The next US president is reversing Republican policy on global warming by putting leading scientists in key posts. Geoffrey Lean reports
Sunday, 21 December 2008
Barack Obama yesterday promised to end George Bush's "twisting" of science to suit "politics or ideology" in an extraordinarily outspoken address to the nation, and announced that he was putting top climate scientists in key positions in his administration.
The move, which signals perhaps his sharpest break with the outgoing administration, makes it clear that he was going to put climate change and the environment among the most urgent priorities of his presidency.
And as if to emphasise the difference, President Bush is using his last weeks of power to push through a record number of last-minute rule changes to increase mining and oil drilling on public lands, and even to allow people to carry concealed, loaded guns into national parks.
During its years in office the Bush administration attempted to muzzle senior government scientists who disagreed with it, and even altered scientific reports – causing more than 60 top academics to sign a petition accusing the White House of manipulating findings for political reasons.
But in his weekly radio address, Mr Obama pointedly promised to end this. "Promoting science is about free and open inquiry," he said. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient – especially when it's inconvenient. That will be my goal as president of the United States."
The president-elect used the address to announce his top scientific appointments, which included two of the world's most respected climate scientists, John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco, in a move warmly welcomed even by the country's top Republican environmentalist. They will have enormous influence over his government's green policies.
The appointments follow the naming earlier this month of Steven Chu – a Nobel prize-winning physicist, and another prominent advocate of urgent measures to tackle climate change – to the key position of energy secretary, and a decision to create a special office on energy and climate within the White House headed by Carole Browner, Bill Clinton's former environment chief.
Both Professors Holdren and Lubchenco are past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Professor Holdren, a professor at Harvard University and director of the blue-chip Woods Hole Research Center, will be science adviser to Mr Obama, who has elevated the position to an official assistant to the president.
He recently called for immediate action on climate change, saying that it was already causing "widespread harm". But he is also sceptical about nuclear power, reflecting a feeling in the Obama team that it cannot be made economical.
Professor Lubchenco, of Oregon State University, a similarly outspoken expert on oceans and global warming, is to be the first female administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which measures the pace of global warming, tracks hurricanes and monitors the health of the world's seas.
The chief scientist at Defra, Professor Bob Watson, who worked in the Clinton White House, said yesterday that Obama was putting together "a phenomenal team of world- class scientists", as a sign that he was "totally committed to the environment".
William K Reilly – President George Bush's environment chief and the country's leading Republican environmentalist – told The Independent on Sunday that he was "very pleased" by the appointments of "long-standing advocates of addressing climate change".
In another clear indication that the incoming team has taken on board the arguments of those advocating a "green new deal" that expanding environmental industries and jobs is the best way out of the recession, Mr Obama on Friday signed up a vocal advocate of green jobs, Hilda Solis, to be his labour secretary. The Californian congresswoman will be a key figure in implementing a plan to create millions of green jobs.
US environmentalists, however, are split over yet another appointment – of Colorado senator Ken Salazar – as secretary of the interior. It was welcomed by the top environmental pressure groups, but smaller and more radical ones said he had had a mixed record in congressional votes. "He's far from the most anti-environmental guy out there," says Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity, "but he's no environmental hero."
Meanwhile, Mr Bush has been pushing through a record number of so-called "midnight regulations". He has enabled coal-mining firms to dump waste in valleys, relaxed pollution rules from factory farms, and allowed companies that produce toxic wastes to burn them as fuel.
Barack's green team
Professor Steven Chu The Nobel Prize-winning physicist becomes Energy Secretary. He is a forceful advocate of America's urgent move towards carbon-free energy.
Professor John Holdren A physicist at Harvard University who directs the prestigious Woods Hole Research Centre, he will have the ear of the President as Obama's top scientific advisor.
Professor Jane Lubchenco A leading expert on the effects of global warming on oceans, she becomes the first woman administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Congresswoman Hilda Solis The new Labour Secretary advocates providing employment through a clean energy economy. She was key sponsor of a Green Jobs Act last year.
Carole Browner Head of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Clinton, she is on the radical side of the party and will head a White House energy and climate unit.
Senator Ken Salazar Ten-gallon-hatted Colorado Senator Ken Salazar is more controversial as Interior Secretary. The top environment groups are pleased but radicals have doubts.
Monday, 22 December 2008
More (solar) power to you
Remember when clean tech companies were all the rage and were going to save the world (and make investors a lot of money)? Well, that was before the credit crunch and when energy demand was surging. There was more than a whiff of the dotcom boom about the dizzying rise of clean tech stocks, and few were surprised when the sector came crashing down about a year ago. But unless everyone gives up on trying to stop climate change, the good clean tech companies will come back in fashion and will prove to be more resilient than many of the one-hit-wonder dotcoms. So now's the time to fill your boots, while shares are cheap. Buy solar power firm Romag.
Scotland to take lead in marine energy drive
Published Date: 21 December 2008
By Rosemary Gallagher
THE cost of marine energy will be slashed by 20%, with Scotland leading the way through its expertise in oil and gas, according to the Carbon Trust.
The trust, an independent company set up by the Government to tackle climate change, is investing £1m in five organisations to research component technology for marine energy, such as turbine blades and hydraulic power networks. Three of the five organisations are Scottish. They are MacTaggart Scott, an engineering firm in Edinburgh, Edinburgh University, and J P Kenny, part of the John Wood Group in Aberdeen.The research initiative is part of a wider Carbon Trust programme to drive down costs in the marine energy sector and make marine power a commercial reality by 2020. It said that energy from wave and tidal power could provide up to 20% of the UK's current electricity and had the potential to cut carbon dioxide emissions by tens of millions of tonnes. The global estimated value of worldwide electricity revenues from wave and tidal stream projects is potentially between £60bn and £190bn a year. However, the cost of generating marine energy is high compared with other forms of more conventional generation. Components used in wave and tidal energy devices can form as much as a third of the total device cost. The overall objective is to reduce the cost of marine energy by up to one fifth over the next 12 years.Mark Williamson, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust, said: "In the face of the economic downturn, these companies are at the forefront of an energy revolution that will see the creation of thousands of green collar jobs and a boost to the UK's economy." The Carbon Trust added that Scotland had the ideal combination of natural resources and oil and gas technology for generating marine energy cost-effectively.Edinburgh University will research wave power devices, J P Kenny will investigate hydraulics for power transmission from wave and tidal farms to the shore and MacTaggart Scott will focus on developing reliable, low-cost hydraulic generators.Alan Bevan, business development manager at MacTaggart Scott, said it was adapting its 110 years' traditional marine engineering experience to work in renewable energy. He said a big advantage was that its machinery could remain effective under water without maintenance for up to 20 years.The Carbon Trust's Marine Energy Accelerator programme is funded by the UK Environmental Transformation Fund, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and Invest Northern Ireland.MPUMinCharsCutOff:210 PageLength:2411MPUPositionFromStart:250 MPUPositionRange:1000hasVideoOrImage:False--->
Could climate goals survive Heathrow's third runway?
If Britain is to meet its commitment to reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, can it afford to press ahead with Heathrow's proposed third runway? Supporters argue fiercely that it can - while opponents of airport expansion say stopping it is vital in the battle against climate change
Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer, Sunday 21 December 2008
At first glance, British American Tobacco, Friends Provident, Pirelli and the Trades Union Congress seem unlikely allies, straddling a vast political divide. Yet they are connected - along with 100 other UK companies and organisations - over a single controversial cause: the need for a third runway at Heathrow airport.
The group, which also includes Tate & Lyle, Hilton Hotels and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, recently published a statement urging that the government approve the £12bn project, which would see a 2,200-metre runway as well as a sixth passenger terminal constructed on Heathrow's northern perimeter.
"Heathrow is vital for business," the group claimed. "It offers the direct connections which make our companies globally successful and which will be all the more important as India and China grow." The move allies British industry and trade unions with runway supporters that include the prime minister, the construction industry, engineers and aviation experts. All believe Heathrow's expansion is vital for Britain - but are opposed by the entire green movement, more than 100 backbench MPs, cabinet ministers that include energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband and environment secretary Hilary Benn, and a great many scientists and analysts. They say the runway - which would see flights rise from 480,000 to 702,000 a year - would trigger a major expansion of the UK aviation industry and completely undermine Britain's commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.
Emissions from aircraft are our fastest-rising source of carbon dioxide and by 2050 could account for or almost all the nation's permitted carbon output. Cars, homes, factories and power plants would have to become carbon neutral just to accommodate the aviation industry's desire for unbridled expansion. A third runway is incompatible with the fight against climate change, the most pressing issue facing the nation, it is claimed.
But runway supporters claim that lighter materials, changes in aviation control procedures and more powerful jet engines will curtail fuel use and keep emissions in check. Aircraft will soon be carbon efficient and their increased use made acceptable. Thus technology will rescue the environment and keep British business in a competitive state.
But will it? That question goes right to the heart of the Heathrow debate. Can aircraft emissions be curtailed significantly over the next few decades and aviation continue to expand? Are our business leaders right to pin complete faith on the ability of innovative technologies to ensure aircraft no longer pollute the skies?
"I think a new runway will be crucial because it will allow aircraft to be taken out of the air," said Strathclyde University's Professor William Banks, president of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. "At present, enormous amounts of fuel are wasted at Heathrow because it is running at maximum capacity.
"Every take-off and landing slot is precious, so planes wait, with their engines running, for long periods to get one. On Thursday, my plane waited out at the edge of a runway for 30 minutes before it got a chance to take off - and all the time it was burning fuel and emitting carbon. It's the same with landing. Aircraft stack for anything up to 30 minutes while waiting for a slot."
This dramatic use of fuel is necessary when you have a busy, cramped airport running on a very tight schedule. At present, Heathrow's two runways run at 99% capacity, with the result that even a relatively minor weather problems, mist or heavy rain, can cause serious disruption. Add a new runway and these problems will disappear, Banks argues. Planes will not have to keep their engines running constantly in a scrap to take off and land, a clear boost in the battle against global warming.
But the idea that a third, £12bn runway would be built purely to ease Heathrow's current congestion is remote, retort opponents, for it is unquestionably allied to aviation expansion in the UK. As runway supporters point out, Heathrow - Britain's only hub airport - now offers 50 fewer destinations than Amsterdam, 60 fewer than Paris and 100 fewer than Frankfurt. A new runway would let it add to its destination list: in other words, an expansion in UK aviation that would be crucial 'for continued job security and new employment", according to Steve Turner of the union, Unite.
But could this expansion be compatible with carbon emission controls? Banks believes so: "A new range of carbon-fibre reinforced plastics, very strong and of very low weight, are being developed which could cut aircraft weights significantly. This in turn would permit major reductions in the miles per gallon of kerosene of an aircraft and, of course, in its carbon emissions."
Aircraft such as the Airbus A340 are already constructed of 10% carbon composite material. The double-decker airbus A380, which is about to come into service, will be 30% composite, while the wide-bodied Airbus A350 and Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, which are set for flights around 2020, will be more than 50% composite.
Runway supporters also point out that changes in civil aviation procedures could bring major emission cuts. At present, planes fly into land on long, low trajectories that consume large amounts of fuel. If they were to plunge far more steeply, this would cut down on fuel use, it is argued. In addition, air traffic control measures could be changed so planes no longer fly on routes laid down by individual countries, forcing them to dog-leg over borders across Europe, wasting fuel use. Instead, routes would be rationalised so that planes flew in straight, energy-efficient lines.
But such ideas would require changes to international aviation regulations and could take decades to implement. Nevertheless, the suggestion reveals the kind of simple changes that could be introduced to make significant fuel and carbon emission cuts, it is argued.
Other changes in the pipeline are more radical, but are still likely to make a major impact. Manufacturers, such as Rolls-Royce, are developing generations of engines that will have greatly improved power-to-weight ratios and will be able to propel planes using far less fuel than at present. Thus, a package of lighter materials, improved aviation practices and more powerful engines should ensure that major cuts can be made in aircraft carbon emissions.
Nor are these the only measures being contemplated by the industry. Two other key changes could bring significant emission improvements, according to Charles Miller, of the aviation industry's Greener by Design group. "The first is biofuels, grown from algae, and the second is the use of blended-wing jets," he said. "Both have the capacity to make an enormous difference when it comes to carbon emissions."
Biofuels do not contain fossil carbon so don't add to the atmosphere's emissions inventory, while a blended-wing jet - an aircraft built as a giant, single wing so that the whole structure helps lift it off the ground - has such low air resistance that it burns a quarter less fuel than a conventional aircraft.
Its an impressive technological package, but opponents of runway three say it is very suspect. An example is provided by the blended-wing plane, said transport expert Professor Robert Noland, of Rutgers University, New Jersey.
"A blended-wing jet is an utterly new concept and has not been tested in any significant way," he said. "They are also associated with all sorts of problems, particularly concerned with safety. According to aviation regulations, you must be able to empty a plane of passengers in two minutes in an emergency. That can be done if you have lots of exits along a fuselage, but a blended-wing plane won't have one. How will you get people out?"
In addition, critics say that biofuels suffer from a major flaw. These are essentially alcohol, which burns at the wrong temperature for aircraft engines. Coal could be used to make kerosene, of course, but that would scarcely help with the issue of global warming.
Then there is the fact that carbon emissions have a disproportionate effect at high altitudes. Thanks to an effect known as "radiative forcing", carbon in the upper atmosphere produces 2.7 times more warming than emissions near the ground. That produces a major skewing of figures and makes it far less likely that the UK aviation industry, currently expanding at 5% a year, could avoid increasing, significantly, its carbon output over the decades. And that, in turn, has consequences.
"There is no way you can decarbonise the aviation industry," said Dr Sam Fankhauser, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change in London. "That means if we are to make an overall 80% cut in emissions by 2050, some sectors of life will have to reduce their carbon output by 100% to accommodate aviation's increase.
"That will involve not just turning over our electricity generation to nuclear plants and wind and wave turbines, but making major changes in transport, land use, domestic heating and the insulation of homes across the country. And that assumes that all the improvements promised by the aviation industry, but which have yet to be developed and tested, work as promised.
"At present, people decide to fly off on holiday if they can afford the cost. Soon they will have to work out if they can afford the carbon as well."
History of air travel
• A British company 'Aircraft Transport and Travel' offered the world's first regular international flight, a London to Paris service, in 1919.
• In 2007, the number of passengers at UK airports rose to 315 million, compared with 4 million in 1954.
• The number of passenger kilometres flown by UK airlines increased from 80 billion in 1985 to 287 billion in 2005. Around 97% of the 2005 total involved international travel.
• The country with which the United Kingdom exchanges the most air traffic is Spain. There were 34 million passenger movements between the countries in 2005.
• Heathrow is the busiest airport in the UK, with 68 million passengers in 2005. Estimates from the Department for Transport suggest that the number of terminal passengers at UK airports will grow to 500 million by 2030.
Cars or planes?
• Driving a relatively fuel-efficient car generates fewer greenhouse-gas emissions per passenger mile than flying.
• Environmental website Grist.org calculates that driving 300 miles in an average-sized car generates some 105kg of carbon dioxide (CO2). Flying the same distance on a commercial jet, however, would produce some 182kg of CO2 per passenger.
• Long-haul flights are more efficient than short-haul flights as a high proportion of the energy is required to climb to cruising altitude. Flying the 2,708 miles from San Francisco to Boston would generate 1,300kg of CO2 per passenger, while driving would account for only 930kg per vehicle.
• In addition to CO2, planes emit other gases that contribute to global warming. Some estimates suggest that this means their overall greenhouse gas emissions are some 2.7 times higher than their carbon dioxide footprint.
Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer, Sunday 21 December 2008
At first glance, British American Tobacco, Friends Provident, Pirelli and the Trades Union Congress seem unlikely allies, straddling a vast political divide. Yet they are connected - along with 100 other UK companies and organisations - over a single controversial cause: the need for a third runway at Heathrow airport.
The group, which also includes Tate & Lyle, Hilton Hotels and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, recently published a statement urging that the government approve the £12bn project, which would see a 2,200-metre runway as well as a sixth passenger terminal constructed on Heathrow's northern perimeter.
"Heathrow is vital for business," the group claimed. "It offers the direct connections which make our companies globally successful and which will be all the more important as India and China grow." The move allies British industry and trade unions with runway supporters that include the prime minister, the construction industry, engineers and aviation experts. All believe Heathrow's expansion is vital for Britain - but are opposed by the entire green movement, more than 100 backbench MPs, cabinet ministers that include energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband and environment secretary Hilary Benn, and a great many scientists and analysts. They say the runway - which would see flights rise from 480,000 to 702,000 a year - would trigger a major expansion of the UK aviation industry and completely undermine Britain's commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.
Emissions from aircraft are our fastest-rising source of carbon dioxide and by 2050 could account for or almost all the nation's permitted carbon output. Cars, homes, factories and power plants would have to become carbon neutral just to accommodate the aviation industry's desire for unbridled expansion. A third runway is incompatible with the fight against climate change, the most pressing issue facing the nation, it is claimed.
But runway supporters claim that lighter materials, changes in aviation control procedures and more powerful jet engines will curtail fuel use and keep emissions in check. Aircraft will soon be carbon efficient and their increased use made acceptable. Thus technology will rescue the environment and keep British business in a competitive state.
But will it? That question goes right to the heart of the Heathrow debate. Can aircraft emissions be curtailed significantly over the next few decades and aviation continue to expand? Are our business leaders right to pin complete faith on the ability of innovative technologies to ensure aircraft no longer pollute the skies?
"I think a new runway will be crucial because it will allow aircraft to be taken out of the air," said Strathclyde University's Professor William Banks, president of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. "At present, enormous amounts of fuel are wasted at Heathrow because it is running at maximum capacity.
"Every take-off and landing slot is precious, so planes wait, with their engines running, for long periods to get one. On Thursday, my plane waited out at the edge of a runway for 30 minutes before it got a chance to take off - and all the time it was burning fuel and emitting carbon. It's the same with landing. Aircraft stack for anything up to 30 minutes while waiting for a slot."
This dramatic use of fuel is necessary when you have a busy, cramped airport running on a very tight schedule. At present, Heathrow's two runways run at 99% capacity, with the result that even a relatively minor weather problems, mist or heavy rain, can cause serious disruption. Add a new runway and these problems will disappear, Banks argues. Planes will not have to keep their engines running constantly in a scrap to take off and land, a clear boost in the battle against global warming.
But the idea that a third, £12bn runway would be built purely to ease Heathrow's current congestion is remote, retort opponents, for it is unquestionably allied to aviation expansion in the UK. As runway supporters point out, Heathrow - Britain's only hub airport - now offers 50 fewer destinations than Amsterdam, 60 fewer than Paris and 100 fewer than Frankfurt. A new runway would let it add to its destination list: in other words, an expansion in UK aviation that would be crucial 'for continued job security and new employment", according to Steve Turner of the union, Unite.
But could this expansion be compatible with carbon emission controls? Banks believes so: "A new range of carbon-fibre reinforced plastics, very strong and of very low weight, are being developed which could cut aircraft weights significantly. This in turn would permit major reductions in the miles per gallon of kerosene of an aircraft and, of course, in its carbon emissions."
Aircraft such as the Airbus A340 are already constructed of 10% carbon composite material. The double-decker airbus A380, which is about to come into service, will be 30% composite, while the wide-bodied Airbus A350 and Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, which are set for flights around 2020, will be more than 50% composite.
Runway supporters also point out that changes in civil aviation procedures could bring major emission cuts. At present, planes fly into land on long, low trajectories that consume large amounts of fuel. If they were to plunge far more steeply, this would cut down on fuel use, it is argued. In addition, air traffic control measures could be changed so planes no longer fly on routes laid down by individual countries, forcing them to dog-leg over borders across Europe, wasting fuel use. Instead, routes would be rationalised so that planes flew in straight, energy-efficient lines.
But such ideas would require changes to international aviation regulations and could take decades to implement. Nevertheless, the suggestion reveals the kind of simple changes that could be introduced to make significant fuel and carbon emission cuts, it is argued.
Other changes in the pipeline are more radical, but are still likely to make a major impact. Manufacturers, such as Rolls-Royce, are developing generations of engines that will have greatly improved power-to-weight ratios and will be able to propel planes using far less fuel than at present. Thus, a package of lighter materials, improved aviation practices and more powerful engines should ensure that major cuts can be made in aircraft carbon emissions.
Nor are these the only measures being contemplated by the industry. Two other key changes could bring significant emission improvements, according to Charles Miller, of the aviation industry's Greener by Design group. "The first is biofuels, grown from algae, and the second is the use of blended-wing jets," he said. "Both have the capacity to make an enormous difference when it comes to carbon emissions."
Biofuels do not contain fossil carbon so don't add to the atmosphere's emissions inventory, while a blended-wing jet - an aircraft built as a giant, single wing so that the whole structure helps lift it off the ground - has such low air resistance that it burns a quarter less fuel than a conventional aircraft.
Its an impressive technological package, but opponents of runway three say it is very suspect. An example is provided by the blended-wing plane, said transport expert Professor Robert Noland, of Rutgers University, New Jersey.
"A blended-wing jet is an utterly new concept and has not been tested in any significant way," he said. "They are also associated with all sorts of problems, particularly concerned with safety. According to aviation regulations, you must be able to empty a plane of passengers in two minutes in an emergency. That can be done if you have lots of exits along a fuselage, but a blended-wing plane won't have one. How will you get people out?"
In addition, critics say that biofuels suffer from a major flaw. These are essentially alcohol, which burns at the wrong temperature for aircraft engines. Coal could be used to make kerosene, of course, but that would scarcely help with the issue of global warming.
Then there is the fact that carbon emissions have a disproportionate effect at high altitudes. Thanks to an effect known as "radiative forcing", carbon in the upper atmosphere produces 2.7 times more warming than emissions near the ground. That produces a major skewing of figures and makes it far less likely that the UK aviation industry, currently expanding at 5% a year, could avoid increasing, significantly, its carbon output over the decades. And that, in turn, has consequences.
"There is no way you can decarbonise the aviation industry," said Dr Sam Fankhauser, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change in London. "That means if we are to make an overall 80% cut in emissions by 2050, some sectors of life will have to reduce their carbon output by 100% to accommodate aviation's increase.
"That will involve not just turning over our electricity generation to nuclear plants and wind and wave turbines, but making major changes in transport, land use, domestic heating and the insulation of homes across the country. And that assumes that all the improvements promised by the aviation industry, but which have yet to be developed and tested, work as promised.
"At present, people decide to fly off on holiday if they can afford the cost. Soon they will have to work out if they can afford the carbon as well."
History of air travel
• A British company 'Aircraft Transport and Travel' offered the world's first regular international flight, a London to Paris service, in 1919.
• In 2007, the number of passengers at UK airports rose to 315 million, compared with 4 million in 1954.
• The number of passenger kilometres flown by UK airlines increased from 80 billion in 1985 to 287 billion in 2005. Around 97% of the 2005 total involved international travel.
• The country with which the United Kingdom exchanges the most air traffic is Spain. There were 34 million passenger movements between the countries in 2005.
• Heathrow is the busiest airport in the UK, with 68 million passengers in 2005. Estimates from the Department for Transport suggest that the number of terminal passengers at UK airports will grow to 500 million by 2030.
Cars or planes?
• Driving a relatively fuel-efficient car generates fewer greenhouse-gas emissions per passenger mile than flying.
• Environmental website Grist.org calculates that driving 300 miles in an average-sized car generates some 105kg of carbon dioxide (CO2). Flying the same distance on a commercial jet, however, would produce some 182kg of CO2 per passenger.
• Long-haul flights are more efficient than short-haul flights as a high proportion of the energy is required to climb to cruising altitude. Flying the 2,708 miles from San Francisco to Boston would generate 1,300kg of CO2 per passenger, while driving would account for only 930kg per vehicle.
• In addition to CO2, planes emit other gases that contribute to global warming. Some estimates suggest that this means their overall greenhouse gas emissions are some 2.7 times higher than their carbon dioxide footprint.
UN suspends carbon-trading auditor
The Sunday Times
December 21, 2008
Danny Fortson and Jonathan Leake
THE validity of the Kyoto Protocol’s $100 billion (£67 billion) carbon-trading scheme has been called into question after the United Nations suspended the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects.
Norway’s DNV, which claims to have approved half of the world’s carbon-credit ventures, had its accreditation suspended last month after it was unable to prove that its agents had properly vetted projects that it then approved for the carbon-trading scheme.
The episode will provide fresh ammunition to those who have long criticised the EU’s so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows investors in developed countries to fund green projects in the developing world. Once approved, they are then granted carbon credits that can be sold on the open market for profit.
Simon Shaw, chairman of EEA Fund Management, an investor in CDM projects and backer of the carbon-trading market Climate Exchange, said: “This is embarrassing for everybody and clearly bad news for the industry because DNV is the largest validator.” He said his firm had begun using other firms to verify proposed projects after it became apparent that DNV was overloaded.
“It became clear to us last year that they had a lot of work and were unable to resource the work properly.”
UN inspectors found five “non-conformities” when they visited DNV last month, including not being able to get evidence that technical experts had examined the projects they had approved.
Carbon credits derived from CDM schemes comprise roughly 20% of the credits in the $100 billion carbon-trading market. A DNV spokeswoman said the company was confident of being reinstated in January when UN inspectors make their next visit.
December 21, 2008
Danny Fortson and Jonathan Leake
THE validity of the Kyoto Protocol’s $100 billion (£67 billion) carbon-trading scheme has been called into question after the United Nations suspended the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects.
Norway’s DNV, which claims to have approved half of the world’s carbon-credit ventures, had its accreditation suspended last month after it was unable to prove that its agents had properly vetted projects that it then approved for the carbon-trading scheme.
The episode will provide fresh ammunition to those who have long criticised the EU’s so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows investors in developed countries to fund green projects in the developing world. Once approved, they are then granted carbon credits that can be sold on the open market for profit.
Simon Shaw, chairman of EEA Fund Management, an investor in CDM projects and backer of the carbon-trading market Climate Exchange, said: “This is embarrassing for everybody and clearly bad news for the industry because DNV is the largest validator.” He said his firm had begun using other firms to verify proposed projects after it became apparent that DNV was overloaded.
“It became clear to us last year that they had a lot of work and were unable to resource the work properly.”
UN inspectors found five “non-conformities” when they visited DNV last month, including not being able to get evidence that technical experts had examined the projects they had approved.
Carbon credits derived from CDM schemes comprise roughly 20% of the credits in the $100 billion carbon-trading market. A DNV spokeswoman said the company was confident of being reinstated in January when UN inspectors make their next visit.
Saturday, 20 December 2008
Plugging in to Uranium's Glowing Future
By MOHAMMED HADI and MARI IWATA
Coveting uranium can get you into all kinds of trouble. Unless you are a power producer, when it can make smart business sense.
The International Atomic Energy Agency forecasts that power generated from nuclear plants could double by 2030. Power producers fear they could face a shortage of uranium, so they are lining up supplies. Kansai Electric Power -- using nearly a third of Japan's uranium demand -- plans to buy mines.
Such demand could make uranium one commodity that will hold up relatively well in an economic slump. A nuclear power plant, after all, is the kind of infrastructure project a government might still fund as the economy slows, though the time lag involved means investors need to be prepared for the long haul.
On the supply side, tight credit has made it tough to dig new mines. Short-term problems like the flooding of a large Canadian mine called Cigar Lake tighten supplies further.
Uranium prices, and shares of the miners, haven't been immune to market turmoil. The metal's spot price has fallen about 40% this year. In part, though, that reflects retreating hedge funds. Contract prices, analysts say, have held up better.
Meanwhile, deals are being struck. Australia delivered its first uranium to China last month. This past week, Nuclear Power Corp. of India tapped France's Areva to meet its needs, the first foreign supply pact in India, where at least 14 nuclear plants are planned.
The planned rise in capacity and the fact that reactors keep running once turned on gives uranium a glowing future -- at least relative to more cyclical commodities.
Write to Mohammed Hadi at mohammed.hadi@dowjones.com and Mari Iwata at
Coveting uranium can get you into all kinds of trouble. Unless you are a power producer, when it can make smart business sense.
The International Atomic Energy Agency forecasts that power generated from nuclear plants could double by 2030. Power producers fear they could face a shortage of uranium, so they are lining up supplies. Kansai Electric Power -- using nearly a third of Japan's uranium demand -- plans to buy mines.
Such demand could make uranium one commodity that will hold up relatively well in an economic slump. A nuclear power plant, after all, is the kind of infrastructure project a government might still fund as the economy slows, though the time lag involved means investors need to be prepared for the long haul.
On the supply side, tight credit has made it tough to dig new mines. Short-term problems like the flooding of a large Canadian mine called Cigar Lake tighten supplies further.
Uranium prices, and shares of the miners, haven't been immune to market turmoil. The metal's spot price has fallen about 40% this year. In part, though, that reflects retreating hedge funds. Contract prices, analysts say, have held up better.
Meanwhile, deals are being struck. Australia delivered its first uranium to China last month. This past week, Nuclear Power Corp. of India tapped France's Areva to meet its needs, the first foreign supply pact in India, where at least 14 nuclear plants are planned.
The planned rise in capacity and the fact that reactors keep running once turned on gives uranium a glowing future -- at least relative to more cyclical commodities.
Write to Mohammed Hadi at mohammed.hadi@dowjones.com and Mari Iwata at
Nuclear firm passes to US control
Ian Johnston
The Guardian, Saturday 20 December 2008
British control of the plant where the UK's nuclear warheads are produced has been relinquished, with the sale of a third stake in the Aldermaston facility to an American company.
Opposition politicians voiced concern that the manufacture of warheads for the Trident weapons system and its planned replacement would now be out of British hands after California-based Jacobs Engineering bought British Nuclear Fuels' stake in AWE Management, which runs the Berkshire site, for an undisclosed fee. The other two shares in AWE are owned by US defence giant Lockheed Martin and the British firm Serco
Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "The whole argument used for Britain having a separate weapons establishment is that this is required by the non-proliferation treaty, as technology sharing is not allowed. We must therefore query the rationale of a US company having a majority shareholding in AWE. How does this all square?"
Gerald Howarth, the Tory defence spokesman, called on ministers to explain the move, adding: "The Atomic Weapons Establishment is critical to Britain's nuclear deterrent capability."
But the Ministry of Defence said the "safe operation of AWE" would remain unaffected by the sale. "It is the UK government, not AWE, that sets the UK's nuclear policy," it said.
The Guardian, Saturday 20 December 2008
British control of the plant where the UK's nuclear warheads are produced has been relinquished, with the sale of a third stake in the Aldermaston facility to an American company.
Opposition politicians voiced concern that the manufacture of warheads for the Trident weapons system and its planned replacement would now be out of British hands after California-based Jacobs Engineering bought British Nuclear Fuels' stake in AWE Management, which runs the Berkshire site, for an undisclosed fee. The other two shares in AWE are owned by US defence giant Lockheed Martin and the British firm Serco
Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "The whole argument used for Britain having a separate weapons establishment is that this is required by the non-proliferation treaty, as technology sharing is not allowed. We must therefore query the rationale of a US company having a majority shareholding in AWE. How does this all square?"
Gerald Howarth, the Tory defence spokesman, called on ministers to explain the move, adding: "The Atomic Weapons Establishment is critical to Britain's nuclear deterrent capability."
But the Ministry of Defence said the "safe operation of AWE" would remain unaffected by the sale. "It is the UK government, not AWE, that sets the UK's nuclear policy," it said.
Government attempts to overturn pesticides ruling
A landmark High Court ruling, that found pesticides are harming rural communities, could be overturned by the Government on the grounds that proposals to control use of chemicals could cripple the farming industry.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent Last Updated: 2:20PM GMT 19 Dec 2008
Last month environment campaigner Georgina Downs managed to prove that residents across the UK have suffered harm to their heath from crop spraying close to their homes.
The High Court ruled that the Government failed to comply with a European Directive to protect people from the possible harmful effects of exposure to toxic chemicals.
But the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs claim that the ruling could have an adverse effect on farming practices.
A spokesman said: "This decision would make it impossible to authorise pesticides governed by the [European] Directive for use in the UK, which would have a very serious impact on farming and food production and would put the UK out of line with the rest of Europe. Defra will be asking the Court of Appeal to overturn this ruling. The protection of the health of those who live, work or visit the countryside remains our highest priority. We will want to look again at the advantages and disadvantages of additional measures, irrespective of the outcome of the case."
Ms Downs, 35, who has been named as a British Erin Brockovich, said the decision was "completely irresponsible".
She said: "The Government's decision to appeal this ruling continues to demonstrate the Government's absolute contempt for rural residents and communities and is a disgrace. Heads should be rolling, following such a landmark High Court Judgment, but instead it's business as usual with the Government's relentless attempts to protect the industry as opposed to the health of its citizens abundantly clear."
Ms Downs, 35, who suffered from pesticide poisoning as a child and now runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, fought for seven years to prove pesticides can cause health problems from rashes and sore throats to "chronic" illnesses including cancers, asthma and neurological conditions.
"The Government's decision to appeal against the High Court ruling is just adding insult to injury to all those residents whose health and lives have been affected as a result of the Government's flawed and unlawful policy and the sheer arrogance of it all is beyond belief," she added.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent Last Updated: 2:20PM GMT 19 Dec 2008
Last month environment campaigner Georgina Downs managed to prove that residents across the UK have suffered harm to their heath from crop spraying close to their homes.
The High Court ruled that the Government failed to comply with a European Directive to protect people from the possible harmful effects of exposure to toxic chemicals.
But the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs claim that the ruling could have an adverse effect on farming practices.
A spokesman said: "This decision would make it impossible to authorise pesticides governed by the [European] Directive for use in the UK, which would have a very serious impact on farming and food production and would put the UK out of line with the rest of Europe. Defra will be asking the Court of Appeal to overturn this ruling. The protection of the health of those who live, work or visit the countryside remains our highest priority. We will want to look again at the advantages and disadvantages of additional measures, irrespective of the outcome of the case."
Ms Downs, 35, who has been named as a British Erin Brockovich, said the decision was "completely irresponsible".
She said: "The Government's decision to appeal this ruling continues to demonstrate the Government's absolute contempt for rural residents and communities and is a disgrace. Heads should be rolling, following such a landmark High Court Judgment, but instead it's business as usual with the Government's relentless attempts to protect the industry as opposed to the health of its citizens abundantly clear."
Ms Downs, 35, who suffered from pesticide poisoning as a child and now runs the UK Pesticides Campaign, fought for seven years to prove pesticides can cause health problems from rashes and sore throats to "chronic" illnesses including cancers, asthma and neurological conditions.
"The Government's decision to appeal against the High Court ruling is just adding insult to injury to all those residents whose health and lives have been affected as a result of the Government's flawed and unlawful policy and the sheer arrogance of it all is beyond belief," she added.
Cod quota branded a 'farce' in EU fisheries deal
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 December 2008 17.45 GMT
Environmental campaigners were divided this evening over plans announced by the European Commission to increase the amount of cod taken from the over-fished North Sea.
Greenpeace said the 30% increase in the North Sea cod quota for next year was a "farce" and could see the fishery face total collapse. But WWF welcomed new efforts to reduce the amount of fish caught and then dumped, and said the plans were a "step in the right direction".
The cod quota for the North Sea was announced today in Brussels, as part of a package of deals for fisheries across European waters.
As well as a 30% increase in North Sea cod quotas, the agreement allows UK fishermen to land 32% more mackerel, 13% more North Sea plaice and 8% more monkfish off the Scottish west coast.
Huw Irranca-Davies, fisheries minister, said: "This is a fair deal overall for the UK, balancing the needs of our fishermen to make a living with the need to protect fish stocks for the future and prevent huge amounts of what they catch having to be thrown back dead into the sea."
Giles Bartlett, fisheries policy officer at WWF-UK, said the deal made the first serious attempt to focus on the number of fish taken out of the sea, rather than the amount landed - what the quotas refer to. He said 2008 quotas allowed some 22,000 tonnes of North Sea cod to be landed, while closer to 38,000 tonnes of the fish were actually caught. Fish caught but not landed were dumped, dead, back into the sea.
Under the new deal, the total amount of North Sea cod killed is supposed to fall by a quarter. "There has never been any incentive to catch less fish," he said. "The onus will be on the fishing industry and governments to deliver this crucial reduction target."
More fish could be landed from fewer caught, he said, with more efficient methods such as nets that allow other species to escape, as well as a ban on discarding fish large enough to land. He said more observers could sail on fishing vessels to ensure crews comply with the new rules. In a pilot study next month five Scottish fishing boats will sail under CCTV surveillance to verify catch data.
Willie Mackenzie, fisheries campaigner with Greenpeace, said the cod quota increase was "disastrous for the fishing industry" and went against scientific advice to ban all fishing until stocks recover.
He said: "Much more needs to be done to allow Europe's decimated fisheries to recover, and that includes setting aside large areas, off-limits to commercial fishing, as marine reserves." He added: "If there is an increase in the amount of fish landed and the [discard limiting] steps aren't taken, then you're making the situation worse."
Elsewhere, yesterday's agreement sees cod quotas in other European waters mostly cut by 25%. Scotland avoided the closure of its prawn and white fish fishery on the west coast by agreeing strict rules on fishing tackle, and cuts in cod, herring, haddock and whiting.
A ban on anchovy fishing in the Bay of Biscay will remain until at least spring 2009 because there are few signs of a recovery in stock numbers.
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 December 2008 17.45 GMT
Environmental campaigners were divided this evening over plans announced by the European Commission to increase the amount of cod taken from the over-fished North Sea.
Greenpeace said the 30% increase in the North Sea cod quota for next year was a "farce" and could see the fishery face total collapse. But WWF welcomed new efforts to reduce the amount of fish caught and then dumped, and said the plans were a "step in the right direction".
The cod quota for the North Sea was announced today in Brussels, as part of a package of deals for fisheries across European waters.
As well as a 30% increase in North Sea cod quotas, the agreement allows UK fishermen to land 32% more mackerel, 13% more North Sea plaice and 8% more monkfish off the Scottish west coast.
Huw Irranca-Davies, fisheries minister, said: "This is a fair deal overall for the UK, balancing the needs of our fishermen to make a living with the need to protect fish stocks for the future and prevent huge amounts of what they catch having to be thrown back dead into the sea."
Giles Bartlett, fisheries policy officer at WWF-UK, said the deal made the first serious attempt to focus on the number of fish taken out of the sea, rather than the amount landed - what the quotas refer to. He said 2008 quotas allowed some 22,000 tonnes of North Sea cod to be landed, while closer to 38,000 tonnes of the fish were actually caught. Fish caught but not landed were dumped, dead, back into the sea.
Under the new deal, the total amount of North Sea cod killed is supposed to fall by a quarter. "There has never been any incentive to catch less fish," he said. "The onus will be on the fishing industry and governments to deliver this crucial reduction target."
More fish could be landed from fewer caught, he said, with more efficient methods such as nets that allow other species to escape, as well as a ban on discarding fish large enough to land. He said more observers could sail on fishing vessels to ensure crews comply with the new rules. In a pilot study next month five Scottish fishing boats will sail under CCTV surveillance to verify catch data.
Willie Mackenzie, fisheries campaigner with Greenpeace, said the cod quota increase was "disastrous for the fishing industry" and went against scientific advice to ban all fishing until stocks recover.
He said: "Much more needs to be done to allow Europe's decimated fisheries to recover, and that includes setting aside large areas, off-limits to commercial fishing, as marine reserves." He added: "If there is an increase in the amount of fish landed and the [discard limiting] steps aren't taken, then you're making the situation worse."
Elsewhere, yesterday's agreement sees cod quotas in other European waters mostly cut by 25%. Scotland avoided the closure of its prawn and white fish fishery on the west coast by agreeing strict rules on fishing tackle, and cuts in cod, herring, haddock and whiting.
A ban on anchovy fishing in the Bay of Biscay will remain until at least spring 2009 because there are few signs of a recovery in stock numbers.
Hydrogen plan will fill in when wind turbines stop
Published Date: 20 December 2008
By Jenny Haworth
A MAJOR criticism of wind farms is that they are intermittent. Wind does not blow consistently and, as a result they do not provide a continuous supply of power, but must be backed up by conventional fossil fuel plants.
However, a renewables firm believes it has hit on a solution, and is hoping to use it in Scotland.A hydrogen plant would store energy from the wind farm, creating a reserve that could be dipped into on demand, so that even when the wind was not blowing, an electricity supply would be available.WHL Energy hopes to use the technology for the first time in the UK in North Ayrshire.The Australian company has lodged planning applications for a wind farm and hydrogen plant, known jointly as the Ladymoor Renewable Energy Project.The 48 megawatt, 24-turbine Wings Law wind farm near Kilbirnie would supply electricity, through the national grid, to the 10-metre high hydrogen plant a few miles away in Glengarnock, called a "hydrogen balancing facility".This electricity would be used to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen.The hydrogen would then be liquefied, or stored under pressure. When needed it would be regenerated as electricity to be supplied to the national grid on demand.Steven Radford, UK managing director of WHL Energy, which has a patent for the technology in the UK, said: "The system is very simple."It involves taking the electricity to the hydrogen plant in order to create a 24-hour supply from the wind farm. This addresses the intermittency problem of wind farms."With a traditional system you always need fossil fuel back-up but this will create 24-hour supply from the wind farm." It takes away the need for the fossil fuel base load."He said that as a side benefit, any excess electricity from the hydrogen plant could be used locally, for instance to power public transport.Similar schemes have been built in Norway and Canada, but if the applications get the go-ahead, it will be the first time it has been tried in the UK.As well as helping Scotland meet its targets of generating 50 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, the company believes the project will bring numerous advantages to the local area.It predicts 25 jobs would be created and argues it could establish Kilbirnie as a world-leading centre of excellence in the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. The company is investing £60 million in the project and hopes a decision on the planning applications will be made in the next few months.This week, the site of the planned project was visited by David O'Neill, leader of North Ayrshire Council and Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy, who was positive about the scheme.He said: "Our future prosperity will be based on a low-carbon, high-growth economy. "It's essential that we innovate more and that's why I was interested to hear about the plans for the combined wind farm and hydrogen storage plant. "Britain needs a mixed energy policy including clean coal, oil and gas, nuclear and renewables, and projects like this can make a real contribution in helping Scotland and the UK stay in the forefront of renewables innovation."The plans have met with opposition from campaign group Save Your Regional Park (SYRP), which thinks the proposed sites in the Clyde Muirsheil Regional Park should be left free of development.Sybil Simpson, vice-chairwoman of SYRP said: "The Save Your Regional Park campaign, organised by the Ladymoor Wind Factory Action Group, is not against wind farms, but we and our members, many of whom come from the area, passionately believe that regional parks and national parks must be protected from inappropriate industrial development including wind farms." The campaign group criticised the company's suggestion that the wind farm and the hydrogen plant would be linked, with one supplying electricity to the other.A spokeswoman said: "This hydrogen plant will use electricity directly from the grid and there is absolutely no way it can be linked to the wind farm."Mr Radford responded by saying the "equivalent electricity" to that created by the wind farm was being supplied to the hydrogen plant, using the national grid.SYRP also highlighted that the Advertising Standards Authority in June criticised a leaflet about the proposed Wings Law wind farm, distributed to households in the area by WHL Energy in 2007. It ruled that the leaflet breached the Committee of Advertising Practice code on issues including truthfulness and environmental claims, and the firm was instructed not to repeat certain claims in the leaflet.A spokesman for WHL Energy said: "We accepted that some of the wording hadn't been very clear, and we have updated it."
By Jenny Haworth
A MAJOR criticism of wind farms is that they are intermittent. Wind does not blow consistently and, as a result they do not provide a continuous supply of power, but must be backed up by conventional fossil fuel plants.
However, a renewables firm believes it has hit on a solution, and is hoping to use it in Scotland.A hydrogen plant would store energy from the wind farm, creating a reserve that could be dipped into on demand, so that even when the wind was not blowing, an electricity supply would be available.WHL Energy hopes to use the technology for the first time in the UK in North Ayrshire.The Australian company has lodged planning applications for a wind farm and hydrogen plant, known jointly as the Ladymoor Renewable Energy Project.The 48 megawatt, 24-turbine Wings Law wind farm near Kilbirnie would supply electricity, through the national grid, to the 10-metre high hydrogen plant a few miles away in Glengarnock, called a "hydrogen balancing facility".This electricity would be used to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen.The hydrogen would then be liquefied, or stored under pressure. When needed it would be regenerated as electricity to be supplied to the national grid on demand.Steven Radford, UK managing director of WHL Energy, which has a patent for the technology in the UK, said: "The system is very simple."It involves taking the electricity to the hydrogen plant in order to create a 24-hour supply from the wind farm. This addresses the intermittency problem of wind farms."With a traditional system you always need fossil fuel back-up but this will create 24-hour supply from the wind farm." It takes away the need for the fossil fuel base load."He said that as a side benefit, any excess electricity from the hydrogen plant could be used locally, for instance to power public transport.Similar schemes have been built in Norway and Canada, but if the applications get the go-ahead, it will be the first time it has been tried in the UK.As well as helping Scotland meet its targets of generating 50 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, the company believes the project will bring numerous advantages to the local area.It predicts 25 jobs would be created and argues it could establish Kilbirnie as a world-leading centre of excellence in the use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. The company is investing £60 million in the project and hopes a decision on the planning applications will be made in the next few months.This week, the site of the planned project was visited by David O'Neill, leader of North Ayrshire Council and Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy, who was positive about the scheme.He said: "Our future prosperity will be based on a low-carbon, high-growth economy. "It's essential that we innovate more and that's why I was interested to hear about the plans for the combined wind farm and hydrogen storage plant. "Britain needs a mixed energy policy including clean coal, oil and gas, nuclear and renewables, and projects like this can make a real contribution in helping Scotland and the UK stay in the forefront of renewables innovation."The plans have met with opposition from campaign group Save Your Regional Park (SYRP), which thinks the proposed sites in the Clyde Muirsheil Regional Park should be left free of development.Sybil Simpson, vice-chairwoman of SYRP said: "The Save Your Regional Park campaign, organised by the Ladymoor Wind Factory Action Group, is not against wind farms, but we and our members, many of whom come from the area, passionately believe that regional parks and national parks must be protected from inappropriate industrial development including wind farms." The campaign group criticised the company's suggestion that the wind farm and the hydrogen plant would be linked, with one supplying electricity to the other.A spokeswoman said: "This hydrogen plant will use electricity directly from the grid and there is absolutely no way it can be linked to the wind farm."Mr Radford responded by saying the "equivalent electricity" to that created by the wind farm was being supplied to the hydrogen plant, using the national grid.SYRP also highlighted that the Advertising Standards Authority in June criticised a leaflet about the proposed Wings Law wind farm, distributed to households in the area by WHL Energy in 2007. It ruled that the leaflet breached the Committee of Advertising Practice code on issues including truthfulness and environmental claims, and the firm was instructed not to repeat certain claims in the leaflet.A spokesman for WHL Energy said: "We accepted that some of the wording hadn't been very clear, and we have updated it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
