste from Britain’s first generation of atomic power plants.
Ministers and officials hope the auction will create one or more competitors to EDF, and speed up the construction of new reactors, with multiple sites under development at the same time.
EDF’s planned takeover of BE ran into trouble last month when two of the British group’s largest shareholders, Invesco and M&G, rejected its bid.
As revealed by the The Sunday Times a fortnight ago, the board of the French utility group is this week expected to approve a new offer, up from 765p a share to 774p a share, valuing BE at about £12 billion.
The increased offer — and indications that Invesco will accept it — are expected to be enough to allow the BE board to recommend the deal.
The government holds an interest of 35% in BE, and has already indicated that it will accept the EDF offer.
If the takeover of BE is successful, EDF is expected to press ahead with the construction of reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk. Industry experts think it will build two reactors at each site.
Meanwhile, Westinghouse, the Japanese-owned nuclear reactor group, will this week say that the construction of its plants could bring a £30 billion boost to the British economy.
A study it has commissioned on the economic impact of new stations using its reactor design will be unveiled at the Labour party conference in Manchester tomorrow.
John Hutton, the business secretary, who will attend tomorrow’s launch, said: “This report illustrates why I am so determined to press all the buttons to get nuclear facilities built in this country at the earliest opportunity.”
Britain’s nuclear regulators are in the process of examining designs for new power stations. Westinghouse and Areva (the French group that will supply EDF) have submitted plans, but last week General Electric and Hitachi, which have a joint design, withdrew from the process. The pair are expected to resubmit their proprosals next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
