By John O’Doherty
Published: June 12 2009 03:49
Heavy spending by the Obama administration on environmental measures will boost sales at AEA Technology, the energy and climate change consultancy said, as it digests its recent acquisition of PPC, a US-based environmental data group.
“The stimulus package that [President] Obama has put forth includes $40bn (£24bn) to invest in emerging technologies and energy efficiency initiatives,” said Mike Nigro, former chief executive of PPC and now chief operating officer at AEA.
“The administration has already appropriated much of the monies and we’ve written six proposals already for $150m that we couldn’t have written had it not been for the AEA capabilities ... over the next three years we see about $2bn worth of opportunities that we now can go after because of the relationship between AEA and PPC.”
So called “secure sales” – a measure of orders received by the company to date that are expected to be delivered in the coming year – stand at £57.5m ($95.3m), up 14 per cent from the £50.5m reached this time last year.
AEA Technology grew out of a subdivision of the UK’s Atomic Energy Association, advising the British government on measures to reduce smog in London in the 1950s. It now advises the UK’s Climate Change Committee and consults with governments and private sector organisations in Europe and China on environmental policy.
Andrew McCree, AEA’s chief executive, said the acquisition of PPC would add expertise from the US in the collation and analysis of emissions and climate data to PPC’s existing skills in policy formulation in Europe. “The two markets are at different points in their cycle,” he said.
“In the US, they’re starting to formulate policy, whereas in the UK, the policy is all done and in place, and it’s now in the space of implementation.”
For the full year ending in March, pre-tax profit fell 6 per cent to £7.5m on revenues that increased by 16 per cent to £93.7m. much of the profit decline was due to a £2.2m investment in sales and marketing operations, and AEA’s operating profit increased by 5 per cent to £10.4m.
Shares in AEA Technology closed up 1¾p at 22¾p on Thursday.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Friday, 12 June 2009
BA boss: Airline passengers will have to pay for pollution
Willie Walsh, British Airways chief, says airline emissions trading scheme will mean fares rises
Dan Milmo
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 20.39 BST
Airline passengers will have to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys through fare increases if carriers join a global emissions trading scheme, according to British Airways boss Willie Walsh.
Airlines could contribute $5bn (£3bn) a year to help developing countries fight climate change if a scheme goes ahead, according to the Aviation Global Deal Group, whose members include BA, Virgin and Air France-KLM.
Under one version the industry would be limited to an amount of carbon dioxide emissions – for instance, 97% of 2005 emissions in 2005 – and would receive free carbon permits equating to 85% of its permitted emissions, and would bid for the rest. A proportion of those auction proceeds would go to developing countries.
The group made the proposal amid mounting frustration over negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change conference in December, which will thrash out a sequel to the Kyoto agreement. Airlines are concerned their representative body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, will not produce a robust proposal in time and could expose them to measures such as an international air travel levy.
Walsh said fares would "have to" rise in order to cover the cost of a global trading scheme. Walsh added that the sector's "unsustainable" financial state, with a total loss of $9bn forecast this year, made fare rises inevitable. "This is going to add billions to the industry's cost base and the industry is unlikely to be able to absorb the cost. For the industry to play its part the people who benefit from that industry will have to pay for it as well."
Walsh said the European Union should use its emissions trading scheme as a fore-runner for a global programme but not attempt to drag in non-EU airlines lest they take legal action.
Dan Milmo
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 20.39 BST
Airline passengers will have to pay for the environmental impact of their journeys through fare increases if carriers join a global emissions trading scheme, according to British Airways boss Willie Walsh.
Airlines could contribute $5bn (£3bn) a year to help developing countries fight climate change if a scheme goes ahead, according to the Aviation Global Deal Group, whose members include BA, Virgin and Air France-KLM.
Under one version the industry would be limited to an amount of carbon dioxide emissions – for instance, 97% of 2005 emissions in 2005 – and would receive free carbon permits equating to 85% of its permitted emissions, and would bid for the rest. A proportion of those auction proceeds would go to developing countries.
The group made the proposal amid mounting frustration over negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change conference in December, which will thrash out a sequel to the Kyoto agreement. Airlines are concerned their representative body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, will not produce a robust proposal in time and could expose them to measures such as an international air travel levy.
Walsh said fares would "have to" rise in order to cover the cost of a global trading scheme. Walsh added that the sector's "unsustainable" financial state, with a total loss of $9bn forecast this year, made fare rises inevitable. "This is going to add billions to the industry's cost base and the industry is unlikely to be able to absorb the cost. For the industry to play its part the people who benefit from that industry will have to pay for it as well."
Walsh said the European Union should use its emissions trading scheme as a fore-runner for a global programme but not attempt to drag in non-EU airlines lest they take legal action.
US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill
Republicans seek federal financing for 100 new reactors despite huge capital costs and unsolved problems of storing waste
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 18.46 BST
America's nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama's agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank.
Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week, calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.
In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are now under review by the department of energy.
"If you care about climate change ... 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start," said Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate.
Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress. One version, under consideration by the Senate, envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and, nuclear proponents hope, new reactors.
Ellen Vancko, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "The nuclear industry would like to be able to finance the next generation of nuclear reactors using the faith and credit of the US taxpayer to underwrite the expansion. They don't want to be responsible for any risk of financing these plants and neither do their lenders."
No new reactors have been ordered in 30 years, not least due to the challenges of raising $5bn-$12bn to build a new plant.
But the industry is hoping for a surge in orders for new reactors around the world and assurances from Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, of nuclear power's place in America's long-term energy mix.
Nuclear industry executives told Congress this week that 429 new nuclear plants were planned or under construction around the world. In the US, the energy department is reviewing 19 applications for new nuclear reactors. Construction, if they are approved, could begin in 2011.
Much of the push for nuclear power comes from the conservative south, which has more reactors than anywhere else in the US and which is less suited than other regions for wind or solar development.
The campaign faces two challenges: the huge cost of construction and the lack of permanent storage for nuclear waste.
The Obama administration has blocked a 22-year project to dump waste from reactors in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But the biggest obstacle to Republican dreams of a nuclear renaissance is start-up costs. Last month, John Rowe, chairman of Exelon, which operates 17 nuclear reactors, said he would cancel or delay construction of two new reactors in Texas without federal loan guarantees. He said the government assurances were "imperative" because of the high capital costs of nuclear reactors.
Obama's $787bn economic recovery plan set aside $50bn for the nuclear industry but Democrats in Congress cut out the funds. Frustrated fans of nuclear power, such as McCain, accused Obama and Chu of ignoring its potential. "They remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and all those scenes in the movies that are apocalyptic about nuclear power," he said.
If Republican efforts in Congress for a nuclear energy bill and a clean energy bank fail, the US nuclear renaissance is likely to be restricted to new reactors already being built. Jim Riccio, Greenpeace nuclear analyst, said: "The renaissance is on hold or maybe dead on arrival."
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 18.46 BST
America's nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama's agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank.
Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week, calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change, and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.
In the Senate, Republican leaders, including the former presidential candidate John McCain, also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.5bn (£11.2bn) to $38bn. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors, whose applications are now under review by the department of energy.
"If you care about climate change ... 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start," said Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate.
Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress. One version, under consideration by the Senate, envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and, nuclear proponents hope, new reactors.
Ellen Vancko, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: "The nuclear industry would like to be able to finance the next generation of nuclear reactors using the faith and credit of the US taxpayer to underwrite the expansion. They don't want to be responsible for any risk of financing these plants and neither do their lenders."
No new reactors have been ordered in 30 years, not least due to the challenges of raising $5bn-$12bn to build a new plant.
But the industry is hoping for a surge in orders for new reactors around the world and assurances from Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, of nuclear power's place in America's long-term energy mix.
Nuclear industry executives told Congress this week that 429 new nuclear plants were planned or under construction around the world. In the US, the energy department is reviewing 19 applications for new nuclear reactors. Construction, if they are approved, could begin in 2011.
Much of the push for nuclear power comes from the conservative south, which has more reactors than anywhere else in the US and which is less suited than other regions for wind or solar development.
The campaign faces two challenges: the huge cost of construction and the lack of permanent storage for nuclear waste.
The Obama administration has blocked a 22-year project to dump waste from reactors in Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But the biggest obstacle to Republican dreams of a nuclear renaissance is start-up costs. Last month, John Rowe, chairman of Exelon, which operates 17 nuclear reactors, said he would cancel or delay construction of two new reactors in Texas without federal loan guarantees. He said the government assurances were "imperative" because of the high capital costs of nuclear reactors.
Obama's $787bn economic recovery plan set aside $50bn for the nuclear industry but Democrats in Congress cut out the funds. Frustrated fans of nuclear power, such as McCain, accused Obama and Chu of ignoring its potential. "They remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and all those scenes in the movies that are apocalyptic about nuclear power," he said.
If Republican efforts in Congress for a nuclear energy bill and a clean energy bank fail, the US nuclear renaissance is likely to be restricted to new reactors already being built. Jim Riccio, Greenpeace nuclear analyst, said: "The renaissance is on hold or maybe dead on arrival."
Amazon deforestation leads to development 'boom-and-bust'
Study challenges argument that chopping down trees improves economic and social conditions, writes Alok Jha
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 19.00 BST
Chopping down the Amazon rainforest to make way for crops or cattle has no economic or social benefit for local people in the long term, according to a major new study.
The finding undercuts the argument that deforestation, which causes 20% of the globe's greenhouse gas emissions, leads to long-term development.
Conservationists showed communities develop rapidly but temporarily when forests are cleared. But rates of development quickly fall back below national average levels when the loggers move on and local resources near depletion.
More than 155,000 square kilometres of Amazonian rainforest in Brazil have been cleared for timber or burned to make way for agricultural land since 2000. Every year, around 1.8m hectares are destroyed — a rate of four football fields every minute. The Amazonian rainforest is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, guarding against climate change by absorbing CO2 and maintaining geochemical cycles.
But some argue that local communities, which are among the poorest in Brazil, should be able to benefit from the local resources by creating farms or logging the trees. To calculate these potential benefits of deforestation for local communities, a team of international scientists analysed the life expectancy, literacy and income of people living in 286 areas around the Brazilian Amazon.
Their results, published today in Science, showed that the quality of life for local communities improved rapidly when a forest first cleared. "The monthly average income started out at 74 Reals per month," said Rob Ewers of the department of life sciences at Imperial College London, a member of the study team. "Then it went up to as much as 196 Reals per month in the middle [of the deforested area] and then to 82 once the resource is gone. Literacy went from 68% at the frontier [of the forest] up to a maximum of 83% then dropped down to 69%."
The researchers said that the cycle occurred because, at first, the newly available natural resources in an area of cleared forest attract investment and infrastructure. New roads can lead to improved access to education, medicine and an increased overall income gives people better living conditions.
But once the timber and other resources dry up, things change. "A lot of the agricultural land is only productive for a few years so once you lose that, you also lose that as a source of income," said Ewers. "On top of that you tend to have much higher populations because a lot of people have been attracted to the area."
This higher population has to survive on ever-dwindling local resources, pushing the standard of living right down again.
Ana Rodrigues of the Centre of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in France, and lead author of the study, said: "The Amazon is globally recognised for its unparalleled natural value, but it is also a very poor region. It is generally assumed that replacing the forest with crops and pastureland is the best approach for fulfilling the region's legitimate aspirations to development. This study tested that assumption. We found although the deforestation frontier does bring initial improvements in income, life expectancy, and literacy, such gains are not sustained."
Greenpeace forests campaigner Sarah Shoraka said the research undermined any arguments that deforestation tackles poverty. "Slashing and burning rainforest to make way for cattle ranches or soya farms is simply not sustainable, because profits are short lived and the big companies simply move elsewhere. Instead we need sustained international funding to protect this massive natural resource, to make trees worth more alive than dead."
Andrew Balmford of the University of Cambridge said that the "current boom-and-bust trajectory of Amazonian development is therefore undesirable in human terms as well as potentially disastrous for other species, and for the world's climate. Reversing this pattern will hinge on capturing the value of intact forests to people outside the Amazon so that local people's livelihoods are better when the forest is left standing than when it is cleared."
This could be achieved in part, he said, by international schemes where rich countries could pay Brazilians to maintain their forests, which would lock up the carbon contained within them in a bid to tackle climate change but also provide locals with an income.
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 19.00 BST
Chopping down the Amazon rainforest to make way for crops or cattle has no economic or social benefit for local people in the long term, according to a major new study.
The finding undercuts the argument that deforestation, which causes 20% of the globe's greenhouse gas emissions, leads to long-term development.
Conservationists showed communities develop rapidly but temporarily when forests are cleared. But rates of development quickly fall back below national average levels when the loggers move on and local resources near depletion.
More than 155,000 square kilometres of Amazonian rainforest in Brazil have been cleared for timber or burned to make way for agricultural land since 2000. Every year, around 1.8m hectares are destroyed — a rate of four football fields every minute. The Amazonian rainforest is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, guarding against climate change by absorbing CO2 and maintaining geochemical cycles.
But some argue that local communities, which are among the poorest in Brazil, should be able to benefit from the local resources by creating farms or logging the trees. To calculate these potential benefits of deforestation for local communities, a team of international scientists analysed the life expectancy, literacy and income of people living in 286 areas around the Brazilian Amazon.
Their results, published today in Science, showed that the quality of life for local communities improved rapidly when a forest first cleared. "The monthly average income started out at 74 Reals per month," said Rob Ewers of the department of life sciences at Imperial College London, a member of the study team. "Then it went up to as much as 196 Reals per month in the middle [of the deforested area] and then to 82 once the resource is gone. Literacy went from 68% at the frontier [of the forest] up to a maximum of 83% then dropped down to 69%."
The researchers said that the cycle occurred because, at first, the newly available natural resources in an area of cleared forest attract investment and infrastructure. New roads can lead to improved access to education, medicine and an increased overall income gives people better living conditions.
But once the timber and other resources dry up, things change. "A lot of the agricultural land is only productive for a few years so once you lose that, you also lose that as a source of income," said Ewers. "On top of that you tend to have much higher populations because a lot of people have been attracted to the area."
This higher population has to survive on ever-dwindling local resources, pushing the standard of living right down again.
Ana Rodrigues of the Centre of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in France, and lead author of the study, said: "The Amazon is globally recognised for its unparalleled natural value, but it is also a very poor region. It is generally assumed that replacing the forest with crops and pastureland is the best approach for fulfilling the region's legitimate aspirations to development. This study tested that assumption. We found although the deforestation frontier does bring initial improvements in income, life expectancy, and literacy, such gains are not sustained."
Greenpeace forests campaigner Sarah Shoraka said the research undermined any arguments that deforestation tackles poverty. "Slashing and burning rainforest to make way for cattle ranches or soya farms is simply not sustainable, because profits are short lived and the big companies simply move elsewhere. Instead we need sustained international funding to protect this massive natural resource, to make trees worth more alive than dead."
Andrew Balmford of the University of Cambridge said that the "current boom-and-bust trajectory of Amazonian development is therefore undesirable in human terms as well as potentially disastrous for other species, and for the world's climate. Reversing this pattern will hinge on capturing the value of intact forests to people outside the Amazon so that local people's livelihoods are better when the forest is left standing than when it is cleared."
This could be achieved in part, he said, by international schemes where rich countries could pay Brazilians to maintain their forests, which would lock up the carbon contained within them in a bid to tackle climate change but also provide locals with an income.
UK beaches set for clean-up following damning report
Government vows to halt deterioration of nation's coastal areas after European report places 25 resorts on dirty list
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 14.08 BST
The government today vowed to boost efforts to clean up the coastline after the latest European beaches report criticised the quality of water at more than two dozen resorts.
The vast majority of the nation's favourite coastal areas meet strict EU bathing water cleanliness standards. But too much rain is being blamed for putting the chic Cornish resort of Rock on the dirty list, as well as Sandgate in Kent and 23 other swimming areas on the country's tourist map. Most of the UK bathing areas needing improvement were in the south-west – Devon and Cornwall – and in Scotland.
"We're working to improve sewerage systems and are aware of the effect heavy rain and flooding can have on our coastal bathing waters" said a government spokesman. "The proposal to make connections to sewers subject to meeting national standards will result in less water reaching sewerage treatment works, and consequently reduce the risk of flooding and pollution to our beaches."
The EU report echoed a survey last month, which recorded a fall in the number of English beaches awarded "blue flags" for cleanliness in 2009. The fall was attributed to the heavy rain and flooding in 2008 and 2007, which washed pollutants into the sea and affected water quality. Earlier this year, the Marine Conservation Society also claimed litter on British beaches had reached record levels, more than doubling in the past 15 years and putting marine life at risk.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says it is currently tackling pollution from agriculture source, including grants to build fences between livestock and watercourses, and advice to farmers on reducing water pollution.
The latest report is based on 2008 water cleanliness tests carried out at more than 21,000 bathing spots around the 27 EU countries. The large majority meet EU hygiene requirements – 96% of the total coastal bathing areas and 92% of bathing sites in rivers and lakes were found to be up to standard.
The commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas said: "High quality bathing water is essential for the well-being of European citizens and the environment – and this goes for all other bodies of water too. I am pleased to see that the overall quality of water in bathing areas is improving throughout the union."
The largest number of coastal bathing waters can be found in Italy, Greece, France, Spain and Denmark, while Germany and France have the highest number of inland bathing waters.
The UK beaches and inland swimming spots failing to meet minimum EU clean water standards in 2008 were:
Northern Ireland
Ballyholme
Scotland
Machrihanish ( Argyll and Bute)
Saltcoats/Ardrossan (North Ayrshire)
Sandyhills (Dumfries and Galloway)
Portobello Central (Edinburgh)
Rosehearty (Aberdeenshire)
Cruden Bay (Aberdeenshire)
Aberdeen
Wales
Llandanwag
South-west
Seaton (Cornwall)
East Looe (Cornwall)
Rock (Cornwall)
Readymoney (Cornwall)
Porthluney (Cornwall)
Plymouth Hoe East (Devon)
Plymouth Hoe West (Devon)
Exmouth (Devon)
Instow (Devon)
Coombe Martin (Devon)
North
Allonby (Cumbria)
St Bees (Cumbria)
Aldingham (Cumbria)
Windermere, Millerground landings (Cumbria)
Yorkshire and Humberside
Staithes (North Yorkshire)
South-east
Sandgate (Kent)
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 June 2009 14.08 BST
The government today vowed to boost efforts to clean up the coastline after the latest European beaches report criticised the quality of water at more than two dozen resorts.
The vast majority of the nation's favourite coastal areas meet strict EU bathing water cleanliness standards. But too much rain is being blamed for putting the chic Cornish resort of Rock on the dirty list, as well as Sandgate in Kent and 23 other swimming areas on the country's tourist map. Most of the UK bathing areas needing improvement were in the south-west – Devon and Cornwall – and in Scotland.
"We're working to improve sewerage systems and are aware of the effect heavy rain and flooding can have on our coastal bathing waters" said a government spokesman. "The proposal to make connections to sewers subject to meeting national standards will result in less water reaching sewerage treatment works, and consequently reduce the risk of flooding and pollution to our beaches."
The EU report echoed a survey last month, which recorded a fall in the number of English beaches awarded "blue flags" for cleanliness in 2009. The fall was attributed to the heavy rain and flooding in 2008 and 2007, which washed pollutants into the sea and affected water quality. Earlier this year, the Marine Conservation Society also claimed litter on British beaches had reached record levels, more than doubling in the past 15 years and putting marine life at risk.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says it is currently tackling pollution from agriculture source, including grants to build fences between livestock and watercourses, and advice to farmers on reducing water pollution.
The latest report is based on 2008 water cleanliness tests carried out at more than 21,000 bathing spots around the 27 EU countries. The large majority meet EU hygiene requirements – 96% of the total coastal bathing areas and 92% of bathing sites in rivers and lakes were found to be up to standard.
The commissioner for the environment, Stavros Dimas said: "High quality bathing water is essential for the well-being of European citizens and the environment – and this goes for all other bodies of water too. I am pleased to see that the overall quality of water in bathing areas is improving throughout the union."
The largest number of coastal bathing waters can be found in Italy, Greece, France, Spain and Denmark, while Germany and France have the highest number of inland bathing waters.
The UK beaches and inland swimming spots failing to meet minimum EU clean water standards in 2008 were:
Northern Ireland
Ballyholme
Scotland
Machrihanish ( Argyll and Bute)
Saltcoats/Ardrossan (North Ayrshire)
Sandyhills (Dumfries and Galloway)
Portobello Central (Edinburgh)
Rosehearty (Aberdeenshire)
Cruden Bay (Aberdeenshire)
Aberdeen
Wales
Llandanwag
South-west
Seaton (Cornwall)
East Looe (Cornwall)
Rock (Cornwall)
Readymoney (Cornwall)
Porthluney (Cornwall)
Plymouth Hoe East (Devon)
Plymouth Hoe West (Devon)
Exmouth (Devon)
Instow (Devon)
Coombe Martin (Devon)
North
Allonby (Cumbria)
St Bees (Cumbria)
Aldingham (Cumbria)
Windermere, Millerground landings (Cumbria)
Yorkshire and Humberside
Staithes (North Yorkshire)
South-east
Sandgate (Kent)
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Biggest emitters fail to show the way forward
Kathrin Hille in Beijing and Edward Luce in Washington
Published: June 10 2009 17:05
China and the US failed to achieve a breakthrough at their latest round of climate talks on Wednesday, raising the stakes in the global effort to fight global climate change.
The two countries responsible for almost half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions ended three days of negotiations in Beijing.
While there are still months to go until the December meeting in Copenhagen, where 181 countries, led by the United Nations, plan to work out a new climate pact, the two biggest emitters’ glacial pace towards compromise is likely to discourage others from making concessions during a pre-Copenhagen round of negotiations under way in Bonn, which is set to wrap up on Friday.
Todd Stern, President Barack Obama’s special envoy on climate change, tried to sound optimistic when the US delegation ended its China visit but could hardly conceal that little had been achieved. Mr Stern, who before leaving for China had said, “Let’s get this damn thing started [between the US and China]”, did his best to paper over the lack of progress. “In our meetings, we deepened our dialogue with our Chinese counterparts through a candid discussion of the challenges we must overcome and the opportunities we must seize if we and the world are to reach an international climate agreement,” the US delegation said in a leaving statement.
“These meetings were a step in the right direction on the road to Copenhagen and to charting a global path to a clean energy future,” the Americans added.
Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a “common but differentiated approach” – code for Beijing’s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere.
“It is going to be really tough to get the Chinese to make significant concessions by Copenhagen,” said Bruce Braine, a board member of the International Emissions Trading Association. “There seems to be a lack of realism in ... the developing world about what the US can achieve at home.”
US lawmakers expressed optimism last month when they toured the Chinese capital for discussions on climate change. But the two countries’ positions on what they could and should contribute show an almost ideological divide which observers say risks antagonising the rest of the world along the lines of developing and developed nations.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: June 10 2009 17:05
China and the US failed to achieve a breakthrough at their latest round of climate talks on Wednesday, raising the stakes in the global effort to fight global climate change.
The two countries responsible for almost half of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions ended three days of negotiations in Beijing.
While there are still months to go until the December meeting in Copenhagen, where 181 countries, led by the United Nations, plan to work out a new climate pact, the two biggest emitters’ glacial pace towards compromise is likely to discourage others from making concessions during a pre-Copenhagen round of negotiations under way in Bonn, which is set to wrap up on Friday.
Todd Stern, President Barack Obama’s special envoy on climate change, tried to sound optimistic when the US delegation ended its China visit but could hardly conceal that little had been achieved. Mr Stern, who before leaving for China had said, “Let’s get this damn thing started [between the US and China]”, did his best to paper over the lack of progress. “In our meetings, we deepened our dialogue with our Chinese counterparts through a candid discussion of the challenges we must overcome and the opportunities we must seize if we and the world are to reach an international climate agreement,” the US delegation said in a leaving statement.
“These meetings were a step in the right direction on the road to Copenhagen and to charting a global path to a clean energy future,” the Americans added.
Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a “common but differentiated approach” – code for Beijing’s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere.
“It is going to be really tough to get the Chinese to make significant concessions by Copenhagen,” said Bruce Braine, a board member of the International Emissions Trading Association. “There seems to be a lack of realism in ... the developing world about what the US can achieve at home.”
US lawmakers expressed optimism last month when they toured the Chinese capital for discussions on climate change. But the two countries’ positions on what they could and should contribute show an almost ideological divide which observers say risks antagonising the rest of the world along the lines of developing and developed nations.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Japan goes green with £100bn economic recovery
• Boost for electric cars and solar power • Analysts say Kyoto target may still not be met
Justin McCurry in Tokyo and Julia Kollewe
The Guardian, Friday 10 April 2009
Japan today announced a ¥15tn (£102bn) stimulus package that focuses on boosting the green economy in an attempt to drag the country out of its worst recession since the second world war.
The total is a substantial increase from the £68bn package announced by the prime minister, Taro Aso, on Monday, and is likely to top ¥56tn when other measures such as tax cuts and credit guarantees are included.
Announcing the stimulus plan in a televised speech, Aso said: "Japan's economy is worsening rapidly with exports and production tumbling. Job conditions are also deteriorating sharply. Japan's economy can be described as being in a crisis."
In addition to pledging more loans for hard-pressed small businesses and cash for job creation, it will also encourage the start of mass production of electric cars in three years and boost solar power generation to 20 times the current level of 1.42m kilowatts.
"I want to show that Japan's future is not all that dark if we follow this vision," Aso said. "If you just read the newspapers, it seems like tomorrow will be completely gloomy. But this is not the case. There is some light."
The stimulus package also includes a car scrappage scheme similar to the "cash for clunkers" programme being debated in the US Congress.
Motorists will be eligible for between ¥100,000 and ¥250,000 in subsidies if they trade in cars that are more than 13 years old for a hybrid or other environment-friendly vehicle.
Though details have yet to be released, the measures could result in new car sales of between 450,000 to 1.51m, according to the Dai-ichi Life Research Institute.
Together with the introduction of lower taxes on clean-energy cars, consumers replacing an old vehicle for, say, a new Toyota Prius hybrid could make savings of about US$4,000.
The news prompted a stockmarket rally and sent the Nikkei index in Tokyo soaring by 3.7% to 8916.06. Shares in Toyota, maker of the Prius hybrid, rose 4.3%, while those of Sharp, the world's second-largest maker of solar cells, surged 10.7%.
However, analysts said that if the latest stimulus works, the resulting boost in demand for carbon-fuelled electricity could negate any advances made by the wider use of green cars.
The country is only just beginning to address its poor track record on green spending. While industry, the biggest polluter, has been left to aim for voluntary targets, the onus is now on individual householders and businesses to spearhead Japan's version of the Green New Deal.
Until now Japan has set aside only 2.6% of total spending for climate change measures, compared with 12% in the US and 34% in China, an HSBC report said.
Some analysts doubted that the envisaged shift to fuel-efficient cars would have much of an impact on Japan's attempts to meet its Kyoto protocol targets. The country's greenhouse gas emissions rose 2.3% last year, putting them at 16% above the target it has committed itself to achieving by 2013.
"I don't think the stimulus will make any notable contribution to Japan's emission cuts," said Itsuho Haruta of Natsource Japan, adding that the package would make only a tiny contribution to the fall in emissions expected as a result of plunging industrial output.
The government also plans to revive the use of solar energy by expanding a scheme in which power companies - traditionally reluctant to boost their use of renewables - will buy more surplus energy generated by households equipped with solar panels.
It will also set up solar power generators at 37,000 schools and introduce heat-insulating materials and other energy-saving measures in 3m buildings over the next three years.
The measures - which are equivalent to 3% of the country's GDP - were approved by the ruling Liberal Democratic party's executive council. The government is expected to approve the proposals today.
Officials have not said where they would find the extra money, though Aso recently said he would turn to issuing bonds if needed.
Last month, Japan's parliament passed a record ¥88.5tn budget for the new fiscal year, which started on 1 April, including parts of Aso's two previous stimulus packages.
Justin McCurry in Tokyo and Julia Kollewe
The Guardian, Friday 10 April 2009
Japan today announced a ¥15tn (£102bn) stimulus package that focuses on boosting the green economy in an attempt to drag the country out of its worst recession since the second world war.
The total is a substantial increase from the £68bn package announced by the prime minister, Taro Aso, on Monday, and is likely to top ¥56tn when other measures such as tax cuts and credit guarantees are included.
Announcing the stimulus plan in a televised speech, Aso said: "Japan's economy is worsening rapidly with exports and production tumbling. Job conditions are also deteriorating sharply. Japan's economy can be described as being in a crisis."
In addition to pledging more loans for hard-pressed small businesses and cash for job creation, it will also encourage the start of mass production of electric cars in three years and boost solar power generation to 20 times the current level of 1.42m kilowatts.
"I want to show that Japan's future is not all that dark if we follow this vision," Aso said. "If you just read the newspapers, it seems like tomorrow will be completely gloomy. But this is not the case. There is some light."
The stimulus package also includes a car scrappage scheme similar to the "cash for clunkers" programme being debated in the US Congress.
Motorists will be eligible for between ¥100,000 and ¥250,000 in subsidies if they trade in cars that are more than 13 years old for a hybrid or other environment-friendly vehicle.
Though details have yet to be released, the measures could result in new car sales of between 450,000 to 1.51m, according to the Dai-ichi Life Research Institute.
Together with the introduction of lower taxes on clean-energy cars, consumers replacing an old vehicle for, say, a new Toyota Prius hybrid could make savings of about US$4,000.
The news prompted a stockmarket rally and sent the Nikkei index in Tokyo soaring by 3.7% to 8916.06. Shares in Toyota, maker of the Prius hybrid, rose 4.3%, while those of Sharp, the world's second-largest maker of solar cells, surged 10.7%.
However, analysts said that if the latest stimulus works, the resulting boost in demand for carbon-fuelled electricity could negate any advances made by the wider use of green cars.
The country is only just beginning to address its poor track record on green spending. While industry, the biggest polluter, has been left to aim for voluntary targets, the onus is now on individual householders and businesses to spearhead Japan's version of the Green New Deal.
Until now Japan has set aside only 2.6% of total spending for climate change measures, compared with 12% in the US and 34% in China, an HSBC report said.
Some analysts doubted that the envisaged shift to fuel-efficient cars would have much of an impact on Japan's attempts to meet its Kyoto protocol targets. The country's greenhouse gas emissions rose 2.3% last year, putting them at 16% above the target it has committed itself to achieving by 2013.
"I don't think the stimulus will make any notable contribution to Japan's emission cuts," said Itsuho Haruta of Natsource Japan, adding that the package would make only a tiny contribution to the fall in emissions expected as a result of plunging industrial output.
The government also plans to revive the use of solar energy by expanding a scheme in which power companies - traditionally reluctant to boost their use of renewables - will buy more surplus energy generated by households equipped with solar panels.
It will also set up solar power generators at 37,000 schools and introduce heat-insulating materials and other energy-saving measures in 3m buildings over the next three years.
The measures - which are equivalent to 3% of the country's GDP - were approved by the ruling Liberal Democratic party's executive council. The government is expected to approve the proposals today.
Officials have not said where they would find the extra money, though Aso recently said he would turn to issuing bonds if needed.
Last month, Japan's parliament passed a record ¥88.5tn budget for the new fiscal year, which started on 1 April, including parts of Aso's two previous stimulus packages.
Japan's 15% target to cut emissions condemned as 'disaster'
Target is 'weakest any country has pledged so far' and threatens agreement in Copenhagen, say critics
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 June 2009 16.15 BST
Japan's target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2020 was immediately condemned by environmentalists as "appalling" and unambitious after it was announced today. The Japanese government defended the target as comparable to European efforts because it does not permit offset schemes such as carbon trading, which allow cuts to be bought from other countries.
Taro Aso, Japan's prime minister, announced the target in Tokyo while UN talks on a draft climate agreement are continuing in Bonn. The talks, which finish on Friday, aim to lay foundations for a a meeting in Copenhagen in December when a new global treaty on global warming to succeed the Kyoto protocol will be agreed.
Observers said Japan's target was only slightly more ambitious than already required under Kyoto - a cut of 6% on 1990 levels by 2012. Japan's emissions have actually risen 7% since 1990. Its new 15% reduction commitment uses a 2005 baseline, equating to a 8% cut on 1990 levels by 2020.
Japan will have to do more to help keep global warming below dangerous levels, said the European environment commissioner Stavros Dimas: "The EU believes that we must be fundamentally guided by science."
Japan's target represents "the weakest target any country has pledged so far", said Kristian Tangen, at analysts Point Carbon
The UN climate panel says developed countries should reduce their emissions by 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to keep temperature increases to within 2C of pre-industrial temperatures.
Paul Cook, director of advocacy at development charity Tearfund, said: "This is a disaster. The level of ambition among developed countries is already incredibly weak – way below the 40% emissions reductions needed. . Japan's decision risks creating a race to the bottom among other developed countries looking for an excuse to evade tough targets."
The group said Japan's decision would make it difficult for EU countries to increase their target of a 20% reduction by 2020 to 30% – which they say they will only do if other developed countries make a similar effort to cut emissions.
The Obama administration has talked of cutting emissions by 17% on 2005 levels by 2020, about 4% relative to 1990 levels. But the target has yet to be approved and may be weakened to help it pass into law.
Cook said: "It is difficult to see how a fair, science-based deal can be achieved [at] Copenhagen if developed countries so utterly fail to do what is necessary to prevent a catastrophe for poor people and for the planet. Japan should be condemned for its failure of leadership and ambition."
Japan argues its target is ambitious given that its economy is already relatively energy and carbon efficient. It already has made a long-term pledge to cut emissions 60-80% by 2050.
Kim Carstensen of WWF said: "It is true that Japan's energy efficiency improved in the 1980s, during the oil crisis. Unfortunately, since 1990 most of the sector's energy efficiency either stagnated or declined."
Hidefumi Kurasaka, professor of environmental policies at Chiba University, Japan, said: "The target is not strong enough to convince developing nations to sign up for a new climate change pact. Japan's population is falling, so that means it has an advantage over the United States. The fact that Japan can commit to only an 8% cut from 1990 levels, even as its population falls, will lead to doubts over its seriousness to fight climate change."
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 June 2009 16.15 BST
Japan's target to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2020 was immediately condemned by environmentalists as "appalling" and unambitious after it was announced today. The Japanese government defended the target as comparable to European efforts because it does not permit offset schemes such as carbon trading, which allow cuts to be bought from other countries.
Taro Aso, Japan's prime minister, announced the target in Tokyo while UN talks on a draft climate agreement are continuing in Bonn. The talks, which finish on Friday, aim to lay foundations for a a meeting in Copenhagen in December when a new global treaty on global warming to succeed the Kyoto protocol will be agreed.
Observers said Japan's target was only slightly more ambitious than already required under Kyoto - a cut of 6% on 1990 levels by 2012. Japan's emissions have actually risen 7% since 1990. Its new 15% reduction commitment uses a 2005 baseline, equating to a 8% cut on 1990 levels by 2020.
Japan will have to do more to help keep global warming below dangerous levels, said the European environment commissioner Stavros Dimas: "The EU believes that we must be fundamentally guided by science."
Japan's target represents "the weakest target any country has pledged so far", said Kristian Tangen, at analysts Point Carbon
The UN climate panel says developed countries should reduce their emissions by 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 to keep temperature increases to within 2C of pre-industrial temperatures.
Paul Cook, director of advocacy at development charity Tearfund, said: "This is a disaster. The level of ambition among developed countries is already incredibly weak – way below the 40% emissions reductions needed. . Japan's decision risks creating a race to the bottom among other developed countries looking for an excuse to evade tough targets."
The group said Japan's decision would make it difficult for EU countries to increase their target of a 20% reduction by 2020 to 30% – which they say they will only do if other developed countries make a similar effort to cut emissions.
The Obama administration has talked of cutting emissions by 17% on 2005 levels by 2020, about 4% relative to 1990 levels. But the target has yet to be approved and may be weakened to help it pass into law.
Cook said: "It is difficult to see how a fair, science-based deal can be achieved [at] Copenhagen if developed countries so utterly fail to do what is necessary to prevent a catastrophe for poor people and for the planet. Japan should be condemned for its failure of leadership and ambition."
Japan argues its target is ambitious given that its economy is already relatively energy and carbon efficient. It already has made a long-term pledge to cut emissions 60-80% by 2050.
Kim Carstensen of WWF said: "It is true that Japan's energy efficiency improved in the 1980s, during the oil crisis. Unfortunately, since 1990 most of the sector's energy efficiency either stagnated or declined."
Hidefumi Kurasaka, professor of environmental policies at Chiba University, Japan, said: "The target is not strong enough to convince developing nations to sign up for a new climate change pact. Japan's population is falling, so that means it has an advantage over the United States. The fact that Japan can commit to only an 8% cut from 1990 levels, even as its population falls, will lead to doubts over its seriousness to fight climate change."
China and the environment: Red, green - and black
Editorial
The Guardian, Thursday 11 June 2009
Visiting China a couple of years ago, the American journalist Thomas Friedman conceded that, when it came to climate change, his hosts had a point. Yes, the west had grown rich using dirty old coal and oil, and the Chinese had the right to do the same. "Take your time!" he told a conference in Tianjin. "Because I think my country needs ... five years to invent all the clean power and energy efficiency tools that you, China, will need to avoid choking on pollution and then we are going to come over and sell them ... to you." It took a few moments for his words to be translated and land in delegates' headphones - and for the ripple of consternation to spread around the hall.
Two years on, Mr Friedman's lesson - that clean energy can be profitable rather than a costly drag - has not only been learned by the Chinese; now Beijing is intent on writing the rest of the textbook. Just look at yesterday's Guardian report on China's plans to ramp up wind and solar power, so that they meet 20% of its energy needs by 2020. That is already a big advance in Beijing's goals - and it is poised to go even further. There are reports it will spend up to $600bn on clean power over the next decade - or the equivalent of its entire military budget every year for each of the next 10 years.
Sums like that certainly put western chatter about green new deals in perspective. Indeed, China's 20% goal matches European targets, which EU members such as Britain are struggling to meet. And while Beijing's announcement may put Europe's governments on their mettle, there is more to this clean stimulus than a challenge for environmental leadership. China is dependent on imported fuel, it can see the business opportunities from developing green technology (it is already the world's leading manufacturer of photovoltaic panels, which turn sunlight into electricity) - and Beijing needs to go into this December's negotiations on a successor treaty to Kyoto with something to deflect the charges that it is some kind of climate criminal. Instead, China will be able to cast itself as a green leader.
There is only one snag. Green optimists such as Thomas Friedman yoke energy security with the green agenda; Beijing is effectively decoupling the two. However much it may trumpet its green initiatives, China is still the world's biggest user of coal and the largest emitter of carbon. Neither of those two things look likely to change. Beijing has yet to accept any target for reducing carbon emissions. The US Congress looks as if it will accept only a small one. The two countries that are central to December's negotiations in Copenhagen will be able to show much progress and good faith - but painful, binding targets? Do not bet on it.
The Guardian, Thursday 11 June 2009
Visiting China a couple of years ago, the American journalist Thomas Friedman conceded that, when it came to climate change, his hosts had a point. Yes, the west had grown rich using dirty old coal and oil, and the Chinese had the right to do the same. "Take your time!" he told a conference in Tianjin. "Because I think my country needs ... five years to invent all the clean power and energy efficiency tools that you, China, will need to avoid choking on pollution and then we are going to come over and sell them ... to you." It took a few moments for his words to be translated and land in delegates' headphones - and for the ripple of consternation to spread around the hall.
Two years on, Mr Friedman's lesson - that clean energy can be profitable rather than a costly drag - has not only been learned by the Chinese; now Beijing is intent on writing the rest of the textbook. Just look at yesterday's Guardian report on China's plans to ramp up wind and solar power, so that they meet 20% of its energy needs by 2020. That is already a big advance in Beijing's goals - and it is poised to go even further. There are reports it will spend up to $600bn on clean power over the next decade - or the equivalent of its entire military budget every year for each of the next 10 years.
Sums like that certainly put western chatter about green new deals in perspective. Indeed, China's 20% goal matches European targets, which EU members such as Britain are struggling to meet. And while Beijing's announcement may put Europe's governments on their mettle, there is more to this clean stimulus than a challenge for environmental leadership. China is dependent on imported fuel, it can see the business opportunities from developing green technology (it is already the world's leading manufacturer of photovoltaic panels, which turn sunlight into electricity) - and Beijing needs to go into this December's negotiations on a successor treaty to Kyoto with something to deflect the charges that it is some kind of climate criminal. Instead, China will be able to cast itself as a green leader.
There is only one snag. Green optimists such as Thomas Friedman yoke energy security with the green agenda; Beijing is effectively decoupling the two. However much it may trumpet its green initiatives, China is still the world's biggest user of coal and the largest emitter of carbon. Neither of those two things look likely to change. Beijing has yet to accept any target for reducing carbon emissions. The US Congress looks as if it will accept only a small one. The two countries that are central to December's negotiations in Copenhagen will be able to show much progress and good faith - but painful, binding targets? Do not bet on it.
China leads escalation of coal consumption
High prices and environmental impact fail to stop coal use growing faster than other traditional energy sources
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 June 2009 14.05 BST
Coal consumption is continuing to grow more quickly than other traditional sources despite high prices and the dangerous impact it will have on carbon emissions, new statistics released by oil giant BP show.
China, which has been trumpeting its new wind and solar goals in recent days, led the way with a near 7% increase in the amount of coal it burned during 2008 despite average prices rising 73% to $150 (£129) per tonne. This accounts for 43% of global coal use.
Worldwide coal consumption rose by 3.1% to 3.3bn tonnes of oil equivalent last year while gas use rose by 2.5% and oil use fell very slightly, according to the BP statistical review of world energy.
"For a sixth consecutive year, coal was the fastest-growing fuel - with obvious implications for global carbon dioxide emissions," said Tony Hayward , the BP chief executive.
Crude consumption dropped 0.6% to 81.8m barrels a day last year but prices of crude have soared in 2009 to more than $70 per barrel amid expectations that demand will pick up as a result of a bounceback in economic activity. Hayward said he could see prices rising to $90 while Alexei Miller, chairman of Russia's Gazprom, predicted they could go as high as $250.
Despite the 2008 rise in coal consumption, the BP data showed growth in the use of the fuel continued to decline compared with 2007 when it had risen by 5% and five years ago when it had gone up by 8%.
Coal consumption in the European Union fell by 5.4% to 301m tonnes in 2008, pushed lower by rising carbon emissions prices and a drop in industrial production caused by recession.
The BP statistics show global wind grew by 30% and solar capacity rose 70% in 2008 but the oil company says this is coming from a very low base and still accounts for a relatively tiny part of total world energy consumption – 1.5% of electricity generation.
The growing use of coal will alarm environmentalists and increase the calls for companies and governments to speed up trials on "clean coal" technology and the use of carbon capture and storage.
China has promised to increase its use of renewables: Zhang Xiaoqiang, the vice chairman of the China's national development and reform commission, says the country may produce as much as 20% of all energy needs from wind and solar by 2020.
Hayward said the current price range for oil was convenient because it would support investment in new supply without destroying demand. "There is a rational argument to say that somewhere between $60 to $90 a barrel is the right sort of level," he said.
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 June 2009 14.05 BST
Coal consumption is continuing to grow more quickly than other traditional sources despite high prices and the dangerous impact it will have on carbon emissions, new statistics released by oil giant BP show.
China, which has been trumpeting its new wind and solar goals in recent days, led the way with a near 7% increase in the amount of coal it burned during 2008 despite average prices rising 73% to $150 (£129) per tonne. This accounts for 43% of global coal use.
Worldwide coal consumption rose by 3.1% to 3.3bn tonnes of oil equivalent last year while gas use rose by 2.5% and oil use fell very slightly, according to the BP statistical review of world energy.
"For a sixth consecutive year, coal was the fastest-growing fuel - with obvious implications for global carbon dioxide emissions," said Tony Hayward , the BP chief executive.
Crude consumption dropped 0.6% to 81.8m barrels a day last year but prices of crude have soared in 2009 to more than $70 per barrel amid expectations that demand will pick up as a result of a bounceback in economic activity. Hayward said he could see prices rising to $90 while Alexei Miller, chairman of Russia's Gazprom, predicted they could go as high as $250.
Despite the 2008 rise in coal consumption, the BP data showed growth in the use of the fuel continued to decline compared with 2007 when it had risen by 5% and five years ago when it had gone up by 8%.
Coal consumption in the European Union fell by 5.4% to 301m tonnes in 2008, pushed lower by rising carbon emissions prices and a drop in industrial production caused by recession.
The BP statistics show global wind grew by 30% and solar capacity rose 70% in 2008 but the oil company says this is coming from a very low base and still accounts for a relatively tiny part of total world energy consumption – 1.5% of electricity generation.
The growing use of coal will alarm environmentalists and increase the calls for companies and governments to speed up trials on "clean coal" technology and the use of carbon capture and storage.
China has promised to increase its use of renewables: Zhang Xiaoqiang, the vice chairman of the China's national development and reform commission, says the country may produce as much as 20% of all energy needs from wind and solar by 2020.
Hayward said the current price range for oil was convenient because it would support investment in new supply without destroying demand. "There is a rational argument to say that somewhere between $60 to $90 a barrel is the right sort of level," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
