Published: June 28 2009 18:12
The US House of Representatives has passed a bill to limit greenhouse gases. The White House lobbied hard for it: “A bold and necessary step,” said Barack Obama. Many hailed its passage as a triumph. In fact there is little to celebrate.
Recall that cap-and-trade was expected only recently to pass in the House without difficulty. It scraped through by 219 votes to 212, with 44 Democrats voting against. Opposition to cap-and-trade in the Senate is stronger, so the chances of this bill or anything like it becoming law look slim.
To make matters worse, the bill makes political compromises that undermine its effectiveness. Even so it passed by just seven votes. What this says about the prospects of a more forceful measure – one that dares to confront consumers with significantly higher energy costs – is discouraging.
To curb climate change, the world needs to cut carbon emissions. It needs US leadership on the issue too. But this bill is not the way. A bewildering combination of cap-and-trade, mandates, new regulation, and every kind of open and disguised subsidy, it is too complicated, too prone to subversion and in many ways downright self-defeating.
To soften its impact, the House first adopted undemanding targets for emissions. Debate made them milder still. Instead of auctioning emissions permits, the bill would give nearly all of them away, so the measure does little to raise needed revenue. Permits will be handed to electricity producers on condition that the windfall be passed to consumers, many of whom would see their electricity bills fall as a result.
Learning nothing from Europe’s experience, the bill relies heavily on offsets, which let companies pay someone else to plant trees or cut emissions, so they do not have to. The still-unsolved problem is policing the system to ensure the offsets are real. The bill gives oversight of domestic offsets in farming to the Department of Agriculture – good news for farmers seeking a new trough of subsidy. To defend US competitiveness, it proposes subsidies for exporters and penalties on importers. In principle, cap-and-trade does require border adjustments, but the bill is careless and creates a gateway for protectionism.
In short, it is a mess. The key to a better plan is understanding that you cannot cut carbon without making carbon-based fuels more expensive – an obvious point, you would think. But it is one that US policymakers still cannot face.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Monday, 29 June 2009
Eon chief promotes EU-wide energy policy
German energy provider's CEO says more lateral thinking would benefit all
By Sarah Arnott
Monday, 29 June 2009
The German energy company Eon is calling for a common European energy policy to ensure secure, climate-friendly and economically viable power supplies.
The energy sector is in challenging times. It is simultaneously required to meet carbon reduction targets while funding expensive, often untried, infrastructure such as offshore wind farms, and meeting ever-growing demands for power without an over-reliance on foreign gas.
The mish-mash of subsidies, regulations and targets across Europe is a major barrier to progress, says Wulf Bernotat, Eon's chief executive.
"We need not have 27 separate systems," he said. "We are a union and we need an EU system that functions at an EU level." Part of the problem is to make renewables economically viable. In Europe alone, the target for 900 gigawatts (GW) of wind power by 2020 will require 300,000 new turbines and more than €1trillion (£852bn) of investment. Structural changes are also needed, in transmission grids and storage capacity, and also in political and financial structures such as the emissions trading system. The development of carbon capture and storage technology faces similar issues, requiring a region-wide policy; as do decisions on which mix of sources – renewable, gas, coal or nuclear – will best ensure a secure and affordable supply. Politically, the prognosis for a common energy policy is not good. The attempt to give the European Commission the necessary power structure was felled with the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.
"A number of senior politicians realise it would be an advantage, especially for security of supply," Dr Bernotat said. "But a number of countries, including the UK, are not keen to give up authority."
But all is not lost. Interconnecting infrastructure is creating a common market where power is traded across national boundaries, bringing wholesale prices broadly into line in Germany, France, Benelux and Switzerland. These market forces may be strong enough to force politicians' hands. "A common energy policy might happen anyway, formed by market forces that will effectively engineer the political reality," Dr Bernotat said.
In the meantime, international progress on climate change is likely to be slow. Even with the new US administration, expectations of progress at the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen in December remain muted.
"The best realistic expectation for Copenhagen is that the US starts to define targets for [its] carbon emission reductions. But I expect it to be modest," Dr Bernotat added.
By Sarah Arnott
Monday, 29 June 2009
The German energy company Eon is calling for a common European energy policy to ensure secure, climate-friendly and economically viable power supplies.
The energy sector is in challenging times. It is simultaneously required to meet carbon reduction targets while funding expensive, often untried, infrastructure such as offshore wind farms, and meeting ever-growing demands for power without an over-reliance on foreign gas.
The mish-mash of subsidies, regulations and targets across Europe is a major barrier to progress, says Wulf Bernotat, Eon's chief executive.
"We need not have 27 separate systems," he said. "We are a union and we need an EU system that functions at an EU level." Part of the problem is to make renewables economically viable. In Europe alone, the target for 900 gigawatts (GW) of wind power by 2020 will require 300,000 new turbines and more than €1trillion (£852bn) of investment. Structural changes are also needed, in transmission grids and storage capacity, and also in political and financial structures such as the emissions trading system. The development of carbon capture and storage technology faces similar issues, requiring a region-wide policy; as do decisions on which mix of sources – renewable, gas, coal or nuclear – will best ensure a secure and affordable supply. Politically, the prognosis for a common energy policy is not good. The attempt to give the European Commission the necessary power structure was felled with the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.
"A number of senior politicians realise it would be an advantage, especially for security of supply," Dr Bernotat said. "But a number of countries, including the UK, are not keen to give up authority."
But all is not lost. Interconnecting infrastructure is creating a common market where power is traded across national boundaries, bringing wholesale prices broadly into line in Germany, France, Benelux and Switzerland. These market forces may be strong enough to force politicians' hands. "A common energy policy might happen anyway, formed by market forces that will effectively engineer the political reality," Dr Bernotat said.
In the meantime, international progress on climate change is likely to be slow. Even with the new US administration, expectations of progress at the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen in December remain muted.
"The best realistic expectation for Copenhagen is that the US starts to define targets for [its] carbon emission reductions. But I expect it to be modest," Dr Bernotat added.
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
Write to kim@wsj.com
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
Write to kim@wsj.com
China recruits algae to combat climate change
Chinese firm behind ambitious plan to breed microalgae in greenhouse with the potential to absorb carbon emissions
Jonathan Watts in Langfang
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 June 2009 16.32 BST
The garish gunk coursing through a greenhouse filled with transparent pipes appears to belong on the set of a particularly slimy episode of Star Trek.
Multiplying rapidly as it flows through tubes, stacked 14 high in four long rows, the organism thickens and darkens like the bioweapon of a deranged scientist.
But this is not a science fiction horror story, it is one of humankind's most ambitious attempts to recruit algae in the fight against climate change.
Developed by a groundbreaking Chinese firm, ENN, the greenhouse is a bioreactor that breeds microalgae, one of the fastest growing organisms on the planet, with carbon captured from gasified coal.
China is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely because it relies on coal for 70 per cent of its power. Almost none of the carbon dioxide is captured, partly because there is no profitable way of using it.
Algae may be the answer. The organism can absorb carbon far more quickly than trees, a quality that has long attracted international scientists seeking a natural method of capturing the most abundant greenhouse gas.
At ENN's research campus in Langfang, an hour's drive from Beijing, scientists are testing microalgae to clean up the back-end of a uniquely integrated process to extract and use coal more efficiently and cleanly than is possible today.
Coal is first gasified in a simulated underground environment. The carbon dioxide is extracted with the help of solar and wind power, then "fed" to algae, which can be then used to make biofuel, fertiliser or animal feed.
Foreign experts are enthusiastic. "Algae biofuels and sequestration are being tried in a bunch of places, but never with such an innovative energy mix," said Deborah Seligsohn, of the World Resources Institute, who visited ENN recently with a group of international energy executives. "It is really interesting and ambitious."
Researchers at the algae greenhouse plan to scale up the trial to a 100 hectare (247 acre) site over the next three years. If it proves commercially feasible, coal plants around the world could one day be flanked by carbon-cleaning algae greenhouses or ponds.
"Algae's promise is that its population can double every few hours. It makes far more efficient use of sunlight than plants," said Zhu Zhenqi, a senior advisor on the project. "The biology has been proven in the lab. The challenge now is an engineering one: We need to increase production and reduce cost. If we can solve this challenge, we can deal with carbon."
The algae must be harvested every day. Extracting the oily components and removing the water is expensive and energy intensive.
ENN is experimenting with different algae to find a hybrid that has an ideal balance of oil content and growth speed. It is testing cultivation techniques using varying temperatures and acidity levels.
Algae tests are also being carried out at the University of Ohio. In Japan, algae is farmed at sea where it absorbs carbon from the air. Elsewhere carbon is sprayed or bubbled into algae ponds. But ENN is focusing on a direct approach.
"Here we can control it, like in a reactor," said Gu Junjie, a senior advisor. "Theoretically we can absorb 100% of carbon dioxide emissions through a mix of microalgae and chemical fixing with hydrogen."
This might work on a large scale in the northern deserts of Inner Mongolia, where land is cheap, plentiful and in need of fertiliser. But elsewhere, application may be limited because of the large areas of land or water needed for cultivation.
"Algae is not likely to be the main solution for the carbon problem because of the amount of CO2 that needs to be consumed," said Ming Sung, Chief Representative for Asia Pacific of Clean Air Task Force. But, he said: "Algae is part of the solution and is closer to what nature intends. Being one of the simplest forms of life, all it takes is light and CO2 in salt water,"
The advanced algae, solar and coal gasification technology is the latest stage in the rise of ENN, which has been spectacular even by modern Chinese standards. Founded in 1989 as a small taxi company, it has branched successfully into the natural gas industry and now into the field of renewable energy. The private company now employs about 20,000 people, and owns a golf course and hotel near its headquarters in Hebei province, where a new research campus is under construction.
In the short term, ENN's advanced underground coal gasification technology is likely to prove more significant than its algae work. This technique enables extraction of fuel from small, difficult-to-access coal seams, and could double the world's current coal reserves. It also avoids the release of the pollutants sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
The company is also one of only a small handful in the world capable of mass producing thin-film solar panels, which can be manufactured with less water and energy than conventional photovoltaic materials. Late last year, the World Bank's International Financing Corporation announced a US$136m loan for ENN's solar business.
ENN executives have talked to the US department of energy about joint research , a sign that the transfer of low-carbon technologies is no longer a one-way street from west to east.
The development of the algae technology trails the others, but Zhu says the results from the 10,000 litre algae greenhouse have been sufficiently encouraging to move ahead.
For the 100 hectare test facility, ENN is looking at sites near the company's 600,000 tonne-a-year coal mine in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, where the cold winters will require a heated greenhouse, and a location on Hainan Island, where the hot weather would allow the algae to be grown more cheaply in open ponds, but further away from China's main coal deposits.
With China building the equivalent of more than one new 500MW coal-fired plant every week and likely to be dependent on coal for at least two decades, the further studies planned by ENN could be crucial.
Recognising the continued role of the fossil fuel in China, the European Commission proposed a plan this week to co-finance a demonstration coal plant that aims to have near zero emissions through the use of carbon capture and storage technology.
If members states and the European parliament agree on the €50m plan, the facility would be operational by 2020.
Jonathan Watts in Langfang
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 June 2009 16.32 BST
The garish gunk coursing through a greenhouse filled with transparent pipes appears to belong on the set of a particularly slimy episode of Star Trek.
Multiplying rapidly as it flows through tubes, stacked 14 high in four long rows, the organism thickens and darkens like the bioweapon of a deranged scientist.
But this is not a science fiction horror story, it is one of humankind's most ambitious attempts to recruit algae in the fight against climate change.
Developed by a groundbreaking Chinese firm, ENN, the greenhouse is a bioreactor that breeds microalgae, one of the fastest growing organisms on the planet, with carbon captured from gasified coal.
China is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely because it relies on coal for 70 per cent of its power. Almost none of the carbon dioxide is captured, partly because there is no profitable way of using it.
Algae may be the answer. The organism can absorb carbon far more quickly than trees, a quality that has long attracted international scientists seeking a natural method of capturing the most abundant greenhouse gas.
At ENN's research campus in Langfang, an hour's drive from Beijing, scientists are testing microalgae to clean up the back-end of a uniquely integrated process to extract and use coal more efficiently and cleanly than is possible today.
Coal is first gasified in a simulated underground environment. The carbon dioxide is extracted with the help of solar and wind power, then "fed" to algae, which can be then used to make biofuel, fertiliser or animal feed.
Foreign experts are enthusiastic. "Algae biofuels and sequestration are being tried in a bunch of places, but never with such an innovative energy mix," said Deborah Seligsohn, of the World Resources Institute, who visited ENN recently with a group of international energy executives. "It is really interesting and ambitious."
Researchers at the algae greenhouse plan to scale up the trial to a 100 hectare (247 acre) site over the next three years. If it proves commercially feasible, coal plants around the world could one day be flanked by carbon-cleaning algae greenhouses or ponds.
"Algae's promise is that its population can double every few hours. It makes far more efficient use of sunlight than plants," said Zhu Zhenqi, a senior advisor on the project. "The biology has been proven in the lab. The challenge now is an engineering one: We need to increase production and reduce cost. If we can solve this challenge, we can deal with carbon."
The algae must be harvested every day. Extracting the oily components and removing the water is expensive and energy intensive.
ENN is experimenting with different algae to find a hybrid that has an ideal balance of oil content and growth speed. It is testing cultivation techniques using varying temperatures and acidity levels.
Algae tests are also being carried out at the University of Ohio. In Japan, algae is farmed at sea where it absorbs carbon from the air. Elsewhere carbon is sprayed or bubbled into algae ponds. But ENN is focusing on a direct approach.
"Here we can control it, like in a reactor," said Gu Junjie, a senior advisor. "Theoretically we can absorb 100% of carbon dioxide emissions through a mix of microalgae and chemical fixing with hydrogen."
This might work on a large scale in the northern deserts of Inner Mongolia, where land is cheap, plentiful and in need of fertiliser. But elsewhere, application may be limited because of the large areas of land or water needed for cultivation.
"Algae is not likely to be the main solution for the carbon problem because of the amount of CO2 that needs to be consumed," said Ming Sung, Chief Representative for Asia Pacific of Clean Air Task Force. But, he said: "Algae is part of the solution and is closer to what nature intends. Being one of the simplest forms of life, all it takes is light and CO2 in salt water,"
The advanced algae, solar and coal gasification technology is the latest stage in the rise of ENN, which has been spectacular even by modern Chinese standards. Founded in 1989 as a small taxi company, it has branched successfully into the natural gas industry and now into the field of renewable energy. The private company now employs about 20,000 people, and owns a golf course and hotel near its headquarters in Hebei province, where a new research campus is under construction.
In the short term, ENN's advanced underground coal gasification technology is likely to prove more significant than its algae work. This technique enables extraction of fuel from small, difficult-to-access coal seams, and could double the world's current coal reserves. It also avoids the release of the pollutants sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.
The company is also one of only a small handful in the world capable of mass producing thin-film solar panels, which can be manufactured with less water and energy than conventional photovoltaic materials. Late last year, the World Bank's International Financing Corporation announced a US$136m loan for ENN's solar business.
ENN executives have talked to the US department of energy about joint research , a sign that the transfer of low-carbon technologies is no longer a one-way street from west to east.
The development of the algae technology trails the others, but Zhu says the results from the 10,000 litre algae greenhouse have been sufficiently encouraging to move ahead.
For the 100 hectare test facility, ENN is looking at sites near the company's 600,000 tonne-a-year coal mine in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, where the cold winters will require a heated greenhouse, and a location on Hainan Island, where the hot weather would allow the algae to be grown more cheaply in open ponds, but further away from China's main coal deposits.
With China building the equivalent of more than one new 500MW coal-fired plant every week and likely to be dependent on coal for at least two decades, the further studies planned by ENN could be crucial.
Recognising the continued role of the fossil fuel in China, the European Commission proposed a plan this week to co-finance a demonstration coal plant that aims to have near zero emissions through the use of carbon capture and storage technology.
If members states and the European parliament agree on the €50m plan, the facility would be operational by 2020.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
We’re out of step with the world on green issues
The Sunday Times
June 28, 2009
Eamon Delaney: As the rest of the globe invests in renewables, Ireland risks being left behind when it comes to the environment
Eamon Delaney
Last week the British government unveiled the world’s largest co-ordinated trial of environmentally-friendly vehicles, designed to accelerate the introduction of electric cars. This is a development that should interest us here, as a country with huge car dependency and the consequent effects on planning, traffic congestion, global emissions and child obesity. Some chance of that.
As the rest of the world goes forward on green issues, Ireland seems to be in reverse gear. In the recent local and European elections, the Green party was punished, and purely because of the economic policies of their larger partner in government, Fianna Fail. But green ideas are now central to the political systems of most European countries — especially in France. The Greens became the majority party in Paris in the European elections. In Ireland they are being pushed further to the margins.
Not only is this terribly short-sighted, it is also an indictment of just how parochial our political system is. John Gormley, the Green party leader, had hoped that voters in the local elections would focus on issues such as planning, but instead the electorate dwelt on the knockabout of national politics, and on personalities in the European contests.
And yet Ireland should care more than most countries about green issues. We are a small island, with a generally unspoilt landscape, dependent on a long-standing tourist industry. Agriculture has been a mainstay of the economy, and we should be benefiting from the international move towards locally produced food at the expense of mass-produced fare tainted with chemicals. Meanwhile, our cities and towns are clogged with private cars. Worst of all we have a crippling dependence on fossil fuels when we should be developing alternative energy sources, as other countries are doing.
Green is now good business. Ecology is no longer seen as “anti-growth” and, in fact, investment is pouring into low-carbon technology. The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change — made up of the heads of companies such as Unilever, Tesco and Philips — persuaded Tony Blair and EU President José Manuel Barroso to make the issue a priority. General Electric, Dow and Alcoa were equally active as members of the US Climate Action Partnership. A far cry from the days when the Greens were scorned by the corporate world, just as they’re still ridiculed here by some knuckleheaded politicians and tabloid pundits.
Last year, for the first time, wind, solar and other renewables are thought to have accounted for more investment worldwide than coal- and gas-generated electricity projects. It has been estimated that 2.3m people worldwide are working either directly in the renewables sector or in supplier industries. There could be 2.1m people employed worldwide in the wind sector alone by 2030, and 6.3m people in solar-energy programmes.
All this may point the way out of the global economic crisis. China, which has been accused of being a great polluter, has now wholly embraced the development of other sources of energy, as has America under Obama.
But in Ireland, we are still behind. When a highly innovative wind project, the Spirit of Ireland, was launched recently, it was virtually ignored by our politicians and media, despite its potential to transform the Irish economy, lessen our dependency on fossil fuels, and reduce energy costs for consumers. It could even turn us into a net exporter of energy to the rest of Europe. It would certainly help reduce our level of carbon emissions, which remains incredibly high.
If we don’t take action, due to continued laziness and ignorance, we will be forced to do so by the international community and the EU. This is usually the way with Ireland; outside bodies have to force us to do things that are good for us. Meanwhile, our Greens suffer at the polls, and not because of their policies.
June 28, 2009
Eamon Delaney: As the rest of the globe invests in renewables, Ireland risks being left behind when it comes to the environment
Eamon Delaney
Last week the British government unveiled the world’s largest co-ordinated trial of environmentally-friendly vehicles, designed to accelerate the introduction of electric cars. This is a development that should interest us here, as a country with huge car dependency and the consequent effects on planning, traffic congestion, global emissions and child obesity. Some chance of that.
As the rest of the world goes forward on green issues, Ireland seems to be in reverse gear. In the recent local and European elections, the Green party was punished, and purely because of the economic policies of their larger partner in government, Fianna Fail. But green ideas are now central to the political systems of most European countries — especially in France. The Greens became the majority party in Paris in the European elections. In Ireland they are being pushed further to the margins.
Not only is this terribly short-sighted, it is also an indictment of just how parochial our political system is. John Gormley, the Green party leader, had hoped that voters in the local elections would focus on issues such as planning, but instead the electorate dwelt on the knockabout of national politics, and on personalities in the European contests.
And yet Ireland should care more than most countries about green issues. We are a small island, with a generally unspoilt landscape, dependent on a long-standing tourist industry. Agriculture has been a mainstay of the economy, and we should be benefiting from the international move towards locally produced food at the expense of mass-produced fare tainted with chemicals. Meanwhile, our cities and towns are clogged with private cars. Worst of all we have a crippling dependence on fossil fuels when we should be developing alternative energy sources, as other countries are doing.
Green is now good business. Ecology is no longer seen as “anti-growth” and, in fact, investment is pouring into low-carbon technology. The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change — made up of the heads of companies such as Unilever, Tesco and Philips — persuaded Tony Blair and EU President José Manuel Barroso to make the issue a priority. General Electric, Dow and Alcoa were equally active as members of the US Climate Action Partnership. A far cry from the days when the Greens were scorned by the corporate world, just as they’re still ridiculed here by some knuckleheaded politicians and tabloid pundits.
Last year, for the first time, wind, solar and other renewables are thought to have accounted for more investment worldwide than coal- and gas-generated electricity projects. It has been estimated that 2.3m people worldwide are working either directly in the renewables sector or in supplier industries. There could be 2.1m people employed worldwide in the wind sector alone by 2030, and 6.3m people in solar-energy programmes.
All this may point the way out of the global economic crisis. China, which has been accused of being a great polluter, has now wholly embraced the development of other sources of energy, as has America under Obama.
But in Ireland, we are still behind. When a highly innovative wind project, the Spirit of Ireland, was launched recently, it was virtually ignored by our politicians and media, despite its potential to transform the Irish economy, lessen our dependency on fossil fuels, and reduce energy costs for consumers. It could even turn us into a net exporter of energy to the rest of Europe. It would certainly help reduce our level of carbon emissions, which remains incredibly high.
If we don’t take action, due to continued laziness and ignorance, we will be forced to do so by the international community and the EU. This is usually the way with Ireland; outside bodies have to force us to do things that are good for us. Meanwhile, our Greens suffer at the polls, and not because of their policies.
The index that measures companies’ shades of green
The Sunday Times
June 28, 2009
Tricia Holly Davis
COMPANIES in energy, chemicals, manufacturing and engineering have emerged as Britain’s unlikely low-carbon leaders, according to a set of new environmental investment indexes launched by FTSE Group this month.
The market-information specialist has created 18 new green indexes. The main international index, the FTSE Environmental Opportunities index comprises 472 companies from around the world, 30 of which are listed in Britain. Among them are Oxford Instruments, the technology group, Ricardo, the automotive engineer, and Spice, which provides services to power and water firms.
Companies are ranked by a new classification system aimed at helping investors identify companies that have significant exposure to environment-related markets. They are judged on the percentage of revenues generated from the sale of environmental goods and services, and then by stock-market value.
To make the list, companies must generate at least 20% of revenues from areas such as renewable energy, waste, pollution, water, and energy efficiency. There are 18 indexes covering different sectors and geographical regions.
Critics of the indexes say the FTSE has mixed high-emissions construction, engineering and manufacturing firms with renewable-energy companies in the solar and wind sectors.
But Ian Simm, head of the specialist environmental investment bank Impax, defended the choice. “This has nothing to do with ethics. The FTSE index is about getting more investors in the areas of waste, water, pollution and renewable energy.” In the separate UK index, the firms included are Charter International, Halma, IMI, Johnson Matthey, Oxford Instruments, Invensys, Spirax Sarco, United Utilities, Severn Trent, Eaga, PV Crystalox Solar, Scottish & Southern, WSP Group, Hyder Consulting, and Pennon Group.
Novera Energy and China Shoto, a battery maker, rank in the top five of UK environmental companies listed on the junior Alternative Investment Market (AIM).
Conspicuously absent from the international index are companies such as General Electric, which failed to meet the 20% revenue threshold, despite being perceived as a low-carbon leader.
Last year the firm reported that sales of products from its “Ecomagination” portfolio reached $17 billion (£10.4 billion), up 21% over the previous year.
FTSE Group said the objective of the index was to clarify what is meant by the “environmental” sector.
This should boost investment, creating new derivative products and investment funds. FTSE estimates there is about €2.5 billion (£2.1 billion) invested in funds that track environmental indexes. This compares with roughly €10 billion that it estimates is tracking the FTSE4Good ethical series, created in 2001.
Since 2004 companies listed in the UK index outperformed the FTSE All-Share by 78% (see chart on right), while the index covering AIM, London’s junior stock market, beat the FTSE AIM All-Share by 6%.
“The impact of climate change is set to alter the shape of the global economy over the coming years,” said Will Oulton at FTSE Group. “We expect to see rapid growth in those companies and sectors.”
June 28, 2009
Tricia Holly Davis
COMPANIES in energy, chemicals, manufacturing and engineering have emerged as Britain’s unlikely low-carbon leaders, according to a set of new environmental investment indexes launched by FTSE Group this month.
The market-information specialist has created 18 new green indexes. The main international index, the FTSE Environmental Opportunities index comprises 472 companies from around the world, 30 of which are listed in Britain. Among them are Oxford Instruments, the technology group, Ricardo, the automotive engineer, and Spice, which provides services to power and water firms.
Companies are ranked by a new classification system aimed at helping investors identify companies that have significant exposure to environment-related markets. They are judged on the percentage of revenues generated from the sale of environmental goods and services, and then by stock-market value.
To make the list, companies must generate at least 20% of revenues from areas such as renewable energy, waste, pollution, water, and energy efficiency. There are 18 indexes covering different sectors and geographical regions.
Critics of the indexes say the FTSE has mixed high-emissions construction, engineering and manufacturing firms with renewable-energy companies in the solar and wind sectors.
But Ian Simm, head of the specialist environmental investment bank Impax, defended the choice. “This has nothing to do with ethics. The FTSE index is about getting more investors in the areas of waste, water, pollution and renewable energy.” In the separate UK index, the firms included are Charter International, Halma, IMI, Johnson Matthey, Oxford Instruments, Invensys, Spirax Sarco, United Utilities, Severn Trent, Eaga, PV Crystalox Solar, Scottish & Southern, WSP Group, Hyder Consulting, and Pennon Group.
Novera Energy and China Shoto, a battery maker, rank in the top five of UK environmental companies listed on the junior Alternative Investment Market (AIM).
Conspicuously absent from the international index are companies such as General Electric, which failed to meet the 20% revenue threshold, despite being perceived as a low-carbon leader.
Last year the firm reported that sales of products from its “Ecomagination” portfolio reached $17 billion (£10.4 billion), up 21% over the previous year.
FTSE Group said the objective of the index was to clarify what is meant by the “environmental” sector.
This should boost investment, creating new derivative products and investment funds. FTSE estimates there is about €2.5 billion (£2.1 billion) invested in funds that track environmental indexes. This compares with roughly €10 billion that it estimates is tracking the FTSE4Good ethical series, created in 2001.
Since 2004 companies listed in the UK index outperformed the FTSE All-Share by 78% (see chart on right), while the index covering AIM, London’s junior stock market, beat the FTSE AIM All-Share by 6%.
“The impact of climate change is set to alter the shape of the global economy over the coming years,” said Will Oulton at FTSE Group. “We expect to see rapid growth in those companies and sectors.”
‘Coal-eating’ bugs may solve energy crisis
The Sunday Times
June 28, 2009
Jonathan Leake
Craig Venter, the controversial American scientist who helped decode the human genome, has announced the discovery of ancient bacteria that can turn coal into methane, suggesting they may help to solve the world’s energy crisis.
The bugs, discovered a mile underground by one of Venter’s microbial prospecting teams, are said to have unique enzymes that can break down coal. Venter said he was already working with BP on how to exploit the find.
Venter even suggested the discovery could open up the world’s coalfields to an entirely new form of mining, where coal is infected with the bacteria, allowing methane to be harvested “without even digging up the coal”.
Venter, speaking at the recent La Jolla research and innovation summit, in La Jolla, California, told an audience of researchers and technology investors how he had harvested 20m new genes by analysing the DNA of micro-organisms collected underwater or deep underground.
He said: “We have found a huge number of microbes a mile or so deep in the earth. In fact, there is more diversity under the surface of the earth than in the ocean. It is absolutely stunning.
“Some of these underground water sources have been isolated for 50m to 135m years and we have found totally unique organisms.”
Venter flashed up a black-and-white image of a piece of coal that appeared to be carpeted with a mossy substance.
He said: “We have a large number that eat coal and break it down into organic acids, hydrogen, CO2 and so on. Then we have other organisms with enzymes that can take those organic acids, hydrogen and CO2 and make methane.”
Venter added: “We have a deal with BP to look at the biological conversion of coal into natural gas, where microbes colonise coal particles and produce methane.”
He also showed a second image with coal submerged in a liquid from which bubbles, said to be methane, were rising.
He added: “We and BP think we can scale this up substantially to provide a huge increase in the amount of natural gas available without even digging up the coal.”
Such ideas need to be treated with caution. The biotech industry is renowned for making claims that later turn out to have been excessive. This is often driven by the need to attract investors.
Venter does have a good track record, as shown by his lead role in the race to decode the human genome, but his discovery would need far more research and investment before it could be deployed on an industrial scale.
If it worked, however, the potential would be huge. Coal is the world’s most important fossil fuel with about 6.5 billion tons used each year. This is expected to rise by more than 60% by 2030.
This has serious environmental implications because coal is highly polluting, generating more CO2 per ton than any other major fossil fuel.
There is, however, no ready alternative to coal, especially in power generation, which means greenhouse gas emissions are likely to keep rising for decades if more is burned.
Methane, by contrast, is significantly less polluting. Venter also described separate research that, he said, could one day lead to CO2 being seen as a resource in the manufacture of biofuels.
He described how researchers at Synthetic Genomics, the firm he founded, had genetically engineered an algal species to produce large amounts of lipids — liquid fats that can be used to make biofuels.
All the cells needed was sunlight, a growing medium and CO2. They would then pump out lipids that would float to the top of the container, where they could be skimmed off.
He said: “We see CO2 as raw material. We have been engineering cells to use CO2 driven by sunlight to make biopolymers, methane and sugars.
“One of the most exciting breakthroughs is that we have engineered algal cells to pump out lipids in a pure form into the growing medium. You can literally skim the cream off the top and isolate it like a biocrude and we are not too far away from scaling this up on a very substantial scale.
Venter said: “Why do this? If we look around the world, we are going from 6.5 to 9 billion people in the next 40 years. We have never had the challenge of trying to feed and provide medicine, clean water, shelter and energy for that change in population. We are not doing such a great job right now.”
Click here to watch Venter describe his research
June 28, 2009
Jonathan Leake
Craig Venter, the controversial American scientist who helped decode the human genome, has announced the discovery of ancient bacteria that can turn coal into methane, suggesting they may help to solve the world’s energy crisis.
The bugs, discovered a mile underground by one of Venter’s microbial prospecting teams, are said to have unique enzymes that can break down coal. Venter said he was already working with BP on how to exploit the find.
Venter even suggested the discovery could open up the world’s coalfields to an entirely new form of mining, where coal is infected with the bacteria, allowing methane to be harvested “without even digging up the coal”.
Venter, speaking at the recent La Jolla research and innovation summit, in La Jolla, California, told an audience of researchers and technology investors how he had harvested 20m new genes by analysing the DNA of micro-organisms collected underwater or deep underground.
He said: “We have found a huge number of microbes a mile or so deep in the earth. In fact, there is more diversity under the surface of the earth than in the ocean. It is absolutely stunning.
“Some of these underground water sources have been isolated for 50m to 135m years and we have found totally unique organisms.”
Venter flashed up a black-and-white image of a piece of coal that appeared to be carpeted with a mossy substance.
He said: “We have a large number that eat coal and break it down into organic acids, hydrogen, CO2 and so on. Then we have other organisms with enzymes that can take those organic acids, hydrogen and CO2 and make methane.”
Venter added: “We have a deal with BP to look at the biological conversion of coal into natural gas, where microbes colonise coal particles and produce methane.”
He also showed a second image with coal submerged in a liquid from which bubbles, said to be methane, were rising.
He added: “We and BP think we can scale this up substantially to provide a huge increase in the amount of natural gas available without even digging up the coal.”
Such ideas need to be treated with caution. The biotech industry is renowned for making claims that later turn out to have been excessive. This is often driven by the need to attract investors.
Venter does have a good track record, as shown by his lead role in the race to decode the human genome, but his discovery would need far more research and investment before it could be deployed on an industrial scale.
If it worked, however, the potential would be huge. Coal is the world’s most important fossil fuel with about 6.5 billion tons used each year. This is expected to rise by more than 60% by 2030.
This has serious environmental implications because coal is highly polluting, generating more CO2 per ton than any other major fossil fuel.
There is, however, no ready alternative to coal, especially in power generation, which means greenhouse gas emissions are likely to keep rising for decades if more is burned.
Methane, by contrast, is significantly less polluting. Venter also described separate research that, he said, could one day lead to CO2 being seen as a resource in the manufacture of biofuels.
He described how researchers at Synthetic Genomics, the firm he founded, had genetically engineered an algal species to produce large amounts of lipids — liquid fats that can be used to make biofuels.
All the cells needed was sunlight, a growing medium and CO2. They would then pump out lipids that would float to the top of the container, where they could be skimmed off.
He said: “We see CO2 as raw material. We have been engineering cells to use CO2 driven by sunlight to make biopolymers, methane and sugars.
“One of the most exciting breakthroughs is that we have engineered algal cells to pump out lipids in a pure form into the growing medium. You can literally skim the cream off the top and isolate it like a biocrude and we are not too far away from scaling this up on a very substantial scale.
Venter said: “Why do this? If we look around the world, we are going from 6.5 to 9 billion people in the next 40 years. We have never had the challenge of trying to feed and provide medicine, clean water, shelter and energy for that change in population. We are not doing such a great job right now.”
Click here to watch Venter describe his research
Green venture capital fund plans to make long-term plays
By Mark Leftly
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Barry Williams, the co-founder of the Secondary Market Infrastructure Fund (SMIF), is forming a new renewable energy business to invest in a range of projects from solar power in Italy to biomass generation in the UK.
Aleltho Energy, of which Mr Williams is chief executive, has access to £75m from cornerstone funders and is looking for another £100m from asset investors by the end of the year. Mr Williams is joined by chairman Perry Noble, the former co-head head of the global finance practice at law firm Freshfields.
Aleltho will invest up to £30m in any one renewable energy asset. Unlike more short-term venture capital-type backing, Aleltho will typically invest for 10 or more years.
Mr Williams is identifying solar projects in Spain and Italy, as well as waste and biomass energy schemes predominantly in the UK.
"The first investment will be made, judging conservatively, in October this year," Mr Williams said. ""We have signed one arrangement and are considering £150m of opportunities."
SMIF was bought by Trillium, then part of the Ftse-100 property giant Land Securities, in 2007. Trillium was sold to Telereal, the property outsourcing group, for £750m in January.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Barry Williams, the co-founder of the Secondary Market Infrastructure Fund (SMIF), is forming a new renewable energy business to invest in a range of projects from solar power in Italy to biomass generation in the UK.
Aleltho Energy, of which Mr Williams is chief executive, has access to £75m from cornerstone funders and is looking for another £100m from asset investors by the end of the year. Mr Williams is joined by chairman Perry Noble, the former co-head head of the global finance practice at law firm Freshfields.
Aleltho will invest up to £30m in any one renewable energy asset. Unlike more short-term venture capital-type backing, Aleltho will typically invest for 10 or more years.
Mr Williams is identifying solar projects in Spain and Italy, as well as waste and biomass energy schemes predominantly in the UK.
"The first investment will be made, judging conservatively, in October this year," Mr Williams said. ""We have signed one arrangement and are considering £150m of opportunities."
SMIF was bought by Trillium, then part of the Ftse-100 property giant Land Securities, in 2007. Trillium was sold to Telereal, the property outsourcing group, for £750m in January.
US House passes landmark climate change bill
By Edward Luce in Washington
Published: June 27 2009 00:51
The United States took its first step towards reducing carbon emissions on Friday night when the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill that would set the country’s first ever limits on its greenhouse gas production.
President Barack Obama hailed the vote, which scraped through by a 219-212 tally, as a “bold and necessary step” that marked a “spirit of change” towards climate change in the US – echoing the words of Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, who had described a “sea change” when she met the US president earlier in the day.
However Mr Obama reminded those celebrating the “historic” vote that the bill’s passage was still far from assured. “Now it is up to the Senate to take the next step,” he said.
In a statement, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said the upper chamber, which is considered a tougher hurdle for cap-and-trade than the House, would start work on the bill in September.
The House version would reduce US carbon emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050 by establishing a system for trading carbon permits within an ever-tighter ceiling. It would also mandate electricity producers to source a fifth of all production from renewable sources, such as wind, solar and wave, by 2020.
Many environmental groups hailed the bill’s passage as a big step forward in advance of the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December. “[It] will finally allow the United States to help lead the efforts toward a global agreement in which the major economies of the world, both developed and developing, play their part to address the climate challenge,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change.
But some green groups, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, said the 1,300 page bill was hedged around with too many compromises and let-out clauses to have the desired effect. The legislation led by Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic lawmakers who spearheaded the effort, was the product of several months worth of backroom deals with centrist Democrats from rural and manufacturing states.
In spite of the many compromises, which included giving away 85 per cent of carbon permits to various industry groups, against the 100 per cent auction that Mr Obama wanted, 44 Democrats still voted against the bill. Only eight Republicans, out of a caucus of 183, voted in favour.
The Republican leadership, which spent much of Friday in a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, says it will introduce a “national energy tax” that will cost millions of jobs. Independent estimates of the bill’s effects say it will impose a small cost of between 22 cents and 48 cents a day on the average American – less than the cost of a first class postage stamp.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: June 27 2009 00:51
The United States took its first step towards reducing carbon emissions on Friday night when the House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill that would set the country’s first ever limits on its greenhouse gas production.
President Barack Obama hailed the vote, which scraped through by a 219-212 tally, as a “bold and necessary step” that marked a “spirit of change” towards climate change in the US – echoing the words of Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, who had described a “sea change” when she met the US president earlier in the day.
However Mr Obama reminded those celebrating the “historic” vote that the bill’s passage was still far from assured. “Now it is up to the Senate to take the next step,” he said.
In a statement, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, said the upper chamber, which is considered a tougher hurdle for cap-and-trade than the House, would start work on the bill in September.
The House version would reduce US carbon emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050 by establishing a system for trading carbon permits within an ever-tighter ceiling. It would also mandate electricity producers to source a fifth of all production from renewable sources, such as wind, solar and wave, by 2020.
Many environmental groups hailed the bill’s passage as a big step forward in advance of the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December. “[It] will finally allow the United States to help lead the efforts toward a global agreement in which the major economies of the world, both developed and developing, play their part to address the climate challenge,” said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change.
But some green groups, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, said the 1,300 page bill was hedged around with too many compromises and let-out clauses to have the desired effect. The legislation led by Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic lawmakers who spearheaded the effort, was the product of several months worth of backroom deals with centrist Democrats from rural and manufacturing states.
In spite of the many compromises, which included giving away 85 per cent of carbon permits to various industry groups, against the 100 per cent auction that Mr Obama wanted, 44 Democrats still voted against the bill. Only eight Republicans, out of a caucus of 183, voted in favour.
The Republican leadership, which spent much of Friday in a last-ditch effort to derail the bill, says it will introduce a “national energy tax” that will cost millions of jobs. Independent estimates of the bill’s effects say it will impose a small cost of between 22 cents and 48 cents a day on the average American – less than the cost of a first class postage stamp.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
President Barack Obama clears major global warming hurdle
President Barack Obama has cleared a major hurdle in getting the US to tackle global warming after Congress passed a sweeping bill to transform America's use and production of energy.
By Leonard Doyle in Washington Published: 5:30PM BST 27 Jun 2009
The Jeffery Energy Center coal power plant near Emmitt, Kansas. Sweeping legislation to curb the pollution linked to global warming and create a new energy-efficient economy is headed to an uncertain future in the Senate after squeaking through the House. Photo: AP
It is the first major action by the US to address climate change.
The legislation, approved by the House of Representatives, would force American industries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, but the plans have drawn the ire of critics.
Republicans argue that they would destroy jobs.
The Senate must now approve the legislation, and the president used his weekly radio and internet address yesterday to urge it to do so.
The President described the bill as "a bold and necessary step." He said he wanted to sign the legislation quickly, "so that we can say, at long last, that this was the moment when we decided to confront America's energy challenge and reclaim America's future."
It took personal pleas from Hillary Clinton, former vice president Al Gore, and Mr Obama to persuade Democrats and some Republicans to get the legislation through the House of Representatives.
Congress finally voted 219 to 212 late on Friday, just one vote more than the simple majority of 218 needed.
Forty Democrats voted against the bill and only eight Republicans supported it, a reflection of the fragility of efforts to reduce America's voracious appetite to consume energy. Democrats and Republicans, especially those from coal producing and industrial states, are politically vulnerable at a time of economic difficulty and widespread unemployment.
The climate change bill is a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases, in effect a tax on energy use. The licences would grow more restrictive over time, pushing up the price of carbon emissions while persuading industry to adopt cleaner ways of making and consuming energy.
Months of wrangling now lie ahead in the Senate, where it takes 60 votes to end a debate. Although Democrats hold 59 seats, the expected impact of the legislation on job losses makes them especially vulnerable to defections.
Mr Obama wants the legislation in place before December so that he can claim leadership at the big planned international climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Rep John Culberson of Texas, a Republican, said the bill "is the equivalent to a light switch tax - if this bill becomes law, Americans will pay higher taxes every time we turn on our lights."
By Leonard Doyle in Washington Published: 5:30PM BST 27 Jun 2009
The Jeffery Energy Center coal power plant near Emmitt, Kansas. Sweeping legislation to curb the pollution linked to global warming and create a new energy-efficient economy is headed to an uncertain future in the Senate after squeaking through the House. Photo: AP
It is the first major action by the US to address climate change.
The legislation, approved by the House of Representatives, would force American industries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, but the plans have drawn the ire of critics.
Republicans argue that they would destroy jobs.
The Senate must now approve the legislation, and the president used his weekly radio and internet address yesterday to urge it to do so.
The President described the bill as "a bold and necessary step." He said he wanted to sign the legislation quickly, "so that we can say, at long last, that this was the moment when we decided to confront America's energy challenge and reclaim America's future."
It took personal pleas from Hillary Clinton, former vice president Al Gore, and Mr Obama to persuade Democrats and some Republicans to get the legislation through the House of Representatives.
Congress finally voted 219 to 212 late on Friday, just one vote more than the simple majority of 218 needed.
Forty Democrats voted against the bill and only eight Republicans supported it, a reflection of the fragility of efforts to reduce America's voracious appetite to consume energy. Democrats and Republicans, especially those from coal producing and industrial states, are politically vulnerable at a time of economic difficulty and widespread unemployment.
The climate change bill is a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases, in effect a tax on energy use. The licences would grow more restrictive over time, pushing up the price of carbon emissions while persuading industry to adopt cleaner ways of making and consuming energy.
Months of wrangling now lie ahead in the Senate, where it takes 60 votes to end a debate. Although Democrats hold 59 seats, the expected impact of the legislation on job losses makes them especially vulnerable to defections.
Mr Obama wants the legislation in place before December so that he can claim leadership at the big planned international climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Rep John Culberson of Texas, a Republican, said the bill "is the equivalent to a light switch tax - if this bill becomes law, Americans will pay higher taxes every time we turn on our lights."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
